M | e1 | e2 | N | e1 | e2 |
x1 | ⟨.2,.3,.4⟩ | ⟨.3,.5,.5⟩ | x1 | ⟨.3,.6,.1⟩ | ⟨.4,.5,.4⟩ |
x2 | ⟨.3,.4,.3⟩ | ⟨.6,.2,.4⟩ | x2 | ⟨.6,.5,.2⟩ | ⟨.7,.3,.2⟩ |
x3 | ⟨.3,.5,.2⟩ | ⟨.4,.4,.3⟩ | x3 | ⟨.4,.5,.3⟩ | ⟨.6,.3,.3⟩ |
x4 | ⟨.2,.7,.6⟩ | ⟨.3,.4,.3⟩ | x4 | ⟨.9,1,.4⟩ | ⟨.4,.5,.1⟩ |
This article proposes an iteration algorithm with double inertial extrapolation steps for approximating a common solution of split equilibrium problem, fixed point problem and variational inequity problem in the framework of Hilbert spaces. Unlike several existing methods, our algorithm is designed such that its implementation does not require the knowledge of the norm of the bounded linear operator and the value of the Lipschitz constant. The proposed algorithm does not depend on any line search rule. The method uses a self-adaptive step size which is allowed to increase from iteration to iteration. Furthermore, using some mild assumptions, we establish a strong convergence theorem for the proposed algorithm. Lastly, we present a numerical experiment to show the efficiency and the applicability of our proposed iterative method in comparison with some well-known methods in the literature. Our results unify, extend and generalize so many results in the literature from the setting of the solution set of one problem to the more general setting common solution set of three problems.
Citation: James Abah Ugboh, Joseph Oboyi, Hossam A. Nabwey, Christiana Friday Igiri, Francis Akutsah, Ojen Kumar Narain. Double inertial extrapolations method for solving split generalized equilibrium, fixed point and variational inequity problems[J]. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(4): 10416-10445. doi: 10.3934/math.2024509
[1] | Yaser Saber, Hanan Alohali, Tawfik Elmasry, Florentin Smarandache . On single-valued neutrosophic soft uniform spaces. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(1): 412-439. doi: 10.3934/math.2024023 |
[2] | Sumyyah Al-Hijjawi, Abd Ghafur Ahmad, Shawkat Alkhazaleh . A generalized effective neurosophic soft set and its applications. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 18(12): 29628-29666. doi: 10.3934/math.20231517 |
[3] | Majdoleen Abu Qamar, Abd Ghafur Ahmad, Nasruddin Hassan . An approach to Q-neutrosophic soft rings. AIMS Mathematics, 2019, 4(4): 1291-1306. doi: 10.3934/math.2019.4.1291 |
[4] | Muhammad Ihsan, Muhammad Saeed, Atiqe Ur Rahman, Mazin Abed Mohammed, Karrar Hameed Abdulkaree, Abed Saif Alghawli, Mohammed AA Al-qaness . An innovative decision-making framework for supplier selection based on a hybrid interval-valued neutrosophic soft expert set. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(9): 22127-22161. doi: 10.3934/math.20231128 |
[5] | Khulud Fahad Bin Muhaya, Kholood Mohammad Alsager . Extending neutrosophic set theory: Cubic bipolar neutrosophic soft sets for decision making. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(10): 27739-27769. doi: 10.3934/math.20241347 |
[6] | Hatice Tasbozan . Near neutrosophic soft set. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(4): 9447-9454. doi: 10.3934/math.2024461 |
[7] | Rana Muhammad Zulqarnain, Wen Xiu Ma, Imran Siddique, Shahid Hussain Gurmani, Fahd Jarad, Muhammad Irfan Ahamad . Extension of aggregation operators to site selection for solid waste management under neutrosophic hypersoft set. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(2): 4168-4201. doi: 10.3934/math.2023208 |
[8] | Tareq M. Al-shami, Abdelwaheb Mhemdi, Alaa M. Abd El-latif, Fuad A. Abu Shaheen . Finite soft-open sets: characterizations, operators and continuity. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(4): 10363-10385. doi: 10.3934/math.2024507 |
[9] | Alaa M. Abd El-latif . Novel types of supra soft operators via supra soft sd-sets and applications. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(3): 6586-6602. doi: 10.3934/math.2024321 |
[10] | Orhan Göçür . Amply soft set and its topologies: AS and PAS topologies. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(4): 3121-3141. doi: 10.3934/math.2021189 |
This article proposes an iteration algorithm with double inertial extrapolation steps for approximating a common solution of split equilibrium problem, fixed point problem and variational inequity problem in the framework of Hilbert spaces. Unlike several existing methods, our algorithm is designed such that its implementation does not require the knowledge of the norm of the bounded linear operator and the value of the Lipschitz constant. The proposed algorithm does not depend on any line search rule. The method uses a self-adaptive step size which is allowed to increase from iteration to iteration. Furthermore, using some mild assumptions, we establish a strong convergence theorem for the proposed algorithm. Lastly, we present a numerical experiment to show the efficiency and the applicability of our proposed iterative method in comparison with some well-known methods in the literature. Our results unify, extend and generalize so many results in the literature from the setting of the solution set of one problem to the more general setting common solution set of three problems.
Data is a valuable source of knowledge that contains helpful information if exploited effectively [1]. One of the challenges facing data researchers is the ambiguity and uncertainty of the data they have access to, which makes it difficult for them to process information. But these challenges are, in a positive sense, opportunities for the development of new techniques and tools, such as they various approaches based on fuzzy set theory [2]. The advent of fuzzy theory has prompted extensive work on ideas such as fuzzy sets [3], vague sets [4], soft sets [5], and neutrosophic sets [6]. It was originally thought that the development of new theories would eclipse fuzzy theory, but that does not seem to be the case [7]. This research field is becoming more and more active, with a number of fundamental contributions to the rapid development of new theories [8,9]. One of the most prominent applications is the use of fuzzy set theory in emerging and vibrant fields like machine learning [10,11] or topological data analysis [12,13].
In recent years, the study of soft sets [5] and neutrosophic sets [14] has become an attractive research area. Neutrosophic sets recently emerged as a tool for dealing with imprecise, indeterminate, and inconsistent data [15]. In contrast, soft sets show potential for dealing with uncertainties that classical methods cannot control [16]. Combining these two types of sets results in a unique hybrid structure, a neutrosophic soft set (NS-set) [17], for working effectively in uncertain environments. Maji proposed this [17,18] in 2013 and it was modified by Deli and Broumi [19] in 2015. Furthermore, Karaaslan [20] redefined this concept and its operations to be more efficient and complete. Since then, this structure has proved to be quite effective when applied in real life in many fields, such as decision making [17], market prediction [21], and medical diagnosis [22,23].
The topology on NS-sets is one of the issues that needs more attention, alongside neutrosophic topology [24,25] and soft topology [26]. This issue has emerged recently to help complete the overall picture for NS and aid its practical applications based on topology [27,28]. In 2017, Bera and Mahapatra [29] gave general operations to construct a topology on NS-sets. They also presented concepts related to topological space such as interior, closure, neighborhood, boundary, regularity, base, subspace, separation axioms, along with specific illustrations and proofs. In 2018, these authors [30] continued to develop further studies on connectedness and compactness on NS-topological space. In 2019, Ozturk, Aras, and Bayramov [31] introduced a new approach to topology on NS-sets. This approach is quite different from the previous work [29], and was further developed by constructing separation axioms [32] in the same year, 2018. Recently, the continuum [33] or compactness [34] on the topological space generated on NS-sets has also been studied with the same properties as the normal space. Many variations [35] of the topological space on NS-sets have also attracted the attention of researchers, and most of the related works are inspired by topology on neutrosophic and soft sets with the idea of a hybrid structure [36,37].
In this work, we construct the topological space and related concepts on NS-sets through general operations in a way that is very different from the work of Bera and Mahapatra [29,30], but more general than the work of Ozturk, Aras, and Bayramov [31,32], with our operations based on the generality of min and max operations. This work begins by defining two new operations to create the relationships between NS-sets. These relations are then used as the kernel for forming topology and topological relations on NS-sets. One emphasis shown here is on elucidating the relationship between the topology on NS-sets and the component fuzzy soft topologies. All the ideas in this work are presented convincingly and clearly through definitions, theorems, and their consequences.
In summary, the significant contributions of this study are as follows:
(1) Defining two novel concepts, called min−norm and max−norm, to provide a theoretical foundation for determining operations on NS-sets, including intersection, union, difference, AND, and OR.
(2) Constructing the topology, open set, closed set, interior, closure, and regularity concepts on NS-sets based on just determined operations.
(3) Elucidating the relationship between the topology on NS-sets and the fuzzy soft topologies generated by truth, indeterminacy, falsity degrees by the theorems and counterexamples.
(4) The concepts are well-defined, and the theorems are proved convincingly and logically.
This work is organized as follows: Section 1 presents the motivation and introduces the significant contributions. Section 2 briefly introduces NS-sets and related concepts. The two new ideas, min−norm and max−norm, are provided in Section 3 as a theoretical foundation for determining operations on NS-sets, including intersection, union, difference, AND, and OR. In Section 4, the topology on NS-sets is defined with related concepts such as open set, closed set, interior, closure, and regularity. Furthermore, the relationship between the topology on NS-sets and the fuzzy soft topologies generated by truth, indeterminacy, and falsity functions by theorems and counterexamples in Section 5. The last section presents conclusions and future research trends in this area.
This section recalls the NS-set proposed in 2013 by Maji [17,18], then modified and improved in 2015 by Deli and Broumi [19]. This concept is based on combining soft [5] and neutrosophic [6] sets. Some background related to NS-sets is briefly presented below so that readers can better understand the following sections.
Without loss of generality, we consider X to be a universal set, E to be a parameter set, and N(X) to denote the collection of all neutrosophic sets on X.
Definition 1. ([18,19]). The pair (A,E) is a NS-set on X where A:E⟶N(X) is a set valued function determined by e⟼A(e)≔Ae with
Ae:X⟶]−0;1+[×]−0;1+[×]−0;1+[ |
x⟼Ae(x)≔⟨TAe(x);IAe(x);FAe(x)⟩ | (1) |
for all e∈E, and the real function triples TAe,IAe,FAe:X⟶]−0;1+[ indicate truth, indeterminacy, and falsity degrees, respectively, with no restriction on their sum.
In other words, the NS-set can be described as a set of ordered tuples as follows:
(A,E)={(e,A(e)):e∈E,A(e)∈N(X)} | (2) |
={(e,⟨x,TAe(x),IAe(x),FAe(x)⟩):e∈E,x∈X} | (3) |
:={(e,xTAe(x),IAe(x),FAe(x)):e∈E,x∈X}. | (4) |
If nothing changes, the symbol NS(X) indicates the collection of all NS-sets on X. Besides, if the NS-sets consider the same parameter set E, then it is not mentioned repeatedly in order to simplify the notations. Moreover, because the values of T, I, F belong to the unit interval [0;1], the integral part of the values is almost zero. Typically, it may occur that the integer part is omitted (for example, .1 instead of 0.1). Therefore, if it does not lead to confusion, this omitted format of a decimal is always used in all the tables used in this paper.
a. ∅E is a null NS-set if
∀e∈E,∀x∈X,{T∅E(x)=0I∅E(x)=0F∅E(x)=1. | (5) |
b. ∅˜E is a semi-null NS-set if
∃e∈E,∀x∈X,{T∅˜E(x)=0I∅˜E(x)=0F∅˜E(x)=1. | (6) |
c. XE is an absolute NS-set if
∀e∈E,∀x∈X,{TXE(x)=1IXE(x)=1FXE(x)=0. | (7) |
d. X˜E is a semi-absolute NS-set if
∃e∈E,∀x∈X,{TX˜E(x)=1IX˜E(x)=1FX˜E(x)=0. | (8) |
Definition 3. ([19,31]). Let A and B be two NS-sets on X.
a. A is a NS-subset of B,writtenasA⊆B, if
∀e∈E,∀x∈X,{TAe(x)≤TBe(x)IAe(x)≤IBe(x)FAe(x)≥FBe(x). | (9) |
b. A is a NS-superset of B,writtenasA⊇B, if B is a NS-subset of A.
c. ¯A is the complement of A if
∀e∈E,∀x∈X,{T¯Ae(x)=FAe(x)I¯Ae(x)=1−IAe(x)F¯Ae(x)=TAe(x). | (10) |
Example 1. Let two NS-sets M and N be represented in Table 1 as follows:
M | e1 | e2 | N | e1 | e2 |
x1 | ⟨.2,.3,.4⟩ | ⟨.3,.5,.5⟩ | x1 | ⟨.3,.6,.1⟩ | ⟨.4,.5,.4⟩ |
x2 | ⟨.3,.4,.3⟩ | ⟨.6,.2,.4⟩ | x2 | ⟨.6,.5,.2⟩ | ⟨.7,.3,.2⟩ |
x3 | ⟨.3,.5,.2⟩ | ⟨.4,.4,.3⟩ | x3 | ⟨.4,.5,.3⟩ | ⟨.6,.3,.3⟩ |
x4 | ⟨.2,.7,.6⟩ | ⟨.3,.4,.3⟩ | x4 | ⟨.9,1,.4⟩ | ⟨.4,.5,.1⟩ |
Based on Eq (9) of Definition 3, M⊆N.
Example 2. The NS-set P and its complement ¯P are represented according to Eq (10) in Table 2 as follows:
P | e1 | e2 | e3 | ¯P | e1 | e2 | e3 |
x1 | ⟨.9,.8,.2⟩ | ⟨.3,.7,.2⟩ | ⟨.4,.6,.3⟩ | x1 | ⟨.2,.2,.9⟩ | ⟨.2,.3,.3⟩ | ⟨.3,.4,.4⟩ |
x2 | ⟨.7,.6,.2⟩ | ⟨.3,.4,.6⟩ | ⟨.4,.3,.2⟩ | x2 | ⟨.2,.4,.7⟩ | ⟨.6,.6,.3⟩ | ⟨.2,.7,.4⟩ |
x3 | ⟨.3,.3,.5⟩ | ⟨.1,.2,.3⟩ | ⟨.9,.5,.8⟩ | x3 | ⟨.5,.7,.3⟩ | ⟨.3,.8,.1⟩ | ⟨.8,.5,.9⟩ |
Theorem 1. If A∈NS(X),
(1) ¯¯A=A,
(2) ¯∅E=XE,
(3) ¯∅˜E=X˜E,
(4) ¯XE=∅E,
(5) ¯X˜E=∅˜E.
Proof. These properties are directly inferred from the definitions of the null, semi-null, absolute, semi-absolute NS-sets and the complement operation.
In this section, we focus on defining two novel norms, called min−norm and max−norm, as the foundations for determining operations on NS-sets in general. Each operation is well-defined along with its well-proven properties.
Definition 4. A min−norm is the binary operation ∙:[0;1]×[0;1]→[0,1] that obeys the conditions as follows:
(a) ∙ has the commutative and associative properties,
(b) ∀x∈[0,1],x∙1=1∙x=x,
(c) ∀x∈[0,1],x∙0=0∙x=0,
(d) ∀x,y∈[0,1],x≥x∙y.
Definition 5. A max−norm is the binary operation ∘:[0;1]×[0;1]→[0,1] that obeys the following conditions:
(a) ∘ has the commutative and associative properties,
(b) ∀x∈[0,1],x∘1=1∘x=1,
(c) ∀x∈[0,1],y∘0=0∘x=x,
(d) ∀x,y∈[0,1],x≤x∘y.
Definition 6. The min−norm ∙ and max−norm ∘ satisfy De Morgan's law if they obey the following conditions:
∀x,y∈[0,1],(1−x)∘(1−y)=1−x∙y, | (11) |
∀x,y∈[0,1],(1−x)∙(1−y)=1−x∘y. | (12) |
Some commonly used min−norm and max−norm are shown in Table 3. On the other hand, all of these norms satisfy De Morgan's law in pairs.
min−norms | max−norms | |
1 | ∀x,y∈[0,1],x∙y=xy | ∀x,y∈[0,1],x∘y=x+y−xy |
2 | ∀x,y∈[0,1],x∙y=min{x,y} | ∀x,y∈[0,1],x∘y=max{x,y} |
3 | ∀x,y∈[0,1],x∙y=max{x+y−1,0} | ∀x,y∈[0,1],x∘y=min{x+y,1} |
Definition 7. The intersection of the two NS-sets A and B,writtenasA∩B, is determined by
∀e∈E,∀x∈X,{TA∩Be(x)=TAe(x)∙TBe(x)IA∩Be(x)=IAe(x)∙IBe(x)FA∩Be(x)=FAe(x)∘FBe(x). | (13) |
Example 3. Let two NS-sets A and B be represented in Table 4 as follows:
A | e1 | e2 | B | e1 | e2 |
x1 | ⟨.2,.4,.5⟩ | ⟨.5,.2,.8⟩ | x1 | ⟨.7,.2,.7⟩ | ⟨.6,0,.5⟩ |
x2 | ⟨.1,.4,.3⟩ | ⟨.8,.9,.4⟩ | x2 | ⟨.3,.9,.1⟩ | ⟨.7,.7,.9⟩ |
x3 | ⟨.1,.2,.7⟩ | ⟨.8,.9,.4⟩ | x3 | ⟨.6,.4,.7⟩ | ⟨.8,.1,0⟩ |
If using min−norms x∙y=max{x+y−1,0} and max−norms x∘y=min{x+y,1}, the intersection A∩B of the two above NS-sets is described according to Eq (13) in Table 5 as follows:
A∩B | e1 | e2 |
x1 | ⟨0,0,1⟩ | ⟨.1,0,1⟩ |
x2 | ⟨0,.3,.4⟩ | ⟨.5,.6,1⟩ |
x3 | ⟨0,0,1⟩ | ⟨.6,0,.4⟩ |
Theorem 2. If A,B,C∈NS(X),
(1) A∩A=A,
(2) A∩∅E=∅E,
(3) A∩∅˜E=∅˜E,
(4) A∩XE=A,
(5) A∩X˜E=A,
(6) A∩(B∩C)=(A∩B)∩C,
(7) A∩B=B∩A.
Proof. These properties are directly inferred from the definitions of norms and intersection operation.
Definition 8. Let (Ai)i∈I be a collection of NS-sets on X. The intersection of the collection of NS-sets (Ai)i∈I,writtenas⋂i∈IAi, is determined by
∀e∈E,∀x∈X,{T⋂i∈IAie(x)=∙i∈I{TAie(x)}I⋂i∈IAie(x)=∙i∈I{IAie(x)}F⋂i∈IAie(x)=∘i∈I{FAie(x)}. | (14) |
Definition 9. The union of the two NS-sets A and B,writtenasA∪B, is determined by
∀e∈E,∀x∈X,{TA∪Be(x)=TAe(x)∘TBe(x)IA∪Be(x)=IAe(x)∘IBe(x)FA∪Be(x)=FAe(x)∙FBe(x). | (15) |
Example 4. If using min−norms x∙y=max{x+y−1,0} and max−norms x∘y=min{x+y,1}, the union A∪B of the two above NS-sets A and B in Example 3 is described according to Eq (14) in Table 6 as follows:
A∪B | e1 | e2 |
x1 | ⟨.9,.6,.2⟩ | ⟨1,.2,.3⟩ |
x2 | ⟨.4,1,1⟩ | ⟨1,1,.3⟩ |
x3 | ⟨.7,.6,.4⟩ | ⟨1,1,0⟩ |
Theorem 3. If A,B,C∈NS(X),
(1) A∪A=A,
(2) A∪∅E=A,
(3) A∪∅˜E=A,
(4) A∪XE=XE,
(5) A∪X˜E=X˜E,
(6) A∪(B∪C)=(A∪B)∪C,
(7) A∪B=B∪A.
Proof. These properties are directly inferred from the definitions of norms and union operation.
Theorem 4. If the min−norm and max−norm satisfy De Morgan's law, for all A,B∈NS(X),
(1) ¯A∩B=¯A∪¯B,
(2) ¯A∪B=¯A∩¯B.
Proof.
(1) ∀e∈E,∀x∈X,
{T¯A∩Be(x)=FA∩Be=FAe(x)∘FBe(x)I¯A∩Be(x)=1−IA∩Be=1−IAe(x)∙IBe(x)F¯A∩Be(x)=TA∩Be=TAe(x)∙TBe(x), | (16) |
and
{T¯A∪¯Be(x)=T¯Ae(x)∘T¯Be(x)=FAe(x)∘FBe(x)I¯A∪¯Be(x)=I¯Ae(x)∘I¯Be(x)=(1−IAe(x))∘(1−IBe(x))F¯A∪¯Be(x)=F¯Ae(x)∙F¯Be(x)=TAe(x)∙TBe(x). | (17) |
Moreover,
(1−IAe(x))∘(1−IBe(x))=1−IAe(x)∙IBe(x), | (18) |
due to De Morgan's law of the min−norm and max−norm. Therefore,
∀e∈E,∀x∈X,{T¯A∩Be(x)=T¯A∪¯Be(x)I¯A∩Be(x)=I¯A∪¯Be(x)F¯A∩Be(x)=F¯A∪¯Be(x). | (19) |
(2) ∀e∈E,∀x∈X,
{T¯A∪Be(x)=FA∪Be=FAe(x)∙FBe(x)I¯A∪Be(x)=1−IA∪Be=1−IAe(x)∘IBe(x)F¯A∪Be(x)=TA∪Be=TAe(x)∘TBe(x), | (20) |
and
{T¯A∩¯Be(x)=T¯Ae(x)∙T¯Be(x)=FAe(x)∙FBe(x)I¯A∩¯Be(x)=I¯Ae(x)∙I¯Be(x)=(1−IAe(x))∙(1−IBe(x))F¯A∩¯Be(x)=F¯Ae(x)∘F¯Be(x)=TAe(x)∘TBe(x). | (21) |
Moreover,
(1−IAe(x))∙(1−IBe(x))=1−IAe(x)∘IBe(x), | (22) |
due to De Morgan's law of the min−norm and max−norm. Therefore,
∀e∈E,∀x∈X,{T¯A∪Be(x)=T¯A∩¯Be(x)I¯A∪Be(x)=I¯A∩¯Be(x)F¯A∪Be(x)=F¯A∩¯Be(x). | (23) |
The distributive properties between intersection and union operations are not satisfied in the case of these general operations. Counterexamples are shown in Example 5.
Example 5. Let the NS-set C be represented in Table 7 as follows:
C | e1 | e2 |
x1 | ⟨.2,.1,.9⟩ | ⟨.3,.2,.6⟩ |
x2 | ⟨.3,.7,.6⟩ | ⟨.8,.2,.5⟩ |
x3 | ⟨.2,.1,.4⟩ | ⟨.3,.2,.5⟩ |
If using min−norm x∙y=max{x+y−1,0} and max−norm x∘y=min{x+y,1} with the two above NS-sets A and B in Example 3, the two NS-sets A∩(B∪C) and (A∩B)∪(A∩C) can be described in Table 8 as follows:
A∩(B∪C) | e1 | e2 | (A∩B)∪(A∩C) | e1 | e2 |
x1 | ⟨.1,0,1⟩ | ⟨.4,0,.9⟩ | x1 | ⟨0,0,1⟩ | ⟨.1,0,1⟩ |
x2 | ⟨0,1,.3⟩ | ⟨.8,.8,.8⟩ | x2 | ⟨0,.4,.3⟩ | ⟨.6,.1,.9⟩ |
x3 | ⟨0,0,.8⟩ | ⟨.8,.2,.4⟩ | x3 | ⟨0,0,1⟩ | ⟨.1,.1,.9⟩ |
Therefore, A∩(B∪C)≠(A∩B)∪(A∩C). Similarly, see Table 9:
A∪(B∩C) | e1 | e2 | (A∪B)∩(A∪C) | e1 | e2 |
x1 | ⟨.2,.4,.5⟩ | ⟨.5,.2,.8⟩ | x1 | ⟨.3,.1,.6⟩ | ⟨.8,0,.7⟩ |
x2 | ⟨.1,1,0⟩ | ⟨1,.9,.4⟩ | x2 | ⟨0,1,1⟩ | ⟨1,1,.3⟩ |
x3 | ⟨.1,.2,.7⟩ | ⟨.9,.9,0⟩ | x3 | ⟨0,0,.5⟩ | ⟨1,1,0⟩ |
Therefore, A∪(B∩C)≠(A∪B)∩(A∪C).
Definition 10. Let (Ai)i∈I be a collection of NS-sets on X. The union of the collection of NS-sets (Ai)i∈I,writtenas⋃i∈IAi, is determined by
∀e∈E,∀x∈X,{T⋃i∈IAie(x)=∘i∈I{TAie(x)}I⋃i∈IAie(x)=∘i∈I{IAie(x)}F⋃i∈IAie(x)=∙i∈I{FAie(x)}. | (24) |
Definition 11. The difference of the two NS-sets A and B,writtenasA∖B, is determined by A∖B=A∩¯B, i.e.,
∀e∈E,∀x∈X,{TA∖Be(x)=TAe(x)∙FBe(x)IA∖Be(x)=IAe(x)∙(1−IBe(x))FA∖Be(x)=FAe(x)∘TBe(x). | (25) |
Example 6. If using min−norm x∙y=max{x+y−1,0} and max−norm x∘y=min{x+y,1}, the difference A∖B of the two above NS-sets A and B in Example 3 is described according to Eq (25), see Table 10:
A∖B | e1 | e2 |
x1 | ⟨0,.2,1⟩ | ⟨0,.2,1⟩ |
x2 | ⟨0,0,.6⟩ | ⟨.7,.2,1⟩ |
x3 | ⟨0,0,1⟩ | ⟨0,.8,1⟩ |
Theorem 5. If the min−norm and max−norm satisfy De Morgan's law, for all A,B,C∈NS(X),
(1) A∖B⊆A,
(2) ¯A∖B=¯A∪B,
(3) ¯A∖¯B=B∖A,
(4) A∖(B∪C)=(A∖B)∩(A∖C),
(5) (A∩B)∖C=(A∖C)∩(B∖C),
(6) (A∖B)∩(C∖D)=(C∖B)∩(A∖D)=(A∩C)∖(B∪D).
Proof.
(1) ∀e∈E,∀x∈X,{TA∖Be(x)=TAe(x)∙TBe(x)≤TAe(x)IA∖Be(x)=IAe(x)∙(1−IBe(x))≤IAe(x)FA∖Be(x)=FAe(x)∘FBe(x)≥FAe(x). This implies that A∖B⊆A.
(2) ¯A∖B=¯A∩¯B=¯A∪¯¯B=¯A∪B due to Theorem 1.
(3) ¯A∖¯B=¯A∩¯¯B=¯A∩B=B∩¯A=B∖A.
(4) A∖(B∪C)=A∩¯B∪C=A∩(¯B∩¯C)=(A∩¯B)∩(A∩¯C)=(A∖B)∩(A∖C) due to Theorems 3 and 4.
(5) (A∩B)∖C=(A∩B)∩¯C=(A∩¯C)∩(B∩¯C)=(A∖C)∩(B∖C) due to Theorem 3.
(6) (A∖B)∩(C∖D)=(A∩¯B)∩(C∩¯D)=(C∩¯B)∩(A∩¯D)=(C∖B)∩(A∖D) due to Theorem 3.
(7) (A∖B)∩(C∖D)=(A∩¯B)∩(C∩¯D)=(A∩C)∩(¯B∩¯D)=(A∩C)∩¯B∪D =(A∩C)∖(B∪D) due to Theorems 3 and 4.
Definition 12. The AND operation of the two NS-sets A and B with the same parameter set E, written as A∧B, is determined over the same parameter set E×E by
∀(e1,e2)∈E×E,∀x∈X,{TA∧B(e1,e2)(x)=TAe1(x)∙TBe2(x)IA∧B(e1,e2)(x)=IAe1(x)∙IBe2(x)FA∧B(e1,e2)(x)=FAe1(x)∘FBe2(x). | (26) |
Definition 13. The OR operation of the two NS-sets A and B with the same parameter set E, written as A∧B, is determined over the same parameter set E×E by
∀(e1,e2)∈E×E,∀x∈X,{TA∨B(e1,e2)(x)=TAe1(x)∘TBe2(x)IA∨B(e1,e2)(x)=IAe1(x)∘IBe2(x)FA∨B(e1,e2)(x)=FAe1(x)∙FBe2(x). | (27) |
Example 7. If using min−norm x∙y=max{x+y−1,0} and max−norm x∘y=min{x+y,1}, the AND A∧B and OR A∨B operations of the two above NS-sets A and B in Example 3 is described according to Eqs (26) and (27) in Table 11 as follows:
A∧B | (e1,e1) | (e1,e2) | (e2,e1) | (e2,e2) | A∨B | (e1,e1) | (e1,e2) | (e2,e1) | (e2,e2) |
x1 | ⟨0,0,1⟩ | ⟨0,0,1⟩ | ⟨.2,0,1⟩ | ⟨.1,0,1⟩ | x1 | ⟨.9,.6,.2⟩ | ⟨.8,.4,1⟩ | ⟨1,.4,.5⟩ | ⟨1,.2,.3⟩ |
x2 | ⟨0,.3,.4⟩ | ⟨0,.1,1⟩ | ⟨.1,.8,.5⟩ | ⟨.5,.6,1⟩ | x2 | ⟨.4,1,1⟩ | ⟨.8,1,.2⟩ | ⟨1,1,0⟩ | ⟨1,1,.3⟩ |
x3 | ⟨0,0,1⟩ | ⟨0,0,.7⟩ | ⟨.4,.3,.1⟩ | ⟨.6,0,.4⟩ | x3 | ⟨.7,.6,.4⟩ | ⟨.9,.3,0⟩ | ⟨1,1,.1⟩ | ⟨1,1,0⟩ |
Theorem 6. If the min−norm and max−norm satisfy De Morgan's law, for all A,B∈NS(X),
(1) ¯A∧B=¯A∨¯B,
(2) ¯A∨B=¯A∧¯B.
Proof.
(1) ∀(e1,e2)∈E×E,∀x∈X,
{T¯A∧B(e1,e2)(x)=FA∧B(e1,e2)=FAe1(x)∘FBe2(x)I¯A∧B(e1,e2)(x)=1−IA∧B(e1,e2)=1−IAe1(x)∙IBe2(x)F¯A∧B(e1,e2)(x)=TA∧B(e1,e2)=TAe1(x)∙TBe2(x), | (28) |
and
{T¯A∨¯B(e1,e2)(x)=T¯Ae1(x)∘T¯Be2(x)=FAe1(x)∘FBe2(x)I¯A∨¯B(e1,e2)(x)=I¯Ae1(x)∘I¯Be2(x)=(1−IAe1(x))∘(1−IBe2(x))F¯A∨¯B(e1,e2)(x)=F¯Ae1(x)∙F¯Be2(x)=TAe1(x)∙TBe2(x). | (29) |
Moreover,
(1−IAe1(x))∘(1−IBe2(x))=1−IAe(x)∙IBe(x), | (30) |
due to De Morgan's law of the min−norm and max−norm. Therefore,
∀(e1,e2)∈E×E,∀x∈X,{T¯A∧B(e1,e2)(x)=T¯A∨¯B(e1,e2)(x)I¯A∧B(e1,e2)(x)=I¯A∨¯B(e1,e2)(x)F¯A∧B(e1,e2)(x)=F¯A∨¯B(e1,e2)(x). | (31) |
(2) ∀(e1,e2)∈E×E,∀x∈X,
{T¯A∨B(e1,e2)(x)=FA∨B(e1,e2)=FAe1(x)∙FBe2(x)I¯A∨B(e1,e2)(x)=1−IA∨B(e1,e2)=1−IAe1(x)∘IBe2(x)F¯A∨B(e1,e2)(x)=TA∨B(e1,e2)=TAe1(x)∘TBe2(x), | (32) |
and
{T¯A∧¯B(e1,e2)(x)=T¯Ae1(x)∙T¯Be2(x)=FAe1(x)∙FBe2(x)I¯A∧¯B(e1,e2)(x)=I¯Ae1(x)∙I¯Be2(x)=(1−IAe1(x))∙(1−IBe2(x))F¯A∧¯B(e1,e2)(x)=F¯Ae1(x)∘F¯Be2(x)=TAe1(x)∘TBe2(x). | (33) |
Moreover,
(1−IAe1(x))∙(1−IBe2(x))=1−IAe1(x)∘IBe2(x), | (34) |
due to De Morgan's law of the min−norm and max−norm. Therefore,
∀(e1,e2)∈E×E,∀x∈X,{T¯A∨B(e1,e2)(x)=T¯A∧¯B(e1,e2)(x)I¯A∨B(e1,e2)(x)=I¯A∧¯B(e1,e2)(x)F¯A∨B(e1,e2)(x)=F¯A∧¯B(e1,e2)(x). | (35) |
This section uses the operations just constructed above as the core to build the topology and related concepts on NS-sets. It is important to note that the norms used must satisfy De Morgan's law.
Definition 14. A collection τ⊆NS(X) is NS-topology on X if it obeys the following properties:
(a) ∅E and XE belongs to τ,
(b) The intersection of any finite collection of τ's elements belongs to τ,
(c) The union of any collection of τ's elements belongs to τ.
Then, the pair (X,τ) is a NS-topological space and each element of τ is a NS-open set.
Example 8. Let three NS-sets K1, K2, K3 be represented in Table 12 as follows:
K1 | e1 | e2 | K2 | e1 | e2 | K3 | e1 | e2 |
x1 | ⟨.2,.2,1⟩ | ⟨.5,.5,.7⟩ | x1 | ⟨.3,.3,.9⟩ | ⟨.6,.6,.6⟩ | x1 | ⟨.4,.4,.8⟩ | ⟨.7,.7,.5⟩ |
x2 | ⟨.3,.3,.9⟩ | ⟨.6,.6,.6⟩ | x2 | ⟨.4,.4,.8⟩ | ⟨.7,.7,.5⟩ | x2 | ⟨.5,.5,.7⟩ | ⟨.8,.8,.4⟩ |
x3 | ⟨.4,.4,.8⟩ | ⟨0,.9,1⟩ | x3 | ⟨.5,.5,.7⟩ | ⟨.8,.8,.4⟩ | x3 | ⟨.6,.6,.6⟩ | ⟨.9,.9,.3⟩ |
If using the min−norm x∙y=min{x,y}, max−norm x∘y=max{x,y}, the collection τ={∅E,XE,K1,K2,K3} is a NS-topology.
Theorem 7.
(1) τ0={∅E,XE} is a NS-topology (anti-discrete).
(2) τ∞=NS(X) is a NS-topology (discrete).
(3) If τ1 and τ2 are two NS-topologies, τ1∩τ2 is a NS-topology.
Proof. This proof focuses on the proof of Property 3 because Properties 1 and 2 are directly inferred.
• ∅E,XE∈τ1;∅E,XE∈τ2⇒∅E,XE∈τ1∩τ2.
• If {Kj}n1 is a finite family of NS-sets in τ1∩τ2, Ki∈τ1 and Ki∈τ2 for all i. So ∩{Kj}n1∈τ1 and {Kj}n1∈τ2. Thus ∩{Kj}n1∈τ1∩τ2.
• If letting {Ki|i∈I} be a family of NS-sets in τ1∩τ2, Ki∈τ1 and Ki∈τ2 for all i∈I. So ∪i∈IKi∈τ1 and ∪i∈IKi∈τ2. Therefore, ∪i∈IKi∈τ1∩τ2.
It should be noted that if τ1 and τ2 are two NS-topologies, τ1∪τ2 cannot be a NS-topology. Counterexamples are shown in Example 9.
Example 9. Let three NS-sets H1, H2, H3 be represented in Table 13 as follows:
H1 | e1 | e2 | H2 | e1 | e2 | H3 | e1 | e2 |
x1 | ⟨1,0,1⟩ | ⟨0,1,0⟩ | x1 | ⟨0,1,0⟩ | ⟨1,0,1⟩ | x1 | ⟨1,0,1⟩ | ⟨1,0,1⟩ |
x2 | ⟨1,0,1⟩ | ⟨0,1,0⟩ | x2 | ⟨0,1,0⟩ | ⟨1,0,1⟩ | x2 | ⟨1,0,1⟩ | ⟨1,0,1⟩ |
If using the min−norm x∙y=xy, max−norm x∘y=x+y−xy and letting τ1={∅E,XE,H1,H2} and τ2={∅E,XE,H3} be two NS-topologies, the collection τ1∪τ2={∅E,XE,H1,H2,H3} is not a NS-topology due to H1∪H2∉τ1∪τ2, see Table 14.
H1∪H2 | e1 | e2 |
x1 | ⟨1,0,1⟩ | ⟨1,1,0⟩ |
x2 | ⟨1,0,1⟩ | ⟨1,1,0⟩ |
Definition 15. A NS-set A∈NS(X) is NS-closed set if it has the complement ¯A is a NS-open set. The symbol ¯τ is denoted as the collection of all NS-closed sets.
Theorem 8.
(1) ∅E and XE belongs to ¯τ.
(2) The union of any finite collection of ¯τ's elements belongs to ¯τ.
(3) The intersection of any collection of ¯τ's elements belongs to ¯τ.
Proof. These properties are directly inferred from the definitions of a NS-closed set and De Morgan's law for intersection and union.
Definition 16. The NS-interior of a NS-set A,writtenasint(A), is the union of all NS-open subsets of A. It is considered the biggest NS-open set which is contained by A.
Example 10. Let three NS-sets L1, L2, K be represented as follows:
L1 | e1 | e2 | L2 | e1 | e2 | K | e1 | e2 |
x1 | ⟨.7,.8,.3⟩ | ⟨.4,.5,.8⟩ | x1 | ⟨.3,.2,.7⟩ | ⟨.6,.5,.2⟩ | x1 | ⟨.8,.8,.3⟩ | ⟨.8,.8,.3⟩ |
x2 | ⟨.5,.2,.6⟩ | ⟨.3,.4,.2⟩ | x2 | ⟨.5,.8,.4⟩ | ⟨.7,.6,.8⟩ | x2 | ⟨.4,.6,.5⟩ | ⟨.4,.6,.5⟩ |
If using the min−norm x∙y=max{x+y−1,0}, max−norm=min{x+y,1}, the collection τ={∅E,XE,L1,L2} is the NS-topology. It is easy to see that ∅E,L1⊆K and ∅E∪L1=L1⊆K. Therefore, int(K)=A.
Theorem 9. A NS-set A is a NS-open set if and only if A=int(A).
Proof. If A∈τ then A is the biggest NS-open set that is contained by A. So A=int(A). Conversely, A=int(A)∈τ.
Theorem 10. If A,B∈NS(X),
(1) int(int(A))=int(A),
(2) int(∅E)=∅E and int(XE)=XE,
(3) A⊆B⇒int(A)⊆int(B),
(4) int(A∩B)=int(A)∩int(B),
(5) int(A)∪int(B)⊆int(A∪B).
Proof.
(1) Due to int(A)∈τ, int(int(A))=int(A).
(2) ∅E∈τ⇒int(∅E)=∅E and XE∈τ⇒int(XE)=XE.
(3) Due to A⊆B, int(A)⊆A⊆B and int(B)⊆B. Because int(B) is the biggest NS-open set contained in B, int(A)⊆int(B).
(4) Since int(A)∈τ and int(B)∈τ, then int(A)∪int(B)∈τ. It is known that int(A)⊆A and int(B)⊆B, so int(A)∪int(B)⊆A∪B. Moreover, int(A∪B) is the biggest NS-open set contained in A∪B. Therefore, int(A)∪int(B)⊆int(A∪B).
(5) Since int(A∩B)⊆A∩B, so int(A∩B)⊆A and int(A∩B)⊆B. Therefore, int(A∩B)⊆int(A) and int(A∩B)⊆int(B) or int(A∩B)⊆int(A)∩int(B).
Moreover,
{int(A)∩int(B)⊆int(A)⊆Aint(A)∩int(B)⊆int(B)⊆B⇒int(A)∩int(B)⊆A∩B |
and int(A∩B) is the biggest NS-open set contained in A∩B, so
int(A)∩int(B)⊆int(A∩B). |
Thus, int(A∩B)=int(A)∩int(B).
Definition 17. The NS-closure of a NS-set A,writtenascl(A), is the intersection of all NS-closed supersets of A. The cl(A) is the smallest NS-closed set which contains A.
Example 11. For the NS-topology τ given in Example 10, let NS-set H be represented in Table 16 as follows:
H | e1 | e2 | ¯L1 | e1 | e2 | e1 | e2 |
x1 | ⟨.2,.2,.8⟩ | ⟨.2,.2,.8⟩ | x1 | ⟨.3,.2,.7⟩ | ⟨.8,.5,.4⟩ | ⟨.7,.8,.3⟩ | ⟨.2,.5,.6⟩ |
x2 | ⟨.3,.4,.8⟩ | ⟨.3,.4,.8⟩ | x2 | ⟨.6,.8,.5⟩ | ⟨.2,.6,.3⟩ | ⟨.4,.2,.5⟩ | ⟨.8,.4,.7⟩ |
It is easy to see that ¯∅E=XE, ¯XE=∅E. So ∅E, XE, ¯L1, ¯L2 are all NS-closed sets. Since H⊆XE, cl(H)=L2.
Theorem 11. A NS-set A is a NS-closed set if and only if A=cl(A).
Proof. Let A be a NS-closed set. Because A⊆A and cl(A) is the smallest NS-closed set that contains A, cl(A)⊆A. Therefore, A=cl(A). Conversely, if A=cl(A) then A is a NS-closed set.
Theorem 12. If A,B∈NS(X),
(1) cl(cl(A))=cl(A),
(2) cl(∅E)=∅E and cl(XE)=XE,
(3) A⊆B⇒cl(A)⊆cl(B),
(4) cl(A∩B)⊆cl(A)∩cl(B),
(5) cl(A∪B)=cl(A)∪cl(B).
Proof.
(1) Directly inferring from Theorem 9.
(2) Directly inferring from Definition 14 and Theorem 9.
(3) Since A⊆B⊆cl(B) and cl(A) is the smallest NS-closed set containing A, cl(A)⊆cl(B).
(4) Since A∩B⊆A⊆cl(A) and A∩B⊆B⊆cl(B), A∩B⊆cl(A)∩cl(B). Therefore, cl(A∩B)⊆cl(A)∩cl(B).
(5) It is easy to see that A⊆A∪B⊆cl(A∪B), B⊆A∪B⊆cl(A∪B), cl(A) is the smallest NS-closed set that contains A, and cl(B) is the smallest NS-closed set that containing B. So cl(A)⊆cl(A∪B) and cl(B)⊆cl(A∪B). Therefore, cl(A)∪cl(B)⊆cl(A∪B).
Moreover, since A⊆cl(A) and B⊆cl(B), A∪B⊆cl(A)∪cl(B). Therefore, cl(A∪B)⊆cl(A)∪cl(B).
Thus, cl(A∪B)=cl(A)∪cl(B).
Theorem 13. If A,B∈NS(X),
(1) ¯int(A)=cl(¯A),
(2) ¯cl(A)=int(¯A).
Proof.
(1) Because
int(A)=∪i∈I{Hi∈τ:Hi⊆A}, |
¯int(A)=¯∪i∈I{Hi∈τ:Hi⊆A}=∩i∈I{¯Hi∈¯τ:¯Hi⊇¯A}=cl(¯A). | (36) |
(2) Because
cl(A)=∪i∈I{Hi∈¯τ:Hi⊇A}, |
¯cl(A)=¯[∩i∈I{Hi∈¯τ:Hi⊇A}]=∪i∈I{¯Hi∈τ:¯Hi⊆¯A}=int(¯A). | (37) |
Definition 18. The NS-boundary of a NS-set A,writtenas∂A, is the intersection of the NS-closure of A and the NS-closure of ¯A.
Example 12. For the NS-topology τ given in Example 10 and the NS-set H given in Example 11, the complement of H is represented in Table 17 as follows:
¯H | e1 | e2 |
x1 | ⟨.8,.8,.2⟩ | ⟨.8,.8,.2⟩ |
x2 | ⟨.8,.6,.3⟩ | ⟨.8,.6,.3⟩ |
It is easy to see that cl(H)=XE and cl(¯H)=XE. So ∂H=XE∩XE=XE.
Theorem 14. If A∈NS(X),
(1) ∂A=cl(A)∩¯int(A),
(2) int(A)∩∂A=∅E,
(3) ∂A=∅E if and only if A is a NS-open and NS-closed set.
Proof.
(1) ∂A=cl(A)∩cl(¯A) = cl(A)∩¯int(A) due to Theorem 13.
(2) It is easy to see that
int(A)∩∂(A)=int(A)∩cl(A)∩cl(¯A)=int(A)∩cl(A)∩¯int(A) |
=int(A)∩¯int(A)∩cl(A)=∅E |
due to Theorem 13.
(3) Since
∂(A)=cl(A)∩cl(¯A)=cl(A)∩¯int(A)=∅E, |
cl(A)∩int(A)≠∅E. So A⊆cl(A)⊆int(A)⊆A. Therefore, A=cl(A)=int(A) or A is a NS-open and NS-closed set.
Conversely, if A is a NS-open and NS-closed set, A=int(A) and A=cl(A). Therefore,
∂(A)=cl(A)∩cl(¯A)=cl(A)∩¯int(A)=cl(A)∩¯cl(A)=∅E. |
Definition 19.
a. The NS-open set M is regular if M=int(cl(M)).
b. The NS-closed set M is regular if M=cl(int(M)).
Theorem 15. If M,N∈NS(X),
(1) If M is a NS-closed set, int(M) is a regular NS-open set.
(2) If M is a NS-open set, cl(M) is a regular NS-closed set.
(3) If M and N are two regular NS-open sets, M⊆N⟺cl(M)⊆cl(N).
(4) If M and N are two regular NS-closed sets, M⊆N⟺int(M)⊆int(N).
(5) If M is a regular NS-closed set, ¯M is a regular NS-open set.
(6) If M is a regular NS-open set, ¯M is a regular NS-closed set.
Proof.
(1) If M is a NS-closed set,
int(M)⊆M⇒cl[int(M)]⊆cl(M)=M⇒int[cl(int(M))]⊆int(M). | (38) |
int(M)⊆cl(int(M))⇒int(int(M))=int(M)⊆int[cl(int(M))]. | (39) |
Therefore, int(M)=int[cl(int(M))] or int(M) is regular.
(2) If M is a NS-open set,
int(cl(M))⊆cl(M)⇒cl(int(cl(M)))⊆cl(cl(M))=cl(M). | (40) |
Because int(M)=M,
M⊆cl(M)⇒int(M)=M⊆int(cl(M))⇒cl(M)⊆cl(int(cl(M))). | (41) |
Therefore, cl(M)=cl(int(cl(M))) or cl(M) is regular.
(3) Clearly, M⊆N⇒cl(M)⊆cl(N) and int(cl(M))=M, int(cl(N))=N due to M,N are regular. Conversely,
cl(M)⊆cl(N)⇒int(cl(M))=M⊆int(cl(N))=N⇒M⊆N. |
(4) Clearly, M⊆N⇒int(M)⊆int(N) and M=cl(int(M)), N=cl(int(N)) due to M,N are regular. Conversely,
int(M)⊆int(N)⇒cl(int(M))=M⊆cl(int(N))=N⇒M⊆N. |
(5) If M is a regular NS-open set, M=int(cl(M)). So
cl(int(¯M))=cl(¯cl(M))=¯int(cl(M))=¯M. |
Therefore, ¯M is a regular NS-closed set.
(6) Similarly, if M is a regular NS-closed set, int(cl(¯M))=¯M. So ¯M is a regular NS-open set.
Theorem 16. Let τ={Ki:i∈I} be NS-topology on X where
Ki={(e,xTKie(x),IKie(x),FKie(x)):e∈E,x∈X}. | (42) |
Three collections
T=(Ti)i∈I={(e,⟨x,TKie(x)⟩):e∈E,x∈X}, | (43) |
I=(Ii)i∈I={(e,⟨x,IKie(x)⟩):e∈E,x∈X}, | (44) |
F=(Fi)i∈I={(e,⟨x,1−FKie(x)⟩):e∈E,x∈X}, | (45) |
are the fuzzy soft topologies on X.
Proof.
• ∅E∈τ⇒˜∅∈T,˜∅∈I,˜∅∈F.
• XE∈τ⇒˜X∈T;˜X∈I;˜X∈F.
• Let (Ti)i∈I be a family of fuzzy soft sets in T, (Ii)i∈I be a family of fuzzy soft sets in I, and (Fi)i∈I be a family of fuzzy soft sets in F. They make a family of NS-sets {Ki:i∈I} where
Ki={(e,xTKie(x),IKie(x),FKie(x)):e∈E,x∈X}∈τ. | (46) |
So ∪i∈IKi∈τ or
∪i∈IKi={(e,x∘i∈I{TKie(x)},∘i∈I{IKie(x)},∙i∈I{FKie(x)}):e∈E,x∈X}∈τ. | (47) |
Therefore,
{[⟨∘i∈I{TKie(x)}⟩:x∈X]e∈E}=˜∪i∈I{TKie(X):e∈E}∈T, | (48) |
{[⟨∘i∈I{TKie(x)}⟩:x∈X]e∈E}=˜∪i∈I{IKie(X):e∈E}∈I, | (49) |
{[⟨∙i∈I{FKie(x)}⟩:x∈X]e∈E}C |
={[⟨1−∙i∈I{FKie(x)}⟩:x∈X]e∈E} |
={[⟨∘i∈I{(1−FKi(e)(a))}⟩:a∈X]e∈E} |
=˜∪i∈I{(IKi(e)(X))Ce∈E}∈F. | (50) |
• Let {Tj∈T}n1, {Ij∈I}n1,{Fj∈F}n1 be finite families of fuzzy soft sets on X and satisfy
Kj={(e,xTKje(x),IKje(x),FKje(x)):e∈E,x∈X}∈τ. | (51) |
So, we have ∩n1Kj∈τ, i.e.,
∩n1Kj={(e,x{∙TKie(x)}n1,{∙IKie(x)}n1,{∘FKie(x)}n1):e∈E,x∈X}. | (52) |
Hence,
[{{∙TKie(x)}n1:x∈X}e∈E]=˜∩n1{[TKie(X)]e∈E}∈T, | (53) |
[{{∙IKie(x)}n1:x∈X}e∈E]=˜∩n1{[IKie(X)]e∈E}∈I, | (54) |
{[{∘FKie(x)}n1:x∈X]e∈E}C |
={[1−{∘FKie(x)}n1:x∈X]e∈E} |
={[∙{1−FKie(x)}n1:x∈X]e∈E} |
=˜∩n1{[IKie(X)]e∈E}∈F. | (55) |
In the general case, the opposite of Theorem 16 is not true. This is demonstrated through a counterexample, as shown in Example 13.
Example 13. Let four NS-sets H1, H2, and H3be represented in Table 18 as follows:
e1 | e2 | ||
H1 | x1 | ⟨.25,.25,.75⟩ | ⟨.25,.25,.75⟩ |
x2 | ⟨13,13,13⟩ | ⟨13,13,13⟩ | |
H2 | x1 | ⟨.5,.75,.5⟩ | ⟨.5,.75,.5⟩ |
x2 | ⟨13,23,23⟩ | ⟨13,23,23⟩ | |
H3 | x1 | ⟨.75,.5,.25⟩ | ⟨.75,.5,.25⟩ |
x2 | ⟨23,13,13⟩ | ⟨23,13,13⟩ | |
H1∪H2 | x1 | ⟨.75,1,.25⟩ | ⟨.75,1,.25⟩ |
x2 | ⟨23,1,0⟩ | ⟨23,1,0⟩ |
If using the min−norm x∙y=max{x+y−1,0}, max−norm=min{x+y,1}, three collections defined in Table 19 as follows are the fuzzy soft topologies on X.
e1 | e2 | ||
T | ˜∅ | ⟨0,0⟩ | ⟨0,0⟩ |
˜X | ⟨1,1⟩ | ⟨1,1⟩ | |
T1 | ⟨.25,13⟩ | ⟨.25,13⟩ | |
T2 | ⟨.5,13⟩ | ⟨.5,13⟩ | |
T3 | ⟨.75,23⟩ | ⟨.75,23⟩ | |
I | ˜∅ | ⟨0,0⟩ | ⟨0,0⟩ |
˜X | ⟨1,1⟩ | ⟨1,1⟩ | |
I1 | ⟨.25,13⟩ | ⟨.25,13⟩ | |
I2 | ⟨.75,23⟩ | ⟨.75,23⟩ | |
I3 | ⟨.5,13⟩ | ⟨.5,13⟩ | |
F | ˜∅ | ⟨0,0⟩ | ⟨0,0⟩ |
˜X | ⟨1,1⟩ | ⟨1,1⟩ | |
F1 | ⟨.25,13⟩ | ⟨.25,13⟩ | |
F2 | ⟨.5,13⟩ | ⟨.5,13⟩ | |
F3 | ⟨.75,23⟩ | ⟨.75,23⟩ |
The T,I,F are fuzzy soft topologies on X, but τ={∅E,XE,H1,H2,H3} is not a NS- topology on X because H1∪H2∉τ.
Theorem 17. Let three collections
T=(Ti)i∈I={(e,⟨x,TKie(x)⟩):e∈E,x∈X}, | (56) |
I=(Ii)i∈I={(e,⟨x,IKie(x)⟩):e∈E,x∈X}, | (57) |
F=(Fi)i∈I={(e,⟨x,1−FKie(x)⟩):e∈E,x∈X}, | (58) |
be the fuzzy soft topologies on X. Let τ={Ki:i∈I} where
Ki={(e,xTKie(x),IKie(x),FKie(x)):e∈E,x∈X}. | (59) |
If for all l,m,n, we have
Tl∩Tm=Tn⇒{Il∩Im=InFl∩Fm=Fn, | (60) |
Tl∪Tm=Tn⇒{Il∩Im=InFl∩Fm=Fn. | (61) |
Then τ is the NS-topology on X.
Proof.
• Obviously, ∅E,XE∈τ.
• Let {Ki:i∈I}⊂τ be a family of NS-sets on X. We have {Ti},{Ii},{Fi} are families of fuzzy soft sets on X. So,
∃n0∈I,Tn0=⋃i∈ITi∈T,In0=⋃i∈IIi∈I,Fn0=⋃i∈IFi∈F. | (62) |
Thus, ⋃i∈IKi=Tn0∈τ.
• Let {Kj∈τ}n1 be a finite family of NS-sets on X. We have {Tj}n1, {Ij}n1,{Fj}n1as finite families of fuzzy soft sets on X. So,
∃m0∈I,Tm0=∩n1Tj∈T,Im0=∩n1Ij∈I,Fm0=∩n1Fj∈F, | (63) |
Thus, ∩n1Kj∈τ.
Theorem 18. Let τ={Ki:i∈I} be the NS-topology on X where
Ki={(e,xTKie(x),IKie(x),FKie(x)):e∈E,x∈X}. | (64) |
For each e∈E, three collections
Te=(Tei)i∈I={⟨x,TKie(x)⟩:x∈X}, | (65) |
Ie=(Iei)i∈I={⟨x,IKie(x)⟩:x∈X}, | (66) |
Fe=(Fei)i∈I={⟨x,1−FKie(x)⟩,x∈X}, | (67) |
are the fuzzy topologies on X.
Proof. It can be implied from Theorem 17.
In the general case, the opposite of Theorem 18 is not true. This is demonstrated through the counterexample shown in Example 14.
Example 14. We return to Example 12 with the same hypothesis. Then,
Te1={(0,0),(1,1),(.25,13),(.5,13),(.75,23)}, | (68) |
Ie1={(0,0),(1,1),(.25,13),(.75,23),(.5,13)}, | (69) |
Fe1={(0,0),(1,1),(.25,13),(.5,13),(.75,23)}, | (70) |
are fuzzy topologies on X. Similarly,
Te2={(0,0),(1,1),(.25,13),(.5,13),(.75,23)}, | (71) |
Ie2={(0,0),(1,1),(.25,13),(.5,13),(.75,23)}, | (72) |
Fe2={(0,0),(1,1),(.25,13),(.5,13),(.75,23)}, | (73) |
are also fuzzy topologies, but τ={∅E,XE,H1,H2,H3} is not a NS-topology on X because K1∪K2∉τ.
In this paper, two novel norms are proposed to serve as the core for determining operations on NS-sets. These operations are used to construct the topology and related concepts such as open set, closed set, interior, closure, and regularity. Another highlight of this work is demonstrating the relationship between the topologies on NS-sets and fuzzy soft sets. The topology on NS-sets can parameterize the topologies on fuzzy soft sets, but the reverse is not guaranteed. This work's advantage is the structure's logic is presented with well-defined concepts and convincingly proven theorems.
Determining these concepts in a novel way enables a variety of methods for studying NS-sets, and offers a unique opportunity for future research and development in this field. Such research could focus on separation axioms, continuity, compactness, and paracompactness on NS-sets. Moreover, the relationship between topology on hybrid structure, NS-sets, and component structures, neutrosophic sets and soft sets, is also of research interest. In addition, applications of neutrosophic soft topological spaces can be investigated to handle decision-making problems.
Furthermore, we are also turning our interests to building topology on a new type of set, neutrosophic fuzzy sets. We believe these results will be helpful for future studies on neutrosophic fuzzy topology to develop a general framework for practical applications. These issues present opportunities but also challenges for researchers interested in the field of fuzzy theory.
The authors declare that they have no competing interests in this paper.
[1] |
M. Aphane, L. Jolaoso, K. Aremu, O. Oyewole, An inertial-viscosity algorithm for solving split generalized equilibrium problem and a system of demimetric mappings in Hilbert spaces, Rend. Circ. Mat. Palermo, II. Ser, 72 (2023), 1599–1628. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12215-022-00761-8 doi: 10.1007/s12215-022-00761-8
![]() |
[2] | E. Blum, W. Oettli, From optimization and variational inequalities to equilibrium problems, Math. Student, 63 (1994), 123–145. |
[3] | C. Byrne, Y. Censor, A. Gilbali, S. Reich, The split common null point problem, J. Nonlinear Convex A., 13 (2012), 759–775. |
[4] |
Y. Censor, A. Gibali, S. Reich, The subgradient extragradient method for solving variational inequalities Hilbert space, J. Optim. Theory Appl., 148 (2011), 318–335. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10957-010-9757-3 doi: 10.1007/s10957-010-9757-3
![]() |
[5] |
Y. Censor, T. Bortfeld, B. Martin, A. Trofimov, A unified approach for inversion problems in intensity radiation therapy, Phys. Med. Biol., 51 (2006), 2353. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0031-9155/51/10/001 doi: 10.1088/0031-9155/51/10/001
![]() |
[6] |
Y. Censor, A. Gibali, S. Reich, Strong convergence of subgradient extragradient methods for the variational inequality problem in Hilbert space, Optim. Method. Softw., 26 (2011), 827–845. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10556788.2010.551536 doi: 10.1080/10556788.2010.551536
![]() |
[7] |
Y. Censor, A. Gibali, S. Reich, Extensions of Korpelevich's extragradient method for the variational inequality problem in Euclidean space, Optimization, 61 (2011), 1119–1132. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02331934.2010.539689 doi: 10.1080/02331934.2010.539689
![]() |
[8] |
B. Djafari-Rouhani, K. Kazmi, M. Farid, Common solution to systems of variational inequalities and fixed point problems, Fixed Point Theory, 18 (2017), 167–190. http://dx.doi.org/10.24193/FPT-RO.2017.1.14 doi: 10.24193/FPT-RO.2017.1.14
![]() |
[9] | G. Ficher, Sul pproblem elastostatico di signorini con ambigue condizioni al contorno, Atti Accad. Naz. Lincei, VIII. Ser., Rend., Cl. Sci. Fis. Mat. Nat, 34 (1963), 138–142. |
[10] |
M. Farid, K. Kazmi, A new mapping for finding a common solution of split generalized equilibrium problem, variational inequality problem and fixed point problem, Korean J. Math., 27 (2019), 297–327. http://dx.doi.org/10.11568/kjm.2019.27.2.297 doi: 10.11568/kjm.2019.27.2.297
![]() |
[11] |
B. He, A class of projection and contraction methods for monotone variational inequalities, Appl. Math. Optim., 35 (1997), 69–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02683320 doi: 10.1007/BF02683320
![]() |
[12] |
S. He, H. Xu, Uniqueness of supporting hyperplanes and an alternative to solutions of variational inequalities, J. Glob. Optim., 57 (2013), 1375–1384. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10898-012-9995-z doi: 10.1007/s10898-012-9995-z
![]() |
[13] |
H. Iiduka, Acceleration method for convex optimization over the fixed point set of a nonexpansive mapping, Math. Program., 149 (2015), 131–165. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10107-013-0741-1 doi: 10.1007/s10107-013-0741-1
![]() |
[14] |
K. Kazmi, S. Rizvi, Iterative approximation of a common solution of a split equilibrium problem, a variational inequality problem and a fixed point problem, Journal of the Egyptian Mathematical Society, 21 (2013), 44–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joems.2012.10.009 doi: 10.1016/j.joems.2012.10.009
![]() |
[15] |
K. Kazmi, S. Rizvi, Iterative approximation of a common solution of a split generalized equilibrium problem and a fixed point problem for nonexpansive semigroup, Math. Sci., 7 (2013), 1. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2251-7456-7-1 doi: 10.1186/2251-7456-7-1
![]() |
[16] | G. Korpelevich, An extragradient method for finding saddle points and for other problems, Ekon. Mat. Metody., 12 (1976), 747–756. |
[17] |
M. Lukumon, A. Mebawondu, A. Ofem, C. Agbonkhese, F. Akutsah, O. Narain, An efficient iterative method for solving quasimonotone bilevel split variational inequality problem, Adv. Fixed Point Theory, 13 (2023), 26. http://dx.doi.org/10.28919/afpt/8269 doi: 10.28919/afpt/8269
![]() |
[18] |
P. Maingé, A hybrid extragradient-viscosity method for monotone operators and fixed point problems, SIAM J. Control Optim., 47 (2008), 1499–1515. http://dx.doi.org/10.1137/060675319 doi: 10.1137/060675319
![]() |
[19] |
A. Moudafi, Split monotone variational inclusions, J. Optim. Theory Appl., 150 (2011), 275–283. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10957-011-9814-6 doi: 10.1007/s10957-011-9814-6
![]() |
[20] |
A. Ofem, A. Mebawondu, G. Ugwunnadi, H. Isik, O. Narain, A modified subgradient extragradient algorithm-type for solving quasimonotone variational inequality problems with applications, J. Inequal. Appl., 2023 (2023), 73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13660-023-02981-7 doi: 10.1186/s13660-023-02981-7
![]() |
[21] | A. Ofem, A. Mebawondu, G. Ugwunnadi, P. Cholamjiak, O. Narain, Relaxed Tseng splitting method with double inertial steps for solving monotone inclusions and fixed point problems, Numer. Algor., in press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11075-023-01674-y |
[22] |
A. Ofem, A. Mebawondu, C. Agbonkhese, G. Ugwunnadi, O. Narain, Alternated inertial relaxed Tseng method for solving fixed point and quasi-monotone variational inequality problems, Nonlinear Functional Analysis and Applications, 29 (2024), 131–164. http://dx.doi.org/10.22771/nfaa.2024.29.01.10 doi: 10.22771/nfaa.2024.29.01.10
![]() |
[23] |
S. Saejung, P. Yotkaew, Approximation of zeros of inverse strongly monotone operators in Banach spaces, Nonlinear Anal.-Theor., 75 (2012), 742–750. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.na.2011.09.005 doi: 10.1016/j.na.2011.09.005
![]() |
[24] |
M. Safari, F. Moradlou, A. Khalilzadah, Hybrid proximal point algorithm for solving split equilibrium problems and its applications, Hacet. J. Math. Stat., 51 (2022), 932–957. http://dx.doi.org/10.15672/hujms.1023754 doi: 10.15672/hujms.1023754
![]() |
[25] |
Y. Shehu, O. Iyiola, Projection methods with alternating inertial steps for variational inequalities: weak and linear convergence, Appl. Numer. Math., 157 (2020), 315–337. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apnum.2020.06.009 doi: 10.1016/j.apnum.2020.06.009
![]() |
[26] |
Y. Shehu, O. Iyiola, F. Ogbuisi, Iterative method with inertial terms for nonexpansive mappings, Applications to compressed sensing, Numer. Algor., 83 (2020), 1321–1347. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11075-019-00727-5 doi: 10.1007/s11075-019-00727-5
![]() |
[27] |
Y. Shehu, P. Vuong, A. Zemkoho, An inertial extrapolation method for convex simple bilevel optimization, Optim. Method. Softw., 36 (2021), 1–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10556788.2019.1619729 doi: 10.1080/10556788.2019.1619729
![]() |
[28] | G. Stampacchia, Formes bilineaires coercitives sur les ensembles convexes, C. R. Math. Acad. Sci., 258 (1964), 4413. |
[29] | W. Takahashi, Nonlinear functional analysis, Yokohama: Yokohama Publishers, 2000. |
[30] | W. Takahashi, The split common fixed point problem and the shrinking projection method in Banach spaces, J. Convex Anal., 24 (2017), 1015–1028. |
[31] |
W. Takahashi, H. Xu, J. Yao, Iterative methods for generalized split feasibility problems in Hilbert spaces, Set-Valued Var. Anal., 23 (2015), 205–221. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11228-014-0285-4 doi: 10.1007/s11228-014-0285-4
![]() |
[32] |
W. Takahashi, C. Wen, J. Yao, The shrinking projection method for a finite family of demimetric mappings with variational inequality problems in a Hilbert space, Fixed Point Theor., 19 (2018), 407–419. http://dx.doi.org/10.24193/fpt-ro.2018.1.32 doi: 10.24193/fpt-ro.2018.1.32
![]() |
[33] |
D. Thong, L. Liu, Q. Dong, L. Long, P. Tuan, Fast relaxed inertial Tseng's method-based algorithm for solving variational inequality and fixed point problems in Hilbert spaces, J. Comput. Appl. Math., 418 (2023), 114739. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cam.2022.114739 doi: 10.1016/j.cam.2022.114739
![]() |
[34] |
P. Tseng, A modified forward-backward splitting method for maximal monotone mappings, SIAM J. Control Optim., 38 (2000), 431–446. http://dx.doi.org/10.1137/S0363012998338806 doi: 10.1137/S0363012998338806
![]() |
[35] |
F. Wang, H. Xu, Cyclic algorithms for split feasibility problems in Hilbert spaces, Nonlinear Anal.-Theor., 74 (2011), 4105–4111. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.na.2011.03.044 doi: 10.1016/j.na.2011.03.044
![]() |
[36] | Z. Xie, G. Cai, B. Tan, Inertial subgradient extragradient method for solving pseudomonotone equilibrium problems and fixed point problems in Hilbert spaces, Optimization, in press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02331934.2022.2157677 |
[37] |
J. Yang, H. Liu, The subgradient extragradient method extended to pseudomonotone equilibrium problems and fixed point problems in Hilbert space, Optim. Lett., 14 (2020), 1803–1816. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11590-019-01474-1 doi: 10.1007/s11590-019-01474-1
![]() |
1. | Adem Yolcu, Aysun Benek, Taha Yasin Öztürk, A new approach to neutrosophic soft rough sets, 2023, 0219-1377, 10.1007/s10115-022-01824-z | |
2. | Quang-Thinh Bui, My-Phuong Ngo, Vaclav Snasel, Witold Pedrycz, Bay Vo, Information measures based on similarity under neutrosophic fuzzy environment and multi-criteria decision problems, 2023, 122, 09521976, 106026, 10.1016/j.engappai.2023.106026 | |
3. | Bing Chen, Xiao Long Xin, Xiao Fei Yang, Distance functions and filter topological residuated lattices1, 2024, 10641246, 1, 10.3233/JIFS-238147 | |
4. | Nechervan B. Ibrahim, Alias B. Khalaf, On maximal block topological space, 2023, 45, 10641246, 8541, 10.3233/JIFS-223749 | |
5. | Aysun Benek, Taha Yasin Öztürk, Adem Yolcu, 2024, chapter 4, 9798369320853, 67, 10.4018/979-8-3693-2085-3.ch004 |
M | e1 | e2 | N | e1 | e2 |
x1 | ⟨.2,.3,.4⟩ | ⟨.3,.5,.5⟩ | x1 | ⟨.3,.6,.1⟩ | ⟨.4,.5,.4⟩ |
x2 | ⟨.3,.4,.3⟩ | ⟨.6,.2,.4⟩ | x2 | ⟨.6,.5,.2⟩ | ⟨.7,.3,.2⟩ |
x3 | ⟨.3,.5,.2⟩ | ⟨.4,.4,.3⟩ | x3 | ⟨.4,.5,.3⟩ | ⟨.6,.3,.3⟩ |
x4 | ⟨.2,.7,.6⟩ | ⟨.3,.4,.3⟩ | x4 | ⟨.9,1,.4⟩ | ⟨.4,.5,.1⟩ |
P | e1 | e2 | e3 | ¯P | e1 | e2 | e3 |
x1 | ⟨.9,.8,.2⟩ | ⟨.3,.7,.2⟩ | ⟨.4,.6,.3⟩ | x1 | ⟨.2,.2,.9⟩ | ⟨.2,.3,.3⟩ | ⟨.3,.4,.4⟩ |
x2 | ⟨.7,.6,.2⟩ | ⟨.3,.4,.6⟩ | ⟨.4,.3,.2⟩ | x2 | ⟨.2,.4,.7⟩ | ⟨.6,.6,.3⟩ | ⟨.2,.7,.4⟩ |
x3 | ⟨.3,.3,.5⟩ | ⟨.1,.2,.3⟩ | ⟨.9,.5,.8⟩ | x3 | ⟨.5,.7,.3⟩ | ⟨.3,.8,.1⟩ | ⟨.8,.5,.9⟩ |
min−norms | max−norms | |
1 | ∀x,y∈[0,1],x∙y=xy | ∀x,y∈[0,1],x∘y=x+y−xy |
2 | ∀x,y∈[0,1],x∙y=min{x,y} | ∀x,y∈[0,1],x∘y=max{x,y} |
3 | ∀x,y∈[0,1],x∙y=max{x+y−1,0} | ∀x,y∈[0,1],x∘y=min{x+y,1} |
A | e1 | e2 | B | e1 | e2 |
x1 | ⟨.2,.4,.5⟩ | ⟨.5,.2,.8⟩ | x1 | ⟨.7,.2,.7⟩ | ⟨.6,0,.5⟩ |
x2 | ⟨.1,.4,.3⟩ | ⟨.8,.9,.4⟩ | x2 | ⟨.3,.9,.1⟩ | ⟨.7,.7,.9⟩ |
x3 | ⟨.1,.2,.7⟩ | ⟨.8,.9,.4⟩ | x3 | ⟨.6,.4,.7⟩ | ⟨.8,.1,0⟩ |
A∩B | e1 | e2 |
x1 | ⟨0,0,1⟩ | ⟨.1,0,1⟩ |
x2 | ⟨0,.3,.4⟩ | ⟨.5,.6,1⟩ |
x3 | ⟨0,0,1⟩ | ⟨.6,0,.4⟩ |
A∪B | e1 | e2 |
x1 | ⟨.9,.6,.2⟩ | ⟨1,.2,.3⟩ |
x2 | ⟨.4,1,1⟩ | ⟨1,1,.3⟩ |
x3 | ⟨.7,.6,.4⟩ | ⟨1,1,0⟩ |
C | e1 | e2 |
x1 | ⟨.2,.1,.9⟩ | ⟨.3,.2,.6⟩ |
x2 | ⟨.3,.7,.6⟩ | ⟨.8,.2,.5⟩ |
x3 | ⟨.2,.1,.4⟩ | ⟨.3,.2,.5⟩ |
A∩(B∪C) | e1 | e2 | (A∩B)∪(A∩C) | e1 | e2 |
x1 | ⟨.1,0,1⟩ | ⟨.4,0,.9⟩ | x1 | ⟨0,0,1⟩ | ⟨.1,0,1⟩ |
x2 | ⟨0,1,.3⟩ | ⟨.8,.8,.8⟩ | x2 | ⟨0,.4,.3⟩ | ⟨.6,.1,.9⟩ |
x3 | ⟨0,0,.8⟩ | ⟨.8,.2,.4⟩ | x3 | ⟨0,0,1⟩ | ⟨.1,.1,.9⟩ |
A∪(B∩C) | e1 | e2 | (A∪B)∩(A∪C) | e1 | e2 |
x1 | ⟨.2,.4,.5⟩ | ⟨.5,.2,.8⟩ | x1 | ⟨.3,.1,.6⟩ | ⟨.8,0,.7⟩ |
x2 | ⟨.1,1,0⟩ | ⟨1,.9,.4⟩ | x2 | ⟨0,1,1⟩ | ⟨1,1,.3⟩ |
x3 | ⟨.1,.2,.7⟩ | ⟨.9,.9,0⟩ | x3 | ⟨0,0,.5⟩ | ⟨1,1,0⟩ |
A∖B | e1 | e2 |
x1 | ⟨0,.2,1⟩ | ⟨0,.2,1⟩ |
x2 | ⟨0,0,.6⟩ | ⟨.7,.2,1⟩ |
x3 | ⟨0,0,1⟩ | ⟨0,.8,1⟩ |
A∧B | (e1,e1) | (e1,e2) | (e2,e1) | (e2,e2) | A∨B | (e1,e1) | (e1,e2) | (e2,e1) | (e2,e2) |
x1 | ⟨0,0,1⟩ | ⟨0,0,1⟩ | ⟨.2,0,1⟩ | ⟨.1,0,1⟩ | x1 | ⟨.9,.6,.2⟩ | ⟨.8,.4,1⟩ | ⟨1,.4,.5⟩ | ⟨1,.2,.3⟩ |
x2 | ⟨0,.3,.4⟩ | ⟨0,.1,1⟩ | ⟨.1,.8,.5⟩ | ⟨.5,.6,1⟩ | x2 | ⟨.4,1,1⟩ | ⟨.8,1,.2⟩ | ⟨1,1,0⟩ | ⟨1,1,.3⟩ |
x3 | ⟨0,0,1⟩ | ⟨0,0,.7⟩ | ⟨.4,.3,.1⟩ | ⟨.6,0,.4⟩ | x3 | ⟨.7,.6,.4⟩ | ⟨.9,.3,0⟩ | ⟨1,1,.1⟩ | ⟨1,1,0⟩ |
K1 | e1 | e2 | K2 | e1 | e2 | K3 | e1 | e2 |
x1 | ⟨.2,.2,1⟩ | ⟨.5,.5,.7⟩ | x1 | ⟨.3,.3,.9⟩ | ⟨.6,.6,.6⟩ | x1 | ⟨.4,.4,.8⟩ | ⟨.7,.7,.5⟩ |
x2 | ⟨.3,.3,.9⟩ | ⟨.6,.6,.6⟩ | x2 | ⟨.4,.4,.8⟩ | ⟨.7,.7,.5⟩ | x2 | ⟨.5,.5,.7⟩ | ⟨.8,.8,.4⟩ |
x3 | ⟨.4,.4,.8⟩ | ⟨0,.9,1⟩ | x3 | ⟨.5,.5,.7⟩ | ⟨.8,.8,.4⟩ | x3 | ⟨.6,.6,.6⟩ | ⟨.9,.9,.3⟩ |
H1 | e1 | e2 | H2 | e1 | e2 | H3 | e1 | e2 |
x1 | ⟨1,0,1⟩ | ⟨0,1,0⟩ | x1 | ⟨0,1,0⟩ | ⟨1,0,1⟩ | x1 | ⟨1,0,1⟩ | ⟨1,0,1⟩ |
x2 | ⟨1,0,1⟩ | ⟨0,1,0⟩ | x2 | ⟨0,1,0⟩ | ⟨1,0,1⟩ | x2 | ⟨1,0,1⟩ | ⟨1,0,1⟩ |
H1∪H2 | e1 | e2 |
x1 | ⟨1,0,1⟩ | ⟨1,1,0⟩ |
x2 | ⟨1,0,1⟩ | ⟨1,1,0⟩ |
L1 | e1 | e2 | L2 | e1 | e2 | K | e1 | e2 |
x1 | ⟨.7,.8,.3⟩ | ⟨.4,.5,.8⟩ | x1 | ⟨.3,.2,.7⟩ | ⟨.6,.5,.2⟩ | x1 | ⟨.8,.8,.3⟩ | ⟨.8,.8,.3⟩ |
x2 | ⟨.5,.2,.6⟩ | ⟨.3,.4,.2⟩ | x2 | ⟨.5,.8,.4⟩ | ⟨.7,.6,.8⟩ | x2 | ⟨.4,.6,.5⟩ | ⟨.4,.6,.5⟩ |
H | e1 | e2 | ¯L1 | e1 | e2 | e1 | e2 |
x1 | ⟨.2,.2,.8⟩ | ⟨.2,.2,.8⟩ | x1 | ⟨.3,.2,.7⟩ | ⟨.8,.5,.4⟩ | ⟨.7,.8,.3⟩ | ⟨.2,.5,.6⟩ |
x2 | ⟨.3,.4,.8⟩ | ⟨.3,.4,.8⟩ | x2 | ⟨.6,.8,.5⟩ | ⟨.2,.6,.3⟩ | ⟨.4,.2,.5⟩ | ⟨.8,.4,.7⟩ |
¯H | e1 | e2 |
x1 | ⟨.8,.8,.2⟩ | ⟨.8,.8,.2⟩ |
x2 | ⟨.8,.6,.3⟩ | ⟨.8,.6,.3⟩ |
e1 | e2 | ||
H1 | x1 | ⟨.25,.25,.75⟩ | ⟨.25,.25,.75⟩ |
x2 | ⟨13,13,13⟩ | ⟨13,13,13⟩ | |
H2 | x1 | ⟨.5,.75,.5⟩ | ⟨.5,.75,.5⟩ |
x2 | ⟨13,23,23⟩ | ⟨13,23,23⟩ | |
H3 | x1 | ⟨.75,.5,.25⟩ | ⟨.75,.5,.25⟩ |
x2 | ⟨23,13,13⟩ | ⟨23,13,13⟩ | |
H1∪H2 | x1 | ⟨.75,1,.25⟩ | ⟨.75,1,.25⟩ |
x2 | ⟨23,1,0⟩ | ⟨23,1,0⟩ |
e1 | e2 | ||
T | ˜∅ | ⟨0,0⟩ | ⟨0,0⟩ |
˜X | ⟨1,1⟩ | ⟨1,1⟩ | |
T1 | ⟨.25,13⟩ | ⟨.25,13⟩ | |
T2 | ⟨.5,13⟩ | ⟨.5,13⟩ | |
T3 | ⟨.75,23⟩ | ⟨.75,23⟩ | |
I | ˜∅ | ⟨0,0⟩ | ⟨0,0⟩ |
˜X | ⟨1,1⟩ | ⟨1,1⟩ | |
I1 | ⟨.25,13⟩ | ⟨.25,13⟩ | |
I2 | ⟨.75,23⟩ | ⟨.75,23⟩ | |
I3 | ⟨.5,13⟩ | ⟨.5,13⟩ | |
F | ˜∅ | ⟨0,0⟩ | ⟨0,0⟩ |
˜X | ⟨1,1⟩ | ⟨1,1⟩ | |
F1 | ⟨.25,13⟩ | ⟨.25,13⟩ | |
F2 | ⟨.5,13⟩ | ⟨.5,13⟩ | |
F3 | ⟨.75,23⟩ | ⟨.75,23⟩ |
M | e1 | e2 | N | e1 | e2 |
x1 | ⟨.2,.3,.4⟩ | ⟨.3,.5,.5⟩ | x1 | ⟨.3,.6,.1⟩ | ⟨.4,.5,.4⟩ |
x2 | ⟨.3,.4,.3⟩ | ⟨.6,.2,.4⟩ | x2 | ⟨.6,.5,.2⟩ | ⟨.7,.3,.2⟩ |
x3 | ⟨.3,.5,.2⟩ | ⟨.4,.4,.3⟩ | x3 | ⟨.4,.5,.3⟩ | ⟨.6,.3,.3⟩ |
x4 | ⟨.2,.7,.6⟩ | ⟨.3,.4,.3⟩ | x4 | ⟨.9,1,.4⟩ | ⟨.4,.5,.1⟩ |
P | e1 | e2 | e3 | ¯P | e1 | e2 | e3 |
x1 | ⟨.9,.8,.2⟩ | ⟨.3,.7,.2⟩ | ⟨.4,.6,.3⟩ | x1 | ⟨.2,.2,.9⟩ | ⟨.2,.3,.3⟩ | ⟨.3,.4,.4⟩ |
x2 | ⟨.7,.6,.2⟩ | ⟨.3,.4,.6⟩ | ⟨.4,.3,.2⟩ | x2 | ⟨.2,.4,.7⟩ | ⟨.6,.6,.3⟩ | ⟨.2,.7,.4⟩ |
x3 | ⟨.3,.3,.5⟩ | ⟨.1,.2,.3⟩ | ⟨.9,.5,.8⟩ | x3 | ⟨.5,.7,.3⟩ | ⟨.3,.8,.1⟩ | ⟨.8,.5,.9⟩ |
min−norms | max−norms | |
1 | ∀x,y∈[0,1],x∙y=xy | ∀x,y∈[0,1],x∘y=x+y−xy |
2 | ∀x,y∈[0,1],x∙y=min{x,y} | ∀x,y∈[0,1],x∘y=max{x,y} |
3 | ∀x,y∈[0,1],x∙y=max{x+y−1,0} | ∀x,y∈[0,1],x∘y=min{x+y,1} |
A | e1 | e2 | B | e1 | e2 |
x1 | ⟨.2,.4,.5⟩ | ⟨.5,.2,.8⟩ | x1 | ⟨.7,.2,.7⟩ | ⟨.6,0,.5⟩ |
x2 | ⟨.1,.4,.3⟩ | ⟨.8,.9,.4⟩ | x2 | ⟨.3,.9,.1⟩ | ⟨.7,.7,.9⟩ |
x3 | ⟨.1,.2,.7⟩ | ⟨.8,.9,.4⟩ | x3 | ⟨.6,.4,.7⟩ | ⟨.8,.1,0⟩ |
A∩B | e1 | e2 |
x1 | ⟨0,0,1⟩ | ⟨.1,0,1⟩ |
x2 | ⟨0,.3,.4⟩ | ⟨.5,.6,1⟩ |
x3 | ⟨0,0,1⟩ | ⟨.6,0,.4⟩ |
A∪B | e1 | e2 |
x1 | ⟨.9,.6,.2⟩ | ⟨1,.2,.3⟩ |
x2 | ⟨.4,1,1⟩ | ⟨1,1,.3⟩ |
x3 | ⟨.7,.6,.4⟩ | ⟨1,1,0⟩ |
C | e1 | e2 |
x1 | ⟨.2,.1,.9⟩ | ⟨.3,.2,.6⟩ |
x2 | ⟨.3,.7,.6⟩ | ⟨.8,.2,.5⟩ |
x3 | ⟨.2,.1,.4⟩ | ⟨.3,.2,.5⟩ |
A∩(B∪C) | e1 | e2 | (A∩B)∪(A∩C) | e1 | e2 |
x1 | ⟨.1,0,1⟩ | ⟨.4,0,.9⟩ | x1 | ⟨0,0,1⟩ | ⟨.1,0,1⟩ |
x2 | ⟨0,1,.3⟩ | ⟨.8,.8,.8⟩ | x2 | ⟨0,.4,.3⟩ | ⟨.6,.1,.9⟩ |
x3 | ⟨0,0,.8⟩ | ⟨.8,.2,.4⟩ | x3 | ⟨0,0,1⟩ | ⟨.1,.1,.9⟩ |
A∪(B∩C) | e1 | e2 | (A∪B)∩(A∪C) | e1 | e2 |
x1 | ⟨.2,.4,.5⟩ | ⟨.5,.2,.8⟩ | x1 | ⟨.3,.1,.6⟩ | ⟨.8,0,.7⟩ |
x2 | ⟨.1,1,0⟩ | ⟨1,.9,.4⟩ | x2 | ⟨0,1,1⟩ | ⟨1,1,.3⟩ |
x3 | ⟨.1,.2,.7⟩ | ⟨.9,.9,0⟩ | x3 | ⟨0,0,.5⟩ | ⟨1,1,0⟩ |
A∖B | e1 | e2 |
x1 | ⟨0,.2,1⟩ | ⟨0,.2,1⟩ |
x2 | ⟨0,0,.6⟩ | ⟨.7,.2,1⟩ |
x3 | ⟨0,0,1⟩ | ⟨0,.8,1⟩ |
A∧B | (e1,e1) | (e1,e2) | (e2,e1) | (e2,e2) | A∨B | (e1,e1) | (e1,e2) | (e2,e1) | (e2,e2) |
x1 | ⟨0,0,1⟩ | ⟨0,0,1⟩ | ⟨.2,0,1⟩ | ⟨.1,0,1⟩ | x1 | ⟨.9,.6,.2⟩ | ⟨.8,.4,1⟩ | ⟨1,.4,.5⟩ | ⟨1,.2,.3⟩ |
x2 | ⟨0,.3,.4⟩ | ⟨0,.1,1⟩ | ⟨.1,.8,.5⟩ | ⟨.5,.6,1⟩ | x2 | ⟨.4,1,1⟩ | ⟨.8,1,.2⟩ | ⟨1,1,0⟩ | ⟨1,1,.3⟩ |
x3 | ⟨0,0,1⟩ | ⟨0,0,.7⟩ | ⟨.4,.3,.1⟩ | ⟨.6,0,.4⟩ | x3 | ⟨.7,.6,.4⟩ | ⟨.9,.3,0⟩ | ⟨1,1,.1⟩ | ⟨1,1,0⟩ |
K1 | e1 | e2 | K2 | e1 | e2 | K3 | e1 | e2 |
x1 | ⟨.2,.2,1⟩ | ⟨.5,.5,.7⟩ | x1 | ⟨.3,.3,.9⟩ | ⟨.6,.6,.6⟩ | x1 | ⟨.4,.4,.8⟩ | ⟨.7,.7,.5⟩ |
x2 | ⟨.3,.3,.9⟩ | ⟨.6,.6,.6⟩ | x2 | ⟨.4,.4,.8⟩ | ⟨.7,.7,.5⟩ | x2 | ⟨.5,.5,.7⟩ | ⟨.8,.8,.4⟩ |
x3 | ⟨.4,.4,.8⟩ | ⟨0,.9,1⟩ | x3 | ⟨.5,.5,.7⟩ | ⟨.8,.8,.4⟩ | x3 | ⟨.6,.6,.6⟩ | ⟨.9,.9,.3⟩ |
H1 | e1 | e2 | H2 | e1 | e2 | H3 | e1 | e2 |
x1 | ⟨1,0,1⟩ | ⟨0,1,0⟩ | x1 | ⟨0,1,0⟩ | ⟨1,0,1⟩ | x1 | ⟨1,0,1⟩ | ⟨1,0,1⟩ |
x2 | ⟨1,0,1⟩ | ⟨0,1,0⟩ | x2 | ⟨0,1,0⟩ | ⟨1,0,1⟩ | x2 | ⟨1,0,1⟩ | ⟨1,0,1⟩ |
H1∪H2 | e1 | e2 |
x1 | ⟨1,0,1⟩ | ⟨1,1,0⟩ |
x2 | ⟨1,0,1⟩ | ⟨1,1,0⟩ |
L1 | e1 | e2 | L2 | e1 | e2 | K | e1 | e2 |
x1 | ⟨.7,.8,.3⟩ | ⟨.4,.5,.8⟩ | x1 | ⟨.3,.2,.7⟩ | ⟨.6,.5,.2⟩ | x1 | ⟨.8,.8,.3⟩ | ⟨.8,.8,.3⟩ |
x2 | ⟨.5,.2,.6⟩ | ⟨.3,.4,.2⟩ | x2 | ⟨.5,.8,.4⟩ | ⟨.7,.6,.8⟩ | x2 | ⟨.4,.6,.5⟩ | ⟨.4,.6,.5⟩ |
H | e1 | e2 | ¯L1 | e1 | e2 | e1 | e2 |
x1 | ⟨.2,.2,.8⟩ | ⟨.2,.2,.8⟩ | x1 | ⟨.3,.2,.7⟩ | ⟨.8,.5,.4⟩ | ⟨.7,.8,.3⟩ | ⟨.2,.5,.6⟩ |
x2 | ⟨.3,.4,.8⟩ | ⟨.3,.4,.8⟩ | x2 | ⟨.6,.8,.5⟩ | ⟨.2,.6,.3⟩ | ⟨.4,.2,.5⟩ | ⟨.8,.4,.7⟩ |
¯H | e1 | e2 |
x1 | ⟨.8,.8,.2⟩ | ⟨.8,.8,.2⟩ |
x2 | ⟨.8,.6,.3⟩ | ⟨.8,.6,.3⟩ |
e1 | e2 | ||
H1 | x1 | ⟨.25,.25,.75⟩ | ⟨.25,.25,.75⟩ |
x2 | ⟨13,13,13⟩ | ⟨13,13,13⟩ | |
H2 | x1 | ⟨.5,.75,.5⟩ | ⟨.5,.75,.5⟩ |
x2 | ⟨13,23,23⟩ | ⟨13,23,23⟩ | |
H3 | x1 | ⟨.75,.5,.25⟩ | ⟨.75,.5,.25⟩ |
x2 | ⟨23,13,13⟩ | ⟨23,13,13⟩ | |
H1∪H2 | x1 | ⟨.75,1,.25⟩ | ⟨.75,1,.25⟩ |
x2 | ⟨23,1,0⟩ | ⟨23,1,0⟩ |
e1 | e2 | ||
T | ˜∅ | ⟨0,0⟩ | ⟨0,0⟩ |
˜X | ⟨1,1⟩ | ⟨1,1⟩ | |
T1 | ⟨.25,13⟩ | ⟨.25,13⟩ | |
T2 | ⟨.5,13⟩ | ⟨.5,13⟩ | |
T3 | ⟨.75,23⟩ | ⟨.75,23⟩ | |
I | ˜∅ | ⟨0,0⟩ | ⟨0,0⟩ |
˜X | ⟨1,1⟩ | ⟨1,1⟩ | |
I1 | ⟨.25,13⟩ | ⟨.25,13⟩ | |
I2 | ⟨.75,23⟩ | ⟨.75,23⟩ | |
I3 | ⟨.5,13⟩ | ⟨.5,13⟩ | |
F | ˜∅ | ⟨0,0⟩ | ⟨0,0⟩ |
˜X | ⟨1,1⟩ | ⟨1,1⟩ | |
F1 | ⟨.25,13⟩ | ⟨.25,13⟩ | |
F2 | ⟨.5,13⟩ | ⟨.5,13⟩ | |
F3 | ⟨.75,23⟩ | ⟨.75,23⟩ |