14, 2016
ISSN 23316055 (print) ISSN 2331608X (online)
Volume 14 2016
Contents
Dragisa Stanujkic, Florentin Smarandache, Edmundas Rakib Iqbal, Sohail Zafar, Muhammad Shoaib Sardar.
Kazimieras Zavadskas, Darjan Karabasevic. Multiple 3 Neutrosophic Cubic Subalgebras and Neutrosophic Cu 47
Criteria Evaluation Model Based on the Single Valued bic Closed Ideals of Balgebras ......
Neutrosophic Set .........
Pablo Jos Menndez Vera, Cristhian Fabin Menndez
Huda E. Khalid, Florentin Smarandache, Ahmed K. Es Delgado, Susana Paola Carrillo Vera, Milton Villegas 61
sa. A Neutrosophic Binomial Factorial Theorem with 7 Alava, Miriam Pea Gnzales. Static analysis in neu
their Refrains .............. trosophic cognitive maps ............
Kul Hur, Pyung Ki Lim, Jeong Gon Lee, Junhui Kim. Nguyen X. Thao, Florentin Smarandache. (I,T)
The Category of Neutrosophic Sets .... 12 Standard neutrosophic rough set and its topologies 65
properties ....................
Harish Garg, Nancy. On SingleValued Neutrosophic
Entropy of order ....... 21 Naga Raju I, Rajeswara Reddy P, Dr. Diwakar Reddy
V, Dr. Krishnaiah G. Real Life Decision Optimization 71
Salah Bouzina. Fuzzy Logic vs. Neutrosophic Logic:
Model ..........................
Operations Logic ........ 29
Nguyen Xuan Thao, Bui Cong Cuong, Florentin
Rajashi Chatterjee, Pinaki Majumdar, Syamal Kumar
Smarandache. Rough Standard Neutrosophic Sets: An 80
Samanta. Intervalvalued Possibility Quadripartitioned 35
Application on Standard Neutrosophic Information
Single Valued Neutrosophic Soft Sets and some uncer
Systems .......................
tainty based measures on them ...
Wenzhong Jiang, Jun Ye: Optimal Design of Truss
W.B. Vasantha Kandasamy, K. Ilanthenral, Florentin
Structures Using a Neutrosophic Number Optimization 93
Smarandache. Modified Collatz conjecture or (3a + 1) 44
Model under an Indeterminate Environment ..........
+ (3b + 1)I Conjecture for Neutrosophic Numbers ....
Copyright Notice
Copyright @ Neutrosophics Sets and Systems ademic or individual use can be made by any user without
All rights reserved. The authors of the articles do hereby permission or charge. The authors of the articles published
grant Neutrosophic Sets and Systems nonexclusive, in Neutrosophic Sets and Systems retain their rights to use
worldwide, royaltyfree license to publish and distribute this journal as a whole or any part of it in any other publi
the articles in accordance with the Budapest Open Initia cations and in any way they see fit. Any part of Neutro
tive: this means that electronic copying, distribution, and sophic Sets and Systems howsoever used in other publica
printing of both fullsize version of the journal and the in tions must include an appropriate citation of this journal.
dividual papers published therein for noncommercial, ac
1
Faculty of Management in Zajecar, John Naisbitt University, Goce Delceva 8, Belgrade 11070, Serbia. Email: dragisa.stanujkic@fmz.edu.rs
2
Department of Mathematics, University of New Mexico, 705 Gurley Avenue, Gallup, NM 87301, USA. Email: fsmarandache@gmail.com
3
Research Institute of Smart Building Technologies, Civil Engineering Faculty Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Saultekio al. 11, Vilnius
10221, Lithuania. Email: edmundas.zavadskas@vgtu.lt
4 Faculty of Applied Management, Economics and Finance, University Business Academy in Novi Sad, Jevrejska 24, 11000, Belgrade, Serbia.
Email: darjankarabasevic@gmail.com
Abstract. Gathering the attitudes of the examined re An example of the evaluation of restaurants is considered
spondents would be very significant in some evaluation at the end of this paper with the aim to present in detail
models. Therefore, a multiple criteria approach based on the proposed approach.
the use of the neutrosophic set is considered in this paper.
Keywords: neutrosophic set, single valued neutrosophic set, multiple criteria evaluation.
Dragisa Stanujkic, Florentin Smarandache, Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas and Darjan Karabasevic, Multiple Criteria
Evaluation Model Based on the Single Valued Neutrosophic Set
4 Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016
where kj is a coefficient.
x1 t1 , i1 ,1 (1 f1 ) . (6)
Step 4. Determine the recalculated weight qj as fol
Definition 5. [23] Let x t x , ix , f x be a SVNN; lows:
then the cosine similarity measure S(x) between SVNN x 1 j 1
and the ideal alternative (point) <1,0,0> can be defined as qj . (11)
follows: q j 1 k j j 1
Dragisa Stanujkic, Florentin Smarandache, Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas and Darjan Karabasevic, Multiple Criteria
Evaluation Model Based on the Single Valued Neutrosophic Set
Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016 5
respondents to fill in their attitudes about the degree of The attitudes obtained from the three surveys, as well
truth, indeterminacy and falsehood of the statement. as the appropriate weights, are accounted for in Table 2.
The formation of the separated ranking order based
on the weights and ratings obtained from each respond E1 E1 E1
sj wj sj wj sj wj
ent. At this steep, the ranking order is formed for each one
of the respondents, based on the respondents respective C1 0.15 0.16 0.19
weights and ratings, in the following manner: C2 1.00 0.15 1.00 0.16 1.00 0.19
the determination of the overall ratings expressed C3 1.15 0.18 1.20 0.20 1.05 0.20
in the form of the SVNN by using Eq. (8), for C4 1.30 0.26 1.10 0.22 1.10 0.22
each respondent; C5 1.00 0.26 1.10 0.25 0.95 0.21
the determination of the cosine similarity measure, Table 2. The attitudes and the weights obtained from the three surveys
for each respondent; and
the determination of the ranking order, for each The ratings of the alternatives expressed in terms of the
respondent. SVNS obtained on the basis of the three surveys are given
The determination of the most appropriate alternative. in Tables 3 to 5.
Contrary to the commonly used approach in group decision
making, no group weights and ratings are used in this ap C1 C2 C3 C4 C5
proach. As a result of that, there are the K ranking orders w 0.15 0.15 0.18 0.26 0.26
j
of the alternatives and the most appropriate alternative is
A1 <0.8,0.1,0.3> <0.7,0.2,0.2> <0.8,0.1,0.1> <1,0.01,0.01> <0.8,0.1,0.1>
the one determined on the basis of the theory of dominance
A2 <0.7,0.1,0.2> <1.0,0.1,0.1> <1.0,0.2,0.1> <1,0.01,0.01> <0.8,0.1,0.1>
[26].
A3 <0.7,0.1,0.1> <1.0,0.1,0.1> <0.7,0.1,0.1> <0.9,0.2,0.01> <0.9,0.1,0.1>
5. A Numerical Illustration A4 <0.7,0.3,0.3> <0.7,0.1,0.1> <0.8,0.1,0.2> <0.9,0.1,0.1> <0.9,0.1,0.1>
In this numerical illustration, some results adopted Table 3. The ratings obtained based on the first survey
from a case study are used. In the said study, four tradi
tional restaurants were evaluated based on the following C1 C2 C3 C4 C5
criteria: wj 0.16 0.16 0.20 0.22 0.25
the interior of the building and the friendly at A1 <0.8,0.1,0.4> <0.9,0.15,0.3> <0.9,0.2,0.2> <0.85,0.1,0.25> <1.0,0.1,0.2>
mosphere, A2 <0.9,0.15,0.3> <0.9,0.15,0.2> <1.0,0.3,0.2> <0.7,0.2,0.1> <0.8,0.2,0.3>
the helpfulness and friendliness of the staff, A3 <0.6,0.15,0.3> <0.55,0.2,0.3> <0.55,0.3,0.3> <0.6,0.3,0.2> <0.7,0.2,0.3>
the variety of traditional food and drinks,
A4 <0.6,0.4,0.5> <0.6,0.3,0.1> <0.6,0.1,0.2> <0.7,0.1,0.3> <0.5,0.2,0.4>
the quality and the taste of the food and drinks, Table 4. The ratings obtained based on the second survey
including the manner of serving them, and
the appropriate price for the quality of the services
C1 C2 C3 C4 C5
provided.
The survey was conducted via email, using an interac wj 0.19 0.19 0.20 0.22 0.21
tive questionnaire, created in a spreadsheet file. By using A1 <1.0,0.1,0.1> <0.9,0.15,0.2> <1.0,0.2,0.1> <0.8,0.1,0.1> <0.9,0.1,0.2>
such an approach, the interviewee could see the calculated A2 <0.8,0.15,0.3> <0.9,0.15,0.2> <1,0.2,0.2> <0.7,0.2,0.1> <0.8,0.2,0.3>
weights of the criteria and was also able to modify his/her A3 <0.6,0.15,0.3> <0.55,0.2,0.3> <0.55,0.3,0.3> <0.6,0.3,0.2> <0.7,0.2,0.3>
answers if he or she was not satisfied with the calculated A4 <0.8,0.4,0.5> <0.6,0.3,0.1> <0.6,0.4,0.1> <0.7,0.1,0.3> <0.5,0.2,0.4>
weights. Table 5. The ratings obtained from the third of the third survey
In order to explain the proposed approach, three com
pleted surveys have been selected. The attitudes related to The calculated overall ratings obtained on the basis of
the weights of the criteria obtained in the first survey are the first of the three surveys expressed in the form of
shown in Table 1. Table 1 also accounts for the weights of SVNSs are presented in Table 6. The cosine similarity
the criteria. measures, calculated by using Eq. (7), as well as the rank
ing order of the alternatives, are accounted for in Table 6.
Criteria sj kj qj wj
C1 1 1 0.15 Overall ratings Si Rank
C2 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.15 A1 <1.0,0.06,0.07> 0.995 2
C3 1.15 0.85 1.18 0.18 A2 <1.0,0.06,0.06> 0.996 1
C4 1.30 0.70 1.68 0.26 A3 <1.0,0.12,0.06> 0.991 3
C5 1.00 1.00 1.68 0.26 A4 <1.0,0.12,0.13> 0.978 4
Table 1. The attitudes and the weights of the criteria obtained on the basis Table 6. The ranking orders obtained on the basis of the ratings of the
of the first of the three surveys first survey
Dragisa Stanujkic, Florentin Smarandache, Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas and Darjan Karabasevic, Multiple Criteria
Evaluation Model Based on the Single Valued Neutrosophic Set
6 Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016
Dragisa Stanujkic, Florentin Smarandache, Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas and Darjan Karabasevic, Multiple Criteria
Evaluation Model Based on the Single Valued Neutrosophic Set
Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016 7
Abstract. The Neutrosophic Precalculus and the Two other important theorems were proven with their
Neutrosophic Calculus can be developed in many corollaries, and numerical examples as well. As a
ways, depending on the types of indeterminacy one conjecture, we use ten (indeterminate) forms in
has and on the method used to deal with such neutrosophic calculus taking an important role in
indeterminacy. This article is innovative since the limits. To serve article's aim, some important
form of neutrosophic binomial factorial theorem was questions had been answered.
constructed in addition to its refrains.
Keyword: Neutrosophic Calculus, Binomial Factorial Theorem, Neutrosophic Limits, Indeterminate forms in
Neutrosophic Logic, Indeterminate forms in Classical Logic.
2 + 3 (1) In general,
2+1
b. Numerical indeterminacy. = , (6)
As example:
where + = {1,2,3, }.
(0.6,0.3,0.4) , (2)
Basic Notes
meaning that the indeterminacy membership = 0.3. 1. A component I to the zero power is
Other examples for the indeterminacy com undefined value, (i.e. 0 is undefined),
ponent can be seen in functions: (0) = 7 9 or
since 0 = 1+(1) = 1 1 = which is
(0 1) = 5 or () = [0.2, 0.3] 2 etc. impossible case (avoid to divide by ).
2. The value of to the negative power is
Q 2 What is the values of to the rational power? undefined value (i.e. , > 0 is
1. Let undefined).
= +
Q 3 What are the indeterminacy forms in neutros
0 + = 2 + (2 + 2 )
ophic calculus?
= 0, = 1. (3)
In classical calculus, the indeterminate forms
In general, are [4]:
2 0
= (4) , , 0 , 0 , 00 , 1 , . (7)
0
+
where = {1,2,3, }.
Huda E. Khalid, Florentin Smarandache & Ahmed K. Essa, A Neutrosophic Binomial Factorial Theorem
with their Refrains
8 Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016
Huda E. Khalid, Florentin Smarandache & Ahmed K. Essa, A Neutrosophic Binomial Factorial Theorem
with their Refrains
Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016 9
Huda E. Khalid, Florentin Smarandache & Ahmed K. Essa, A Neutrosophic Binomial Factorial Theorem
with their Refrains
10 Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016
Proof 1
= . = .
ln( + ) 1
lim ( + ) = lim [( + ) ] ln( + )
1
Put = = = = . 1
ln( + )
Note that 0
1
(ln )( ) 1
lim = 1
lim ( + ) = lim [( + ) ] 0 +
0 lim ( + )
0
(using corollary 4.1.1 ).
1
1 = .
1
= [lim ( + ) ] = () = =
0 lim ( + )
0
1
Corollary (4.1.3) = using corollary (4.1.1)
()
1 1
lim( + ) = () = ,
0 = =
where 1 & > 0. + + 1
Proof Corollary (4.2.1)
The immediate substitution of the value of in the
above limit gives indeterminate form , lim =
0 1 +
1 0 1
+
i.e. lim( + ) = lim( + )0 =
0 0 Proof
So we need to treat this value as follow:
Put = =
1 1
1 0 0
lim( + ) = lim [( + ) ] = [lim ( + ) ]
0 0 0
1 1 lim = lim = . lim
put = = = 0 +
0 +
0 +
As 0 , 0 using Th. (4.2)
1 1
1 = . ( )
lim ( + ) = lim [( + ) ] 1 +
0 0
1 Corollary (4.2.2)
1
= [lim ( + ) ] 1
0 lim =
0 + 1 +
Using corollary (4.1.1) Proof
= () =
Let = , 0 0
+ = ln( + ) = +
Theorem (4.2) = ln( + )
()[ ]
lim = =
0 + 1+ + ln( + ) +
Where > 0, 1 1
()[ ] =
Note that lim = lim 1
0 + 0 +
ln( + )
Proof 1
=
Let = + = ln( + ) = 1
ln( + )
ln + ln
1
ln( + ) = ln + lim = lim 1
0 + 0
ln( + ) ln( + )
=
1
(ln )( ) ( ) = 1
= ln lim ( + )
+ 0
+
using corollary (4.1.1)
= 1 1 1
ln( + ) = =
+ ln() + + 1
Huda E. Khalid, Florentin Smarandache & Ahmed K. Essa, A Neutrosophic Binomial Factorial Theorem
with their Refrains
Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016 11
Huda E. Khalid, Florentin Smarandache & Ahmed K. Essa, A Neutrosophic Binomial Factorial Theorem
with their Refrains
Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016 12
1Division of Mathematics and Informational Statistics, Institute of Basic Natural Science, Wonkwang University 460, Iksandaero, IksanSi,
Jeonbuk 54538, Korea. Email: kulhur@wku.ac.kr
2Division of Mathematics and Informational Statistics, Institute of Basic Natural Science, Wonkwang University 460, Iksandaero, IksanSi,
* Corresponding author
Abstract: We introduce the category NSet(H) consisting of neu sisting of ordinary sets and ordinary mappings between them. Fur
trosophic Hsets and morphisms between them. And we study thermore, we investigate some relationships between two categories
NSet(H) in the sense of a topological universe and prove that it ISet(H) and NSet(H).
is Cartesian closed over Set, where Set denotes the category con
Result 2.2 ([12], Theorem 1.5) A concrete category A is topo Definition 2.7 [2, 11] A lattice H is called a complete Heyting
logical if and only if it is cotopological. algebra if it satisfies the following conditions:
Result 2.3 ([12], Theorem 1.6) Let A be a topological category (i) it is a complete lattice,
over Set, then it is complete and cocomplete.
Definition 2.4 [12] Let A be a concrete category. (ii) for any a, b H, the set {x H : x a b} has
the greatest element denoted by a b (called the relative
(i) The Afibre of a set X is the class of all Astructures on X. pseudocomplement of a and b), i.e., x a b if and only
if x (a b).
(ii) A is said to be properly fibred over Set if it satisfies the
followings: In particular, if H is a complete Heyting algebra with the
least element 0 then for each a H, N (a) = a 0 is
(a) (Fibresmallness) for each set X, the Afibre of X is called negation or the paudocomplement of a.
a set,
(b) (Terminal separator property) for each singleton set X, Result 2.8 ([2], Ex. 6 in p. 46) Let H be a complete Heyting
the Afibre of X has precisely one element, algebra and a, b H.
(c) if and are Astructures on a set X such that id :
(X, ) (X, ) and id : (X, ) (X, ) are A (1) If a b, then N (b) N (a), where N : H H is an
morphisms, then = . involutive order reversing operation in (H, ).
Definition 2.5 [7] A category A is said to be Cartesian closed if
(2) a N N (a).
it satisfies the following conditions:
(i) for each Aobject A and B, there exists a product A B in (3) N (a) = N N N (a).
A,
(4) N (a b) = N (a) N (b) and N (a b) = N (a) N (b).
(ii) exponential objects exist in A, i.e., for each Aobject A, the
functor A : A A has a right adjoint, i.e., for any A
Throughout this paper, we will use H as a complete Heyting
object B, there exist an Aobject B A and an Amorphism
A algebra with the least element 0 and the greatest element 1.
eA,B : A B B (called the evaluation) such that for
any Aobject C and any Amorphism f : A C B,
there exists a unique Amorphism f : C B A such that Definition 2.9 [9] Let X be a set. Then A is called an intuition
eA,B (idA f) = f , i.e., the diagram commutes: istic Hfuzzy set (in short, IHFS) in X if it satisfies the following
conditions:
A BA eA,B  B
(i) A is of the form A = (, ), where , : X H are
]
J
J
mappings,
J
1A f J
f (ii) N (), i.e., (x) N ()(x) for each x X.
J
J
In this case, the pair (X, A) is called an intuitionistic Hfuzzy
space (in short, IHFSp). We will denote the set of all IHFSs as
AC IHF S(X).
Definition 2.6 [7] A category A is called a topological universe
over Set if it satisfies the following conditions: Definition 2.10 [9] The concrete category ISet(H) is defined as
follows:
(i) A is wellstructured, i.e., (a) A is a concrete category; (b)
A satisfies the fibresmallness condition; (c) A has the ter (i) each object is an IHFSp (X, AX ), where AX =
minal separator property, (AX , AX ) IHF S(X),
(ii) A is cotopological over Set,
(ii) each morphism is a mapping f : (X, AX ) (Y, AY ) such
(iii) final episinks in A are preserved by pullbacks, i.e., for any that AX AY f and AX AY f , i.e., AX (x)
episink (gj : Xj Y )J and any Amorphism f : W Y , AY f (x) and AX (x) AY f (x), for each x X. In
the family (ej : Uj W )J , obtained by taking the pullback this case, the morphism f : (X, AX ) (Y, AY ) is called
f and gj , for each j J, is again a final episink. an ISet(H)mapping.
where (TA TB )(x) = TA (x) TB (x), (FA FB ) = Proof. (1) Let Aj = (TAj , IAj , FAj ).
T V V W
FA (x) FB (x) for each x X, Then Aj = ( TAj , IAj , FAj ).
(i) the image of A under f , denoted by f (A), is an NS in Y Proposition 4.3 For each NHSp (X, AX ), the identity mapping
defined as: id : (X, AX ) (X, AX ) is a morphism.
f (A) = (f (TA ), f (IA ), f (FA )), Proposition 4.4 Let (X, AX ), (Y, AY ), (Z, AZ ) be NHSps and
let f : X Y , g : Y Z be mappings. If f : (X, AX )
where for each y Y , (Y, AY ) and f : (Y, AY ) (Z, AZ ) are morphisms, then g f :
(X, AX ) (Z, AZ ) is a morphism.
if f 1 (y) 6=
W
xf 1 (y) TA (x)
[f (TA )](y) =
0 if f 1 (y) = , Proof. Let AX = (TAX , IAX , FAX ), AY = (TAY , IAY , FAY )
and AZ = (TAZ , IAZ , FAZ ). Then by the hypotheses and Defi
nition 4.2, AX f1(AY ) and AY g1(AZ ), i.e.,
(ii) the preimage of B, denoted by f 1 (B), is an NCS in X
TAX TAY f , IAX IAY f , FAX FAY f
defined as:
and
f 1 (B) = (f 1 (TB ), f 1 (IB ), f 1 (FB )), TAY TAZ g, IAY IAZ g, FAZ FAZ g.
Thus TAX (TAZ g) f , IAX (IAZ g) f ,
where f 1 (TB )(x) = TB (f (x)) for each x X, FAX (FAZ g) f .
So TAX TAZ (g f ), IAX IAZ (g f ),
in fact, f 1 (B) = (TB f, IB f, FB f ). FAX FAZ (g f ).
Hence g f is a morphism.
Proposition 3.7 Let f : X Y be a mapping and let
A, B, C N CS(X), (Aj )jJ N CS(X) and D, E, F From Propositions 4.3 and 4.4, we can form the concrete cat
N CS(Y ), (Dk )kK N CS(Y ). Then the followings hold: egory NSet(H) consisting of NHSs and morphisms between
(1) if B C, then f (B) f (C) and them. Every NSet(H)morphism will be called an NSet(H)
if E F , then f 1 (E) f 1 (F ). mapping.
(2) A f 1 f (A)) and
Lemma 4.5 The category NSet is topological over Set.
if f is injective, then A = f 1 f (A)),
(3) f (f 1 (D)) D and Proof. Let X be any set and let ((Xj , Aj ))jJ be any family
if f is surjective, then f (f 1 (D)) = D, of NHSps indexed by a class J, where Aj = (TAj , IAj , FAj ).
(4) f 1 ( Dk ) = f 1 (Dk ), f 1 ( Dk ) = f 1 (Dk ),
S S T T
S S T T Suppose (fj : X (Xj , Aj )J is a source of ordinary mappings.
(5) f ( Dk ) = f (Dk ), f ( Dk ) f (Dk ), We define mappings TAX , IAX , FAX : X H as follows: for
(6) f (A) = 0N if and only if A = 0N and hence f (0N ) = 0N , each x X, V V
in particular if f is surjective, then f (1X,N ) = 1Y,N , TAX (x) W= (TAj fj )(x), IAX (x) = (IAj fj )(x),
(7) f 1 (1Y,N ) = 1X,N , f 1 (0Y,N ) = 0X,N . FAX (x) = (FAj fj )(x).
So g : (Y, AY ) (X, AX ) is an NSet(H)mapping. Hence Since ((Xj , Aj ))J is a family of NHSps, TAj N (FAj ) and
1
(fj : (X, AX ) (Xj , Aj ))J is an initial source in NSet(H). IAj N (FAj ) for each j J. We may assume that fj 6=
This completes the proof. without loss of generality. Let xV V
X. Then
N (FAX (x)) = N ( J xj f 1 (x) FAj (xj ))
j
Example 4.6 (1) Let X be a set, let (Y, AY ) be an NHSp and
W W
= J xj f 1 (x) N (FAj (xj ))
j
let f : X Y be an ordinary mapping. Then clearly, there W W
J xj f 1 (x) TAj (xj ).
exists a unique NHS AX N HS(X) for which f : (X, AX ) j
(2) Let ((Xj , Aj ))jJ be any family of NHSps and let X = J xj f 1 (x) IAj (xj ).
j
jJ Xj . For each j J, let prj : X Xj be the ordinary = IAX (x).
projection. Then there exists a unique NHS AX N HS(X) for Thus TAX N (FAX ) and IAX N (FAX ).
which prj : (X, AX ) (Xj , Aj ) is an NSet(H)mapping for So (X, AX ) is an NHSp. Moreover, for each j J,
each j J. [ [
In this case, AX is called the product of (Aj )J , denoted by fj1 (AX ) = fj1 ( fj (Aj )) = fj1 (fj (Aj )) Aj .
and
(Uj , AUj ) pj  (Xj , Aj )
[ [
fj ( fj1 (g 1 (AY ))) = (fj fj1 )(g 1 (AY )) = g 1 (AY ).
ej gj
Hence AX g 1 (AY ). Therefore g : (X, AX ) (Y, AY ) is
an NSet(H)mapping. This completes the proof. ? ?
(W, AW )  (Y, AY ).
f
Example 4.9 (1) Let (X, AX ) NSet(H), let R be an ordi Now in order to prove that (ej )J is an episink in NSet(H),
nary equivalence relation on X and let : X X/R be the i.e., each ej is surjective, let w W . Since (gj )J is an episink,
canonical mapping. Then there exists the final NHS structure there exists j J such that gj (xj ) = f (w) for some xj Xj .
AX/R in X/R for which : (X, AX ) (X/R, AX/R ) is an Thus (w, xj ) Uj and w = ej (w, xj ). So (ej )J is an episink in
NSet(H)mapping, where AX/R = (TAX/R , IAX/R , FAX/R ) = NSet(H).
((TAX ), (IAX ), (FAX )). Finally, let us show that (ej )J is final in NSet(H). Let AW
In this case, AX/R is called the neutrosophic Hquotient set be the final structure in W w.r.t. (ej )J and let w W . Then
structure of X by R. TAW (w) = TAW (w) TAW (w)
(2) Let ((X , A )) TAW (w) f 1 (TAY (w))
S be a family of NHSs, let X be the sum [since f : (W, AW ) (Y, AY ))J ) is an
of (X ) , i.e., X = (X {}) and let j : X X the
canonical (injective) mapping for each . Then there exists NSet(H)mapping]
the final NHS AX in X. In fact, AX = (TAX , IAX , FAX ), where = TAW (w) TW (f
AY W (w))
for each (x, ) X, = TAW (w) ( J xj g1 (f (w)) TAj (xj ))
j
[since (gj )J is final in NSet(H)]
W W
TAX (x, ) = TA (x), IAX (x, ) = IA (x), W W
= xj g (f (w)) (TAW (w) TAj (xj ))
1
V
FAX (x, ) = FA (x). WJ W j
= (w,xj )e1 (TUj (w, xj ))
In this case, AX is called the sum of ((X , A )) . J j (w)
= TAW (w).
Thus TAW TAW . Similarly, we can see that IAW IAW and
Lemma 4.10 Final episinks in NSet(H) are prserved by pull FAW FAW . So AW AW . On the other hand, since ej :
backs. (Uj , AUj ) (W, AW ) is final, idW : (W, AW ) (W, AW )
is an NSet(H)mapping. So AW AW . Hence AW = AW .
This completes the proof.
Proof. Let (gj : (Xj , Aj ) (Y, AY ))J be any final episink in
For any singleton set {a}, since the NHS structure A{a} on
NSet(H) and let f : (W, AW ) (Y, AY ) be any NSet(H)
{a} is not unique, the category NSet(H) is not properly fibred
mapping. For each j J, let
over Set. Then by Lemmas 4.5,4.9 and Definition 2.6, we obtain
U = {(w, x ) W X : f (w) = g (x )}. the following result.
j j j j j
For each j J, we define mappings TAUj , IAUj , FAUj : Uj Theorem 4.11 The category NSet(H) satisfies all the condi
H as follows: for each (w, xj ) Uj , tions of a topological universe over Set except the terminal sep
arator property.
TAUj (w, xj ) = TAW (w) TAj (xj ),
Theorem 4.12 The category NSet(H) is Cartesian closed over
IAUj (w, xj ) = IAW (w) IAj (xj ), Set.
FAUj (w, xj ) = FAW (w) FAj (xj ). Proof. From Lemma 4.5, it is clear that NSet(H) has products.
So it is sufficient to prove that NSet(H) has exponential objects.
Then clearly, AUj = (TAUj , IAUj , FAUj ) = (AW Aj )
For any NHSs X = (X, AX ) and Y = (Y, AY ), let Y X be the
N HS(Uj ). Thus (Uj , AUj ) is an NHSp, where (AW Aj ) set of all ordinary mappings from X to Y . We define mappings
denotes the restriction of AW Aj under Uj . TAY X , IAY X , FAY X : Y X H as follows: for each f Y X ,
Let ej and pj be ordinary projections of Uj . Let j J. Then
_
clearly, TAY X (f ) = {h H : TAX (x) h TAY (f (x)),
AUj e1 1
j (AY ) and AUj pj (Aj ).
Thus ej : (Uj , AUj ) (W, AW ) and pj : (Uj , AUj ) for each x X},
(Xj , Aj ) are NSet(H)mappings. Moreover, gh ph = f ej _
for each j J, i.e., the diagram is a pullback square in NCSet: IAY X (f ) = {h H : IAX (x) h IAY (f (x)),
FAY X (f ) =
^
{h H : FAX (x) h FAY (f (x)),
(h(z))(x) = h(x, z),
for each x X}. for each z Z and each x X. Let (x, z) X Z. Then
Then clearly, AY X = (TAY X , IAY X , FAY X ) N HS(Y X ) and
thus (Y X , AY X ) is an NHSp. Let YX = (Y X , AY X ) and let TAX AZ (x, z) = TAX (x) TAZ (z)
f Y X , x X. Then by the definition of AY X ,
TAY (h(x, z)) [since h : X Z Y
TAX (x) TAY X (f ) TAY (f (x)), is an NSet(H)mapping]
= TAY (h(z))(x).
IAX (x) IAY X (f ) IAY (f (x)),
FAX (x) FAY X (f ) FAY (f (x)). Thus by the definition of AY X ,
e1
X,Y (AY )(x, f ) = AY (eX,Y (x, f )) = AY (f (x)). G1 (X, (T, I, F )) = (X, (T, F )),
Thus
G2 (X, (T, I, F )) = (X, (T, N (T )))
Te1 (AY ) (x, f ) = TAY (f (x)) and
X,Y
Lemma 5.2 Define F1 : ISet(H) NSet(H) by: NSet(H)mapping. Hence 1X is a G1 universal mapping for
F1 (X, (, )) = (X, (, N (), )) and F1 (f ) = f . (X, (, )) ISet(H). This completes the proof.
Then F1 is a functor.
For each (X, (, )) ISet(H), F1 (X, (, )) =
Proof. Let (X, (, )) ISet(H). Then (X, (, N (), )) is called a neutrosophic Hspace induced by
N () and N () N (). (X, (, )). Let us denote the category of all induced neutro
Thus F1 (X, (, )) = (X, (, N (), )) NSet(H). sophic Hspaces and NSet(H)mappings as NSet (H). Then
Let (X, (X , X )), (Y, (Y , Y )) ISet(H) and let NSet (H) is a full subcategory of NSet(H).
f : (X, (X , X )) (Y, (Y , Y )) be an ISet(H)mapping.
Theorem 5.5 Two categories ISet(H) and NSet (H) are iso
Consider the mapping
morphic.
F1 (f ) = f : F1 (X, (X , X )) F1 (Y, (Y , Y )),
Proof. From Lemma 5.2, it is clear that F1 : ISet(H)
where NSet(H) is a functor. Consider the restriction G1 : NSet(H)
ISet(H) of the functor G1 in Lemma 5.1. Let (X, (, ))
F1 (X, (X , X )) = (X, (X , N (X ), X )) ISet(H). Then by Lemma 5.2, F1(X, (, )) = (X, (, N(),
)). Thus G1F1(X, (, )) = G1(X, (, N(), )) = (X, (,
and )). So G1 F1 = 1ISet(H).
F1 (Y, (Y , Y )) = (Y, (Y , N (Y ), Y )). Now let (X, (TX , IX , FX )) NSet (H). Then by definition
of NSet (H), there exists (X, (, N (), )) such that
Since f : (X, (X , X )) (Y, (Y , Y )) is an ISet(H)
mapping, X Y f and X Y f . Thus N (X ) F1 (X, (, )) = (X, (, N (), )) = (X, (TX , IX , FX )).
N (Y ) f . So F1 (f ) = f : (X, (X , N (X ), X ))
(Y, (Y , N (Y ), Y )) is an NSet(H)mapping. Hence F1 is a Thus by Lemma 5.1,
functor.
G1 (X, (TX , IX , FX )) = G1 (X, (, N (), ))
Lemma 5.3 Define F2 : ISet(H) NSet(H) by: = (X, (, )).
F2 (X, (, )) = (X, (, N (), N ()) and F2 (f ) = f. So
Then F2 is a functor. F1 G1 (X, (TX , IX , FX )) = F1 (X, (, ))
Proof. Let (X, (, )) ISet(H). Then N() and = (X, (TX , IX , FX )).
NN(), by Result 2.8. Also by Result 2.8, NN() NNN() =
Hence F1 G1 = 1NSet (H) . Therefore F1 : ISet(H)
N(). Thus NN() N(). So F2(X, (, )) = (X, (,
NSet (H) is an isomorphism. This completes the proof.
N(), N())) NSet(H).
Let (X, (X , X )), (Y, (Y , Y )) ISet(H) and f :
(X, (X , X )) (Y, (Y , Y )) be an ISet(H)mapping. Then
X Y f 2 and X Y f 2 .
6 Conclusions
Thus N (X ) N (Y ) f 2 . So L(f ) = f : In the future, we will form a category NCRel composed of
(X, (X , N (X ), N (X ))) (Y, (Y , N (Y ), N (Y ))) is anneutrosophic crisp relations and morphisms between them [resp.,
NSet(H)mapping. Hence F2 is a functor. NRel(H) composed of neutrosophic relations and morphisms
between them, NCTop composed of neutrosophic crisp topo
Theorem 5.4 The functor F1 : ISet(H) NSet(H) is a left
logical spaces and morphisms between them and NTop com
adjoint of the functor G1 : NSet(H) ISet(H).
posed of neutrosophic topological spaces and morphisms be
tween them] and investigate each category in view points of topo
Proof. For each (X, (, )) ISet(H), 1X : (X, (, ))
logical universe. Moreover, we will form some subcategories of
G1 F1 (X, (, )) = (X, (, )) is an ISet(H)mapping. Let
each category and study their properties.
(Y, (TY , IY , FY )) NSet(H) and let f : (X, (, ))
G1 (Y, (TY , IY , FY )) = (Y, (TY , FY )) be an ISet(H)mapping.
We will show that f : F1 (X, (, )) = (X, (, N (), ))
(Y, (TY , IY , FY )) is an NSet(H)mapping. Since f :
References
(X, (, )) (Y, (TY , FY )) is an ISet(H)mapping, [1] K. Atanassov, Intuitionistic fuzzy sets, Fuzzy Sets and Sys
TY f and FY f . tems 20 (1986) 8796.
Then N () N (FY ) f . Since (Y, (TY , IY , FY ))
[2] G. Birkhoff, Lattice Theory, A. M. S. Colloquim Publica
NSet(H), IY N (FY )). Thus N () IY f . So f :
tion, Vol. 25 1975.
F1 (X, (, )) = (X, (, N (), )) (Y, (TY , IY , FY )) is an
[3] J. C. Carrega, The category Set(H) and F zz(H), Fuzzy [13] P. K. Lim, S. R. Kim and K. Hur, The category V Set(H),
sets and systems 9 (1983) 327332. International Journal of Fuzzy Logic and Intelligent Sys
tems 10 (1) (2010) 7381.
[4] E. J. Dubuc, Concrete quasitopoi Applications of Sheaves,
Proc. Dunham 1977, Lect. Notes in Math. 753 (1979) 239 [14] L. D. Nel, Topological universes and smooth Gelfand
254. Naimark duality, mathematical applications of category the
ory, Prc. A. M. S. Spec. Sessopn Denver,1983, Contempo
[5] M. Eytan, Fuzzy sets:a topological point of view, Fuzzy
rary Mathematics 30 (1984) 224276.
sets and systems 5 (1981) 4767.
[15] A. M. Pittes, Fuzzy sets do not form a topos, Fuzzy sets
[6] J. A. Goguen, Categories of Vsets, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc.
and Systems 8 (1982) 338358.
75 (1969) 622624.
[16] D. Ponasse, Some remarks on the category F uz(H) of M.
[7] H. Herrlich, Catesian closed topological categories, Math.
Eytan, Fuzzy sets and Systems 9 (1983) 199204.
Coll. Univ. Cape Town 9 (1974) 116.
[17] D. Ponasse, Categorical studies of fuzzy sets, Fuzzy sets
[8] K. Hur, A Note on the category Set(H), Honam Math. J.
and Systems 28 (1988) 235244.
10 (1988) 8994.
[18] A. A. Salama and Florentin Smarandache, Neutrosophic
[9] K. Hur, H. W. Kang and J. H. Ryou, Intutionistic Hfuzzy
Crisp Set Theory, The Educational Publisher Columbus,
sets, J. Korea Soc. Math. Edu. Ser. B:Pure Appl. Math. 12
Ohio 2015.
(1) (2005) 3345.
[19] F. Smarandache, Neutrosophy, Neutrisophic Probability,
[10] K. Hur, P. K. Lim, J. G. Lee, J. Kim, The category of neu
Set, and Logic, Amer Res Press, Rehoboth, USA 1998.
trosophic crisp sets, To be submitted.
[20] L. A. Zadeh, Fuzzy sets, Information and Control 8 (1965)
[11] P. T. Jhonstone, Stone Spaces, Cambridge University Press
338353.
1982.
[12] C. Y. Kim, S. S. Hong, Y. H. Hong and P. H. Park, Al
gebras in Cartesian closed topological categories, Lecture
Note Series Vol. 1 1985. Received: November 10, 2016. Accepted: November 17, 2016
Abstract: Entropy is one of the measures which is used for mea proposed and validated by taking an example of structure lin
suring the fuzziness of the set. In this article, we have presented guistic variable. Furthermore, an approach based on the pro
an entropy measure of order under the singlevalued neutro posed measure has been presented to deal with the multi criteria
sophic set environment by considering the pair of their mem decisionmaking problems. Finally, a practical example is pro
bership functions as well as the hesitation degree between them. vided to illustrate the decisionmaking process.
Based on this measure, some of its desirable properties have been
Keywords: Entropy measure, neutrosophic set, multi criteria decisionmaking, linguistic variable.
1 Introduction in linear order, and hence it does not give the exact nature of the
alternative. Therefore, keeping the criteria of flexibility and effi
ciency of neutrosophic sets, this paper presents a new parametric
In a real world, due to complexity of decision making or various
entropy measure of order for measuring the fuzziness degree of
constraints in todays life, it is difficult f or t he d ecision makers
a set. For this, a entropy measure of order has been presented
to give their opinions in a precise form. To handle these situa
which makes the decision makers more reliable and flexible for
tions, fuzzy set (FS) theory [1], intuitionistic fuzzy set (IFS) the
the different values of these parameters. Based on it, some desir
ory [2] are successful theories for dealing the uncertainties in
able properties of these measures have been studied.
the data. After their pioneer works, various researchers have
The rest of the manuscript is summarized as follows. Sec
worked on these theories under the different domains such as on
tion 2 presents some basic definition about the NS. In Section 3,
entropy measures, on correlation coefficients, on aggregation op
a new entropy of order is proposed and its axiomatic just
erators, and many others [3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12]. However,
ification is established. Further, various desirable properties of
both FS and IFS theories are not able to deal with the indeter
it in terms of joint, and conditional entropies have been studied.
minate and inconsistent information. For example, if an expert
An illustrative example to show their superiority has been
take an opinion from a certain person about the certain object,
described for structural linguistic variable. Section 4 presents
then a person may say that 0.5 is the possibility that statement
the MCDM method based on the proposed generalized entropy
is true, 0.7 say that the statement is false and 0.2 says that he
measure along with an illustrative example for selecting the best
or she is not sure of it. To resolve this, Smarandache [13] intro
alternative. Finally a conclusion has been drawn in Section 5.
duced a new component called as indeterminacymembership
function and added into the truth membership function and
falsity membership function, all are independent components 2 Preliminaries
lies in ]0+ , 1+ [, and hence the corresponding set is known as
Neutrosophic sets (NSs), which is the generalization of IFS and In this section, some needed basic concepts and definitions re
FS. However, without specification, NSs are difficult to apply in lated to neutrosophic sets (NS) are introduced.
reallife problems. Thus, an extension of the NS, called a single
Definition 2.1. [13] A NS A in X is defined by its truth mem
valued NSs (SVNSs) has been proposed by Wang et al. [14].
bership function (TA (x)), a indeterminacymembership func
After their pioneer work, researchers are engaged in their exten
tion (IA (x)) and a falsity membership function (FA (x)) where
sions and their applications in the different disciplines. However,
all are the subset of ]0 , 1+ [ such that 0 sup TA (x)+sup IA (x)+
the most important task for the decision maker is to rank the ob
sup FA (x) 3+ for all x X.
jects so as to get the desired one(s). For it, researchers have in
corporating the idea of SVNS theory into the measure theory and Definition 2.2. [14] A NS A is defined by
applied in many practically uncertain situations such as decision
making, pattern recognition, medical diagnosis by using similar A = {hx, TA (x), IA (x), FA (x)i  x X}
ity measures [15, 16], distance measures [17, 18], cosine simi
larity measure [19, 20, 21, 22]. Thus, it has been concluded that and is called as SVNS where TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) [0, 1]. For
the information measures such as entropy, divergence, distance, each point x in X, TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) [0, 1] and 0 TA (x)+
similarity etc., are of key importance in a number of theoretical IA (x) + FA (x) 3. The pairs of these is called as singlevalued
and applied statistical inference and data processing problems. neutrosophic numbers (SVNNs) denoted by
But it has been observed from the above studies that all their = hA (x), A (x), A (x)  x Xi
measures do not incorporate the idea of the decisionmaker pref
erences into the measure. Furthermore, the existing measure is and class of SVNSs is denoted by (X).
Definition 2.3. Let and (P2) Let A (xi ) = A (xi ) = A (xi ) for all xi X which
be two SVNSs. Then the implies that E (A) becomes
following expressions are defined by [14]
E (A)
(i) A B if and only if A (x) B (x), A (x) B (x) and n
1 X
log3
A (x) B (x) for all x in X; = A (xi ) + A (xi ) + A (xi )
n(1 ) i=1
(ii) A = B if and only if A B and B A. (1)
+ A (xi ) + A (xi ) + A (xi )
(iii) Ac = {hA (x), A (x), A (x)  x Xi} +31 1 A (xi ) A (xi ) A (xi )
n
(iv) A B = hmin(A (x), B (x)), max(A (x), B (x)), 1 X 1
log3 3
= A (xi ) 3A (xi )
max(A (x), B (x))i n(1 ) i=1
+31 1 3A (xi )
(v) A B = hmax(A (x), B (x)), min(A (x), B (x)),
n
min(A (x), B (x))i 1 X
log3 32 A (xi )
=
n(1 ) i=1
Majumdar and Samant [16] define the concept of entropy for
+31 32 A (xi )
neutrosophic sets which has been defined as below.
= (1 )
In this section we proposed parametric entropy for SV N S
(x
A i ) + (x
A i ) + (x
A i ) A (xi ) + A (xi ) +
Definition 3.1. The entropy of order for SV N S A is defined 1
as: A (xi ) + 31 1 A (xi ) A (xi ) A (xi )
n
1 X = 31
log3
E (A) = A (xi ) + A (xi ) + A (xi )
A (xi ) + (xi ) + A
(x )
n(1 ) i=1 A (xi ) + A (xi ) + A (xi )
i
1 3
A (xi ) + A (xi ) + A (xi )
A (xi ) + A (xi ) + A (xi )
=0 (2)
3
1
+ 3 1 A (xi ) A (xi ) A (xi ) , (1)
From Eq. (2) we get, either A (xi ) + A (xi ) + A (xi ) = 0
implies that
where > 0, 6= 1.
A (xi ) = A (xi ) = A (xi ) = 0 for all xi X (3)
Theorem 1. E (A) as defined in Definition 3.1 is entropy for
SV N S. or
A (xi ) + (xi ) + A (xi ) A (xi ) + A (xi ) + A (xi )
Proof. In order to proof E (A) is a valid measure, we have to 3
3
=0 (4)
proof that it satisfies the axioms as given in Definition 2.4.
Now, consider the following function
(P1) Let A be a crisp set i.e. A = (1, 0, 0) or A = (0, 0, 1).
Then from Definition 3.1 we get E (A) = 0. g() = where [0, 1]
(
(ii) Conditional entropy 1 X
+ log3 B (xi ) +
B (x i ) +
B (x i )
n(1 ) x X
E (AB) i 1
( 1
1 X
B (xi ) + A (xi ) + B (xi ) + 31 1 B (xi )
= log3
A (xi ) + A (xi ) + A (xi )
n(1 ) x X
i 2
(
1 B xi ) B (xi ) log3 A (xi ) +
A (xi ) +
A (xi )
A (xi ) + A (xi ) + A (xi ) + 31 1 A (xi )
1
A (xi ) + A (xi ) + A (xi ) + 31 1 A (xi )
A (xi ) A (xi ) log3
B (xi ) + B (xi ) + B (xi )
)
1
A (xi ) A (xi )
B (xi ) + B (xi ) + B (xi ) + 31 1 B (xi )
(
) 1 X
B (xi ) B (xi ) log3
B (xi ) + B (xi ) + B (xi )
n(1 ) x X
i 1
1
B (xi ) + B (xi ) + B (xi ) + 31 1 B (xi )
and X
B (xi ) B (xi ) log3
A (xi ) + A (xi )A (xi )
E (BA) xi X2
(
1 X 1
= log3 (x
B i ) +
B i(x ) +
(x
B i ) A (xi ) + A (xi ) + A (xi ) + 31 1 A (xi )
n(1 ) x X
i 1
1 )
B (xi ) + B (xi ) + B (xi ) + 31 1 B (xi ) A (xi ) A (xi )
(
B (xi ) B (xi ) log3 (x ) +
(x ) +
(x ) 1 X
A i A i A i = log3
A (xi ) +
A (xi ) +
A (x i )
n(1 ) x X
1 i 1
= 0
(
1 X
= log3
A (xi ) +
A (x i ) +
A (x i )
n(1 ) xX
1
1
(iv) For an SV N Ss A and B, we have A (xi ) + A (xi ) + A (xi ) + 31 1 A (xi )
E (A B) X
n A (xi ) + log3 A (x i ) +
A (x i ) +
A (x i )
1 X
= log3
AB (xi ) + AB (xi ) + AB (xi ) xX2
n(1 ) i=1
1 A (xi ) + A (xi ) + A (xi ))1 + 31 1 A (xi )
AB (xi ) + AB (xi ) + AB (xi ) + X
A (xi ) A (xi ) log3
A (xi ) + A (xi ) + A (xi )
31 1 AB (xi ) AB (xi ) xX1
1
A (xi ) + A (xi ) + A (xi ) + 31 1 A (xi )
(
1 X
= log3
A (xi ) +
A (xi ) +
A (xi )
n(1 ) xX X
1
A (xi ) A (xi ) log3
B (xi ) + B (xi ) + B (xi )
(1)
xX2
A (xi ) + A (xi ) + A (xi ) + 31 1 A (xi ) 1
X B (xi ) + B (xi ) + B (xi ) + 31 1 B (xi )
A (xi ) A (xi ) + log3
B (xi ) + B (xi ) + B (xi ) )
xX2
1 (x
B i ) (x
B i )
B (xi ) + B (xi ) + B (xi ) + 31 1 B (xi ) (
1 X
) + log3 (x
A i ) +
(x
A i ) +
(x
A i )
n(1 ) xX
B (xi ) B (xi ) 2
(1)
A (xi ) + A (xi ) + A (xi ) + 31 1 A (xi )
Hence, by the definition of joint entropy E (A B) given
in Eq. (15), we get
A (xi ) A (xi ) log3
B (xi ) + B (xi ) + B (xi )
E (A B) + E (A B) = E (A) + E (B) 1
B (xi ) + B (xi ) + B (xi ) + 31 1 B (xi )
)
B (xi ) B (xi )
= E (AB)
1
DIL(A) = hx, DIL(A) (x), DIL(A) (x), DIL(A) (x)i
+AB (xi ) AB (xi ) + AB (xi ) + AB (xi )
) where DIL(A) (x) = [A (x)]1/2 ; DIL(A) (x) = 1 [1
+31 1 AB (xi ) AB (xi ) AB (xi )
A (x)]1/2 ; DIL(A) (x) = 1[1A (x)]1/2 i.e. DIL(A) =
(iii) Entropy defined by [8]; Table 1: Values of different entropy measure for IFS
Entropy measure A1/2 A A2 A3 Ranking
! EBB [3] 0.0818 0.100 0.0980 0.0934 (2341)
n V EZL [4] 0.4156 0.4200 0.2380 0.1546 (2134)
1 X A (xi ) A(xi ) ESK [5] 0.3446 0.3740 0.1970 0.1309 (2134)
EZJ (A) = W 2
n i=1 A (xi ) A(xi ) Ehc [7] 0.3416 0.3440 0.2610 0.1993 (2134)
1/2
Er [7] 0.6672 0.6777 0.5813 0.4805 (2134)
EZJ [8] 0.2851 0.3050 0.1042 0.0383 (2134)
(iv) Entropy defined by [4]; E (A) (Proposed measure)
= 0.3 0.7548 0.7566 0.6704 0.5774 (2134)
= 0.5 0.7070 0.7139 0.6101 0.5137 (2134)
n
1 X = 0.8 0.6517 0.6637 0.5579 0.4731 (2134)
EZL (A) = 1 A (xi ) A (xi ) 1 0.6238 0.6385 0.5372 0.4611 (2134)
n i=1
=2 0.5442 0.5727 0.4956 0.4513 (2134)
=5 0.4725 0.5317 0.4858 0.4793 (2341)
= 10 0.4418 0.5173 0.4916 0.4999 (2431)
Example 3.2. = 15 0.4312 0.5112 0.4937 0.5064 (2431)
= 50 0.4166 0.4994 0.4937 0.5064 (4231)
Let X = {x1 , x2 , ..., x5 } be universe of discourse and a = 100 0.4137 0.4965 0.4612 0.5112 (4231)
i = 1, 2, ..., m ; j = 1, 2, ....n. The decision matrix Step 1: The value of an alternative Ai (i = 1, 2, 3, 4) with respect
given below to criteria Cj (j = 1, 2, 3) obtained from questionnaire of
h11 , 11 , 11 i h12 , 12 , 12 i . . . h1n , 1n , 1n i
domain expert. Thus, when the four possible alternatives
h21 , 21 , 21 i
Dmn (xij ) =
h22 , 22 , 22 i . . . h2n , 2n , 2n i
with respect to the above three criteria are evaluated by
.. .. .. ..
. . . . the expert, we obtain the following single valued neutro
hm1 , m1 , m1 i hm2 , m2 , m2 i . . . hmn , mn , mn i
sophic decision matrix:
Step 2: Normalized the decision making : Criterion of alterna
h0.5, 0.2, 0.3i h0.5, 0.1, 0.4i h0.7, 0.1, 0.2i
tives may be of same type or of different types . If the h0.4, 0.2, 0.3i h0.3, 0.2, 0.4i h0.8, 0.3, 0.2i
all criterion are of same kind then there is no need of D= h0.4, 0.3, 0.1i h0.5, 0.1, 0.3i h0.5, 0.1, 0.4i
normalization. On the other hand , we should convert
h0.6, 0.1, 0.2i h0.2, 0.2, 0.5i h0.4, 0.3, 0.2i
the benefit type criterion values to the cost types in C by
using the following method
c Step 2: Since the criteria C1 is the benefit criteria and C2 ,C3 are
ij ; j B cost criteria, so we above decision matrix transformed
rij = (17)
ij ; j C into following normalized matrix R = hTij , Iij , Fij i as
c
follows
where ij = hij , ij , ij i is complement of ij = hij ,
ij , ij i. Hence, we obtain the normalized NS decision h0.3, 0.2, 0.5i h0.5, 0.1, 0.4i h0.7, 0.1, 0.2i
making R = [rij ]mn . h0.3, 0.2, 0.4i h0.3, 0.2, 0.4i h0.8, 0.3, 0.2i
R= h0.1, 0.3, 0.4i h0.5, 0.1, 0.3i h0.5, 0.1, 0.4i
Step 3: Compute the aggregated value of the alternatives: By h0.2, 0.1, 0.6i h0.2, 0.2, 0.5i h0.4, 0.3, 0.2i
using the proposed entropy measure aggregated the rat
ing values corresponding to each alternatives Ai (i =
1, 2, ..., m) and get the overall value ri . Step 3: Utilizing the proposed entropy measure corresponding
to = 2 to get the aggregated values rij of all the al
Step 4: Rank the Alternatives: Rank all the alternatives Ai (i = ternatives, which are as following E (A1 ) = 0.7437;
1, 2, ..., m) according to the values of proposed entropy E (A 2 ) = 0.8425; E (A3 ) = 0.8092; E (A4 ) = 0.8089
obtained from Step 3 and get the most desirable alterna
tive. Step 4: Based on above values, we conclude that ranking of given
alternatives is
4.2 Illustrative Example E (A2 ) > E (A3 ) > E (A4 ) > E (A1 )
Let us consider multicriteria decision making problem. There
is investment company,which wants to invest a sum of money in
Hence, A2 is best alternative i.e., Investment company should
best option. There is a panel with four possible alternatives to
invest in transport company.
invest the money, namely
References
[1] L. A. Zadeh, Fuzzy sets, Information and Control 8 (1965) [13] F. Smarandache, A unifying field in logics. Neutrosophy:
338353. neutrosophic probability, set and logic, American Research
Press, Rehoboth, 1999.
[2] K. T. Atanassov, Intuitionistic fuzzy sets, Fuzzy Sets and
Systems 20 (1986) 87 96. [14] H. Wang, F. Smarandache, Y. Q. Zhang, R. Sunderraman,
Single valued neutrosophic sets, Multispace Multistructure
[3] P. Burillo, H. Bustince, Entropy on intuitionistic fuzzy sets 4 (2010) 410 413.
and on intervalvalued fuzzy sets, Fuzzy sets and systems
78 (3) (1996) 305 316. [15] J. Ye, Multiple attribute group decisionmaking method
with completely unknown weights based on similarity mea
[4] W. Zeng, H. Li, Relationship between similarity measure sures under single valued neutrosophic environment, Jour
and entropy of intervalvalued fuzzy sets, Fuzzy Sets and nal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems 27 (6) (2014) 2927
Systems 157 (11) (2006) 1477 1484. 2935.
[5] E. Szmidt, J. Kacprzyk, Entropy for intuitionistic fuzzy sets, [16] P. Majumdar, S. K. Samant, On similarity and entropy of
Fuzzy Sets and Systems 118 (3) (2001) 467 477. neutrosophic sets, Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems
[6] H. Garg, N. Agarwal, A. Tripathi, Generalized intuitionistic 26 (3) (2014) 1245 1252.
fuzzy entropy measure of order and degree and its ap [17] J. Ye, Similarity measures between interval neutrosophic
plications to multicriteria decision making problem, Inter sets and their applications in multicriteria decisionmaking,
national Journal of Fuzzy System Applications 6 (1) (2017) International Journal of Intelligent Fuzzy Systems 26 (1)
86 107. (2014) 165 172.
[7] W. L. Hung, M. S. Yang, Fuzzy entropy on intuitionistic [18] H. L. Huang, New distance measure of singlevalued neu
fuzzy sets, Intenational Journal of Intelligent Systems 21 trosophic sets and its application, International Journal of
(2006) 443 451. Intelligent Systems 31 (10) (2016) 1021 1032.
[8] Q. S. Zhang, S. Y. Jiang, A note on information entropy [19] S. Broumi, F. Smarandache, Correlation coefficient of inter
measure for vague sets, Information Science 178 (2008) val neutrosophic set, Applied Mechanics and Material 436
4184 4191. (2013) 511 517.
[9] H. Garg, A new generalized improved score function of
[20] I. Hanafy, A. Salama, K. Mahfouz, Correlation coefficients
intervalvalued intuitionistic fuzzy sets and applications in
of neutrosophic sets by centroid method, International Jour
expert systems, Applied Soft Computing 38 (2016) 988
nal of Probability and Statistics 2 (1) (2013) 912.
999.
[21] S. Broumi, F. Smarandache, Cosine similarity measure of
[10] H. Garg, A new generalized pythagorean fuzzy information
interval valued neutrosophic sets, Neutrosophic Sets and
aggregation using einstein operations and its application to
Systems 5 (2014) 15 20.
decision making, International Journal of Intelligent Sys
tems 31 (9) (2016) 886 920. [22] J. Ye, Improved cosine similarity measures of simplified
neutrosophic sets for medical diagnoses, Artificial Intelli
[11] H. Garg, A novel correlation coefficients between
gence in Medicine 63 (2015) 171 179.
pythagorean fuzzy sets and its applications to decision
making processes, International Journal of Intelligent Sys [23] H. Y. Zhang, J. Q. Wang, X. H. Chen. Interval neutro
tems 31 (12) (2016) 1234 1253. sophic sets and their application in multicriteria decision
making problems, The Scientific World Journal Volume
[12] H. Garg, Generalized intuitionistic fuzzy interactive geo
2014 (2014) Article ID 645953, 15 pages.
metric interaction operators using einstein tnorm and t
conorm and their application to decision making, Computer
and Industrial Engineering 101 (2016) 53 69. Received: November 11, 2016. Accepted: November 17, 2016
1 Department of Philosophy, Faculty of Science Human and Science Social, University of Constantine 2 Abdelhamid
Mehri, Terrene Kadour Boumedous, Constantine, 25000, Algeria. Email: sisalah_bouzina@hotmail.fr
Abstract.The goal of this research is first to show how changing the truth values from the truth and falsity
different, thorough, widespread and effective are the op degrees membership in fuzzy logic, to the truth, falsity
erations logic of the neutrosophic logic compared to the and indeterminacy degrees membership in neutrosophic
fuzzy logics operations logical. The second aim is to ob logic; and thirdly, to observe that there is no limit to the
serve how a fully new logic, the neutrosophic logic, is logical discoveries  we only change the principle, then
established starting by changing the previous logical the system changes completely.
perspective fuzzy logic, and by changing that, we mean
changing
Keywords: Fuzzy Logic, Neutrosophic Logic, Logical Connectives, Operations Logic, New Logic.
1 Introduction:
2 Definition of Fuzzy and Neutrosophic Logical
There is no doubt in the fact that the mathematical logic
Connectives (Operations Logic):
as an intellectual practice has not been far from contem
plation and the philosophical discourse, and disconnecting The connectives (rules of inference, or operators), in any
it from philosophy seems to be more of a systematic dis nonbivalent logic, can be defined in various ways, giving
connection than a real one, because throughout the history rise to lots of distinct logics. A single change in one of any
of philosophy, the philosophers and what they have built connectives truth table is enough to form a (completely)
as intellectual landmark, closed or opened, is standing on a different logic [2]. For example, Fuzzy Logic and Neutro
logical foundation even if it did not come out as a sophic Logic.
symbolic mathematical logic.
Since the day Aristotle established the first logic theory 2.1 One notes the fuzzy logical values of the propositions
which combines the first rules of the innate conclusion () and ()by:
mechanism of the human being, it was a farreaching step = , , and = ,
forward to all those who came after him up till today, and
that led to the epiphany that : the universe with all its phy A fuzzy propositions () and () are real standard sub
sical and metaphysical notions is in fact a logical structure sets in universal set(), which is characterized by a truth
that needs an incredible accuracy in abstraction to show it membership function , , and a falsitymembership
for the beauty of the different notions in it, and the emotio function , , of [0,1] . That is
nal impressions it makes in the common sense keeps the
brain from the real perception of its logical structure. [0,1]
Many scientists and philosophers paid attention to the 0,1
matter which is reflected in the variety and the difference And
of the systems, the logical references and mathematics in [0,1]
the different scientific fields. Among these scientists and [0,1]
philosophers who have strived to find this logical structure
are: Professor Lotfi A. Zadeh, founder of the fuzzy logic There is no restriction on the sum of , or , , so
(FL) idea, which he established in 1965 [7], and Professor 0 + 1 , and 0 + 1.
Florentin Smarandache, founder of the neutrosophic logic
(NL) idea, which he established in 1995 [1]. In this 2.2 Two notes the neutrosophic logical values of the
research and using the logical operations only of the two propositions () and () by[2]:
theories that we have sampled from the two systems, we
will manage to observe which one is wider and more = , , , and = , ,
comprehensive to express more precisely the hidden
logical structure of the universe.
0 + + 3+.[3]
2.4.2 In Neutrosophic Logic:
2.3 Negation: Conjunction the neutrosophic propositions () and () is
the following [5]:
2.3.1 In Fuzzy Logic: = , ,
Negation the fuzzy propositions () and () is the follo ( And, in similar way, generalized for propositions )
wing : The conjunction link of the two neutrosophic propositions
= 1 , 1 () and () in the following truth table :
And
= 1 , 1
(1,0,0) (1,0,0) (1,0,0)
The negation link of the two fuzzy propositions () and (1,0,0) (0,0,1) (0,0,0)
() in the following truth table [6]: (0,0,1) (0,1,0) (0,0,0)
(0,0,1) (1,0,0) (0,0,0)
(0,1,0) (0,0,1) (0,0,0)
(1,0) (1,0) (0,1) (0,1) (0,1,0) (0,1,0) (0,1,0)
(1,0) (0,1) (0,1) (1,0)
(0,1) (1,0) (1,0) (0,1) 2.5 Weak or inclusive disjunction:
(0,1) (0,1) (1,0) (1,0)
2.5.1 In Fuzzy Logic:
2.3.2 In Neutrosophic Logic:
Inclusive disjunction the fuzzy propositions () and () is
Negation the neutrosophic propositions () and () is the
the following :
following [4]:
= + ) ( ), ( + ) (
( And, in similar way, generalized for propositions )
= 1 , 1 , 1
The inclusive disjunction link of the two fuzzy propositi
And
ons () and () in the following truth table [6]:
= 1 , 1 , 1
Exclusive disjunction the neutrosophic propositions () The equivalence link of the two fuzzy propositions () and
and () is the following [5]: () in the following truth table :
() =
({} ,
({} ,
({} (1,0) (1,0) (1,1)
( And, in similar way, generalized for propositions ) (1,0) (0,1) (0,0)
The exclusive disjunction link of the two neutrosophic (0,1) (1,0) (0,0)
propositions () and () in the following truth table : (0,1) (0,1) (1,1)
2.8.2 In Neutrosophic Logic:
(1,0,0) (1,0,0) (0,0,0)
(1,0,0) (0,0,1) (1,0,1) Equivalencethe neutrosophic propositions () and () is
(0,0,1) (0,1,0) (0,1,1) the following [5]:
(0,0,1) (1,0,0) (1,0,1) 1 1 ,
(0,1,0) (0,0,1) (0,1,1) ( ) = 1 1 ,
(0,1,0) (0,1,0) (0,0,0) 1 1
The equivalence link of the two neutrosophic propositions
2.7 Material conditional ( implication ) : () and () in the following truth table :
2.7.1 In Fuzzy Logic: (1,0,0) (1,0,0) (1,1,1)
(1,0,0) (0,0,1) (0,1,0)
Implication the fuzzy propositions () and () is the fol (0,0,1) (0,1,0) (1,0,0)
lowing :
(0,0,1) (1,0,0) (0,1,0)
= 1 + , 1 +
(0,1,0) (0,0,1) (1,0,0)
The implication link of the two fuzzy propositions () and
() in the following truth table [6]: (0,1,0) (0,1,0) (1,1,1)
2.9 Sheffers connector: The result of the peirces connectorbetween the two neut
rosophic propositions () and () in the following truth
2.9.1 In Fuzzy Logic: table :
The result of the sheffers connector between the two fuzzy
propositions () and () :
(1,0,0) (1,0,0) (0,1,1) (0,1,1) (0,1,1) (0,1,1)
 = = 1 , 1
(1,0,0) (0,0,1) (0,1,1) (1,1,0) (0,1,0) (0,1,0)
The result of the sheffers connector between the two fuzzy
propositions () and () in the following truth table : (0,0,1) (0,1,0) (1,1,0) (1,0,1) (1,0,1) (1,0,1)
(0,0,1) (1,0,0) (1,1,0) (0,1,1) (0,1,0) (0,1,0)
 (0,1,0) (0,0,1) (1,0,1) (1,1,0) (1,0,0) (1,0,0)
(1,0) (1,0) (0,1) (0,1) (0,1) (0,1) (0,1,0) (0,1,0) (1,0,1) (1,0,1) (1,0,1) (1,0,1)
(1,0) (0,1) (0,1) (1,0) (1,1) (1,1)
(0,1) (1,0) (1,0) (0,1) (1,1) (1,1) 3 Conclusion :
(0,1) (0,1) (1,0) (1,0) (1,0) (1,0) From what has been discussed previously, we can ultimate
ly reach three points :
3.1 We see that the logical operations of the neutrosophic
2.9.2 In Neutrosophic Logic: logic (NL) are different from the logical operations of the
The result of the sheffers connector between the two neut fuzzy logic (FL) in terms of width, comprehensiveness
rosophic propositions () and ()[4]: and effectiveness. The reason behind that is the addition
 = = , , of professor Florentin Smarandache of anew field to the
The result of the sheffers connector between the two neut real values, the truth and falsity interval in (FL) and that is
rosophic propositions () and () in the following truth what he called the indeterminacy interval which is ex
table : pressed in the function or in the logical operations of
 (NL) as we have seen, and that is what makes (NL) the
(1,0,0) (1,0,0) (0,1,1) (0,1,1) (0,1,1) (0,1,1) closest and most precise image of the hidden logical
(1,0,0) (0,0,1) (0,1,1) (1,1,0) (1,1,1) (1,1,1) structure of the universe.
(0,0,1) (0,1,0) (1,1,0) (1,0,1) (1,1,1) (1,1,1) 3.2 We see that (NL) is a fully new logic, that has been es
(0,0,1) (1,0,0) (1,1,0) (0,1,1) (1,1,1) (1,1,1) tablished starting by changing a principle (FL), we mean
(0,1,0) (0,0,1) (1,0,1) (1,1,0) (1,1,1) (1,1,1) by this principle changing the real values of the truth and
(0,1,0) (0,1,0) (1,0,1) (1,0,1) (1,0,1) (1,0,1) falsity membership degrees only in (FL) to the truth and
indeterminacy then falsity membership degrees in (NL).
3.3 We see that there is no limit to the logical discoveries,
2.10 Peirces connector:
we only have to change the principle and that leads to
completely change the system. So what if we also change
2.10.1 In Fuzzy Logic:
the truth values from the truth and indeterminacy and falsi
ty membership degrees in (NL), and that is by doubling it,
The result of the Peirces connectorbetween the two fuzzy as follows :
propositions ()and () : The neutrosophic propositions () is real standard or non
= = , standard subsets in universal set(), which is characterized
The result of the peirces connectorbetween the two fuzzy by a truthmembership function , a indeterminacy
propositions () and () in the following truth table : membership function , and a falsitymembership functi
on , of ] 0, 1+[ . That is
(1,0) (1,0) (0,1) (0,1) (0,1) (0,1) ] 0, 1+[
(1,0) (0,1) (0,1) (1,0) (0,0) (0,0) ] 0, 1+[
(0,1) (1,0) (1,0) (0,1) (0,0) (0,0) ] 0, 1+[
(0,1) (0,1) (1,0) (1,0) (1,0) (1,0) Let , is real standard or nonstandard subset in universal
set(), which is characterized by a truthtruth membership
2.10.2 In Neutrosophic Logic: function , a indeterminacytruth membership function
, and a falsitytruth membership function , of
] 0, 1+[ . That is
The result of the Peirces connectorbetween the two neu
trosophic propositions () and ()[5]:
] 0, 1+[
= = , , ] 0, 1+[
] 0, 1+[
There is no restriction on the sum of , , , so phic set]; but the neutrosophic probability that the truth
( , , ), ( , , ), ( , , ) = =
, , ,
( And, in similar way, generalized for propositions )
, , ,
, ,
3.4.3 Weak or inclusive disjunction :
=
( , , ),
( , , ),
( , , ) References :
( And, in similar way, generalized for propositions ) [1] Charles Ashbacher, Introduction to NeutrosophicLogic,
AmericanResearch,Rehoboth, 2002, p. 52.
3.4.4 Strong or exclusive disjunction : [2] Florentin Smarandache , Salah Osman, Netrosophy in Ara
=
bic Philosophy, United States of America, Renaissance
High Press, 2007, p. 64.
({} ) ({} ) ({} ) ({} ,
({} ) ({} ) ({} ) ({} , ,
[3] Haibin Wang, Florentin Smarandache, Yanqing Zhang,
({} ) ({} ) ({} ) ({} RajshekharSunderaman, Interval NeutrosophicSets and Logic:
({} ) ({} ) ({} ) ({} , Theory and Applications in Computing,neutrosophic book
({} ) ({} ) ({} ) ({} , ,
series, no.5, Hexis Arizona, United States of America, 2005,
({} ) ({} ) ({} ) ({}
({} ) ({} ) ({} ) ({} ,
p. 4.
({} ) ({} ) ({} ) ({} , [4] Florentin Smarandache, A Unifying Field in Logic :
({} ) ({} ) ({} ) ({} Neutrosophic Logic, Neutrosophy,, Neutrosophic Set, Neu
trosophicProbability and Statistics, American R. Press,
( And, in similar way, generalized for propositions ) Rehoboth, fourth edition, 2005, pp. 119120.
[5] Florentin Smarandache , Proceedings of the First Interna
3.4.5 Material conditional ( implication ) : tional Conference on Neutrosophy , Neutrosophic Logic,
= Neutrosophic Set , Neutrosophic Probability and Statistics,
, , , University of New Mexico Gallup, second printed edition,
, , , 13 December 2001, pp. 1112.
, , [6] J. Nirmala, G.Suvitha, Fuzzy Logic Gates in Electronic Cir
cuits, International Journal of Scientific and Research Publi
cations, Volume 3, Issue 1, January 2013, pp. 23.
3.4.6 Material biconditional ( equivalence ) : [7] Lotfi A. Zadeh, Fuzzy Sets,Information and Control,8,
=
1965.
,
[8] Florentin Smarandache, Definition of Type2 (and Typen)
, , Neutrosophic Set, in Nidus idearum. Scilogs, III: Viva la
Neutrosophia!, Section 92, pp. 102103, Brussels, 2017.
,
, ,
Received: November 14, 2016. Accepted: November 21, 2016
, , ,
, , ,
, ,
Abstract: The theory of quadripartitioned single valued neutro ued neutrosophic soft sets. Some basic settheoretic operations have
sophic sets was proposed very recently as an extension to the ex been defined on them. Some distance, similarity, entropy and inclu
isting theory of single valued neutrosophic sets. In this paper the sion measures for possibility quadripartitioned single valued neutro
notion of possibility fuzzy soft sets has been generalized into a new sophic sets have been proposed. An application in a decision making
concept viz. intervalvalued possibility quadripartitioned single val problem has been shown.
Keywords: Neutrosophic set, entropy measure, inclusion measure, distance measure, similarity measure.
R. Chatterjee, P. Majumdar and S. K. Samanta, Intervalvalued Possibility Quadripartitioned Single Valued Neutrosophic Soft Sets
and some uncertainty based measures on them
36 Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016
all fuzzy subsets of U . Let p be a mapping such that p : E I U as TA (x) = 1, CA (x) = 1, UA (x) = 0 and FA (x) = 0, xX.
U
and let Fp : E (I I) I U be a function defined as
follows: Definition 8 [5]. A QSVNS is said to be a null QSVNS,
Fp (e) = (F (e)(x), p(e)(x)), where F (e)(x) = denoted by , iff its membership values are respectively defined
(e (x) , e (x)) xU . as T (x) = 0, C (x) = 0, U (x) = 1 and F (x) = 1, xX
Then Fp is called a possibility intuitionistic fuzzy soft set (PIFSS
in short) over the soft universe (U, E). For each parameter ei , Definition 9 [5]. Let A and B be two QSVNS over X.
Fp (ei ) cann
be represented as: Then the following operations can be defined:
Containment: A B iff TA (x) TB (x), CA (x) CA (x),
o
x1 xn
Fp (ei ) = F (ei )(x1 ) , p(ei ) (x1 ) , ..., F (ei )(xn ) , p(ei ) (xn ) UA (x) UA (x) and PFnA (x) FA (x), xX.
Complement:Ac = i=1 hFA (xi ), UA (xi ), CA (xi ), TA (xi )i /xi, xi X
Definition 3 [3]. Let Fp and Gq be two PIFSS over (U, E). Then
i.e. TAc (xi ) = FA (xi ), CAc (xi ) = UA (xi ) , UAc (xi ) = CA (xi )
the following operations were defined over PIFSS as follows:
and FAc (xi ) = TA (xi ), xi X
Containment: Fp is said to be a possibility intuitionistic fuzzy Pn
Union: A B = <
soft subset (PIFS subset) of Gq and one writes Fp Gq if i=1
(TA (xi ) TB (xi )) , (CA (xi ) CB (xi )) , (UA (xi ) UB (xi )) ,
(i) p(e) is a fuzzy subset of q(e), for all eE,
(FA (x) FB (x)) > /xi, xi X
(ii)F (e) is an intuitionistic fuzzy subset of G(e), for all eE. Pn
Intersection: A B = i=1 <
Equality: Fp and Gq are said to be equal and one writes Fp = Gq
(TA (xi ) TB (xi )) , (CA (xi ) CB (xi )) , (UA (xi ) UB (xi )) ,
if Fp is a PIFS subset of Gq and Gq is a PIFS subset of Fp
(FA (xi ) FB (xi )) > /xi, xi X
Union: Fp Gq = Hr , Hr : E (I I)U I U is de
fined by Hr (e) = (H (e) (x) , r (e) (x)), eE such that
Proposition 1[5]. Quadripartitioned single valued neutrosophic
H (e) = Atan (F (e) , G (e)) and r (e) = s (p (e) , q (e)),
sets satisfy the following properties under the aforementioned
where Atan is Atanassov union and s is a triangular conorm.
U U settheoretic operations:
Intersection: Fp Gq = Hr , Hr : E (I I) I is
defined by Hr (e) = (H (e) (x) , r (e) (x)), eE such that
1.(i) A B = B A
H (e) = Atan (F (e) , G (e)) and r (e) = t (p (e) , q (e)),
(ii) A B = B A
where Atan is Atanassov intersection and t is a triangular norm.
2.(i) A (B C) = (A B) C
(ii) A (B C) = (A B) C
Definition 4 [3]. A PIFSS is said to be a possibility abso
3.(i) A (A B) = A
lute intuitionistic fuzzy soft set, denoted by A1 , if A1 : E
U (ii) A (A B) = A
(I I) I U is such that A1 (e) = (F (e) (x) , P (e) (x)), c
4.(i) (Ac ) = A
eE where F (e) = (1, 0) and P (e) = 1, eE.
(ii) Ac =
(iii) c = A
Definition 5 [3]. A PIFSS is said to be a possibility null intuition c
U (iv) DeMorgans laws hold viz. (A B) = Ac B c ;
istic fuzzy soft set, denoted by 0 , if 0 : E (I I) I U c
(A B) = Ac B
is such that 0 = (F (e) (x) , p (e) (x)), eE where
5.(i) A A = A
F (e) = (0, 1) and p (e) = 0, eE.
(ii) A A = A
(iii) A = A
2.2 An outline on quadripartitioned single valued (iv) A =
neutrosophic sets
Definition 6 [5]. Let X be a nonempty set. A quadripartitioned
neutrosophic set (QSVNS) A, over X characterizes each element
x in X by a truthmembership function TA , a contradiction
membership function CA , an ignorancemembership function
UA and a falsity membership function FA such that for each
x X, TA , CA , UA , FA [0, 1]
R. Chatterjee, P. Majumdar and S. K. Samanta, Intervalvalued Possibility Quadripartitioned Single Valued Neutrosophic Soft Sets
and some uncertainty based measures on them
Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016 37
3 Intervalvalued possibility quadripar Definition 12. The null IPQSVNSS over (X, E) is denoted by
0 such that for each eE and xX, e (x) = h0, 0, 1, 1i and
titioned single valued neutrosophic soft 0e (x) = [0, 0]
sets and some of their properties
3.1 Operations over IPQSVNSS
Definition 10. Let X be an initial crisp universe and E be a set of
parameters. Let I = [0, 1] , QSV N S(X) represents the collec Definition 13. Let F and G be two IPQSVNSS over the
tion of all quadripartitioned single valued neutrosophic sets over common soft universe (X, E). Some elementary settheoretic
X , Int([0, 1]) denotes the set of all closed subintervals of [0, 1] operations on IPQSVNSS are defined as,
and (Int([0, 1]))X denotes the collection of interval valued fuzzy (i) Union: F G = H such that for each eE and xX,
subsets over X . An intervalvalued possibility quadripartitioned H e (x) = hteF (x) teG (x) , ceF (x) ceG (x) , ueF (x)
e e e
single valued neutrosophic soft set (IPQSVNSS, in short) is a uG (x) , fF (x) fG (x)iand + +
mapping of the form F : E QSV N S(X) (Int([0, 1]))X e (x) = [sup (e (x) , e (x)) , sup (e (x) , e (x))].
and is defined as F (e) = (Fe , e ) , eE, where, for each xX, (ii) Intersection: Fe G = H such that for each eE and
e e e e
Fe (x) is the quadruple which represents the truth membership, xX, H e (x) = ht F (x) tG (x) , cF (x) cG (x) , uF (x)
e e e
the contradictionmembership, the ignorancemembership and uG (x) , fF (x) fG (x)iand + +
the falsity membership of each element x of the universe of dis e (x) = [inf (e (x) , e c(x)) , infc (e (x) , e (x))].
course X viz. Fe (x) = hteF (x) , ceF (x) , ueF (x) , fFe (x)i (iii) Complement: (F ) = F such that for each eE
c
,xX and e (x) = [e (x) , e (x)]Int([0, 1]). +
If and xX, F e (x) = hfFe (x), ueF (x), ceF (x), teF (x)i and
c +
X = {x1 , x2 , ..., xn } and E = {e1 , e2 , ..., em }, an interval e (x) = [1 e (x) , 1 e (x)]
Containment: F G if for each eE and xX, teF (x)
valued possibility quadripartitioned single valued neutrosophic (iv) e e
as, tG (x), cF (x) cG (x) , ueF (x) ueG (x) , fFe (x) fG
e e
(x)
soft set over the soft universe (X, E) is represented and (x)
(x) , +
(x) +
(x).
e e e e
F (ei ) = { Fe x(x 1
1)
, ei (x1 ) , Fe x(x 2
2)
, ei (x2 ) , ...,
i i
xn Example 2. Consider the IPQSNSS F and G over the
Fei (xn ) , ei (xn ) } viz.
same soft universe (X, E) defined in example 1. Then, Fc is
x1
F (ei ) = { tei (x ),cei (x ),u , [ (x ) , +ei (x1 )] , obtained as,
h F 1 F 1 eFi (x1 ),fFei (x1 )i ei 1 x1
Fc (e1 ) = { h0.5,0.4,0.1,0.3i , [0.4, 0.5] ,
xn
..., tei (x ),cei (x ),u , [ (x ) , + ei (xn )] }, ei E,
h F n F n eFi (xn ),fFei (xn )i ei n
x2 x3
h0.01,0.1,0.2,0.6i , [0.7, 0.75] , h0.6,0.4,0.3,0.7i , [0.3, 0.4] }
i = 1, 2, ..., m.
x1
Fc (e2 ) = { h0.2,0.5,0.3,0.7i , [0.8, 0.9] ,
x2 x3
h0.7,0.6,0.2,0.1i , [0.4, 0.55] , h0.2,0.3,0.5,0.5i , [0.6, 0.7] }
Example 1. Let X = {x1 , x2 , x3 } and E = {e1 , e2 }.
Define an IPQSVNSS over the soft universe (X, E), H = F G is obtained as,
X x1
F : E QSV N S(X) (Int([0, 1])) as, H (e1 ) = { h0.8,0.6,0.3,0.4i , [0.8, 0.85] ,
x1
F (e1 ) = { h0.3,0.1,0.4,0.5i , [0.5, 0.6] , x2
, [0.4, 0.5] , x3
, [0.6, 0.7] }
h0.6,0.2,0.1,0.01i h0.7,0.5,0.3,0.4i
x2 x3
h0.6,0.2,0.1,0.01i , [0.25, 0.3] , h0.7,0.3,0.4,0.6i , [0.6, 0.7] }
x1
H (e2 ) = { h0.7,0.6,0.3,0.2i , [0.6, 0.75] ,
x1
F (e2 ) = { h0.7,0.3,0.5,0.2i , [0.1, 0.2] , x 2
, [0.8, 0.9] , x3
, [0.35, 0.5] }
h0.4,0.2,0.2,0.7i h0.9,0.7,0.1,0.2i
x2 x3 G is defined as,
h0.1,0.2,0.6,0.7i , [0.45, 0.6] , h0.5,0.5,0.3,0.2i , [0.3, 0.4] } Also, the intersection
K = F
x1
K (e1 ) = { h0.3,0.1,0.4,0.5i , [0.5, 0.6] ,
Another IPQSVNSS G can be definedover (X, E) as
x2 x3
, [0.25, 0.3] , , [0.4, 0.6] }
x1
G (e1 ) = { h0.8,0.6,0.3,0.4i , [0.8, 0.85] , h0.2,0.1,0.1,0.6i
h0.5,0.3,0.4,0.6i
x1
K (e2 ) = { h0.2,0.3,0.5,0.7i , [0.1, 0.2] ,
x2 x3
h0.2,0.1,0.1,0.6i , [0.4, 0.5] , h0.5,0.5,0.3,0.4i , [0.4, 0.6] }
x2 x3
, [0.45, 0.6] , , [0.3, 0.4] }
x1
G (e2 ) = { h0.2,0.6,0.3,0.7i , [0.6, 0.75] , h0.1,0.2,0.6,0.7i h0.5,0.5,0.3,0.6i
x2 x3
h0.4,0.2,0.2,0.7i , [0.8, 0.9] , h0.9,0.7,0.1,0.6i , [0.35, 0.5] } Proposition 2. For any F , G , H IP QSV N SS(X, E),
the following results hold:
Definition 11. The absolute IPQSVNSS over (X, E) is denoted 1. (i) F G = G F
by A1 such that for each eE and xX, Ae (x) = h1, 1, 0, 0i (ii) F G = G F
and 1e (x) = [1, 1] 2. (i) F (G H ) = (F G ) H
(ii) F (G H ) = (F G ) H
R. Chatterjee, P. Majumdar and S. K. Samanta, Intervalvalued Possibility Quadripartitioned Single Valued Neutrosophic Soft Sets
and some uncertainty based measures on them
38 Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016
(ii) Ac1 = 0 ueF (x).1 {+e (x) + Pe (x)}
1 e e e
P
c 1 X.E eE xX tG (x) fG (x).cG (x)
(iii) 0 = A1 e +
uG (x).1 {e (x) + e (x)}
G )c = (F )c
5. (i) (F (G )c (F ) (G )
c c
G ) = (F )
(ii) (F (G )c
(iii) (F ) = 1
Proofs are straightforward. 1 e e e
P P
1 X.E eE xX tF (x) fF (x).cF (x)
ueF (x).1 { +
Pe (x)P+ e (x)} =1
1 e
X.E t (x) fFe (x).ceF (x) ueF (x).1
4 Some uncertaintybased measures on +
eE xX F
{e (x) + e (x)} = 0
IPQSVNSS teF (x) fFe (x) = 0, ceF (x) ueF (x) = 0,
1 {+ e (x) + e (x)} = 0, for each xX and each eE.
4.1 Entropy measure
tF (x) = fF (x), ceG (x) = ueG (x), +
e e
e (x) + e (x) = 1, for
each xX and each eE.
Definition 14. Let IP QSV N SS(X, E) denotes the set of
all IPQSVNSS over the soft universe (X, E). A mapping
Remark
1. In particular, from Theorem 1, it follows that,
: IP QSV N SS(X, E) [0, 1] is said to be a measure of
A1 = 0 and 0 = 0.
entropy if it satisfies the following properties:
(e1) Fc = (F )
with fFe (x) fG
e Proof is straightforward.
(e2) (F ) (G ) whenever F G (x)
e e e e e e
tG (x) tF (x), uF (x) uG (x) cG (x) cF (x) and
+
e (x) + e (x) 1. 4.1.1 An application of entropy measure in decision making
(e3) (F ) = 1 iff teF (x) = fFe (x), ceF (x) = ueF (x) and problem
+
e (x) + e (x) = 1, xX and eE.
The entropy measure not only provides an all over information
Theorem 1. The mapping e : IP QSV P
1
N SS(X,P E) e
[0, 1]
about the amount of uncertainty ingrained in a particular struc
defined as, (F ) = 1 X.E eE xX Ft (x)
ture, it can also be implemented as an efficient tool in decision
fFe (x).ceF (x) ueF (x).1 {+
e (x) + e (x)} is an making processes. Often while dealing with a selection process
entropy
measure for IPQSVNSS. subject to a predefined set of requisitions, the procedure involves
allocation of weights in order to signify the order of preference
Proof: of the criteria under consideration. In what follows next, the
entropy measure corresponding to an IPQSVNSS has been uti
1
(i) Fc e lized in defining weights corresponding to each of the elements
P P
= 1 X.E eE f
xX F (x)
e e e
tF (x).uF (x) cF (x).1 + of the parameter set over which the IPQSVNSS has been defined.
1
P P{(1 ee (x)) + (1e e (x))}
e
= 1 X.E eE xX tF (x) fF (x).cF (x)
The algorithm is defined as follows:
ueF (x).1 {+
e (x) + e (x)} = (F ).
R. Chatterjee, P. Majumdar and S. K. Samanta, Intervalvalued Possibility Quadripartitioned Single Valued Neutrosophic Soft Sets
and some uncertainty based measures on them
Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016 39
Step 5: Arrange score(xi ) in the decreasing order of values. 0.99, F (l) = 0.984
Step 6: Select maxi {score(xi )}. If maxi {score(xi )} = (4) score(x1 ) = 7.193, score(x2 ) = 9.097, score(x3 ) = 8.554
score(xm ), xm X , then xm is the selected option. (5) score(x2 ) > score(x3 ) > score(x1 )
(6) x2 is the chosen model.
Theorem 2. Corresponding to each parameter E,
(F )
F () = F () is such that 0 F () 1. 4.2 Inclusion measure
Proof: Definition 15. A mapping I : IP QSV N SS(X, E)
IP QSV N SS(X, E) [0, 1] is said to be an inclusion measure
From the definition of F () and (F ), it is clear that for IPQSVNSS over the soft universe (X, E) if it satisfies the
F () 0. following properties:
Consider t F (x) f
F (x).c
F (x) u
F (x).1 { +
(x) + (I1) I A1 , 0 = 0
(x)}.
P It follows that,
(I2) I (F , G ) = 1 F G
fF (x).c +
P
tF (x) F (x) uF (x).1 { (x) + (I3) if F G
H then I (H , F ) I (G , F ) and
E xX P
(x)}
xX tF (x) fF (x).cF (x) uF (x).1 I (H , F ) I (H , G )
+
{ (x) + (x)}, whenever PX 1.
1
fF (x).c
P
1 X.E E xX F t (x) F (x) Theorem 3. The mapping I : IP QSV N SS(X, E) [0, 1]
1
uF (x).1 { (x) + (x)} 1 X.E xX t
+
P
F (x) defined as,
fF (x).c
{ + 1 e
P P
F (x) u F (x).1 (x) + (x)} I (F , G ) = 1 6X.E eE xX [tF (x)
(F ) F () e e e
min{tF (x), tG (x)} + cF (x) min{cF (x), cG (x)} + e e
(F )
F () = F () 1, for each E. max{ueF (x), ueG (x)} ueF (x) + max{fFe (x), fG e
(x)}
fF (x) + e (x) min{e (x), e (x)} + +
e
e (x)
Example 3. Suppose a person wishes to buy a phone and min{+ +
e (x), e (x)}], is an inclusion measure for IPQSVNSS.
the judging parameters he has set are a: appearance, c: cost, b:
battery performance, s: storage and l: longevity. Further suppose Proof:
that he has to choose between 3 available models, say x1 , x2 , x3
of the desired product. After a survey has been conducted by (i) Clearly, according to the definition of the proposed
the buyer both by word of mouth from the current users and measure, I A , = 0
1 0
the salespersons, the resultant information is represented in the
form of an IPQSVNSS, say F as follows, where it is assumed (ii) From the definition of the proposed measure, it fol
that corresponding to an available option, a higher degree of lows that,
belongingness signifies a higher degree of agreement with the I (F , G ) = 1,
concerned parameter:
P P e
min{teF (x), teG (x)} +
eE xX [tF (x)
e e e
x1
cF (x) min{c F (x), c G (x)} + max{ueF (x), ueG (x)}
F (a) = { h0.4,0.3,0.1,0.5i , [0.5, 0.6] , e
max{f e e
fFe (x) + 
u F (x) + F (x), f G (x)} e (x)
+ + +
x2 x3 min{ (x), (x)} +  (x) min{ (x), (x)}] =
h0.8,0.1,0.0,0.01i , [0.6, 0.7] , h0.6,0.3,0.2,0.5i , [0.45, 0.5] }
e e e e e
0, xX, eE.
x1
F (c) = { h0.8,0.1,0.1,0.2i , [0.7, 0.75] , teF (x) min{teF (x), teG (x)} = 0, ceF (x)
e e e e
min{c (x), c (x)} = 0, max{u (x), u (x)} ueF (x) = 0,
x2 x3 F G F G
h0.5,0.01,0.1,0.6i , [0.4, 0.55] , h0.7,0.2,0.1,0.1i , [0.6, 0.65] } max{f e e
e

F (x), f G (x)} f F (x) = 0, e (x)
x1 + + +
F (b) = { h0.65,0.3,0.1,0.2i , [0.6, 0.65] , min{ e (x), e (x)} = 0 and e (x)min{ e (x), e (x)} =
x2
x3
0, xX, eE.
h0.8,0.2,0.1,0.0i , [0.75, 0.8] , h0.4,0.5,0.3,0.6i , [0.7, 0.8] } Now, teF (x) min{teF (x), teG (x)} = 0 teF (x) teG (x).
x1
F (s) = { h0.5,0.4,0.3,0.6i , [0.7, 0.8] , Similarly, it can be shown that, ceF (x) ceG (x), ueF (x)
ueG (x), fFe (x) fG e
(x),
e (x) e (x) and e (x)
+
x2 x3
h0.85,0.1,0.0,0.01i , [0.8, 0.85] , h0.8,0.2,0.1,0.02i , [0.85, 0.9] } .
+
e (x), xX, eE which proves F G
x1
F (l) = { h0.6,0.3,0.2,0.5i , [0.45, 0.55] ,
(iii) Suppose, F G H . Thus we have, teF (x) teG (x)
x2 x3
h0.75,0.3,0.3,0.2i , [0.67, 0.75] , h0.75,0.3,0.2,0.2i , [0.7, 0.75] } tH (x), cF (x) cG (x) ceH (x), ueF (x) ueG (x) ueH (x),
e e e
fFe (x) fG e
(x) fH e
(x),
e (x) e (x) e (x) and
+ + +
Following steps 26, we have the following results: e (x) e (x) e (x) for all xX and eE.
I (H , F ) I (G , F ).
(2) (F ) = 0.982 In an exactly analogous manner, it can be shown that,
(3) F (a) = 0.984, F (c) = 0.983, F (b) = 0.988, F (s) = I (H , F ) I (H , G ). This completes the proof.
R. Chatterjee, P. Majumdar and S. K. Samanta, Intervalvalued Possibility Quadripartitioned Single Valued Neutrosophic Soft Sets
and some uncertainty based measures on them
40 Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016
R. Chatterjee, P. Majumdar and S. K. Samanta, Intervalvalued Possibility Quadripartitioned Single Valued Neutrosophic Soft Sets
and some uncertainty based measures on them
Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016 41
fFe (x) = fG
e
(x) and + +
e (x) = e (x), e (x) = e (x) , for all Theorem 7. s (F , G ) is a similarity measure.
xX, eE i.e.. iff F , G .
Proof is similar to that of Theorem 6.
(iii) Suppose F G H . then, we have, teF (x) teG (x)
tH (x), cF (x) cG (x) ceH (x), ueF (x) ueG (x) ueH (x),
e e e
Remark 3. s (F , G ) is the weighted similarity measure
fFe (x) fG e
(x) fH e
(x),
e (x) e (x) e (x) and between any two IPQSVNSS F and G .
+ + +
e (x) e (x) e (x) for all xX and eE. Con
F,G F,G
sider 1,e (x) and 2,e (x). Since teF (x) teG (x) holds, 4.4.1 Allocation of entropybased weights in calculating
it follows that, tG (x) teF (x) teH (x) teF (x)
e
weighted similarity
F,G F,H
1,e (x) 1,e (x). Similarly it can be shown that
F,G F,H It was shown in Section 4.1.1 how entropy measure could be
i,e (x) i,e (x), for i = 3, 5, 6 and all xX. Next, implemented to allocate specific weights to the elements of the
F,G
consider 2,e (x). parameter set. In this section, it is shown how the entropybased
e e e
Since, fF (x) fG (x) fH (x), it follows that weights can be implemented in calculating weighted similarity.
fF (x) fG (x) fF (x) fH (x) where fFe (x) fG
e e e e e
(x) 0, Consider an IPQSVNSS F defined over the soft universe
e e e e e e
fF (x)fH (x) 0. Thus, fF (x)fG (x) fF (x)fH (x) (X, E). Let F (e)[0, 1] be the weight allocated to an element
F,G F,H
3,e (x) 3,e (x). eE, w.r.t. the IPQSVNSS F .
F,G F,H Define F () as before, viz.
Also, it can be shown that 4,e (x) 4,e (x) respectively for
(F ) 1
P
each xX. Pn F () = F () , where F () = 1 X.E xX tF (x)
P P F,G
Thus, we have, eE xX i=1 i,e (x) +
fF (x).cF (x) uF (x).1 { (x) + (x)}
P P Pn F,H
eE xX
i=1 i,e (x) Consider any two IPQSVNSS F , G IP QSV N SS(X). Fol
1 6X.E1
P P Pn F,H
lowing Definition C, the weighted similarity measure between
eE xX i=1 i,e (x)
1
P P P n F,G these two sets can be defined
P as
1 6X.E eE xX i=1 i,e (x) eE (){
P P6
F,G (x)}
s (F , G ) = 1 xX
6X.E
P i=1 i
() , where
s (F , H ) s (F , G ) eE
(G )
In an analogous manner, it can be shown that () = F ()+ 2
G ()
, and G () = G () is the weight
s (F , H ) s (G , H ). Thus, we have, s (F , H ) allocated to the parameter E w.r.t. the IPQSVNSS G .
s (F , G ) s (G , H ) From previous results clearly, F (), G ()[0, 1]
()[0, 1].
Remark 2. s(A1 , 0 ) = 0.
Example 6. Consider F , G IP QSV N SS(X) as de
Proof : fined in Example 1. Then s (F , G ) = 0.738. Also, F (e1 ) =
0.983, G (e1 ) = 0.987, F (e2 ) = 0.993, G (e2 ) = 0.988,
For each xX and eE, which gives, (e1 ) = 0.985, (e2 ) = 0.991 which finally yields
, 1 ,0
= s (F , G ) = 0.869.
A A
1 1 0 (x) = te (x) teA (x) = 1, 2 (x)
0 1
fAe (x) fe (x) = 1
1
0
,
A
3 1 0 (x) = ce (x) ceA (x) = 1, 4
1 ,0
A
(x) = 5 Relation between the various uncer
0 1
ueA (x) ue (x) = 1
1
0
tainty based measures
,
A ,
A
5 1 0 (x) = 
e (x) e (x) = 1, 6 1 0 (x) = Theorem 8. s1 (F , G ) = 1 dN (F , G ) is a similarity
+ + d h
e (x) e (x) = 1 measure.
P6
A ,
which yields eE xX i=1 i 1 0 (x) = 6X.E
P P
P6 1 ,0
A
s(A1 , 0 ) = 1 6X.E
1
(x) = Proof:
P P
eE xX i=1 i
0.
(i) dN N 1 1
h (F , G ) = dh (G , F ) sd (F , G ) = sd (G , F )
N 1
Definition 21. Suppose F , G IP QSV N SS(X, E). (ii) 0 dh (F , G ) 1 0 sd (F , G ) 1
1 N
Consider functions i,e F,G
: X [0, 1], i = Also, sd (F , G ) = 1 dh (FN, G ) = 0 F N= G .
Whenever F G H , dh (F , H ) = dh (F , G ) +
1, 2, .., 5 as in Definition 1. Define a mapping s : (iii) N
IP QSV N SS(X, E) IP QSV N SS(X, E) R as, 1h + d (G , H ). Thus,
P
eE
P
xX
P6
i=1
F,G
(e)i,e (x) sd (F , G ) s1d (F , H ) = 1 dN h (F , G ) 1 +
s (F , G ) = 1 P
6X.E eE (e) , where (e) is dN (F , H ) = dN (F , H ) dN (F , G ) = dN (G , H )
h h h h
the weight allocated to the parameter eE and (e)[0, 1], for 0, from property of distance measure.
each eE. s1d (F , H ) s1d (F , G ).
Similarly, it can be shown that, s1d (F , H ) s1d (G , H ).
R. Chatterjee, P. Majumdar and S. K. Samanta, Intervalvalued Possibility Quadripartitioned Single Valued Neutrosophic Soft Sets
and some uncertainty based measures on them
42 Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016
R. Chatterjee, P. Majumdar and S. K. Samanta, Intervalvalued Possibility Quadripartitioned Single Valued Neutrosophic Soft Sets
and some uncertainty based measures on them
Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016 43
[6] D. Chen, E. C. C. Tsang, D. S. Yeung and X. Wang The parametrized [13] P. Majumdar and S. K. Samanta Generalized fuzzy soft sets, Computers
reduction of soft sets and its applications, Computers and Mathematics and Mathematics with Applications, 59 (2010), 14251432.
with Applications, 49 (2009), 757763. [14] P. Majumdar and S. K. Samanta Softness of a soft set: soft set entropy,
[7] S. Das and S. K. Samanta Soft real sets, soft real numbers and their prop Annals of Fuzzy Mathematics with Informatics, 6(1) (2013), 5068.
erties, Journal of Fuzzy Mathematics, 20(3) (2012), 551576. [15] D. Molodstov Soft set theoryFirst results, Computers and Mathematics
[8] P. K. Maji, R. Biswas and A. R. Roy Fuzzy soft sets, Journal of fuzzy with Applications, 37 (1999), 1931.
mathematics, 9(3) (2001), 589602. [16] M. M. Mushrif, S. Sengupta and A. K. Roy Texture classification using a
[9] P. K. Maji, R. Biswas and A. R. Roy Intuitionistic fuzzy soft sets, Journal novel softset theory based classification algorithm, SpringerVerlag Berlin
of fuzzy mathematics, 9(3) (2001), 677692. Heidelberg (2006), 246254.
[10] P. K. Maji, R. Biswas and A. R. Roy Soft set theory, Computers and [17] D. Pei and D. Miao From soft sets to information systems, Proceedings of
Mathematics with Applications,45 (2003), 555562. Granular Computing 2 IEEE (2005), 617621.
[11] P. K. Maji Neutrosophic soft set, Annals of Fuzzy Mathematics and Infor [18] F. Smarandache nvalued Refined Neutrosophic Logic and Its Applications
matics, 5(1) (2013), 157168. to Physics, arXiv preprint arXiv:1407.1041 (2014).
[12] P. Majumdar and S. K. Samanta Similarity measureof soft sets, New [19] H. Wang, F. Smarandache, Y. Zhang and R Sunderraman Single Valued
Mathematics and Natural Computation, 4(1) (2008), 112. Neutrosophic Sets, Multispace and Multistructure, 4 (2010), 410413.
R. Chatterjee, P. Majumdar and S. K. Samanta, Intervalvalued Possibility Quadripartitioned Single Valued Neutrosophic Soft Sets
and some uncertainty based measures on them
Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016 44
Abstract: In this paper, a modified form of Collatz con of Collatz conjecture viz. (3a 1) + (3b 1)I the neutro
jecture for neutrosophic numbers Z I is defined. We sophic numbers converges to any one of the 55 elements
see for any n Z I the related sequence using the for mentioned with appropriate modifications. Thus, it is con
mula (3a + 1) + (3b + 1)I converges to any one of the 55 jectured that every n Z I has a finite sequence which
elements mentioned in this paper. Using the akin formula converges to any one of the 55 elements.
It is pertinent to keep on record in the Coltaz conjecture So if n Z then as usual by the Collatz conjecture the
3n + 1 if n is taken as a negative number than using 3n + 1 sequence converges to 1. If n ZI then by applying the
for negative values sequence terminate only at 1 or 5 or Collatz conjecture it converges to I. Now if x Z I that
17. Further the 3n 1 conjecture for any negative n, the is x = a + bI how does x converge.
sequence ends only in 1. We will illustrate this by an example.
Thus, for using 3n + 1 any integer positive or negative Now if x = a + bI, a, b Z \ {0}; is it even or odd? We
the sequence terminates at any one of the values {17, 5, cannot define or put the element x to be odd or to be even.
1, 0, 1} and using 3n 1 the sequence for any integer n Thus to apply Collatz conjecture one is forced to define in a
positive or negative terminates at any one of the values {1, very different way. We apply the Collatz conjecture
0, 1, 5, 17}. separately for a and for bI, but maintain the number of
iterations to be the same as for that of a + bI. We will
illustrate this situation by some examples.
2 Collatz Conjecture for the neutrosophic numbers Consider n = 3I + 14 Z I. n is neither odd nor
Z I even. We use (3a + 1) + (3b + 1)I formula in the following
way
In this section, we introduce the modified form of 3I + 14, 10I + 7, 5I + 22, 16I + 11, 8I + 34, 4I + 17,
Collatz conjecture in case of neutrosophic numbers Z I 2I + 52, I + 26, 4I + 13, 2I + 40, I + 20, 4I + 10, 2I + 5,
= {a + bI / a, b Z and I2 = I} where I is the neutrosophic I + 16, 4I + 8, 2I + 4, I + 2, 4I + 1, 2I + 4, I + 2, 4I +1,
element or the indeterminancy introduced by [7]. For more I + 4, I + 2.
info, please refer to [7]. So the sequence terminates at I + 2.
Now, we will see how elements of Z I behave when Consider n = 3I 14 Z I, n is neither even nor
we try to apply the modified form of Collatz conjecture. odd.
The modified formula for Collatz conjecture for The sequence for this n is as follows.
neutrosophic numbers n = a + bI is (3a + 1) + (3b + 1)I; if a 3I 14, 10I 7, 5I 20, 16I 10, 8I 5, 4I 14,
= 0 then 3bI + I = (3b + 1)I is taken if b = 0 then 3a + 1 term 2I 7, I 20, 4I 10, 2I 5, I 14, 4I 7,
is taken, however iteration is taken the same number of 2I 20, I 10, 4I 5, 2I 14, I 7, 4I 20, 2I 10, I 5,
times for a and bI in n = a + bI. 4I 14, 2I 7, I 20, 4I 10, 2I 5, ... , I 5.
If n Z I is of the form n = a, a Z then Collatz So for n = 3I 14 the sequence converges to 2I 5.
conjecture is the same, when n = aI, a I, I2 = I then also Consider n = 5I 34; 5I 34, 14I 17, 7I 50,
the Collatz conjecture takes the value I; for we say aI is even 20I 25, 10I 74, 5I 37, 14I, 110, 7I 55,
if a is even and aI is odd is a is odd. 20I 164, 10I 82, 5I 41, 14I 122, 7I 61,
For 3I, 9I, 27I, 15I, 45I, 19I, 35I, 47I, 105I, 101I, 125I 20I 182, 10I 91, 5I 272, 14I 136, 7I 68,
are all odd neutrosophic numbers. 20I 34, 10I 17, 5I 50, 14I 25, 7I 74, 20I 37,
Now 12I, 16I, 248I, 256I etc. are even neutrosophic 10I 110, 5I 55, 14I 164, 7I 82, 20I 41,
numbers. 10I 122, 5I 61, 14I 182, 7I 91, 20I 272,
The working is instead of adding 1 after multiplying 10I 136, 5I 68, 14I 34, 7I 17, 20I 50, 10I 25,
with 3 we add I after multiplying with 3. 5I 74, 14I 37, 7I 110, 20I 55, 10I 164, 5I 82,
For instance consider n = 12I, the sequence for n = 12I 14I 41, 7I 122, 20I 61, 10I 182, 5I 91,
is as follows: 14I 272, 7I 136, 20I 68, 10I 34, 5I 17. (1)
12I, 6I, 3I, 3 3I + I = 10I, 5I, 16I, 8I, 4I, 2I, I. n = 5I 34, converges to 5I 17.
So the element n = 12I has a sequence which terminates Let n = 10I 17, 5I 50, 14I 25, 7I 74,
at I. 20I 37, 10I 110, 5I 55, 14I 164, 7I 82,
Consider n = 256I, the sequence is 256I, 128I, 64I, 32I, 20I 41, 10I 122, 5I 61, 14I 182, 7I 91,
16I, 8I, 4I, 2I, I so converges to I. 20I 272, 10I 136, 5I 68, 14I 34, 7I 17,
Take n = 31I, 31I is odd so the sequence for n = 31I is 20I 50, 10I 25, 5I 74, 14I 37, 7I 110,
31I, 94I, 47I, 142I, 71I, 214I, 107I, 322I, 161I, 484I, 20I 55, 10I 164, 5I 82, 14I 41, 7I 122,
242I, 121I, 364I, 182I, 91I, 274I, 137I, 412I, 206I, 103I, 20I 61, 10I 182, 5I 91, 14I 272, 7I 136,
310I, 155I, 466I, 233I, 700I, 350I, 175I, 526I, 263I, 790I, 20I 68, 10I 34, 5I 17.
385I, 1156I, 578I, 289I, 868I, 434I, 217I, 652I, 326I, 163I, Thus, by using the modified form of Collatz conjecture
490I, 245I, 736I, 368I, 184I, 92I, 46I, 23I, 70I, 35I, 106I, for neutrosophic numbers Z I we get the following
53I, 160I, 80I, 40I, 20I, 10I, 5I, 16I, 8I, 4I, 2I, I. collection A of numbers as the limits of finite sequences
Let n = 45I the sequence is 45I, 136I, 68I, 34I, 17I, 52I, after performing the above discussed operations using the
26I, 13I, 40I, 20I, 10I, 5I, 16I, 8I, 4I, 2I, I. modified formula 3(a + bI) + 1 + I or (3a + 1) + (3b + 1)I; a,
W.B. Vasantha Kandasamy, K. Ilanthenral, and Florentin Smarandache: Modified Collatz conjecture or (3a + 1) + (3b + 1)I
Conjecture for Neutrosophic Numbers Z I
46 Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016
W.B. Vasantha Kandasamy, K. Ilanthenral, and Florentin Smarandache: Modified Collatz conjecture or (3a + 1) + (3b +1)I
Conjecture for Neutrosophic Numbers Z I
Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016 47
Abstract: The objective of this paper is to introduced the concept will cover homomorphic images and inverse homomorphic images
of neutrosophic cubic set to subalgebras, ideals and closed ideals of of neutrosophic cubic subalgebras, ideals and some related proper
Balgebra. Links among neutrosophic cubic subalgebra with neu ties. The Cartesian product of neutrosophic cubic subalgebras will
trosophic cubic ideals and neutrosophic closed ideals of Balgebras also be investigated.
as well as some related properties will be investigated. This study
Keywords: Balgebra, Neutrosophic cubic set, Neutrosophic cubic subalgebra, Neutrosophic cubic closed ideals.
Rakib Iqbal, Sohail Zafar and Muhammad Shoaib Sardar, Neutrosophic Cubic Subalgebras and Neutrosophic Cubic Closed
Ideals of Balgebras
48 Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016
Rakib Iqbal, Sohail Zafar and Muhammad Shoaib Sardar, Neutrosophic Cubic Subalgebras and Neutrosophic Cubic Closed
Ideals of Balgebras
Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016 49
under binary operation * if following condition holds: Proof: x X, we have AT,I,F (0) = AT,I,F (x x) rmin{
C1: A(x y) rmin{A(x), A(y)}, AT,I,F (x), AT,I,F (x)} = AT,I,F (x) AT,I,F (0) AT,I,F (x)
C2: (x y) max{(x), (y)} x, y X. and T,I,F (0) = T,I,F (x x) max{T,I,F (x), T,I,F (x)}
= T,I,F (x) T,I,F (0) T,I,F (x).
3 Neutrosophic Cubic Subalgebras Of Theorem 3.1 Let C = {hx, AT,I,F (x), T,I,F (x)i} be a neutro
sophic cubic subalgebras of X. If there exists a sequence {xn } of
Balgebra X such that lim AT,I,F (xn ) = [1, 1] and lim T,I,F (xn ) =
n n
Let X denote a Balgebra then the concept of cubic subalgebra 0. then AT,I,F (0) = [1, 1] and T,I,F (0) = 0.
can be extended to neutrosophic cubic subalgebra.
Proof: Using Proposition 3.1, AT,I,F (0) AT,I,F (x) x X,
Definition 3.1 Let C = (A, ) be a cubic set, where X is sub AT,I,F (0) AT,I,F (xn ) for n Z+ . Consider, [1, 1]
algebra. Then C is neutrosophic cubic subalgebra under binary AT,I,F (0) lim AT,I,F (xn ) = [1, 1]. Hence, AT,I,F (0) =
n
operation if it holds the following conditions: N1: [1, 1].
AT (x y) rmin{AT (x), AT (y)} Again, using Proposition 3.1, T,I,F (0) T,I,F (x) x
AI (x y) rmin{AI (x), AI (y)} X, T,I,F (0) T,I,F (xn ) for n Z+ . Consider, 0
AF (x y) rmin{AF (x), AF (y)}, T,I,F (0) lim T,I,F (xn ) = 0. Hence, T,I,F (0) = 0.
N2: n
T (x y) max{T (x), T (y)}
Theorem 3.2 The Rintersection of any set of neutrosophic cu
I (x y) max{I (x), I (y)}
bic subalgebras of X is also a neutrosophic cubic subalgebras of
I (x y) max{I (x), I (y)}
X.
For our convenience, we will denote neutrosophic cubic set as
C = (AT,I,F , T,I,F ) = {hx, AT,I,F (x), T,I,F (x)i} Proof: Let Ai = {hx, AiT,I,F , iT,I,F i  x X} where i k,
and conditions N1, N2 as be a sets of neutrosophic cubic subalgebras of X and x, y X.
N1: AT,I,F (x y) rmin{AT,I,F (x), AT,I,F (y)}, Then
N2: T,I,F (x y) max{T,I,F (x), T,I,F (y)}.
(AiT,I,F )(x y) = rinf AiT,I,F (x y)
Example 3.1 Let X = {0, a1 , a2 , a3 , a4 , a5 } be a Balgebra
rinf {rmin{AiT,I,F (x), AiT,I,F (y)}}
with the following Cayley table.
= rmin{rinf AiT,I,F (x), rinf AiT,I,F (y)}
> 0 a1 a2 a3 a4 a5
0 0 a5 a4 a3 a2 a1
= rmin{(AiT,I,F )(x), (AiT,I,F )(y)}
a1 a1 0 a5 a4 a3 a2 (AiT,I,F )(x y) rmin{(AiT,I,F )(x), (AiT,I,F )(y)}
a2 a2 a1 0 a5 a4 a3
a3 a3 a2 a1 0 a5 a4 and
a4 a4 a3 a2 a1 0 a5
a5 a5 a4 a3 a2 a1 0
(iT,I,F )(x y) = supiT,I,F (x y)
A neutrosophic cubic set C = (AT,I,F , T,I,F ) of X is defined sup{max{iT,I,F (x), iT,I,F (y)}}
by = max{supiT,I,F (x), supiT,I,F (y)}
= max{(iT,I,F )(x), (iT,I,F )(y)}
0 a1 a2 a3 a4 a5
AT [0.7,0.9] [0.6,0.8] [0.7,0.9] [0.6,0.8] [0.7,0.9] [0.6,0.8] (iT,I,F )(x y) max{(iT,I,F )(x), (iT,I,F )(y)},
AI [0.3,0.2] [0.2,0.1] [0.3,0.2] [0.2,0.1] [0.3,0.2] [0.2,0.1]
AF [0.2,0.4] [0.1,0.4] [0.2,0.4] [0.1,0.4] [0.2,0.4] [0.1,0.4] which shows that Rintersection of Ai is a neutrosophic cubic
0 a1 a2 a3 a4 a5
subalgebra of X.
T 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.1 0.3
.
I 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.5
F 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.6 Remark 3.1 The Runion, P intersection and P union of
neutrosophic cubic subalgebra need not be a neutrosophic cubic
Both the conditions of Definition 3.1 are satisfied by the set C. subalgebra.
Thus C = (AT,I,F , T,I,F ) is a neutrosophic cubic subalgebra Example, let X = {0, a1 , a2 , a3 , a4 , a5 } be a Balgebra with
of X. the following Caley table. Let A1 = (A1T,I,F , 1T,I,F ) and
A2 = (A2T,I,F , 2T,I,F ) be neutrosophic cubic set of X defined
Proposition 3.1 Let C = {< x, AT,I,F (x), T,I,F (x) >} is a by
neutrosophic cubic subalgebra of X, then x X, AT,I,F (x)
AT,I,F (0) and T,I,F (0) T,I,F (x). Thus, AT,I,F (0) and Then A1 and A2 are neutrosophic subalgebras of X but
T,I,F (0) are the upper bounds and lower bounds of AT,I,F (x) Runion, P union and P intersection of A1 and A2 are not
and T,I,F (x) respectively. subalgebras of X because
Rakib Iqbal, Sohail Zafar and Muhammad Shoaib Sardar, Neutrosophic Cubic Subalgebras and Neutrosophic Cubic Closed
Ideals of Balgebras
50 Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016
> 0 a1 a2 a3 a4 a5 and
0 0 a2 a1 a3 a4 a5
a1 a1 0 a2 a5 a3 a4
a2 a2 a1 0 a4 a5 a3 (iT,I,F )(x y) = inf iT,I,F (x y)
a3 a3 a4 a5 0 a1 a2 inf {max{iT,I,F (x), iT,I,F (y)}}
a4 a4 a5 a3 a2 0 a1
a5 a5 a3 a4 a1 a2 0 = max{inf iT,I,F (x), inf iT,I,F (y)}
= max{(iT,I,F )(x), (iT,I,F )(y)}
0 a1 a2 a3 a4 a5 (iT,I,F )(x y) max{(iT,I,F )(x), (iT,I,F )(y)},
A1 T [0.8,0.7] [0.1,0.2] [0.1,0.2] [0.8,0.7] [0.1,0.2] [0.1,0.2]
A1 I [0.7,0.8] [0.2,0.3] [0.2,0.3] [07.,0.8] [0.2,0.3] [0.2,0.3] which shows that P intersection of Ai is a neutrosophic cubic
A1 F [0.8,0.9] [0.3,0.4] [0.3,0.4] [0.8,0.9] [0.3,0.4] [0.3,0.4] subalgebra of X.
A2 T [0.8,0.9] [0.2,0.3] [0.2,0.3] [0.2,0.3] [0.8,0.9] [0.2,0.3]
A2 I [0.7,0.6] [0.1,0.2] [0.1,0.2] [0.1,0.2] [0.7,0.6] [0.1,0.2]
A2 F [0.6,0.5] [0.1,0.3] [0.1,0.3] [0.1,0.3] [0.6,0.5] [0.1,0.3] Theorem 3.4 Let Ai = {hx, AiT,I,F , iT,I,F i  x
X} where i k, be a sets of neutrosophic cubic sub
0 a1 a2 a3 a4 a5
algebras of X. If sup{rmin{AiT,I,F (x), AiT,I,F (x)}} =
1 T 0.1 0.8 0.8 0.1 0.8 0.8 rmin{supAiT,I,F (x), supAiT,I,F (x)} x X, then the P 
1 I 0.2 0.7 0.7 0.2 0.7 0.7 union of Ai is also a neutrosophic cubic subalgebra of X.
1 F 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.6 .
2 T 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.5
2 I 0.3 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.3 0.7 Proof: Let Ai = {hx, AiT,I,F , iT,I,F i  x X}
2 F 0.4 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.4 0.9 where i k, be a sets of neutrosophic cubic subalge
bras of X such that sup{rmin{AiT,I,F (x), AiT,I,F (x)}} =
rmin{supAiT,I,F (x), supAiT,I,F (x)} x X. Then for
x, y X,
(AiT,I,F )(a3 a4 ) = ([0.2, 0.3], [0.2, 0.3], [0.3, 0.4])T,I,F
([0.8, 0.9], [0.7, 0.6], [0.6, 0.5])T,I,F = rmin{(AiT,I,F )(a3 ), (AiT,I,F )(x y) = rsupAiT,I,F (x y)
(AiT,I,F )(a4 )}
rsup{rmin{AiT,I,F (x), AiT,I,F (y)}}
and
(iT,I,F )(a3 a4 ) = (0.8, 0.7, 0.9)T,I,F (0.2, 0.3, 0, 4)T,I,F = rmin{rsupAiT,I,F (x), rsupAiT,I,F (y)}
= max{(iT,I,F )(a3 ), (iT,I,F )(a4 )} = rmin{(AiT,I,F )(x), (AiT,I,F )(y)}
(AiT,I,F )(x y) rmin{(AiT,I,F )(x), (AiT,I,F )(y)}
We provide the condition that Runion, P union and P 
intersection of neutrosophic cubic subalgebras is also a neutro and
sophic cubic subalgebra. which are at Theorem 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5.
(iT,I,F )(x y) = supiT,I,F (x y)
sup{max{iT,I,F (x), iT,I,F (y)}}
Theorem 3.3 Let Ai = {hx, AiT,I,F , iT,I,F i  x X} = max{supiT,I,F (x), supiT,I,F (y)}
where i k, be a sets of neutrosophic cubic subalgebras = max{(iT,I,F )(x), (iT,I,F )(y)}
of X, where i k. If inf {max{iT,I,F (x), iT,I,F (x)}} (iT,I,F )(x y) max{(iT,I,F )(x), (iT,I,F )(y)}.
= max{inf iT,I,F (x), inf iT,I,F (x)} x X, then the P 
intersection of Ai is also a neutrosophic cubic subalgebras of X. Which shows that P union of Ai is a neutrosophic cubic subal
gebra of X.
Proof: Suppose that Ai = {hx, AiT,I,F , iT,I,F i  x Theorem 3.5 Let Ai = {hx, AiT,I,F , iT,I,F i  x X} where
X} where i k, be sets of neutrosophic cubic subal i k, be a sets of neutrosophic cubic subalgebras of X. If
gebras of X such that inf {max{iT,I,F (x), iT,I,F (x)}} = inf {max{iT,I,F (x), iT,I,F (x)}} = max{inf iT,I,F (x),
max{inf iT,I,F (x), inf iT,I,F (x)} x X. Then for x, y inf iT,I,F (x)} and sup{rmin{iT,I,F (x), iT,I,F (x)}} =
X. Then rmin{supiT,I,F (x), supiT,I,F (x)} x X, then the R
union of Ai is also a neutrosophic cubic subalgebra of X.
(AiT,I,F )(x y) = rinf AiT,I,F (x y)
rinf {rmin{AiT,I,F (x), AiT,I,F (y)}} Proof: Let Ai = {hx, AiT,I,F , iT,I,F i  x X}
where i k, be a sets of neutrosophic cubic subalge
= rmin{rinf AiT,I,F (x), rinf AiT,I,F (y)}
bras of X such that inf {max{iT,I,F (x), iT,I,F (x)}} =
= rmin{(AiT,I,F )(x), (AiT,I,F )(y)} max{inf iT,I,F (x), inf iT,I,F (x)} and sup{rmin{iT,I,F (
(AiT,I,F )(x y) rmin{(AiT,I,F )(x), (AiT,I,F )(y)} x), iT,I,F (x)}} = rmin{supiT,I,F (x), supiT,I,F (x)} x
Rakib Iqbal, Sohail Zafar and Muhammad Shoaib Sardar, Neutrosophic Cubic Subalgebras and Neutrosophic Cubic Closed
Ideals of Balgebras
Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016 51
(AiT,I,F )(x y) = rsupAiT,I,F (x y) Proof: Assume that the neutrosophic cubic set A =
(AT,I,F , T,I,F ) of X satisfies the above conditions (1 and 2).
rsup{rmin{AiT,I,F (x), AiT,I,F (y)}}
Then by Lemma 3.1, we have AT,I,F (x y) = AT,I,F (x (0
= rmin{rsupAiT,I,F (x), rsupAiT,I,F (y)} (0 y))) rmin{AT,I,F (x), AT,I,F (0 y)} rmin{AT,I,F (
= rmin{(AiT,I,F )(x), (AiT,I,F )(y)} x), AT,I,F (y)} and T,I,F (x y) = T,I,F (x (0 (0 y)))
(AiT,I,F )(x y) rmin{(AiT,I,F )(x), (AiT,I,F )(y)} max{T,I,F (x), T,I,F (0y) max{T,I,F (x), T,I,F (y)}
x, y X. Hence, A is neutrosophic cubic subalgebra of X.
and
Theorem 3.7 Nuetrosophic cubic set A = (AT,I,F , T,I,F ) of
(iT,I,F )(x y) = inf iT,I,F (x y) X is a neutrosophic cubic subalgebra of X A +
T,I,F , AT,I,F
inf {max{iT,I,F (x), iT,I,F (y)}} and T,I,F are fuzzy subalgebras of X.
= max{inf iT,I,F (x), inf iT,I,F (y)} Proof: let A +
T,I,F , AT,I,F and T,I,F are fuzzy subalgebra of X
= max{(iT,I,F )(x), (iT,I,F )(y)} and x, y X. Then A
T,I,F (x y) min{AT,I,F (x), AT,I,F (y
+ + +
(iT,I,F )(x y) max{(iT,I,F )(x), (iT,I,F )(y)}. )}, AT,I,F (x y) min{AT,I,F (x), AT,I,F (y)} and T,I,F (x
y) max{T,I,F (x), T,I,F (y)}. Now, AT,I,F (xy) = [A T,I,F
Which shows that Runion of Ai is a neutrosophic cubic subal
(xy), A+ T,I,F (xy] [min{A T,I,F (x), A T,I,F (y)}, min{A +
T,I,F
gebra of X. + +
(x), AT,I,F (y)}] rmin{[AT,I,F (x), AT,I,F (x)], [AT,I,F (y),
Proposition 3.2 If a neutrosophic cubic set A = A+T,I,F (y)]} = rmin{AT,I,F (x), AT,I,F (y)}. Therefore, A is
(AT,I,F , T,I,F ) of X is a subalgebra, then x X, neutrosophic cubic subalgebra of X.
AT,I,F (0 x) AT,I,F (x) and T,I,F (0 x) T,I,F (x). Conversely, assume that A is a neutrosophic cubic subalge
bra of X. For any x, y X, [A +
T,I,F (x y), AT,I,F (x y)] =
Proof: x X, AT,I,F (0x) rmin{AT,I,F (0), AT,I,F (x)} AT,I,F (xy) rmin{AT,I,F (x), AT,I,F (y)} = rmin{[A T,I,F
= rmin{AT,I,F (x x), AT,I,F (x)} rmin{rmin{AT,I,F (x)
(x), A+ (x)], [A (y), A+
(y)]}= = [min{A T,I,F (x),
, AT,I,F (x)}, AT,I,F (x)} = AT,I,F (x) and similarly T,I,F (0 T,I,F T,I,F T,I,F
Rakib Iqbal, Sohail Zafar and Muhammad Shoaib Sardar, Neutrosophic Cubic Subalgebras and Neutrosophic Cubic Closed
Ideals of Balgebras
52 Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016
2(p+1)1 2p+1
Y Y = rmin{AT,I,F (x), AT,I,F (y)} and T,I,F (x y) T,I,F
by assumption, AT,I,F ( x x) = AT,I,F (
x x) = = max{T,I,F (x), T,I,F (y)}.
2p1
Y 2p1
Y Hence A is a neutrosophic cubic subalgebra of X.
AT,I,F ( x (x (x x))) = AT,I,F ( x x) AT,I,F (x) Now, IAT ,I,F ={x X, AT,I,F (x) = AT,I,F (0)}= {x
2(p+1)1
Y 2p+1
Y 2p1
Y X, AT,I,F (x) = [T,I,F1 , T,I,F2 ]} = B and IT ,I,F ={x
and T,I,F ( xx) = T,I,F ( xx) = T,I,F ( x X, T,I,F (x) = T,I,F (0)}={x X, T,I,F (x) = T,I,F }=B.
2p1
x x) T,I,F (x), which proves Definition 3.2 Let A = (AT,I,F , T,I,F ) be a neutrosophic cu
Y
(x (x x))) = T,I,F (
(1) and (2). Similarly, the proves are same to the cases (3) and bic set of X. For [sT1 , sT2 ], [sI1 , sI2 ], [sF1 , sF2 ] D[0, 1]
(4). and tT1 , tI1 , tF1 [0, 1], the set U (AT,I,F  ([sT1 , sT2 ], [sI1 , sI2 ]
, [sF1 , sF2 ])) ={x X  AT (x) [sT1 , sT2 ], AI (x) [sI1 , sI2 ]
The sets denoted by IAT ,I,F and IT ,I,F are also subalgebra of , AF (x) [sF1 , sF2 ]} is called upper ([sT1 , sT2 ], [sI1 , sI2 ], [sF1 ,
X. Which were defined as: sF2 ])level of A and L(T,I,F  (tT1 , tI1 , tF1 )) ={x X 
IAT ,I,F ={x X  AT,I,F (x) = AT,I,F (0)} and IT ,I,F ={x T (x) tT1 , I (x) tI1 , F (x) tF1 } is called lower
X  T,I,F (x) = T,I,F (0)}. (tT1 , tI1 , tF1 )level of A.
For our convenience we are introducing the new notation as:
Theorem 3.9 Let A = (AT,I,F , T,I,F ) be a neutrosophic cubic U (A T,I,F  [sT,I,F1 , sT,I,F2 ]={x X  AT,I,F (x) [sT,I,F1 ,
subalgebra of X. Then the sets IAT ,I,F and IT ,I,F are subalge T,I,F2 ]} is called upper ([sT,I,F1 , sT,I,F2 ])level of A and
s
bras of X. L(T,I,F  tT,I,F1 )={x X  T,I,F (x) tT,I,F1 } is called
lower tT,I,F1 level of A.
Proof: Let x, y IAT ,I,F . Then AT,I,F (x) = AT,I,F (0) =
AT,I,F (y) and so, AT,I,F (xy) rmin{AT,I,F (x), AT,I,F (y)} Theorem 3.11 If A = (AT,I,F , T,I,F ) is neutrosophic cu
= AT,I,F (0). By using Proposition 3.1, We know that AT,I,F (x bic subalgebra of X, then the upper [sT,I,F1 , sT,I,F2 ]level and
y) = AT,I,F (0) or equivalently x y IAT ,I,F . lower tT,I,F1 level of A are ones of X.
Again let x, y IAT ,I,F . Then T,I,F (x) = T,I,F (0) =
Proof: Let x, y U (AT,I,F  [sT,I,F1 , sT,I,F2 ]), then AT,I,F (x)
T,I,F (y) and so, T,I,F (x y) max{T,I,F (x), T,I,F (y)}
[sT,I,F1 , sT,I,F2 ] and AT,I,F (y) [sT,I,F1 , sT,I,F2 ]. It fol
=T,I,F (0). Again by using Proposition 3.1, We know that
lows that AT,I,F (x y) rmin{AT,I,F (x), AT,I,F (y)}
T,I,F (x y) = T,I,F (0) or equivalently x y IAT ,I,F . Hence
[sT,I,F1 , sT,I,F2 ] x y U (AT,I,F  [sT,I,F1 , sT,I,F2 ]).
the sets IAT ,I,F and AT ,I,F are subalgebras of X.
Hence, U (AT,I,F  [sT,I,F1 , sT,I,F2 ] is a subalgebra of X.
Let x, y L(T,I,F  tT,I,F1 ). Then T,I,F (x) tT,I,F1
Theorem 3.10 Let B be a nonempty subset of X and A =
(AT,I,F , T,I,F ) be neutrosophic cubic set of X defined by and T,I,F (y) tT,I,F1 . It follows that T,I,F (x y)
max{ T,I,F (x), T,I,F (y)} tT,I,F1 x y L(T,I,F 
T,I,F1 Hence L(T,I,F  tT,I,F1 ) is a subalgebra of X.
(
[T,I,F1 , T,I,F2 ], if x B t ).
AT,I,F (x) =
[T,I,F1 , T,I,F2 ], otherwise,
Corollary 3.1 Let A = (AT,I,F , T,I,F ) is neutrosophic cubic
(
T,I,F , if x B subalgebra of X. Then T A([sT,I,F1 , sT,I,F2 ]; tT,I,F1 )= U (AT,I,F
T (x) =  [sT,I,F1 , sT,I,F2 ]) L(T,I,F  tT,I,F1 )={x X  AT,I,F (x)
T,I,F , otherwise
[sT,I,F1 , sT,I,F2 ], T,I,F (x) tT,I,F1 } is a subalgebra of X.
[T,I,F1 , T,I,F2 ],[T,I,F1 , T,I,F2 ] D[0, 1] and T,I,F , T,I,F
[0, 1] with [T,I,F1 , T,I,F2 ] [T,I,F1 , T,I,F2 ] and T,I,F T,I,F . Proof: Straightforward
Then A is a nuetrosophic cubic subalgebra of X B is a subalge
bra of X. Moreover, IAT ,I,F = B= IT ,I,F . The following example shows that the converse of Corollary
3.1 is not valid.
Proof: Let A be a neutrosophic cubic subalgebra of X. Let x, y
X such that x, y B. Then AT,I,F (x y) rmin{AT,I,F (x Example 3.2 Let X = {0, a1 , a2 , a3 , a4 , a5 } be a Balgebra in
), AT,I,F (y)} = rmin{[T,I,F1 , T,I,F2 ], [T,I,F1 , T,I,F2 ]} = Remark 3.1 and A = (AT,I,F , T,I,F ) is a neutrosophic cubic
[T,I,F1 , T,I,F2 ] and T,I,F (x y) max{T,I,F (x), T,I,F ( set defined by
y)} = max{T,I,F , T,I,F } = T,I,F . Therefore x y B.
Hence, B is a subalgebra of X. 0 a1 a2 a3 a4 a5
Conversely, suppose that B is a subalgebra of X. Let x, y AT [0.6,0.8] [0.5,0.6] [0.5,0.6] [0.5,0.6] [0.3,0.4] [0.3,0.4]
X. We consider two cases, AI [0.5,0.7] [0.4,0.5] [0.4,0.5] [0.4,0.6] [0.3,0.3] [0.3,0.3]
Case 1: If x, y B, then x y B, thus AT,I,F (x AF [0.4,0.6] [0.2,0.5] [0.2,0.5] [0.2,0.5] [0.1,0.2] [0.1,0.2]
y) = [T,I,F1 , T,I,F2 ] = rmin{AT,I,F (x), AT,I,F (y)} and
T,I,F (x y) = T,I,F = max{T,I,F (x), T,I,F (y)}.
Case 2: If x
/ B or y / B, then AT,I,F (xy) [T,I,F1 , T,I,F2 ]
Rakib Iqbal, Sohail Zafar and Muhammad Shoaib Sardar, Neutrosophic Cubic Subalgebras and Neutrosophic Cubic Closed Ideals
of Balgebras.
Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016 53
tT,I,F1 [0, 1]. On the contrary, let x0 , y0 X be such that {[ T,I,F 1 , T,I,F2 ], i[T,I,F1 , T,I,F2 ]i} i = irmin{AT,I,F (x),
AT,I,F (x0 y0 ) < rmin{AT,I,F (x0 ), AT,I,F (y0 )}. Let AT,I,F AT,I,F (y)} and T,I,F (x y) = T,I,F1 =max{T,I,F1 , T,I,F1
(x0 ) = [1 , 2 ], AT,I,F (y0 ) = [3 , 4 ] and AT,I,F (x0 y0 ) = [ } = max{T,I,F (x), T,I,F (y)}.
sT,I,F1 , sT,I,F2 ]. Then [sT,I,F1 , sT,I,F2 ] < rmin{[1 , 2 ], [3 , 4 Case 2: If x B and y / B, then AT,I,F (x) =
]} = [min{1 , 3 }, min{2 , 4 }]. So, sT,I,F1 < rmin{1 , 3 }
i
[ T,I,F1 , T,I,F2 ], T,I,F (x) = T,I,F1 and AT,I,F (y) = i[0, 0],
and sT,I,F2 < min{2 , 4 }. Let us consider, [1 , 2 ] = T,I,F (y) = 1. Thus A T,I,F (x y) [0, 0] = rmin{i[T,I,F1 ,
1 1 ], [0, 0]} = rmin{A (x), AT,I,F (y)} and T,I,F (x
2 [AT,I,F (x0 y0 ) + rmin{AT,I,F (x0 ), AT,I,F (y0 )}] i = i 2 [i[
T,I,F2 T,I,F
1
sT,I,F1 , sT,I,F2 ] + [min{1 , 3 }, min{2 , 4 }]] = [ 2 (sT,I,F1 + y) 1 = max{ T,I,F1 , 1} = max{ T,I,F (x), T,I,F (y)}.
1
min{1 , 3 }), 2 (sT,I,F2 + min{2 , 3 })]. Therefore, min{1 , Case 3: If x
/ B and y B, then A T,I,F (x) = [0, 0],T,I,F (
1
3 } > 1 = 2 (sT,I,F1 +min{1 , 3 }) > sT,I,F1 and min{2 , 4 x) = 1 and A T,I,F (y) = [ T,I,F1 , T,I,F2 ], T,I,F (y) = T,I,F1
1
} > 2 = 2 (sT,I,F2 + min{2 , 4 }) > sT,I,F2 . Hence, [min{1 . Thus A T,I,F (x y) [0, 0] = rmin{[0, 0], [T,I,F1 , T,I,F2 ]}
, 3 }, min{2 , 4 }] > [1 , 2 ] > [sT,I,F1 , sT,I,F2 ], so that x0 = rmin{A T,I,F (x), A T,I,F (y)} and T,I,F (x y) 1 =
y0 / U (AT,I,F  [sT,I,F1 , sT,I,F2 ]) which is a contradiction max{1, T,I,F1 } = max{ T,I,F (x), T,I,F (y)}.
[1 , 2 ] and AT,I,F (y0 ) = [3 , 4 ] [min{1 , 3 }, min{2 , 4 } x) = 1 and A T,I,F (y) = [0, 0], T,I,F (y) = 1. Thus AT,I,F (x
] > [1 , 2 ]. This implies x0 y0 U (AT,I,F  [sT,I,F1 , sT,I,F2 ])
i
y) [0, 0] = rmin{[0, 0], [0, 0]} = rmin{A T,I,F (x), AT,I,F (y
. Thus AT,I,F (x y) rmin{AT,I,F (x), AT,I,F (y)} x, y )}i and i T,I,F (xy)i i1i = imax{1, 1} = max{T,I,F (x),
X. T,I,F (y)}.
Again, let x , y X be such that (x y ) > Therefore, A is a neutrosophic cubic subalgebra of X.
0 0 T,I,F 0 0
max{T,I,F (x0 ), T,I,F (0)}. Let T,I,F (x0 ) = T,I,F1 , T,I,F Theorem 3.14 Let B be a subset of X and A be a neutrosophic
(y0 ) = T,I,F2 i and i T,I,F (x0 y0 )i = tT,I,F1 . Then tT,I,F1 > cubic set on X which is given in the proof of Theorem 3.13. If
max{T,I,F1 .T,I,F2 }. Let us consider tT,I,F2 = 12 [T,I,F (x0 A is realized as lower level subalgebra and upper level subal
y0 ) + max{T,I,F (x0 ), T,I,F (0)}]. We get that itT,I,F2 = 12 i( gebra of some neutrosophic cubic subalgebra of X, then P is a
tT,I,F1 + max{T,I,F1 , T,I,F2 }). Therefore, T,I,F1 < neutrosophic cubic one of X.
tT,I,F2 = 12 (tT,I,F1 + max{T,I,F1 , T,I,F2 }) < tT,I,F1 and
T,I,F2 < tT,I,F2 = 12 (tT,I,F1 + max{T,I,F1 , T,I,F2 }) < Proof: Let A be a neutrosophic cubic subalgebra of X, and
tT,I,F1 . Hence, max{T,I,F1 , T,I,F2 } < tT,I,F2 < tT,I,F1 = x, y B. Then AT,I,F (x) = AT,I,F (y) = [T,I,F1 , T,I,F2 ]
T,I,F (x0 , y0 ), so that x0 y0
/ L(T,I,F  tT,I,F1 ) which is a and T,I,F (x) = T,I,F (y) = iT,I,F1 . Thus AT,I,F (x y)i
contradictioni since i T,I,F i(x0 ) = T,I,F1 i imaxi{T,I,F1 , rmin{AT,I,F (x), AT,I,F (y)}=rmin{[T,I,F1 , T,I,F2 ], [T,I,F1
T,I,F2 } < tT,I,F2 iandi T,I,F (y0 ) = T,I,F2 max{T,I,F1 , , T,I,F2 ]} = [T,I,F1 , T,I,F2 ] and T,I,F (x y) max{T,I,F
T,I,F2 } < tT,I,F2 . This implies x0 , y0 L(T,I,F  tT,I,F1 ). (x), T,I,F (y)}=max{T,I,F1 , T,I,F1 }=T,I,F1 , x y B
Thus T,I,F (x y) max{T,I,F (x), T,I,F (y)} x, y X. . Hence, the proof is completed.
Rakib Iqbal, Sohail Zafar and Muhammad Shoaib Sardar, Neutrosophic Cubic Subalgebras and Neutrosophic Cubic Closed
Ideals of Balgebras
54 Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016
4 Images and Preimages of Neutro Definition 4.1 A neutrosophic cubic set A=(AT,I,F , T,I,F ) in
the Balgebra X is said to have rsupproperty and infproperty
sophic Cubic Subalgebras if for any subset S of X, there exist s0 T such that AT,I,F (s0 )=
In this section, homomorphism of neutrosophic cubic subalge rsups0 S AT,I,F (t0 ) and T,I,F (t0 )=tinf T,I,F (t0 ) respec
0 T
bras are defined and some results are studied. tively.
Let f be a mapping from a set X into a set Y and A = (AT,I,F
, T,I,F ) be a neutrosophic cubic set in Y . So, the inverseimage Definition 4.2 Let f be mapping from the set X to the set Y .
of A is defined as f 1 (A)={hx, f 1 (AT,I,F ), f 1 (T,I,F )i  If A = (AT,I,F , T,I,F ) is neutrosphic cubic set of X, then
x X} and f 1 (AT,I,F )(x) = AT,I,F (f (x)) and f 1 (T,I,F ) the image of A under f denoted by f (A) and is defined as
(x) = T,I,F (f (x)). It can be shown that f 1 (A) is a neutro f (A)={hx, frsup (AT,I,F ), finf (AT,I,F )i  x X}, where
sophic cubic set. (
1
Theorem 4.1 Suppose that f  X Y be a homo frsup (AT,I,F )(y) = rsupxf 1 (y) (AT,I,F )(X), if f (y) 6=
morphism of Balgebras. If A = (AT,I,F , T,I,F ) is [0, 0], otherwise,
a neutrosophic cubic subalgebra of Y , then the preimage
f 1 (A)={hx, f 1 (AT,I,F ), f 1 (T,I,F )i  x X} of A un and
der f is a neutrosophic cubic subalgebra of X.
T,I,F (x), if f 1 (y) 6=
Proof: Assume that A = (AT,I,F , T,I,F ) is a neutro finf (T,I,F )(y) = xf 1 (y)
sophic cubic subalgebra of Y and let x, y X. then 1, otherwise.
1
f (AT,I,F )(xy) = AT,I,F (f (xy)) = AT,I,F (f (x)f (y))
rmin{AT,I,F (f (x)), AT,I,F (f (y))} = rmin{f 1 (AT,I,F )(x) Theorem 4.4 suppose f  X Y be a homomorphism from
, f 1 (AT,I,F )(y)} and f 1 (T,I,F )(x y) = T,I,F (f (x a Balgebra X onto a Balgebra Y . If A = (AT,I,F , T,I,F )
y)) = T,I,F (f (x)f (y)) max{T,I,F (f (x)), T,I,F (f (y))} is a neutrosophic cubic subalgebra of X, then the image
= max{f 1 (T,I,F )(x), f 1 (T,I,F )(y)}. f 1 (A) = f (A)={hx, frsup (AT,I,F ), finf (AT,I,F )i  x X} of A under
1 1
{hx, f (AT,I,F ), f (T,I,F )i  x X} is neutrosophic cu f is a neutrosophic cubic subalgebra of Y .
bic subalgebra of X.
Proof: Let A = (AT,I,F , T,I,F ) be a neutrosophic cubic sub
Theorem 4.2 Consider f  X Y be a homomorphism of algebra of X and let y1 , y2 Y . We know that {x1 x2  x1
Balgebras and Aj = (AjT,I,F , jT,I,F ) be neutrosophic cubic f 1 (y1 ) and x2 f 1 (y2 )} {x X  x f 1 (y1
subalgebras of Y where j k. If inf {max{jT,I,F (y), jT,I,F y2 )}. Now frsup (AT,I,F )(y1 y2 )=rsup{AT,I,F (x)  x
(y)}}T= max{inf jT,I,F (y), inf jT,I,F (y)} y Y , then f 1 (y1 y2 )} rsup{AT,I,F (x1 x2 )  x1 f 1 (y1 ) and
f 1 ( R Aj ) is also a neutrosophic cubic subalgebra of X. x2 f 1 (y2 )} rsup{rmin{AT,I,F (x1 ), AT,I,F (x2 )}  x1
jk f 1 (y1 ) and x2 f 1 (y2 )} = rmin{rsup{AT,I,F (x1 ) 
Proof: Let Aj = (AjT,I,F , jT,I,F ) be neutrosophic x1 f 1 (y1 )}, rsup{AT,I,F (x2 )  x2 f 1 (y2 )}} = rmin
cubic subalgebras of Y where j k satisfying {frsup (AT,I,F )(y1 ), frsup (AT,I,F )(y2 )} and finf (T,I,F )(y1
1
inf {max{jT,I,F (y), jT,I,F (y)}}=max{inf jT,I,F T (y), inf y2 ) = inf {1 T,I,F (x)  x f (y1 y2 )} inf {T,I,F (x1
jT,I,F (y)} y Y . Then by Theorem 3.3, R Aj is a x 2 )  x 1 f (y1 ) and x 2 f 1 (y2 )} inf {max{T,I,F (
1 1
jk x 1 ), T,I,F (x 2 )}  x 1 f (y 1 ) and x2 f (y2 )} =
neutrosophic cubic subalgebra of Y . Hence f 1 ( R Aj ) is also max{inf {T,I,F (x1 )  x1 f 1 (y1 )}, inf {T,I,F (x2 ) 
T
jk
x2 f 1 (y2 )}} = max{finf (T,I,F )(y1 ), finf (T,I,F )(y2 )}.
a neutrosophic cubic subalgebra of X.
Hence f (A)={hx, frsup (AT,I,F ), finf (AT,I,F )i  x X} is a
Theorem 4.3 Let f  X Y be a homomorphism of B neutrosophic cubic subalgebra of Y .
algebras. Assume that Aj = (AjT,I,F , jT,I,F ) be neutrosophic
cubic subalgebras of Y where j k. If rsup{rmin{AjT,I,F (y1 Theorem 4.5 Assume that f  X Y is a homomorphism of
), AjT,I,F (y1 )}}=rmin{rsupA jT,I,F (y1 ), rsupAjT,I,F (y1 )} Balgebra and Ai = (AiT,I,F , iT,I,F ) is a neutrosophic cubic
y1 , y2 Y , then f 1 ( R Aj ) is also a neutrosophic cubic sub subalgebra of X, where i k. If inf {max{iT,I,F (x), iT,I,F (
S
jk x)}} T = max{inf iT,I,F (x), inf iT,I,F (x)} x X,
algebra of X. thenf ( P Ai ) is a neutrosophic cubic subalgebra of Y .
ik
Proof: Let Aj = (AjT,I,F , jT,I,F ) be neutrosophic cubic sub
algebras of Y, where j k satisfying rsup{rmin{AjT,I,F (y1 ), Proof: Let Ai = (AiT,I,F , iT,I,F ) be neutrosophic cubic subal
AjT,I,F (y2 )}}=rmin{rsupAjT,I,F S (y1 ), rsupAjT,I,F (y2 )} gebra of X where i k satisfying inf {max{iT,I,F (x), iT,I,F
y1 , y2 Y . Then by Theorem 3.4, R Aj is a neutrosophic cu (x)}}=max{inf iT,I,F (x), inf iT,I,F (x)} x X. Then by
Sjk
T
Theorem 3.3, P Ai is a neutrosophic cubic algebra of X. Hence
bic subalgebra of Y . Hence, f 1 ( R Aj ) is also a neutrosophic ik
jk T
f ( P Aj ) is also a neutrosophic cubic subalgebra of Y .
cubic subalgebra of X. ik
Rakib Iqbal, Sohail Zafar and Muhammad Shoaib Sardar, Neutrosophic Cubic Subalgebras and Neutrosophic Cubic Closed
Ideals of Balgebras
Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016 55
Theorem 4.6 Suppose f  X Y be a homomorphism of B Definition 5.1 A neutrosophic cubic set A = (AT,I,F , T,I,F )
algebra. Let Ai =(AiT,I,F , iT,I,F ) be neutrosophic cubic sub of X is called a neutrosophic cubic ideal of X if it satisfies fol
algebras of X where i k. If rsup{rmin{AiT,I,F (x1 ), AiT,I,F lowing axioms:
(x2 )}}=rmin{rsupA
S iT,I,F (x1 ), rsupAiT,I,F (x2 )} x1 , x2 N3. AT,I,F (0) AT,I,F (x) and T,I,F (0) T,I,F (x),
Y , then f ( P Ai ) is also a neutrosophic cubic subalgebra of Y . N4. AT,I,F (x) rmin{AT,I,F (x y), AT,I,F (y)},
ik N5. T,I,F (x) max{T,I,F (x y), T,I,F (y)} x, y X
Proof: Let Ai = (AiT,I,F , iT,I,F ) be neutrosophic cubic sub Example 5.1 Consider a Balgebra X = {0, a1 , a2 , a3 } and bi
algebras of X where i k satisfying rsup{rmin{AiT,I,F (x1 ), nary operation * is defined on X as
AiT,I,F (x2 )}}=rmin{rsupAiT,I,F (x1S ), rsupAiT,I,F (x2 )}
x1 , x2 X. Then by Theorem 3.4, P Ai is a neutrosophic > 0 a1 a2 a3
ik 0 0 a1 a2 a3
a1 a1 0 a3 a2
S
cubic subalgebra of X. Hence f ( P Ai ) is also a neutrosophic
ik a2 a2 a3 0 a1
cubic subalgebra of Y . a3 a3 a2 a1 0
Corollary 4.1 For a homomorphism f  X Y of Balgebras, Let A = {AT,I,F , T,I,F } be a neutrosophic cubic set X defined
the following results hold: as,
Rakib Iqbal, Sohail Zafar and Muhammad Shoaib Sardar, Neutrosophic Cubic Subalgebras and Neutrosophic Cubic Closed
Ideals of Balgebras
56 Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016
By calculations verify that A is a neutrosophic cubic ideal of Theorem 5.4 Neutrosophic cubic set A = {AT,I,F , T,I,F } of
+
X. But it is not a neutrosophic cubic closed ideal of X since X is a neutrosophic cubic ideal of X AT,I,F , AT,I,F and
AT,I,F (0 x) AT,I,F (x) and T,I,F (0 x) T,I,F (x), T,I,F are f uzzy ideals of X.
x X.
Proof: Assume that x, y X. Since A
T,I,F (0) AT,I,F (x)
Corollary 5.1 Every neutrosophic cubic subalgebra satisfies N4 and A+ (0) A+ (x), therefore, A
T,I,F T,I,F T,I,F (0) AT,I,F (x).
and N5 refer to a neutrosophic cubic closed ideal.
Also, T,I,F (0) T,I,F (x). Let AT,I,F , A+ T,I,F and T,I,F are
Theorem 5.1 Every neutrosophic cubic closed ideal of a B fuzzy ideals of X. Then AT,I,F (x) = [A (x), A+ (x)]
T,I,F T,I,F
algebra X works as a neutrosophic cubic subalgebra of X. [min{A + +
T,I,F (x y), AT,I,F (y)}, min{AT,I,F (x y), AT,I,F (
Proof: Suppose A = {AT,I,F , T,I,F } be a neutrosophic cubic y)} = rmin{[AT,I,F (x y), AT,I,F (x y)], [AT,I,F (y), A+
+
T,I,F
closed ideal of X, then for any x X we have AT,I,F (0 x) (y)]} = rmin{AT,I,F (x y), AT,I,F (y)} and T,I,F (x)
AT,I,F (x) and T,I,F (0 x) T,I,F (x). Now by N4, N6, ([3], max{T,I,F (x y), T,I,F (y)}. Therefore A is a neutrosophic
Proposition 3.2), we know that AT,I,F (xy) rmin{AT,I,F ((x cubic ideal of X.
y)(0y)), AT,I,F (0y)} = rmin{AT,I,F (x), AT,I,F (0y)} Conversely, let A be a neutrosophic cubic ideal of X. For
rmin{AT,I,F (x), AT,I,F (y)} and T,I,F (x y) max{T,I,F any x, y X, we have [A +
T,I,F (x), AT,I,F (x)] = AT,I,F (x)
((x y) (0 y)), T,I,F (0 y)} = max{T,I,F (x), T,I,F (0 rmin{AT,I,F (xy), AT,I,F (y)} = rmin{[A (xy), A+
T,I,F T,I,F
y)} max{T,I,F (x), T,I,F (y)}. Hence, A is a neutrosophic (x y)], [A (y), A+ (y)]} = [min{A (x y), A
T,I,F T,I,F T,I,F T,I,F
cubic subalgeba of X.
(y)}, min{A+ +
T,I,F (x y), AT,I,F (y)}. Thus, A T,I,F (x)
Theorem 5.2 The Rintersection of any set of neutrosophic cubic min{A (x y), A (y)}, A+ (x) min{A+ (x
T,I,F T,I,F T,I,F T,I,F
ideals of X is also a neutrosophic cubic ideal of X. y), A+
T,I,F (y)} and T,I,F (x) max{T,I,F (xy), T,I,F (y)}.
Proof: Let Ai = {AiT,I,F , iT,I,F }, where i k, be a neutro Hence, A +
T,I,F , AT,I,F and T,I,F are f uzzy ideals of X.
sophic cubic ideals of X and x, y X. Then
Theorem 5.5 For a neutrosophic cubic ideal A =
(AiT,I,F )(0) = rinf AiT,I,F (0) {AT,I,F , T,I,F } of X, the following are valid:
rinf AiT,I,F (x)
1. if x y z, then AT,I,F (x) rmin{AT,I,F (y), AT,I,F (
= (AiT,I,F )(x), z)} and T,I,F (x) max{T,I,F (y), T,I,F (z)},
Rakib Iqbal, Sohail Zafar and Muhammad Shoaib Sardar, Neutrosophic Cubic Subalgebras and Neutrosophic Cubic Closed
Ideals of Balgebras
Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016 57
(2) Again, take x, y X such that x y. Then x x U (AT,I,F  [sT,I,F1 , sT,I,F2 ]). Hence, U (AT,I,F 
y = 0 and thus AT,I,F (x) rmin{AT,I,F (x y), AT,I,F (y)} [sT,I,F1 , sT,I,F2 ]) is a closed ideal of X.
= rmin{AT,I,F (0), AT,I,F (y)} = AT,I,F (y) and T,I,F (x) For tT,I,F1 [0, 1]. Clearly, 0 x L(T,I,F  tT,I,F1 ).
rmin{T,I,F (x y), T,I,F (y)} = rmin{T,I,F (0), T,I,F (y)} Let x, y X be such that x y L(T,I,F  tT,I,F1 ) and
= T,I,F (y). y L(T,I,F  tT,I,F1 ). Then T,I,F (x) max{T,I,F (x
y), T,I,F (y)} tT,I,F1 , x L(T,I,F  tT,I,F1 ). Hence,
Theorem 5.6 Let A = {AT,I,F , T,I,F } is a neutrosophic cubic L(T,I,F  tT,I,F1 ). is a neutrosophic cubic closed ideal of X.
ideal of X. If x y x x, y X, then A is a neutrosophic Conversely, suppose that each nonempty level subset
cubic subalgebra of X. U (AT,I,F  [sT,I,F1 , sT,I,F2 ]) and L(T,I,F  tT,I,F1 ) are
closed ideals of X. For any x X, let AT,I,F (x) =
Proof: Assume that A = {AT,I,F , T,I,F } is a neutrosophic cu
[sT,I,F1 , sT,I,F2 ] and T,I,F (x) = tT,I,F1 . Then x U (AT,I,F 
bic ideal of X. Suppose that x y x x, y X. Then
[sT,I,F1 , sT,I,F2 ]) and x L(T T,I,F  tT,I,F1 ). Since 0 x
AT,I,F (x y) AT,I,F (x) U (A T,I,F  [sT,I,F1
, sT,I,F2
]) L(T,I,F  tT,I,F1 ), it fol
lows that AT,I,F (0 x) [sT,I,F1 , sT,I,F2 ] = AT,I,F (x) and
( By T heorem 5.5)
T,I,F (0 x) tT,I,F1 = T,I,F (x) x X.
rmin{AT,I,F (x y), AT,I,F (y)} If there exist T,I,F1 , T,I,F1 X such that AT,I,F (T,I,F1 )
( By N 4) < rmin{AT,I,F (T,I,F1 T,I,F1 ), T,I,F1 }, then by taking [
0 0
rmin{AT,I,F (x), AT,I,F (y)} sT,I,F1 , sT,I,F2 ] = 21 [AT,I,F (T,I,F1 T,I,F1 ) + rmin{AT,I,F
( By T heorem 5.5) (T,I,F1 ), AT,I,F (T,I,F1 )}], it follows that T,I,F1 T,I,F1
0 0
U (AT,I,F  [sT,I,F1 , sT,I,F2 ]) and T,I,F1 U (AT,I,F 
AT,I,F (x y) rmin{AT,I,F (x), AT,I,F (y)} 0 0 0 0
[sT,I,F1 , sT,I,F2 ]), but T,I,F1 / U (AT,I,F  [sT,I,F1 , sT,I,F2 ]),
0 0
and which is contradiction. Hence, U (AT,I,F  [sT,I,F1 , sT,I,F2 ]) is
not closed ideal of X.
T,I,F (x y) T,I,F (x) Again, if there exist T,I,F1 , T,I,F1 X such that T,I,F (
( By T heorem 5.5) T,I,F1 ) > max{T,I,F (T,I,F1 T,I,F1 ), T,I,F (T,I,F1 )},
0
max{T,I,F (x y), T,I,F (y)} then by taking tT,I,F1 = 12 [T,I,F (T,I,F1 T,I,F1 ) +
max{T,I,F (T,I,F1 ), T,I,F (T,I,F1 )}], it follows that T,I,F1
( By N 5) 0 0
T,I,F1 L(T,I,F  tT,I,F1 ) and T,I,F1 L(T,I,F  tT,I,F1 ),
max{T,I,F (x), T,I,F (y)} 0
but T,I,F1 / L(T,I,F  tT,I,F1 ), which is contradiction.
( By T heorem 5.5) 0
Hence, L(T,I,F  tT,I,F1 ) is not closed ideal of X. Hence,
T,I,F (x y) max{T,I,F (x), T,I,F (y)}. A = (AT,I,F , T,I,F ) is a neutrosophic cubic closed ideal of
X because it satisfies N3 and N4.
Hence, A = {AT,I,F , T,I,F } is a neutrosophic cubic subalgebra
of X.
Theorem 5.8 A neutrosophic cubic set A = (AT,I,F , T,I,F ) A under f of X is a neutrosophic cubic ideal of X.
is a neutrosophic cubic closed ideal of X U (AT,I,F 
1
[sT,I,F1 , sT,I,F2 ]) and L(T,I,F  tT,I,F1 ) are closed ideals of X Proof: x X, f (AT,I,F )(x) = AT,I,F (f (x)) AT,I,F (0
for every [sT,I,F1 , sT,I,F2 ] D[0, 1] and tT,I,F1 [0, 1]. )=AT,I,F (f (0))=f (AT,I,F )(0) and f 1 (T,I,F )(x) = T,I,F
1
Rakib Iqbal, Sohail Zafar and Muhammad Shoaib Sardar, Neutrosophic Cubic Subalgebras and Neutrosophic Cubic Closed
Ideals of Balgebras
58 Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016
Hence, f 1 (A) = f 1 (AT,I,F ), f 1 (T,I,F ) is a neutro 6.1 Product of Neutrosophic Cubic Balgebra
sophic cubic ideal of X. In this section, product of neutrosophic cubic Balgebras are de
fined and some corresponding results are investigated.
Corollary 6.1 A homomorphic preimage of a neutrosophic cu
bic closed ideal is a neutrosophic cubic ideal. Definition 6.1 Let A = (AT,I,F , T,I,F ) and B =
(BT,I,F , T,I,F ) be two neutrosophic cubic sets of X and Y re
Proof: Using Proposition 5.1 and Theorem 6.1, straightforward. spectively. The Cartesian product A B = (X Y, AT,I,F
BT,I,F , T,I,F T,I,F ) is defined by (AT,I,F BT,I,F )(x, y)
Corollary 6.2 A homomorphic preimage of a neutrosophic cu = rmin{AT,I,F (x), BT,I,F (y)} and (T,I,F T,I,F )(x, y) =
bic closed ideal is also a neutrosophic cubic subalgebra. max{T,I,F (x), T,I,F (y)}, where AT,I,F BT,I,F  X Y
D[0, 1] and T,I,F T,I,F  X Y [0, 1] (x, y) X Y.
Proof: Straightforward, using Theorem 5.1 and Theorem 6.1.
Remark 6.1 Let X and Y be Balgebras. we define on X Y
Corollary 6.3 Let f  X Y be homomorphism of B by (x1 , y1 ) (x2 , y2 ) = (x1 x2 , y1 y2 ) for every (x1 , y1 ) and
algebra. If Ai = (AiT,I,F , iT,I,F ) is a neutrosophic cubic ide (x2 , y2 ) X Y. Then clearly, X Y is a Balgebra.
als of Y where i k then the preimage f 1 Definition 6.2 A neutrosophic cubic subset A B = (X
T
AiT,I,F
ikR Y, AT,I,F BT,I,F , T,I,F T,I,F ) is called a neutrosophic
= f ( 1
T 1
AiT,I,F ), f (
T
iT,I,F ) is a neutrosophic cubic subalgebra if
ikR ikR N7: (AT,I,F BT,I,F )((x1 , y1 ) (x2 , y2 )) rmin{(AT,I,F
cubic ideal of X. BT,I,F )(x1 , y1 ), (AT,I,F BT,I,F )(x2 , y2 )}
N8: (T,I,F T,I,F )((x1 , y1 ) (x2 , y2 )) max{(T,I,F
Proof: Straightforward, using Theorem 5.2 and Theorem 6.1. T,I,F )(x1 , y1 ), (T,I,F T,I,F )(x2 , y2 )}
(x1 , y1 ), (x2 , y2 ) X Y
Corollary 6.4 Let f  X Y be homomorphism of Balgebra.
If Ai = (AiT,I,F , iT,I,F ) is a neutrosophic cubic Theorem 6.3 Let A = (AT,I,F , T,I,F ) and B =
closed ide
(B T,I,F , T,I,F ) be neutrosophic cubic subalgebra of X
als of Y where i k then the preimage f 1
T
AiT,I,F and Y respectively. Then A B is a neutrosophic cubic
ik R
subalgebra of X Y.
1 1
T T
= f ( AiT,I,F ), f ( iT,I,F ) is a neutrosophic
ikR ikR Proof: Let (x1 , y1 ) and (x2 , y2 ) X Y. Then (AT,I,F
cubic closed ideal of X. BT,I,F )((x1 , y1 )(x2 , y2 )) = (AT,I,F BT,I,F )(x1 x2 , y1 y2 )
= rmin{AT,I,F (x1 x2 ), BT,I,F (y1 y2 )} rmin{rmin{
Proof: Straightforward, using theorem 5.3 and Theorem 6.1. AT,I,F (x1 ), AT,I,F (x2 )}, rmin{BT,I,F (y1 ), BT,I,F (y2 )}} =
rmin {rmin { AT,I,F (x1 ), BT,I,F (y1 )}, rmin { AT,I,F (x2 ),
Theorem 6.2 Suppose that f  X Y is an epimorphism of BT,I,F (y2 )}} = rmin{(AT,I,F BT,I,F )(x1 , y1 ), (AT,I,F
Balgebra. Then A = (AT,I,F , T,I,F ) is a neutrosophic
cu BT,I,F )(x2 , y2 )} and (T,I,F T,I,F )((x1 , y1 ) (x2 , y2 )) = (
bic ideal of Y, if f 1 (A) = f 1 (AT,I,F ), f 1 (T,I,F ) of A T,I,F T,I,F )(x1 x2 , y1 y2 ) = max{T,I,F (x1
x2 ), T,I,F (y1 y2 )} max{max{T,I,F (x1 ), T,I,F (x2 )},
under f of X is a neutrosophic cubic ideal of X. max{T,I,F (y1 ), T,I,F (y2 )}}=max{max{T,I,F (x1 ), T,I,F
(y1 )}, max{T,I,F (x2 ), T,I,F (y2 )}} = max{(T,I,F
Proof: For any y Y , x X such that y = f (x). So, AT,I,F T,I,F )(x1 , y1 ), (T,I,F T,I,F )(x2 , y2 )}. Hence A B is a
(y) = AT,I,F (f (x)) = f 1 (AT,I,F )(x) f 1 (AT,I,F )(0) = neutrosophic cubic subalgebra of X Y.
AT,I,F (f (0)) = AT,I,F (0) and T,I,F (y) = T,I,F (f (x))
= f 1 (T,I,F )(x) f 1 (T,I,F )(0) = T,I,F (f (0)) = Definition 6.3 A neutrosophic cubic subset A B
T,I,F (0). = (X Y, AT,I,F BT,I,F , T,I,F T,I,F ) is called a
Suppose y1 , y2 y. Then f (x1 ) = y1 and f (x2 ) = y2 for neutrosophic cubic ideal if
some x1 , x2 X. Thus, AT,I,F (y1 ) = AT,I,F (f (x1 )) = f 1 ( N9: (AT,I,F BT,I,F )(0, 0) (AT,I,F BT,I,F )(x, y)
AT,I,F )(x1 ) rmin{f 1 (AT,I,F )(x1 x2 ), f 1 (AT,I,F )(x2 )} and (T,I,F T,I,F )(0, 0) (T,I,F T,I,F )(x, y)
= rmin{AT,I,F (f (x1 x2 )), AT,I,F (f (x2 ))} = rmin{AT,I,F (x, y) X Y,
(f (x1 )f (x2 )), AT,I,F (f (x2 ))}=rmin{AT,I,F (y1 y2 ), AT,I,F N10: (AT,I,F BT,I,F )(x1 , y1 ) rmin{(AT,I,F
(y2 )} and T,I,F (y1 )=T,I,F (f (x1 ))=f 1 (T,I,F )(x1 ) max BT,I,F )((x1 , y1 ) (x2 , y2 )), (AT,I,F BT,I,F )(x2 , y2 )
{f 1 (T,I,F )(x1 x2 ), f 1 (T,I,F )(x2 )} = max{T,I,F (f (x1 and
x2 )), T,I,F (f (x2 ))} = max{T,I,F (f (x1 ) f (x2 )), T,I,F (f N11: (T,I,F T,I,F )(x1 , y1 ) max{(T,I,F
(x2 ))} = max{T,I,F (y1 y2 ), T,I,F (y2 )}. Hence, A = T,I,F )((x1 , y1 ) (x2 , y2 )), (T,I,F T,I,F )(x2 , y2 )}
(AT,I,F , T,I,F ) is a neutrosophic cubic ideal of Y. and A B is closed ideal if it satisfies N9, N10, N11, and
Rakib Iqbal, Sohail Zafar and Muhammad Shoaib Sardar, Neutrosophic Cubic Subalgebras and Neutrosophic Cubic Closed
Ideals of Balgebras
Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016 59
N12: (AT,I,F BT,I,F )((0, 0) (x, y)) (AT,I,F Proof: Suppose A = (AT,I,F , T,I,F ) and B = (BT,I,F , T,I,F
BT,I,F )(x, y) (x1 , y1 ), (x2 , y2 ) X Y . ) be neutrosophic cubic closed ideals of X. Therefore, for
any (x, y) X Y, (AT,I,F BT,I,F )((0, 0) (x, y))
Theorem 6.4 Let A = (AT,I,F , T,I,F ) and B =
(AT,I,F BT,I,F )(x, y) and (T,I,F T,I,F )((0, 0) (x, y))
(BT,I,F , T,I,F ) be neutrosophic cubic ideals of X and Y
(T,I,F T,I,F )(x, y). For [sT,I,F1 , sT,I,F2 ] D[0, 1], if
respectively. Then A B is a neutrosophic cubic ideal of X Y.
(AT,I,F BT,I,F )(x, y) [sT,I,F1 , sT,I,F2 ], then (AT,I,F
BT,I,F )((0, 0) (x, y)) [sT,I,F1 , sT,I,F2 ]. (0, 0) (x, y)
0 0
Proof: For any (x, y) X Y, we have (AT,I,F BT,I,F )(0, 0) U (AT,I,F BT,I,F  [sT,I,F1 , sT,I,F2 ]). Let (x, y), (x , y )
= rmin{AT,I,F (0), BT,I,F (0)} rmin{AT,I,F (x), BT,I,F (y 0 0
X Y be such that (x, y) (x , y ) U (AT,I,F BT,I,F 
)} = (AT,I,F BT,I,F )(x, y) and (T,I,F T,I,F )(0, 0) = 0 0
[sT,I,F1 , sT,I,F2 ]) and (x , y ) U (AT,I,F BT,I,F  [sT,I,F1 ,
max{T,I,F (0), T,I,F (0)} max{T,I,F (x), T,I,F (y)} = sT,I,F2 ]). Now, (AT,I,F BT,I,F )(x, y) rmin{(AT,I,F
(T,I,F T,I,F )(x, y). 0 0 0 0
BT,I,F )((x, y) (x , y )), (AT,I,F BT,I,F )(x , y )} rmin{[
Let (x1 , y1 ) and (x2 , y2 ) X Y. Then (AT,I,F
sT,I,F1 , sT,I,F2 ], [sT,I,F1 , sT,I,F2 ]} = [sT,I,F1 , sT,I,F2 ].
BT,I,F )(x1 , y1 ) = rmin{AT,I,F (x1 ), BT,I,F (y1 )} rmin{
(x, y) U (AT,I,F BT,I,F  [sT,I,F1 , sT,I,F2 ]). Thus U (AT,I,F
rmin{AT,I,F (x1 x2 ), AT,I,F (x2 )}, rmin{BT,I,F (y1 y2 ),
BT,I,F  [sT,I,F1 , sT,I,F2 ]) is closed ideal of X Y. Similarly,
BT,I,F (y2 )}} = rmin{rmin{AT,I,F (x1 x2 ), BT,I,F (y1 y2 )}
L(T,I,F T,I,F  tT,I,F1 ) is closed ideal of X Y.
, rmin{AT,I,F (x2 ), BT,I,F (y2 )}} = rmin{(AT,I,F BT,I,F )
Conversely, let (x, y) X Y be such that (AT,I,F
(x1 x2 , y1 y2 ), (AT,I,F BT,I,F )(x2 , y2 )} = rmin{(AT,I,F
BT,I,F )(x, y) = [sT,I,F1 , sT,I,F2 ] and (T,I,F T,I,F )(x, y) =
BT,I,F )((x1 , y1 ) (x2 , y2 )), (AT,I,F BT,I,F )(x2 , y2 )} and
tT,I,F1 . This implies, (x, y) U (AT,I,F BT,I,F 
(T,I,F T,I,F )(x1 , y1 ) = max{T,I,F (x1 ), T,I,F (y1 )}
[sT,I,F1 , sT,I,F2 ]) and (x, y) L(T,I,F T,I,F  tT,I,F1 ).
max{max{T,I,F (x1 x2 ), T,I,F (x2 )}, max{T,I,F (y1 y2 )
Since (0, 0) (x, y) U (AT,I,F BT,I,F  [sT,I,F1 , sT,I,F2 ])
, T,I,F (y2 )}} = max{max{T,I,F (x1 x2 ), T,I,F (y1 y2 )}
and (0, 0) (x, y) L(T,I,F T,I,F  tT,I,F1 ) (by N6),
, max{T,I,F (x2 ), T,I,F (y2 )}} = max{T,I,F T,I,F )(x1
therefore, (AT,I,F BT,I,F )((0, 0) (x, y)) [sT,I,F1 , sT,I,F2 ]
x2 , y1 y2 ), (T,I,F T,I,F )(x2 , y2 )} = max{(T,I,F
and (T,I,F T,I,F )((0, 0) (x, y)) tT,I,F1 . (AT,I,F
T,I,F )((x1 , y1 ) (x2 y2 )), (T,I,F T,I,F )(x2 , y2 )}. Hence,
BT,I,F )((0, 0)(x, y)) (AT,I,F BT,I,F )(x, y) and (T,I,F
A B is a neutrosophic cubic ideal of X Y.
T,I,F )((0, 0) (x, y)) (T,I,F T,I,F )(x, y)). Hence A B
Theorem 6.5 Let A =(AT,I,F , T,I,F ) and B =(BT,I,F , T,I,F is a neutrosophic cubic closed ideals of X Y.
) be neutrosophic cubic closed ideals of X and Y respectively.
Then A B is a neutrosophic cubic closed ideal of X Y.
Proof: By Proposition 5.1 and Theorem 6.4, A B is neutro 7 Conclusion
sophic cubic ideal. Now, (AT,I,F BT,I,F )((0, 0) (x, y)) =
(AT,I,F BT,I,F )(0 x, 0 y) = rmin{AT,I,F (0 x), BT,I,F In this paper, the concept of neutrosophic cubic subalgebra, neu
(0 y)} rmin{AT,I,F (x), BT,I,F (y)} = (AT,I,F BT,I,F trosophic cubic ideals, neutrosophic cubic closed ideals and the
)(x, y) and (T,I,F T,I,F )((0, 0) (x, y)) = (T,I,F product of neutrosophic cubic subalgebra of Balgebra were pre
T,I,F )(0 x, 0 y) = max{T,I,F (0 x), T,I,F (0 y)} sented and their several useful results were canvassed. The rela
max{T,I,F (x), T,I,F (y)} = (T,I,F T,I,F )(x, y). Hence, tions among neutrosophic cubic subalgebra, neutrosophic cubic
A B is a neutrosophic cubic closed ideal of X Y. Hence, ideals and neutrosophic cubic closed ideals of Balgebra were
A B is a neutrosophic cubic closed ideal of X Y. investigated. For future work this study will be further discussed
to some another algebraic system.
Definition 6.4 Let A = (AT,I,F , T,I,F ) and B =
(BT,I,F , T,I,F ) be neutrosophic cubic subalgebra of X and Y
respectively. For [sT,I,F1 , sT,I,F2 ] D[0, 1] and tT,I,F1 [0, 1], References
the set U (AT,I,F BT,I,F  [sT,I,F1 , sT,I,F2 ]) = {(x, y) X
Y  (AT,I,F BT,I,F )(x, y) [sT,I,F1 , sT,I,F2 ]} is called upper [1] S. S. A HN AND K. BANG , On fuzzy subalgebrasbin Balgebra, Commu
[sT,I,F1 , sT,I,F2 ]level of A B and L(T,I,F T,I,F  tT,I,F1 ) nications of the Korean Mathematical Society, 18(2003), 429437.
= {(x, y) X Y  (T,I,F T,I,F )(x, y) tT,I,F1 is called [2] R. B ISWAS , Rosenfelds fuzzy subgroup with interval valued membership
lower tT,I,F1 level of A B. function, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 63(1994), 8790.
Theorem 6.6 For any two neutrosophic cubic sets A = (AT,I,F [3] J. R. C HO AND H. S. K IM , On Balgebras and quasigroups, Quasigroups
, T,I,F ) and B = (BT,I,F , T,I,F ), A B is a neutrosophic and Related System, 8(2001), 16.
cubic closed ideals of XY the nonempty upper [sT,I,F1 ,
sT,I,F2 ]level cut U (AT,I,F BT,I,F  [sT,I,F1 , sT,I,F2 ]) and the [4] Y. I MAI AND K. I SEKI , On Axiom systems of Propositional calculi XIV,
Proc. Japan Academy, 42(1966), 1922.
nonempty lower tT,I,F1 level L(T,I,F T,I,F  tT,I,F1 ) are
closed ideals of X Y for any [sT,I,F1 , sT,I,F2 ] D[0, 1] and [5] K. I SEKI , An algebra related with a propositional calculus, Proc. Japan
tT,I,F1 [0, 1]. Academy, 42(1966), 2629.
Rakib Iqbal, Sohail Zafar and Muhammad Shoaib Sardar, Neutrosophic Cubic Subalgebras and Neutrosophic Cubic Closed
Ideals of Balgebras
60 Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016
[6] Y. B. Jun, C. S. Kim and K. O. Yang, Cubic sets, Annuals of Fuzzy Math [20] T. S ENAPATI , M. B HOWMIK AND M. PAL , Fuzzy dot subalgebras and
ematics and Informatics, 4(2012), 8398. fuzzy dot ideals of Balgebra, Journal of Uncertain System, 8(2014), 22
30.
[7] Y. B. J UN , S. T. J UNG AND M. S. K IM , Cubic subgroup, Annals of Fuzzy
Mathematics and Infirmatics, 2(2011), 915. [21] T. S ENAPATI , M. B HOWMIK AND M. PAL , Fuzzy closed ideals of B
algebras, International Journal of Computer Science, Engineering and
[8] Y. B. J UN , F. S MARANDACHE AND C. S. K IM , Neutrosophic cubic sets, Technology, 1(2011), 669673.
New Mathematics and Natural Computation, (2015), 841. [22] T. S ENAPATI , M. B HOWMIK AND M. PAL , Fuzzy closed ideals of B
algebras, with intervalvalued membership function, International Journal
[9] Y. B. J UN , C. S. K IM AND M. S. K ANG , Cubic subalgebras and ide of Fuzzy Mathematical Archive, 1(2013), 7991.
als of BCK/BCIalgebra, Far East Journal of Mathematical Sciences,
44(2010), 239250. [23] T. S ENAPATI , M. B HOWMIK AND M. PAL , Fuzzy Bsubalgebras of B
algebra with resepect to tnorm, Journal of Fuzzy Set Valued Analysis,
[10] Y. B. J UN , C. S. K IM AND J. G. K ANG , Cubic qIdeal of BCIalgebras, (2012), doi: 10.5899/2012/jfsva00111.
Annals of Fuzzy Mathematics and Informatics, 1(2011), 2531.
[24] T. S ENAPATI , C. JANA , M. B HOWMIK AND M. PAL , Lfuzzy G
[11] C. B. K IM AND H. S. K IM , On BGalgebra, Demonstration Mathemat subalgebra of Galgebras, Journal of the Egyptian Mathematical Society,
ica, 41(2008), 497505. 23(2014), 219223.
[12] J. N EGGERS AND H. S. K IM , On Balgebras, Mathematichki Vensnik, [25] T. S ENAPATI , C.H. K IM , M. B HOWMIK AND M. PAL , Cubic subalgebras
54(2002), 2129. and cubic closed ideals of Balgebras, Fuzzy Information and Engineer
ing, 7(2015), 129149.
[13] J. N EGGERS AND H. S. K IM , A fundamental theorem of B
homomorphism for Balgebras, International Mathematical Journal, [26] T. S ENAPATI , M. B HOWMIK AND M. PAL , Intuitionistic Lfuzzy ideals
2(2002), 215219. of BGalgebras, Afrika Matematika, 25(2014), 577590.
[14] H. K. PARK AND H. S. K IM , On quadratic Balgebras, Qausigroups and [27] T. S ENAPATI , M. B HOWMIK AND M. PAL , Intervalvalued intuitionis
Related System, 7(2001), 6772. tic fuzzy BGsubalgebras, The Journal of Fuzzy Mathematics, 20(2012),
707720.
[15] A. B. S AEID , Fuzzy topological Balgebra, International Journal of Fuzzy
Systems, 8(2006), 160164. [28] T. S ENAPATI , M. B HOWMIK AND M. PAL , Intervalvalued intuitionistic
fuzzy closed ideals BGalgebras and their products, International Journal
[16] A. B. S AEID , Intervalvalued fuzzy Balgebras, Iranian Journal of Fuzzy of Fuzzy Logic Systems, 2(2012), 2744.
System, 3(2006), 6373.
[29] T. S ENAPATI , M. B HOWMIK AND M. PAL , Intuitionistic fuzzifications of
[17] T. S ENAPATI , Bipolar fuzzy structure of BGalgebras, The Journal of ideals in BGalgebra, Mathematica Aeterna, 2(2012), 761778.
Fuzzy Mathematics, 23(2015), 209220.
[30] A. WALENDZIAK , Some axiomation of Balgebras, Mathematics Slovaca,
[18] F. S MARANDACHE , Neutrosophic set a generalization of the intuition 56(2006), 301306.
istic fuzzy set, International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics,
24(3)(2005), 287297. [31] L. A. Z ADEH , Fuzzy sets, Information and control, 8(1965) 338353.
[32] L. A. Z ADEH , The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to
[19] F. S MARANDACHE , A Unifying Field in Logics: Neutrosophic Logic.
approximate reasoningI, Information science, 8(1975), 199249.
Neutrosophy, Neutrosophic Set and Neutrosophic Probability, (American
Reserch Press, Rehoboth, NM, 1999).
Received: November 25, 2016. Accepted: November 30, 2016
Rakib Iqbal, Sohail Zafar and Muhammad Shoaib Sardar, Neutrosophic Cubic Subalgebras and Neutrosophic Cubic Closed
Ideals of Balgebras
Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016 61
Keywords: mental model, neutrosophic Logic, neutrosophic cognitive maps, static analysis
Pablo Jos Menndez Vera, Cristhian Fabin Menndez Delgado, Susana Paola Carrillo Vera, Milton Villegas Alava,
Miriam Pea Gnzales, Static analysis in neutrosophic cognitive maps
62 Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016
Node Description
Variable classification
A Market orientation
Variables are classified according to the B Flexibility
following rules: C Managers support
D Organizational changes in
a) Transmitter variables have a positive clusion
or indeterminacy outdegree, ( ) F Users commitment and
and zero indegree, ( ). presence.
G Time
b) Receiver variables have a positive TABLE I. NCM NODES
indegree or indeterminacy, ( ) ,
and zero outdegree, ( ). The NCM is developed integrating knowledge. The
NCM with weighs is represented in tale II.
c) Ordinary variables have both a non
zero indegree and outdegree. Ordi 0 0 0.4 0 0 0
nary variables can be more or less re
ceiver or transmitter variables, based I 0 0 0 0 
on the ratio of their indegrees and out 0.7
degrees. 0 0 0 0 I 
0.5
Ranking variables 0 I 0 0 0 0
0 0 0  0 0
A deneutrosophication process gives an
0.7
interval number for centrality. Finally the
nodes are ordered. 0 0 0.6 0 0 0
TABLE II. ADJACENCY MATRIX
The contribution of a variable in a cogni
tive map can be understood by calculating The centralities measures are presented.
its degree centrality, which shows how
Pablo Jos Menndez Vera, Cristhian Fabin Menndez Delgado, Susana Paola Carrillo Vera, Milton Villegas Alava,
Miriam Pea Gnzales, Static analysis in neutrosophic cognitive maps
Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016 63
A 0.4 E 1.2
B 0.7+I F 2.0
C 0.5+I TABLE III. MEDIAN OF THE EXTREME VALUES
D I The ranking is as follows:
E 0.7
F 0.6 C~F B E A D
TABLE III. OUTDEGREE Managers support and Users commitment and presence
are the more important factors in his model.
A I
B I 5 Conclusions
C 1 In this paper, we propose a new framework for processing
D 0 uncertainty and indeterminacy in static analysis of NCM. A
case study was presented showing the applicability of the
E I proposal. The analysis results are given in the form of
F 1.4 neutrosophic numbers. Variables are classified and a de
TABLE III. INDEGREE neutrosophication process gives an interval number for
centrality allowing the ranking of the variables.
A 0.4+I Future research will focus on conducting further real life
experiments and the development of a tool to automate the
B 0.7+2I
process. The calculation of other metrics is another area of
C 1.5+I future research.
D I
E 0.7+I
References
F 2.0
TABLE III. TOTAL DEGREE 1. Kandasamy, W.V. and F. Smarandache, Fuzzy cognitive
maps and neutrosophic cognitive maps. 2003: Infinite
Later nodes are clasified. In this case node D: Organiza Study.
tional changes inclusion is Transmitter, the rest of the 2. Kosko, B., Fuzzy cognitive maps. International journal
nodes are Ordinary. of manmachine studies, 1986. 24(1): p. 6575.
The next step is the deneutrosophication process as 3. Samarasinghea, S. and G. Strickert, A New Method for
proposes by Salmeron and Smarandache [11]. I [0,1] is Identifying the Central Nodes in Fuzzy Cognitive Maps
repalaced by both maximum and minimum values. using Consensus Centrality Measure, in 19th
International Congress on Modelling and Simulation.
2011: Perth, Australia.
4. Smarandache, F., A unifying field in logics: neutrosophic
A [0.4, 1.4]
logic. Neutrosophy, neutrosophic set, neutrosophic
B [0.7, 2.7] probability and statistics. 2005: American Research
C [1.5, 2.5] Press.
D [0, 1] 5. Kandasamy, W.V. and F. Smarandache, Fuzzy
Neutrosophic Models for Social Scientists. 2013:
E [0.7, 1.7]
Education Publisher Inc.
F 2.0 6. Kandasamy, W.B.V. and F. Smarandache, Fuzzy
TABLE III. DENEUTRIFICATION cognitive maps and neutrosophic cognitive maps. 2003:
American Research Press.
Finally we work with the median of the extreme values [14] 7. Kandasamy, W.V. and F. Smarandache, Analysis of
(3) .
social aspects of migrant labourers living with
A 0,9 HIV/AIDS using Fuzzy Theory and Neutrosophic
Cognitive Maps. 2004: American Research Press.
B 1,7
C 2.0
D 0.5
Pablo Jos Menndez Vera, Cristhian Fabin Menndez Delgado, Susana Paola Carrillo Vera, Milton Villegas Alava,
Miriam Pea Gnzales, Static analysis in neutrosophic cognitive maps
64 Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016
8. Salmeron, J.L. and F. Smarandache, Processing 13. Stach, W., L. Kurgan, and W. Pedrycz, Expertbased
Uncertainty and Indeterminacy in Information Systems and computational methods for developing fuzzy
projects success mapping, in Computational Modeling cognitive maps, in Fuzzy Cognitive Maps. 2010,
in Applied Problems: collected papers on econometrics, Springer. p. 2341.
operations research, game theory and simulation. 2006, 14. Merig, J., New extensions to the OWA operators and its
Hexis. p. 94. application in decision making, in Department of
9. PrezTeruel, K. and M. LeyvaVzquez, Neutrosophic Business Administration, University of Barcelona. 2008.
logic for mental model elicitation and analysis. 15. Wilson, H., E. Daniel, and M. McDonald, Factors for
Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, 2012: p. 313. success in customer relationship management (CRM)
10. Smarandache, F., Refined literal indeterminacy and the systems. Journal of marketing management, 2002. 18(1
multiplication law of subindeterminacies. Neutrosophic 2): p. 193219.
Sets and Systems, 2015. 9: p. 5863. 16. Salmeron, J.L. and F. Smarandache, Processing
11. Salmerona, J.L. and F. Smarandacheb, Redesigning Uncertainty and Indeterminacy in Information Systems
Decision Matrix Method with an indeterminacybased success mapping. arXiv preprint cs/0512047, 2005.
inference process. Multispace and Multistructure. 17. BetancourtVzquez, A., K. PrezTeruel, and M.
Neutrosophic Transdisciplinarity (100 Collected Papers LeyvaVzquez, Modeling and analyzing nonfunctional
of Sciences), 2010. 4: p. 151. requirements interdependencies with neutrosofic logic.
12. Lara, R.B., S.G. Espinosa, and M.Y.L. Vzquez, Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, 2015: p. 44.
Anlisis esttico en mapas cognitivos difusos basado en
una medida de centralidad compuesta. Ciencias de la
Informacin, 2014. 45(3): p. 3136. Received: November 29, 2016. Accepted: December 1, 2016
Pablo Jos Menndez Vera, Cristhian Fabin Menndez Delgado, Susana Paola Carrillo Vera, Milton Villegas Alava,
Miriam Pea Gnzales, Static analysis in neutrosophic cognitive maps
Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016 65
Abstract. In this paper, we defined (, ) standard Some properties of (, ) standard neutrosophic rough
neutrosophic rough sets based on an implicator and a t sets are investigated. We consider the case when the neu
norm on ; lower and upper approximations of stand trosophic components (truth, indeterminacy, and false
ard neutrosophic sets in a standard neutrosophic approxi hood) are totally dependent, singlevalued, and hence their
mation are defined. sum is 1.
Nguyen Xuan Thao, Florentin Smarandache, (I,T)Standard neutrosophic rough set and its topologies properties
66 Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016
iff ((1 < 1 ) (3 3 )) ((1 = Example 3. Some standard neutrosophic tnorm, for all
1 ) (3 > 3 )) ((1 = 1 ) (3 = 3 ) (2 2 )) , = (1 , 2 , 3 ), = (1 , 2 , 3 )
and = ( ) ( ). + tconorm max: (, ) = (1 1 , 2 2 , 3 3 )
Then ( , ) is a lattice, in which 0 = (0,0,1) + tconorm product: (, ) = (1 +1
1 = (1,0,0), = (1 , 2 , 3 ) . The meet operator 1 1 , 2 2 , 3 3 )
and the join operator on ( , ) are defined as + tconorm Luksiewicz: (, ) =
follows: (min(1, 1 +1 ), max(0, 2 +2 1), max(0, 3 + 3
For = (1 , 2 , 3 ), = (1 , 2 , 3 ) , 1)).
= (min(1 , 1 ) , min(2 , 2 ) , max(3 , 3 )),
Remark 2.
= (max(1 , 1 ) , min(2 , 2 ) , min(3 , 3 )).
+ (1 , ) = 1 for all . Indeed, for all we
On , we consider logic operators as negation, tnorm,
have (0 , 1 ) (1 ) = 1 so that (0 , 1 )
tconorm, implication.
(0, ) 1 .
2.1. Standard neutrosophic negation + (0 , 0 ) = 0 (obvious).
A standard neutrosophic tnorm and a standard
Definition 2. A standard neutrosophic negation is any neutrosophic tconorm on are said to be dual with
nonincreasing mapping satisfying (0 ) = respect to (w.r.t) a standard neutrosophic negation if
1 v (1 ) = 0 . ((), ()) = (, ) , ,
Example 1. For all = (1 , 2 , 3 ) , we have some ((), ()) = (, ) , .
standard neutrosophic negations on as follows: Example 4. With negation 0 () = (3 , 0, 1 ) we have
+ 0 () = (3 , 0, 1 ) some tnorm and tconorm dual as follows:
+ 1 () = (3 , 4 , 2 ) where 4 = 1 1 2 3 . a. and
b. and
2.2. Standard neutrosophic tnorm c. and
For = (1 , 2 , 3 ) , we denote Many properties of tnorms, tconorms, negations should be
() = { : = (1 , 2 , 3 ), 0 2 2 } given in [21].
Obviously, we have (0 ) = 0 , (1 ) = 1 .
2.4 Standard neutrosophic implication operators
Definition 3. A standard neutrosophic tnorm is an ( )2
mapping satisfying the following conditions In this section, we recall two classes of standard
(T1) (, ) = (, ), , neutrosophic implication in [21].
(T2) (, (, )) = ((, ), )), , , A standard neutrosophic implication off class 1.
(T3) (, ) (, ), , , and
(T4) (1 , ) (). Definition 5. A mapping : ( )2 is referred to as a
Example 2. Some standard neutrosophic tnorm, for all standard neutrosophic implicator off class 1 on if it
= (1 , 2 , 3 ), = (1 , 2 , 3 ) satisfying following conditions:
+ tnorm min: (, ) = (1 1 , 2 2 , 3 3 ) (0 , 0 ) = 1 ; (0 , 1 ) = 1 ; (1 , 1 ) = 1 ;
+ tnorm product: P (, ) = (1 1 , 2 2 , 3 + 3 3 3 ) (1 , 0 ) = 0
+ tnorm Lukasiewicz: (, ) = (max(0, 1 +1 Proposition 1. Let , and be standard neutrosophic t
1), max(0, 2 +2 1), min(1, 3 + 3 )). norm , a standard neutrosophic tconorm and a standard
Remark 1. neutrosophic negation on , respectively. Then, we have
+ (0 , ) = 0 for all . Indeed, for all we a standard neutrosophic implication on , which defined as
have (0 , ) (0, 1 ) = 0 following:
+(1 , 1 ) = 1 (obvious) ,, (, ) = ((, ), ()), , .
Proof.
2.3. Standard neutrosophic tconorm We consider border conditions in definition 5.
Definition 4. A standard neutrosophic tconorm is an (0 , 0 ) = ((0 , 0 ), (0 )) =
( )2 mapping satisfying the following conditions (0 , 1 ) = 1 ,
(S1) (, ) = (, ), , (0 , 1 ) = ((0 , 1 ), (0 )) =
(S2) (, (, )) = ((, ), )), , , (0 , 1 ) = 1 ,
(S3) (, ) (, ), , , and (1 , 1 ) = ((1 , 1 ), (1 )) =
(S4) (0 , ) () (1 , 0 ) = 1 ,
Nguyen Xuan Thao, Florentin Smarandache, (I,T)Standard neutrosophic rough set and its topologies properties
Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016 67
Nguyen Xuan Thao, Florentin Smarandache, (I,T)Standard neutrosophic rough set and its topologies properties
68 Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016
Nguyen Xuan Thao, Florentin Smarandache, (I,T)Standard neutrosophic rough set and its topologies properties
Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016 69
(, , ) = (,, )(),
Proof.
(i) (~ ) = () .
5. Conclusion
Indeed, for all , we have
In this paper, we introduce the ( , ) standard
(~ )() = [(, ), ()] neutrosophic rough sets based on an implicator and a t
norm on , lower and upper approximations of standard
= [(, ), ( ())] neutrosophic sets in a standard neutrosophic approximation
are first introduced. We also have some notes on logic
= [(, ), ()] . operations. Some properties of ( , ) standard
neutrosophic rough sets are investigated. In the feature, we
Moreover, will investigate more properties on ( , ) standard
neutrosophic rough sets.
()() = ((, ), ())
= [(, ), ()]
Nguyen Xuan Thao, Florentin Smarandache, (I,T)Standard neutrosophic rough set and its topologies properties
70 Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016
References
[1] Z. Pawlak, Rough sets, International Journal of Computer and [14] P. Majumdar, Neutrosophic sets and its applications to deci
Information Sciences, vol. 11, no.5 , pp 341 356, 1982. sion making, Computation intelligentce for big data analysis
[2] L. A. Zadeh, Fuzzy Sets, Information and Control, Vol. 8, No. (2015), V.19, pp 97115.
3 (1965), p 338353. [15] J. Peng, J. Q. Wang, J. Wang, H. Zhang, X. Chen, Simplified
[3] K. Atanassov, Intuitionistic fuzzy sets, Fuzzy set and systems, neutrosophic sets and their applications in multicriteria group
vol.20, pp.8796, 1986. decisionmaking problems, International journal of systems
[4] B.C. Cuong, V. Kreinovick, Picture fuzzy sets a new concept science (2016), V.47, issue 10, pp 23422358.
for computational intelligence problems, Published in proceedings [16] Florentin Smarandache, Degrees of Membership > 1 and < 0
of the third world congress on information and communication of the Elements With Respect to a Neutrosophic OffSet,
technologies WICT2013, Hanoi, Vietnam, December 1518, pp 1 Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, vol. 12, 2016, pp. 38.
6, 2013. [17] Florentin Smarandache, Degree of Dependence and
[5] B.C. Cuong, Picture Fuzzy Sets, Journal of Computer Science Independence of the (Sub) Components of Fuzzy Set and
and Cybernetics, Vol.30, n.4, 2014, 409420. Neutrosophic Set, Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, vol. 11, 2016,
[6] B.C. Cuong, P.H.Phong and F. Smarandache, Standard pp. 9597;
Neutrosophic Soft Theory: Some First Results, Neutrosophic Sets http://fs.gallup.unm.edu/NSS/DegreeOfDependenceAndIndepend
and Systems, vol.12, 2016, pp.8091. ence.pdf.
[7] D. Dubois, H Prade, Rough fuzzy sets and fuzzy rough sets, [18] N.X. Thao, N.V. Dinh, Rough picture fuzzy set and picture
International journal of general systems, Vol. 17, p 191209, 1990. fuzzy topologies, Science Computer and Cybernetics, Vol 31, No 3
(2015), pp 245254.
[8] Y.Y.Yao, Combination of rough and fuzzy sets based on
level sets, Rough sets and Data mining: analysis for imprecise data, [19] A.M. Radzikowska, E.E. Kerre, A comparative study of fuzzy
Kluwer Academic Publisher, Boston, p 301 321, 1997. rough sets, Fuzzy set and Systems 126 (2002), pp 137155.
[20] L. Zhou, W. Z. Wu, W. X. Zhang, On character of
[9] W. Z. Wu, J. S. Mi, W. X. Zhang, Generalized fuzzy rough sets,
Information Sciences 151, p. 263282, 2003. intuitionistic fuzzy rough sets based on intuitionistic fuzzy
[10] F. Smarandache, A unifying field in logics. Neutrosophy: Neu implicators, Information Sciences 179 (2009), pp 883898.
trosophic probability, set and logic, American Research Press, Re [21] B.C. Cuong, P.V. Hai, Some fuzzy logic operators for picture
hoboth 1999. fuzzy sets, 2015 Seventh International Conference on Knowledge
[11] H. Wang, F. Smarandache, Y.Q. Zhang et al., Interval neutro and Systems Engineering, pp 132137.
sophic sets and logic: Theory and applications in computing, [22] F. Smarandache, Neutrosophy. Neutrosophic Probability, Set,
Hexis, Phoenix, AZ 2005. and Logic, ProQuest Information & Learning, Ann Arbor,
[12] H. Wang, F. Smarandache, Y.Q. Zhang, et al., Single valued Michigan, USA, 105 p., 1998; http://fs.gallup.unm.edu/eBook
neutrosophic sets, Multispace and Multistructure 4 (2010), 410 neutrosophics6.pdf (last edition online).
413.
[13] J. Ye, A multicriteria decisionmaking method using aggrega
tion operators for simplified neutrosophic sets, Journal of Intelli
gent & Fuzzy Systems 26 (2014) 24592466. Received: December 2, 2016. Accepted: December 19, 2016
Nguyen Xuan Thao, Florentin Smarandache, (I,T)Standard neutrosophic rough set and its topologies properties
Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016 71
1
Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupati, 517502, India. Email: inrajumech@gmail.com
2
Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupati, 517502, India. Email: rajeswarlean@gmail.com
3
Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupati, 517502, India. Email: vdrsvuce@gmail.com
4
Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupati, 517502, India. Email: g_krishnaiah99@yahoo.co.in
Abstract: In real life scientific and engineering problems deci partially known or unknown priorities (weights) of Multi Crite
sion making is common practice. Decision making include sin ria Group Decision Making (MCGDM) problem is determined
gle decision maker or group of decision makers. Decision mak by establishing Correlation Coefficient (CC) established from
ers expressions consists imprecise, inconsistent and indetermi improved cross entropy linear programming technique. The
nate information. Also, the decision maker cannot select the Multi Goal Linear equation was solved using a Novel Self
best solution in unidirectional (single goal) way. Therefore, Adaptive Harmonic Search Algorithm. The (NSAH) alternate
proposed model adopts decision makers opinions in Neutro solutions were ranked by weighted correlation coefficients of
sophic Values (SVNS/INV) which effectively deals imprecise, each alternative (lower the CC higher will be the rank). The val
inconsistent and indeterminate information, Multi goal (criteria) idation of proposed method was demonstrated with an illustra
decision making and creditability (due to partial knowledge of tive examples and compare with recent advancements. Hence,
decision maker) associated decision makers expressions. Then the proposed method was effective, flexible and accurate.
Keywords: MCGDM, Creditability, Improved Cross Entropy, Correlational Coefficient, and NSAH.
false membership functions are completely independent. Jun Ye [23] presents correlational coefficients and
Recently, NS became interesting area for researcher in de weighted correlational coefficients of SVNS. He also in
cision making which can express supporting, nondetermin troduced cosine similarity measure for SVNS. Surapati et
istic, rejection values in terms of NS Values. Wang [13] al [24] proposed TOPSIS for single valued neutrosophic
propose Single Valued Neutrosophic Sets (SVNS) and Ye sets to solve multi criteria decision making problem which
[14] gives correlation coefficient and weighted correlation has unknown attribute weights and group of decision mak
coefficient in SVNS similar to IVIFS. Wang [15] proposed ers. The unknown weights of attributes derived from max
Interval Neutrosophic Sets (INS) in which the truth mem imizing deviation method and rating of alternatives based
berships, indeterminacy membership, false membership on TOPSIS with imprecise and indeterminate information.
functions were extended to interval values. Ye [16] given Said Broumi et al [25] proposed extended TOPSIS using
similarity measures between INSs based on hamming and interval neutrosophic linguistic information for multi at
Euclidean distances and demonstrate with a MCDM prob tribute decision making problems in which attribute
lem. weights are unknown.
Ye [18] developed a simplified neutrosophic weighted Pranab Biswas et al (2016) [26] defined Triangular Fuzzy
arithmetic averaging (SNWAA) operator, a simplified neu Number Neutrosophic Sets (TFNNS) by combining Trian
trosophic weighted geometric averaging (SNWGA) opera gular Fuzzy Numbers (TFN) and Single Valued Neutro
tor and applied to multiple attribute decision making under sophic Sets (SVNS). He also proposed its operational rules
simplified neutrosophic environment. Tian et al (2015) based on TFN, SVNS and aggregation operators for
[19] proposed a simplified neutrosophic linguistic normal TFNNS by extending Single Valued Neutrosophic
ized weighted Bonferroni mean operator (SNNWB) and Weighted Arithmetic (SVNWA) and Single Valued Neu
constructed a multi criteria decisionmaking model based trosophic Weighted Geometric (SVNWG) operators. Then,
on SNNWB. But, the current aggregation operators for he developed MADM model based on TFNNS aggregation
SVNNs and INNs ignore the knowledge background of the operators, score and accuracy functions. He also [27]
decision maker and his corresponding credibility on every introduced Single Valued Trapezoidal Neutrosophic Num
evaluation value of SVNNs/INNs for each attributes. bers (SVTrNN) and their operational rules, cut sets. The
neutrosophic trapezoidal numbers express the truth func
Inspired by this idea Jun Ye (2015) [20] put forward a tion (T), indeterminate function (I) and false function (F)
concept of CredibilityInduced Interval Neutrosophic independently. He presents cosine similarity measures
Weighted Arithmetic Averaging (CIINWAA) operator and based multi criteria decision making method using trape
a CredibilityInduced Interval Neutrosophic Weighted Ge zoidal fuzzy nutrosophic sets (TFNS). The ranking method
ometric Averaging (CIINWGA) operator by taking the im is proposed after defining value and ambiguity indices of
portance of attribute weights and the credibility of the truth, false, indeterminate membership functions. The va
evaluation values of attributes into account. He also ap lidity and applicability is shown by illustrative tablet selec
plied CIINWAA and CIINWGA to MCGDM problem; tion problem. He also [28] proposed cosine similarity
ranking of alternatives are based on INNs projection measures between two trapezoidal neutrosophic sets and its
measures under creditability information. properties.
Ye [22] reviewed evolution of cross entropy and its ap Jun Ye [29] introduced simplified neutrosophic harmonic
plicability in scientific and engineering applications. He averaging projection measures for multi criteria decision
proposed Improved cross entropy measures for SVNS and making problems. Projection measures are very suitable
INS by overcome drawbacks (fail to fulfill the symmetric tool for dealing MCDM problems because it considers not
property) of cross entropy measures proposed by Ye [21]. only distance between alternatives but also its direction.
Also he developed MCDM model based on improved cross The projection measures have extended flexibility of han
entropy measures for SVNS and INS by taking advantage dling various types of information for instance [30, 31] un
of ability of producing accurate results and minimizing in certain and fuzzy based projection measures applied in
formation loss. multi attribute decision making. Ye observed drawbacks of
general projection measures and proposed bidirectional
projection measures [32] by overcoming shortcomings of
general projection measures. He extends the applications sets which is the extension of fuzzy sets, bipolar fuzzy sets,
of bidirectional projection measures in complex group de intuitionistic fuzzy sets, neutrosophic sets. He also devel
cision making under neutrosophic environment. oped the Bipolar Neutrosophic Weighted Average
(BNWA) Operators and Bipolar Neutrosophic Weighted
Surapati and Kalyan [33] defined Accumulated Arithme Geometric (BNWG) operators to aggregate the bipolar
tic Operator (AAO) to transform interval neutrosophic set neutrosophic information. Then he proposed multi criteria
to single valued neutrosophic sets. He also extended single decision making model using bipolar neutrosophic sets and
valued Gray Relation Analysis (GRA) to interval valued its operators of certainty, score and accuracy functions.
numbers in multi criteria decision making. Then he pro
posed entropy based GRA for unknown attributes in Roy and Dos [39] developed neutrosophic based linear
MCDM problems under INN environment. Rdvan ahin goal programming and lexicographic goal programming
[34] proposed two transformation methods for interval for multi objective linear programming (MOLP) problem.
neutrosophic values to fuzzy sets and single valued neutro He describes evolution of neutrosophic theory and its op
sophic sets. He developed two methodologies based on ex erations in linear programming models. He also proposed
tended cross entropy to MCDM problems using interval two models for MOLP, applied to bank there investment
valued numbers. But the transformation of INN to SVNS problem by varying the weights. Feng Li (2011) [40] re
may results inaccurate outcomes. duced process complexity and computation time after de
veloping the closeness coefficient based nonlinear pro
Kalyan and Surapati [35] present quality bricks selection gramming model for MCDM problem. The nonlinear
based on multi criteria decision making with single valued equation based on closeness coefficient applied to search
neutrosophic grey relational analysis. The weights of at ing algorithm to obtain attribute weights and the ranking of
tributes are determined using experts opinions. Ranking is alternatives estimated based on optimal membership de
based on gray relation coefficient that derived from ham grees. The proposed methodology validated with real ex
ming distance between alternative to ideal neutrosophic es ample and demonstrates its applicability.
timate reliable solution and ideal neutrosophic estimates
unreliable solution then neutrosophic relational degree Tian et al (2015) [41] put forward the concept of multi cri
used to select the quality brick. Jun Ye [36] proposed ex teria decision making based on cross entropy under inter
ponential similarity measures between two neutrosophic val neutrosophic sets. The INS values are transformed to
numbers. The advantages of exponential measures are that SVNS for ease of calculations and formulated a linear
indicates stronger discrimination and higher sensitivity equation for deriving weights of attributes. These two line
with respect than cosine similarity measure of neutrosophic ar equations are constructed from decision makers inde
numbers. He applied exponential similarity measures to the terminate and inconsistent information.
vibration fault diagnosis of steam turbine under indetermi
nate information. The proposed method not only analysis Then the linear programming techniques are used to de
fault type but also predicts fault trends based on relation termine weights of attributes here constraints established
indices. by partially known indeterminate weights. After obtaining
attribute weights possibility degree method ranked the al
Tian et al (2016) [37] extends uncertain linguistic variable ternatives.
and simplified neutrosophic sets to simplified neutrosophic
uncertain linguistic sets which integrates qualitative as well After rigorous investigation on literature and research gap
as quantitative evaluation. It reflects decision makers ex analysis the proposed model considered performance fac
pressions having inconsistence, incompleteness, indeter tors such as it should adopt practical/ real world problems,
minate information. After reviewing relevant literature he flexible to operate, accurate in results and effective. Real
developed Generalized Simplified Neutrosophic Uncertain life decision making includes group of decision makers,
Linguistic Prioritized Weighted Aggregation (GSNULP their limited knowledge about specific attributes (credita
WA) operators and applied to solving MCDM problems. bility) and unknown priorities of multi objectives (attrib
utes) to choose best out of existing alternatives.
Bipolarity refers to the propensity of the human mind to
reason and make decisions on the basis of positive and Therefore considering shortcomings of recent methods we
negative effects. Irfan Deli et al [38] introduced bipolar proposed new Multi criteria Group Decision Making Mod
el for unknown attribute weights in continuous space and and then the weighted cross entropy between
finite set of alternatives in discrete space in Neutrosophic SVNSs A from B is defined as follows:
environment.
2.8 Improved Cross Entropy Measures of INS accuracy, flexibility and effectiveness. The proposed
For any two SVNSs A and B in a universe of discourse X MCGDM problem solving procedure described as follows.
= {x1, x2,, xn}. Let weight of each element is wi, i
In a multiple attribute group decisionmaking problem with
[0,1] and _(i=1)^n w_i =1 then the weighted cross en neutrosophic numbers, let S = {S1, S2 Sm} be a set of
tropy between SVNSs A from B is defined as follows: alternatives, Ai = {A1, A2 Am} be a set of attributes,
and Dk = {D1, D2 Ds} be a set of decision makers or
experts. The weight vector of attributes is Wj = (w1, w2,,
wn) with [0, 1] and _(j=1)^nw_j=1 the cred
itability weight vector of Decision makers is = {1,
2, . . . , }.with with k [0, 1] and _(k=1)^s_k=1
.
A1=0.9029
Step: 2 Group Decision Matrix after aggregation Step: 6 Ranking based on weighted correlation
with decision makers creditability coefficients of each alternatives
A1=0.3803
A2=0.3811
A3=0.4177
Step: 3 Normalized group decision matrix (criteria A4=0.3641
4 is cost type attribute) apply Equation: 3 to step
2 to normalize so that all attributes are in benefit Therefore the ranking of alternative A4 > A1 > A2 > A3
type. (lower the Ai value higher the rank)
Step: 6 Ranking based on weighted 2. Liu and Luo [45] proposed weighted distance from
correlation coefficients of each alternatives positive ideal solution to each alternative based linear
equation for determining unknown weights of attributes
A1=0.3831 after observing some drawback in [27] for MAGDM under
A2=0.3830 SVNS. The linear function aims to minimize overall
A3=0.4238 weighted distance from PIS where attribute weights are
A4=0.3623 unknown. The partially known or unknown conditions are
Therefore the ranking of alternative A4 > A2 > A1 > A3 subjected to proposed linear equation and solved using any
(lower the Ai value higher the rank) linear programming technique results weights of attributes.
Case: 2 partially known weights from decision Then ranking of alternatives given based on weighted
makers hamming distance from PIS. The proposed model also
extended to IVNS.
7. Conclusion
Real world problems involved inconsistent, indeterminate
and imprecise information therefore present method 6. E Triantaphyllou, MultiCriteria Decision Making: An Op
represents decision makers expression in Neutrosophic erations Research Approach, Encyclopedia of Electrical and
Sets (SVNS/INS). Group Decision makers creditability Electronics Engineering, (J.G. Webster, Ed.), John Wiley &
weights are considered to aggregate their expressions to Sons, New York, NY, Vol. 15, pp. 175186, (1998).
overcome partial or incomplete knowledge of decision 7. L.A. Zadeh(1965), Fuzzy sets, Information and control 8 (3)
(1965) 338353.
makers in the respective attributes to alternatives. Partially
8. R.E. Bellman, L.A. Zadeh, Decision making in a fuzzy en
known or completely unknown priorities of MCGDM
vironment, Management Science 17 (4) (1970) 141164.
problem is solved by establishing MGLP based on 9. K Atanassov (1994), Operators over intervalvalued intui
symmetric discrimination measure from each alternative to tionistic fuzzy sets, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 64(2), 159
PIS and NIS then solved using NSAH algorithm. Ranks of 174.
alternatives are given based on weighted correlation 10. K Atanassov and G.Gargov, (1989).Intervalvalued intui
coefficients of each alternative lower the value higher the tionistic fuzzy sets, Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 31(3), 343349.
rank. Illustrative examples are demonstrated its 11. F Smarandache, (1999).A unifying field in logics. Neu
effectiveness, accuracy and flexibility by compared with trosophy: Neutrosophic probability, American Research
two recent methods. The proposed technique can be Press, Rehoboth
applied to scientific and engineering problems such as 12. F.Smarandache (2005), A generalization of the intuitionistic
project evaluation, supplier selection, manufacturing fuzzy set.International journal of Pure and Applied Mathe
system, data mining, and medical diagnosis and matics, 24, 287297.
management decisions. 13. H Wang, F Smarandache, and R.Sunderraman, (2010). Sin
gle valued neutrosophic sets, Multispace and Multistructure
(4) 410413.
References
14. J Ye, (2013).Multicriteria decisionmaking method using
1. N Caterino, I Iervolino (2008), A Comparative Analysis Of the correlation coefficient under singlevalued neutrosophic
Decision Making Methods For The Seismic Retrofit Of Rc environment, International Journal of General Systems
Buildings, The 14thWorld Conference on Earthquake Engi 42(4) 386394.
neering October 1217, 2008, Beijing, China. 15. [H Wang and F. Smarandache, Y. Q. Zhang, (2005). Inter
2. Milan Janic and Aura Reggiani (2002), An Application of val neutrosophic sets and logic: Theory and applications in
the Multiple Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) Analysis to computing, Hexis, Phoenix, AZ.
the Selection of a New Hub Airport, OTB Research institute 16. J Ye, (2014). Similarity measures between interval neutro
Delft University of Technology Delft The Netherlands. sophic sets and their applications in Multicriteria decision
3. Aarushi Singh, Sanjay Kumar Malik (2014), Major MCDM making. Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems 26 165
Techniques and their applicationA Review, M. Tech. Stu 172
dent, Hindu College of Engineering, Sonepat, IOSR Journal 17. J Ye (2014). A multicriteria decisionmaking method using
of Engineering (IOSRJEN) www.iosrjen.org ISSN (e): aggregation operators for simplified neutrosophic sets, J. In
22503021, ISSN (p): 22788719 Vol. 04. tell. Fuzzy Syst. 26 (5) 24592466.
4. Rohan K Gavade, MultiCriteria Decision Making: An 18. Jun Ye (2014), A multicriteria decisionmaking method us
overview of different selection problems and methods, In ing aggregation operators for simplified neutrosophic sets. J.
ternational Journal of Computer Science and Information Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 26, 24592466.
Technologies, Vol. 5 (4) , 2014, 56435646. 19. Z.P. Tian, J. Wang, H.Y. Zhang, X.H. Chen, J.Q. Wang
5. P.O. Box 64732, Virginia Beach, VA, 23467, An Analysis (2015), Simplified neutrosophic linguistic normalized
of MultiCriteria Decision Making Methods, International weighted Bonferron mean operator and its application to
Journal of Operations Research Vol. 10, No. 2, 5666 multicriteria decision making problems. FILOMAT.
(2013). doi:10.2298/FIL1508576F
20. Jun Ye (2015), Interval Neutrosophic Multiple Attribute 36. Jun Ye (2016), Fault diagnoses of steam turbine using the
DecisionMaking Method with Credibility Information. In exponential similarity measure of neutrosophic numbers.
ternational Journal of Fuzzy Systems ISSN 15622479 Int. J.
Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems 30 (2016) 1927
Fuzzy Syst. DOI 10.1007/s4081501501224.
1934 DOI: 10.3233/IFS151903 IOS Press.
21. Y e, J. Single Valued Neutrosophic CrossEntropy for Mul
37. Tian et al (2016), Multicriteria decisionmaking based on
ticriteria Decision Making Problems. Applied Mathemati
generalized prioritized aggregation operators under simpli
cal Modelling, Vol. 38, 2014, pp. 11701175.
fied neutrosophic uncertain linguistic environment. Int. J.
22. Jun Ye (2015), Improved Cross Entropy Measures of Single
Mach. Learn. & Cyber. DOI 10.1007/s1304201605529.
Valued Neutrosophic Sets and Interval Neutrosophic Sets
38. Irfan Deli et al (2015), Bipolar Neutrosophic Sets and Their
and Their Multi criteria Decision Making Methods. Cyber
Application Based on MultiCriteria Decision Making Prob
netics and Information Technologies January 2015, DOI:
lems. Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on
10.1515/cait20150051
Advanced Mechatronic Systems, Beijing, China, August,
23. Jun Ye (2013), Multicriteria decisionmaking method using
2224, 2015.
the correlation coefficient under singlevalued neutrosophic
39. Roy and Dos (2016), Neutrosophic Goal Programming ap
environment. International Journal of General Systems,
plied to Bank: Three Investment Problem. Neutrosophic
2013 Vol. 42, No. 4, 386394,
Sets and Systems, Vol. 12, 2016.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03081079.2012.761609.
40. Feng Li (2011), Closeness coefficient based nonlinear pro
24. Surapati et al (2015), TOPSIS for Single Valued Neutro
gramming method for intervalvalued intuitionistic fuzzy
sophic Soft Expert Set Based Multiattribute Decision Mak
multiattribute decision making with incomplete preference
ing Problems. Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 10,
information. Applied Soft Computing 11 (2011) 34023418.
2015.
41. Tian et al (2015), Multicriteria decisionmaking method
25. Said Broumi et al (2015), An Extended TOPSIS Method for
based on a crossentropy with interval neutrosophic sets. In
Multiple Attribute Decision Making based on Interval Neu
ternational Journal of Systems Science, Taylor & Francis.
trosophic Uncertain Linguistic Variables. Neutrosophic Sets
42. P. Bosc, O. Pivert, More on a fuzzy bipolar relational alge
and Systems, Vol. 8, 2015.
bra, Information Sciences, 219 (2013) 116.
26. Pranab Biswas et al (2016), Aggregation of triangular fuzzy
43. Thamaraiselvi and Santhi (2016), A New Approach for Op
neutrosophic set information and its application to multi
timization of Real Life Transportation Problem in Neutro
attribute decision making. Neutrosophic Sets and Systems,
sophic Environment. Hindawi Publishing Corporation
Vol. 12, 2016.
Mathematical Problems in Engineering Volume 2016, Arti
27. Pranab Biswas et al (2016), Value and ambiguity index
cle ID 5950747, 9 pages
based ranking method of singlevalued trapezoidal neutro
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/5950747.
sophic numbers and its application to multiattribute deci
44. RidvanSahin and Peide Liu (2015), Maximizing deviation
sion making. Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 12, 2016.
method for neutrosophic multiple attribute decision making
28. Pranab Biswas et al (2014), Cosine Similarity Measure
with incomplete weight information, Neural Computing
Based Multiattribute Decisionmaking with Trapezoidal
and Applications, pp. 113, 2015.
Fuzzy Neutrosophic Numbers. Neutrosophic Sets and Sys
45. Liu and Luo (2016), The Weighted Distance Measure Based
tems, Vol. 8, 2014.
Method to Neutrosophic Multiattribute Group Decision
29. Jun Ye (2015), Simplified neutrosophic harmonic averaging
Making. Hindawi Publishing Corporation Mathematical
projectionbased method for multiple attribute decision
Problems in Engineering Volume 2016, Article ID 3145341,
making problems. Int. J. Mach. Learn. & Cyber. DOI
8 pages http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/3145341.
10.1007/s1304201504560.
46. Luo (2013), A Novel SelfAdaptive Harmony Search Algo
30. Xu ZS, Da QL (2004) Projection method for uncertain mul
rithm. Hindawi Publishing Corporation Journal of Applied
tiattribute decision making with preference information on
Mathematics Volume 2013, Article ID 653749, 16 pages
alternatives. Int J Inf Technol Decis Mak 3(3):429434
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/653749
31. Xu Z, Hu H (2010) Projection models for intuitionistic
fuzzy multiple attribute decision making. Int J Inf Technol
Received: December 5, 2016. Accepted: December 20, 2016
Decis Mak 9(2):267280.
32. Jun Ye (2016), Bidirectional projection method for multiple
attribute group decision making with neutrosophic number.
Neural Comput & Applic, DOI 10.1007/s0052101521235.
33. Surapati and Kalyan (2015), Interval Neutrosophic Multi
Attribute DecisionMaking Based on Grey Relational Anal
ysis. Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 9, 2015.
34. Rdvan ahin (2015), Crossentropy measure on interval
neutrosophic sets and its applications in Multicriteria deci
sion making. Bayburt University, Faculty of Education,
Bayburt, 69000, Turkey.
35. Kalyan and Surapati (2015), Neutrosophic Decision Making
Model for ClayBrick Selection in Construction Field Based
on Grey Relational Analysis. Neutrosophic Sets and Sys
tems, Vol. 9, 2015.
Abstract: A rough fuzzy set is the result of the neutrosophic sets and standard neutrosophic information
approximation of a fuzzy set with respect to a crisp system, and give some results of the knowledge discovery
approximation space. It is a mathematical tool for the on standard neutrosophic information system based on
knowledge discovery in the fuzzy information systems. In rough standard neutrosophic sets.
this paper, we introduce the concepts of rough standard
Keywords: rough set, standard neutrosophic set, rough standard neutrosophic set, standard neutrosophic information systems
Nguyen Xuan Thao, Bui Cong Cuong, Florentin Smarandache, Rough Standard Neutrosophic Sets: An Application
on Standard Neutrosophic Information Systems
Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016 81
fuzzy set and the intuitionistic fuzzy topologies in crisp may be identified with the standard neutrosophic set in the
approximation spaces [13]. In 2013, B. Davvaz and M. form
Jafarzadeh studied the rough intuitionistic fuzzy infor A { x, A x ,0, A x X  x U}
mation system [14]. In 2014, X. T. Nguyen introduced the
rough picture fuzzy sets. It is the result of approximation of A = {(x, A (x), A (x), 0)x U}.
a picture fuzzy set with respect to a crisp approximation The operators on PFS(U): A B , A B , A B were
space [15]. introduced in [4].
In this paper, we introduce the concept of standard Now we define some special PF sets: a constant PF set is the
neutrosophic information system, and study some problems
PF set (,
, ) = {(x, , , )x U}; the PF universe set is
of the knowledge discovery of standard neutrosophic infor = {(x, 1,0,0)x U} and the PF empty
U = 1U = (1,0,0)
mation system based on rough standard neutrosophic sets.
set is = 0U = (0,0,1) = {(x, 0,0,1)x U} = 0U =
The remaining part of this paper is organized as follows: we
= {(x, 0,1,0)x U}.
(0,1,0)
recall the basic notions of rough set, standard neutrosophic
set and rough standard neutrosophic set on the crisp For any x U , standard neutrosophic set 1x and 1U{x}
approximation space, respectively, in Sections 2 and 3. In
are, respectively, defined by: for all y U
Section 4, we introduce the basic concepts of standard
1 if y x , 0 if y x ,
1x y
neutrosophic information system. Finally, we investigate
1 y
some problems of the knowledge discovery of standard 0 if y x 0 if y x
x
set
Definition 2. (Lattice (D* , D* )). Let
In this paper, we denote by U a nonempty set called the
D* = {(x1 , x2 , x3 ) [0,1]3 : x1 + x2 + x3 1}.
universe of discourse. The class of all subsets of U will be
We define a relation D* on D as follows:
denoted by P(U) and the class of all fuzzy subsets of U will
(x1 , x2 , x3 ), (y1 , y2 , y3 ) D*
be denoted by F(U).
then
Definition 1. [6]. A standard neutrosophic (PF) set A on the x , x , x y , y , y (x1 , x2 , x3 ) * (y1 , y2 , y3 )
1 2 3 D* 1 2 3 D
universe U is an object of the form
if only if
A { x, A x , A x , A x  x U} (or (x1 y1 , x 3 y3 ) (x1 < y1 , x3 y3 ) or (x1 =
'
where A (x)( [0,1]) is called the degree of positive y1 , x3 > y3 )(x = x , y > y')
membership of x in A , A (x)( [0,1]) is called the or (x1 = y1 , x3 = y3 , x2 y2 )(x = x ' , y = y ' , z z'))
degree of neutral membership of x in A and and (x1 , x2 , x3 ) =D* (y1 , y2 , y3 ) (x1 = y1 , x2 =
Nguyen Xuan Thao, Bui Cong Cuong, Florentin Smarandache, Rough Standard Neutrosophic Sets: An Application
on Standard Neutrosophic Information Systems
82 Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016
We have some properties of those operators. (+ , + ) level cut set of the standard neutro
Lemma 1. sophic set A as
A {x U A x , A x }
(+ , , ) level cut set of the standard neutrosophic U, (x, y) R then (y, x) R.
set A as Transitive: if for all
x,y,z U, x, y R, y, z R x, y, z U, (x, y)
{x U A x , A x }
A ,
+)
R, (y, z) R then (x, z) R
(, , level cut set of the standard neutrosophic
Similarity: if R is reflexive and symmetric
set A as
Preorder: if R is reflexive and transitive
A, {x U A x , A x } Equivalence: if R is reflexive and symmetric, tran
sitive.
By 0 we denoted
A = A,0
Nguyen Xuan Thao, Bui Cong Cuong, Florentin Smarandache, Rough Standard Neutrosophic Sets: An Application
on Standard Neutrosophic Information Systems
Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016 83
A crisp approximation space is a pair (U, R). For an 3. Rough standard neutrosophic set
arbitrary crisp relation R on U, we can define a setvalued
A rough standard neutrosophic set is the approximation
mapping R s : U P U by:
of a standard neutrosophic set w. r. t a crisp approximation
R s x y U x, y R , x U.
space. Here, we consider the upper and lower
approximations of a standard neutrosophic set in the crisp
approximation spaces together with their membership
Then, R s (x) is called the successor neighborhood of x
functions, respectively.
x with respect to (w.r.t) R .
Definition 5: Let (U, R) be a crisp approximation space. For
Definition 4.[9]. Let (U, R) be a crisp approximation
A PFS(U) , the upper and lower approximations of A
space. For each crisp set A U , we define the upper and
(A) (w.r.t) (U, R) denoted by RP A RP(A) and RP(A) ,
lower approximations of A (w.r.t) (U, R) denoted by R
and R(A), respectively, are defined as follows: respectively, are defined as follows:
(A) = {x U: R s (x) A },
R (A) = {(x, RP
RP (A) (x), RP (A) (x))x U}
(A) (x), RP
R A x U : R s x A R(A) = {x
RP A { x, RP A x , RP A x , RP A x  x U}
U: R s (x) A}.
where
Remark 2.1. Let (U, R) be a Pawlak approximation space,
i.e. R is an equivalence relation. Then R s (x) = [x]R holds. RP A x A y , RP A x A y ,
yR s x yR s x
For each crisp set A U , the upper and lower
RP(A) = {(x, RP(A) (x), RP(A) (x), RP(A) (x))x U};
approximations of A (w.r.t) (U, R) denoted by R (A) and
R(A), respectively, are defined as follows: and
(A) = {x U: [x]R A }R(A) = {x U: [x]R
R RP(A) = {(x, RP(A) (x), RP(A) (x), RP(A) (x))x U} ,
A} RP A x A y , RP A x A y .
yR s x yR s x
Definition 5. [16] Let (U, R) be a crisp approximation
space. For each fuzzy set A U, we define the upper and RP(A) = {(x, RP(A) (x), RP(A) (x), RP(A) (x))x U}
lower approximations of A (w.r.t) (U, R) denoted by R A We have RP(A) and RP A , two standard
and R(A), respectively, are defined as follows: neutrosophic sets in U. Indeed, for each x U, for all >
(A) = {x U: R s (x) A }, 0 , it exists y0 U y0 U such that RP (A) (x)
R
A (y0 )
RP(A) (x) ,
RP(A) (x) A (y0 ) ,
RP(A) (x)
R A x U : R s x A A (y0 )
where so that RP
A x RP A x RP A x
R(A) (x) = max{A (y)y R s (x)},
A y0 A y0 A y0 1
RA x min{ A y  y Rs x } (A) (x) + RP
RP (A) (x)+RP
(A) (x) .
Remark 2.2. Let (U, R) be a Pawlak approximation space, Hence RP(A) (x) + RP
(A) (x)+RP
(A) (x) 1 + , for all
Nguyen Xuan Thao, Bui Cong Cuong, Florentin Smarandache, Rough Standard Neutrosophic Sets: An Application
on Standard Neutrosophic Information Systems
84 Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016
u4 0 1 0 1 0 (PL3) RP U U RP(U) = U
(PL5) RP A B RP A RP B
We have R s (u1 ) = {u1 , u3 }, R s (u2 ) = {u2 , u4 , u5 },
R s (u3 ) = {u1 , u3 , u5 }, R s (u4 ) = {u2 , u4 }, (PL6) A B RP(A) RP(B)
R s u 5 u3 , u4 , u5 R s (u5 ) = {u3 , u4 , u5 }.
(PU1) (~A) = ~RP(A) RP A
RP
Therefore, we obtain the results
PR( A)
RP(A) (u1 ) = yRs (u1 ) A (y)
=max{0.7,0.6} = 0.7,
(PU5) RP(A B) RP(A) RP(B)
Nguyen Xuan Thao, Bui Cong Cuong, Florentin Smarandache, Rough Standard Neutrosophic Sets: An Application
on Standard Neutrosophic Information Systems
Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016 85
Proof. The results (PL4), (PL5), (PL6) were proved by using the
definition of lower and upper approximation spaces
(PL1).
(definition 5) and lemma 1.
(x)
RP((,,))
RP ~ A { x, RP ~A x , RP ~A x , RP ~A x  x U}
Similarly, we have (PU1), (PU2), (PU3), (PU4), (PU5),
in which, PU(6).
RP ~A x yRs x ~ A y = yRs x A y =
Theorem 2. Let (U, R) be a crisp approximation space.
Then
RP A x Proof.
(a) Using (PL3), (PL6), (PU3), (PU6), we easy prove
RP ~A x yRs x ~ A y = yRs x A y = RP(U) = U = RP(U) and RP() = = RP().
RP A x yR A y
x
PR( A) = RP A .
s
and
yRs(x) RP(A(,,)
) (y)= yRs x
max RP A y , RP A x yR
s
A y
x
= max{
yR x RP A
s
y , yR x } s
yR s x A
y RP A x
= max{yRs(x) RP(A) (y), yRs(x) } So RP(A) RP(A) for all A PFS(U).
max{ RP A
( x ), , , ( x )} = RP A,, ( x ) . In the case of connections between special types of
crisp relation on U , and properties of rough standard
By the same way, we have neutrosophic approximation operators, we have the
following:
A ,,
RP x RP A ,, ( x )
Lemma 2. If R is a symmetric crisp binary relation on U,
and then for all A, B PFS(U),
Nguyen Xuan Thao, Bui Cong Cuong, Florentin Smarandache, Rough Standard Neutrosophic Sets: An Application
on Standard Neutrosophic Information Systems
86 Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016
and RP A x yR s
y A x . It means
x A
s
RP (RP A )
we have
that RP A A , A PFS U , i.e. (a1) was verified.
x yR s x ( zR s y A z ) A x ,
Similarly, we consider upper approximation of:
RP A x yR x A y A x , RP A x = RP (RP A ) x yR x ( zR y A z ) A x ; and
s
s s
y A x , and RP A x =
yR s x A RP (RP A ) x yR x ( zR y A z ) A x .
s s
yR s
y A x .
x A
Nguyen Xuan Thao, Bui Cong Cuong, Florentin Smarandache, Rough Standard Neutrosophic Sets: An Application
on Standard Neutrosophic Information Systems
Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2017 87
z )=1 > A x 0
4. The standard neutrosophic information systems
yR s x ( zR s y A . It
In this section, we introduce a new concept: standard
is not true, because RP (RP A ) x A ( x), for all neutrosophic information system.
Let (U, A, F) be a classical information system. Here U
x U . So that R is symmetric.
is the (nonempty) set of objects, i.e. U = {u1 , u2 , , un },
By the same way, it yields (b2). A = {a1 , a2 , , am } is the attribute set, and F is the rela
(c). R is transitive, i.e., if for all x, y , z U : tion set of U and A, i.e. F = {fj : U Vj , j = 1,2, , m} ,
where Vj is the domain of the attribute a j , j 1, 2,..., m
z RS ( y ), y RS ( x) then z RS ( x) . It means that
.
RS ( y ) RS ( x) , so that for all A PFS (U ) we have We call (U, A, F, D, G) an information system or deci
sion table, where U, A, F) is the classical information sys
zR s x A z zR s y A z .
tem, A is the condition attribute set and D is the decision at
Hence tribute set, i.e. D = {d1 , d2 , , dp } and G is the relation
yR s x ( zR s x A z ) yR s x ( zR s y A z ) . set of U an D, i.e. G = {g j : U Vj' , j = 1,2, , p} where
Vj' is the domain of the attribute d j , j 1, 2,..., p .
Because RP ( A) ( x) yR x ( zR x A z )
s s
Let (U, A, F, D, G) be the information system. For B
and RP ( RP ( A)) ( x) yR x ( zR y A z ) .
s s
A D, we define a relation, denoted R B = IND(B), as fol
lows, x, y U:
So RP( A) ( x) RP( RP( A)) ( x) , for all x U , A PFS (U ) .
xIND(B)y fj (x) = fj (y) for all j {j: aj B}.
It mean that (c1) was varified. Now, we assume The equivalence class of x U based on R B is [x]B =
contradiction that (c1): RP A RP RP A A PFS U , {y U: yR B x}.
Here, we consider R A = IND(A), R D = IND(D). If
but R is not transitive, i.e., x, y , z U : RA RD R A R D , i.e., for any [x]A , x U there exists
z RS ( y ), y RS ( x) then z RS ( x) . We consider [x]D such that [x]A [x]D , then the information system is
called a consistent information system, other called an in
A = 1U {x} , then RP ( A) ( x) zR s x A z 1 , but consistent information system.
Let (U, A, F, D, G) be the information system, where
RP ( RP ( A)) ( x) yR x ( zR y A z ) 0 .
s s (U, A, F) is a classical information system.
If D = {Dk k = 1,2, , q}, where Dk is a fuzzy sub
It is false. By same way, we show that (c2) is true. Hence,
set of U, then (U, A, F, D, G) is the fuzzy information sys
(c) was verified.
tem.
Now, according to Theorem 1, Lemma 1 and Theorem 3, If D = {Dk k = 1,2, , q} where Dk is an intution
we obtain the following results: istic fuzzy subset of U, then (U, A, F, D, G) is an intuition
istic fuzzy information system.
Nguyen Xuan Thao, Bui Cong Cuong, Florentin Smarandache, Rough Standard Neutrosophic Sets: An Application
on Standard Neutrosophic Information Systems
88 Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016
Definition 6. Let (U, A, F, D, G) be the information system = RPB (Di )(x) > RPB (Dj )(x)(i j),
or decision table, where (U, A, F) is a classical information
(x),0 (x),0
system. If D = {Dk k = 1,2, , q}, where Dk is a standard then [x]B ( Dj )(x) [x]B ( Dj )(x)
x B D j x
x ,0 (x),0
neutrosophic subset of U, and G is the relation set of U [x]B ( Dj )(x) and
and D, then (U, A, F, D, G) is called a standard neutrosophic (x),0
x , x
information system. x B Di x [x]B ( Dj )(x) [x]B
(x),(x) (x),0
Example 2. The following Table 2 gives a standard (Di )(x) [x]B ( Dj )(x)
neutrosophic information system, where the objects set U =
{u1 , u2 , , u10 }, , the condition attribute set is A = where ((x), (x), (x)) D* .
{a1 , a2 , a3 } , and the decision attribute set is D = Proof.
{D1 , D2 , D3 } , where Dk (k = 1,2,3) is the standard
neutrosophic subsets of . We have
1 3 2 (0.3,0.1,0.5) (0.3,0.3,0.3) (0.35,0.1,0.4) Since ((x), (x), (x)) = RPB (Di )(x),
u2
u3 3 2 1 (0.6,0,0.4) (0.3,0.05,0.6) (0.1,0.45,0.4) we have x y x D y , x y x D y ,
i B i B
x , x
y Di x
2 3 4 (0.1,0.3,0.5) (0.2,0.3,0.4) (1,0,0)
u6 Di (y) (x) . It means that , i.e.,
1 3 2 (0.25,0.3,0.4) (1,0,0) (0.3,0.3,0.4)
u7 x , x
(0.1,0.6,0.2) (0.25,0.3,0.4) (0.4,0,0.6)
[ x]B Di x [x]B (Di )(x)
(x),(x)
u8 2 2 4
In this section, we will give some results about the (Di (y), Di (y), Di (y)) < ((x), (x), (x)) ,i.e., or
knowledge discovery for a standard neutrosophic (Di (y) < (x) , Di (y) (x)) or (Di (y) = (x) ,
information systems by using the basic theory of rough Di (y) > (x)) or (Di (y) = (x) , Di (y) > (x)) and
standard neutrosophic set in Section 3. Throughout this
Di (y) < (x)). It means that here exists y [x]B such that
paper, let (U, A, F, D, G) be the standard neutrosophic
information system and by B A, we denote RPB (Dj ) the y , y , y x ,0, x ,
Di Di Di
i.e. y (
RP A D X i RP A D1 X i , RP A D2 X i ,, RP A Dq X i maxi={1,2,3} RPA (Di )(x) = RPA (D2 )(x) = (0.3,0.3,0.1),
Example 3. We consider the standard neutrosophic and X2 = {u2 , u7 , u10 } (D2 )0.3,0.1
0.3 = {u2 , u7 , u10 }.
information system in Table 2. The equivalent classes
For X3 = {u4 }, we have x X2 ,
U / RA { X1 u1 , u3 , u9 , X 2 u2 , u7 , u10 ,
maxi={1,2,3} RPA (Di )(x) = RPA (D3 )(x) = (0.2,0.3,0.4),
3 = {4 }, 4 = {5 , 8 }, 5 = {6 }}
X 3 u4 D2 0.3 u4 , u6 , u9 X3 = {u4 }
0.3,0.1
and
The approximation of the standard neutrosophic decision is
as follows: (D2 )0.3,0.1
0.3 = {u4 , u6 , u9 }.
Table 3: The approximation of the picture fuzzy decision For X3 = {u4 }, we have x X2
X 4 u5 , u8 D2 0.4 u2 , u5 , u8 , u9 , u10
0.2,0.3
X1 (0.2,0,0.5) (0.15,0.05,0.6) (0.1,0.05,0.5) and
For X2 = {u2 , u7 , u10 }. We have x X2 , RPA (X), RPB (X), RPA (X), RPB (X) are standard neutro
Nguyen Xuan Thao, Bui Cong Cuong, Florentin Smarandache, Rough Standard Neutrosophic Sets: An Application
on Standard Neutrosophic Information Systems
90 Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016
sophic lower and standard neutrosophic upper approxima B A such that B DCij = , then B is the consistent set
tion sets of standard neutrosophic set X PFS(U) based of A.
on RA , RB R A , R B , respectively.
Proof. If B DCij = , then B Dij . According to Theorem
Now, we express the knowledge of the reduction of
6, B is the consistent set of A.
standard neutrosophic information system by introducing
the discernibility matrix. The extension of a standard neutrosophic information
system suggested the following definition:
Definition 8. Let (U, A, F, D, G) be the standard
neutrosophic information system. Then M [ Dij ]kk Definition 11.
(i) Let (U, A, F) be the classical information system and A
where
B. B is called the standard neutrosophic extension of the
Dij
al A : f l X i f l X j ; g X i Dt g X j Dt classical information system (U, A, F), if B satisfies the
A ; g X i Dt g X j Dt following relations:
is called the discernibility matrix of (U, A, F, D, G) (where for any X PFS(U), x U
g Xi (Dk ) is the maximum of RPA (D(Xi )) obtained at Dt Dk , RP A X RP B X , RP A X RP B X
i.e., g X Dt RP A Dt X i
i
(ii) B is called the standard neutrosophic lower approx
imation extension of the classical information system
=
max RP A Dz X i , z 1, 2,, q ) g Xi (Dk ) = (U, A, F), if B B satisfies the following relations:
for any X PFS(U), x U
RPA (Dk (X i )) = max{RPA (Dt (X i )), t = 1,2, , q}). RP A X RP B X
Definition 9. Let (U, A, F, D, G) be the standard
(iii) B is called the standard neutrosophic upper approx
neutrosophic information system, for any B A, if the fol imation extension of the classical information system
lowing relations holds, for any x U: (U, A, F), if B satisfies the following relations:
RP B Di x RP B D j x RP A Di x RP A D j x i j for any X PFS(U), x U
then B is called the consistent set of A. RP A X RP B X
Theorem 6. Let (U, A, F, D, G) be the standard
where RPA (X), RPB (X), RPA (X), RPB (X) are picture
neutrosophic information system. If there exists a subset B
fuzzy lower and upper approximation sets of standard neu
A such that B Dij , then B is the consistent set of
trosophic set X PFS(U) based on R A , R B , respectively.
A.
We can easily obtain the following results:
Definition 10. Let (U, A, F, D, G) be the standard
neutrosophic information system Definition 12. Let (U, A, F) be the classical information
system, for any hyper set B, such that , if is the
DiCj
al A : fl X i fl X j ; g X D t
i
g X D t
j
standard neutrosophic reduction of the classical information
; g X D t i
g X D t
j
system (U, B, F) , then (U, B, F) is the standard neutro
is called the discernibility matrix of (U, A, F, D, G) (where sophic extension of (U, A, F), but not conversely necessary.
Example 4. In the approximation of the standard neutro
g Xi (Dk ) is the maximum of RPA (D(X i )) obtained at Dk ,
sophic decision in Table 2, Table 3. Let B = {a1 , a2 }, then
i.e.
we obtain the family of all equivalent classes of based on
g Xi Dt RP A Dt X i max RP A Dz X i , z 1, 2,, q ).
the equivalent relation R B = IND(B) as follows:
g Xi (Dk ) = RPA (Dk (X i )) = max{RPA (Dt (X i )), t =
U / RB X1 u1 , u3 , u9 , X 2 u2 , u7 , u10 , X 3 u4 , X 4 u5 , u8 , X 5 u6
1,2, , q}).
Theorem 7. Let (U, A, F, D, G) be the standard We can get the approximation value given in Table 4.
neutrosophic information system. If there exists a subset
Nguyen Xuan Thao, Bui Cong Cuong, Florentin Smarandache, Rough Standard Neutrosophic Sets: An Application
on Standard Neutrosophic Information Systems
Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016 91
Nguyen Xuan Thao, Bui Cong Cuong, Florentin Smarandache, Rough Standard Neutrosophic Sets: An Application
on Standard Neutrosophic Information Systems
92 Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016
[20] J. Ye, A multicriteria decisionmaking method using aggrega [22] J. Peng, J. Q. Wang, J. Wang, H. Zhang, X. Chen, Simplified
tion operators for simplified neutrosophic sets, Journal of Intelli neutrosophic sets and their applications in multicriteria group
gent & Fuzzy Systems 26 (2014) 24592466. decisionmaking problems, International journal of
[21] P. Majumdar, Neutrosophic sets and its applications to deci systems science (2016), V.47, issue 10, pp 23422358.
sion making, Computation intelligentce for big data analysis
(2015), V.19, pp 97115. Received: December 7, 2016. Accepted: December 21, 2016
Nguyen Xuan Thao, Bui Cong Cuong, Florentin Smarandache, Rough Standard Neutrosophic Sets: An Application
on Standard Neutrosophic Information Systems
Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016 93
Abstract. This paper defines basic operations of neutro under indeterminate environment to achieve the mini
sophic numbers and neutrosophic number functions for mum weight objective under stress and stability con
objective functions and constraints in optimization mod straints. The comparison of the neutrosophic number op
els. Then, we propose a general neutrosophic number op timal design method with traditional optimal design
timization model for the optimal design of truss struc methods proves the usability and suitability of the pre
tures. The application and effectiveness of the neutro sented neutrosophic number optimization design method
sophic number optimization method are demonstrated under an indeterminate/neutrosophic number environ
through the design example of a twobar truss structure ment.
Keywords: Neutrosophic number, neutrosophic number function, neutrosophic number optimization model, neutrosophic
number optimal solution, truss structure design.
Wenzhong Jiang, Jun Ye, Optimal Design of Truss Structures Using a Neutrosophic Number Optimization Model under
an Indeterminate Environment
Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016 95
2.3 General neutrosophic number optimization 3 Optimal design of a twobar truss structure un
model der a neutrosophic number environment
Generally speaking, neutrosophic number optimization To demonstrate the neutrosophic number optimal de
design problems with n design variables in Z domain can sign of a truss structure in an indeterminate environment, a
be defined as the general form of a neutrosophic number simply twobar truss structure is considered as an illustra
optimization model: tive design example and showed in Fig.1. In this example,
the two bars use two steel tubes with the length L, in which
min F(X, I) the wall thick is T=25mm. The optimal design is per
formed in a vertically external loading case. The vertical
s.t. Gk(X, I) 0, k = 1, 2, , m (2) applied force is 2F = (3+0.4I)105N, the material Youngs
Hj(X, I)=0, j = 1, 2, , s modulus and density E=2.1105 MPa and = 7800 kg/m3,
respectively, and the allowable compressive stress is p =
XZn, I [inf I, sup I], 420 + 40I.
where F(X, I) is a neutrosophic number objective function The optimal design objective of the truss structure is to
and G1(x), G2(x), , Gm(x) and H1(x), H2(x), , Hs(x): Zn minimize the weight of the truss structure in satisfying the
Z are neutrosophic number inequality constraints and constraints of stress and stability. In this class of optimiza
neutrosophic number equality constraints, respectively, for tion problems, the average diameter D of the tube and the
X Zn and I [inf I, sup I]. truss height H are taken into account as two design varia
However, if the neutrosophic number optimal solution bles, denoted by the design vector X = [x1, x2]T = [D, H].
of design variables satisfies all these constrained condi Due to the geometric structure symmetry of the two
tions in a neutrosophic number optimization model, the op bar truss, we only consider the optimal model of one bar of
timal solution is feasible and otherwise is unfeasible. Gen both.
erally speaking, the optimal solution of design variables First, the total weight of the tube is expressed by the
and the value of the neutrosophic number objective func following formula:
tion usually are neutrosophic numbers/interval ranges (but M 2 AL 2Tx1 (B2 x22 )1/2 ,
not always). where A is the crosssectional area A = Tx1 and 2B is the
To solve the neutrosophic number optimization model distance between two supporting points.
(2), we use the Lagrangian multipliers for the neutrosophic Then, the compressive force of the steel tube is
number optimization model. Then the Lagrangian function FL F ( B 2 x22 )1/2 ,
that one minimizes is structured as the following form: F1
x2 x2
L( X , , ) F ( X , I ) where L is the length of the tube and F1 is the compressive
m s , (3) force of the tube. Thus, the compressive stress of the tube
G (X, I) H
k k j j (X, I) is represented as the following form:
k 1 j 1
F F ( B 2 x22 )1/2 .
Zm, Zs, XZn, I[inf I, sup I]. 1
A Tx1 x2
The common KarushKuhnTucker (KKT) necessary Hence, the constrained condition of the strength for the
conditions are introduced as follows: tube is written as
F ( B 2 x22 )1/2
m s p .
F ( X , I ) {k Gk ( X , I )} { j H j ( X , I )} 0 (4) Tx1 x2
k 1 j 1
For the stability of the compressive bar, the critical By solving the neutrosophic optimization model, the
force of the tube is given as follows: neutrosophic number optimal solution of the two design
variables is given as follows:
2 EWI 2 EA(T 2 x12 ) ,
Fc
L2 8( B 2 x22 ) x1*
2F
X * T (420 40 I )
*
Table 1. Optimal results of twobar truss structure design in different specified ranges of I [inf I, sup I]
In Table 1, if I = 0, it is clear that the neutrosophic mm and H = x2* = 760mm. In actual design, we need the
number optimization problem is degenerated to the crisp deneutrosophication in the neutrosophic optimal solution
optimization problem (i.e., traditional determinate optimi to determinate the suitable optimal design values of the de
zation problem). Then under a neutrosophic number envi sign variables to satisfy some indeterminate requirement.
ronment, neutrosophic number optimal results are changed For example, if we take the maximum values of the opti
as the indeterminate ranges are changed. Therefore, one mal solution for I [0, 1], we can obtain D = 73mm and H
will take some interval range of the indeterminacy I in ac = 760mm for the twobar truss structure design to satisfy
tual applications to satisfy actual indeterminate require this indeterminate requirement.
ments of the truss structure design. For example, if we take However, traditional optimization design methods [10
the indeterminate range of I [0, 1], then the neutrosophic 13] cannot express and handle the optimization design
number optimal solution is D =x1* = [58.7372, 72.9087] problems with neutrosophic number information and are
Wenzhong Jiang, Jun Ye, Optimal Design of Truss Structures Using a Neutrosophic Number Optimization Model under
an Indeterminate Environment
Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016 97
special cases of the neutrosophic number optimization de In general, indeterminate designs usually imply inde
sign method in some cases. The comparison of the pro terminate optimal solutions from an indeterminate view
posed neutrosophic number optimization design method point. Then in the deneutrosophication satisfying actual
with traditional optimization design methods demonstrates engineering design requirements we can determinate the
the usability and suitability of this neutrosophic number suitable optimal design values of design variables in the
optimization design method under a neutrosophic number obtained optimal interval solution corresponding to de
environment. signers attitudes and/or some risk situations to be suitable
for actual indeterminate requirements.
4 Conclusion It is obvious that the neutrosophic number optimization
design method in a neutrosophic number environment is
Based on the concepts of neutrosophic numbers, this more useful and more suitable than existing optimization
paper defined the operations of neutrosophic numbers and design methods of truss structures since the traditional de
neutrosophic number functions to establish the neutrosoph terminate/indeterminate optimization design methods can
ic number objective function and constraints in neutro not express and handle the neutrosophic number optimiza
sophic number optimization design problems. Then, we tion design problems under an indeterminate environment.
proposed a general neutrosophic number optimization Therefore, the neutrosophic number optimization design
model with constrained optimizations for truss structure method provides a new effective way for the optimal de
design problems. Next, a twobar truss structure design ex sign of truss structures under indeterminate/neutrosophic
ample was provided to illustrate the application and effec number environments.
tiveness of the proposed neutrosophic number optimization Nonetheless, due to existing indeterminacy I in the
design method. neutrosophic number optimization model, it may be diffi
However, the indeterminate (neutrosophic number) op cult to solve complex neutrosophic number optimization
timization problems may contain indeterminate (neutro models. In the future, therefore, we shall further study
sophic number) optimal solutions (usually neutrosophic solving algorithms/methods for neutrosophic number op
numbers, but not always), which can indicate possible op timization design problems and apply them to mechanical
timal ranges of the design variables and objective function and civil engineering designs under indeterminate / neutro
when indeterminacy I is specified as a possible interval sophic number environments.
ranges in actual applications.
References
[1] F. Smarandache. Neutrosophy: Neutrosophic probability, [8] F. Smarandache. Neutrosophic precalculus and neutrosoph
set, and logic. American Research Press, Rehoboth, USA, ic calculus. EuropaNova, Brussels, 2015.
1998. [9] J. Ye, R. Yong, Q.F. Liang, M. Huang, S.G. Du. Neutro
[2] F. Smarandache. Introduction to neutrosophic measure, sophic functions of the joint roughness coefficient (JRC)
neutrosophic integral, and neutrosophic probability. Sitech and the shear strength: A case study from the pyroclastic
& Education Publisher, Craiova Columbus, 2013. rock mass in Shaoxing City, China. Mathematical Problems
[3] F. Smarandache. Introduction to neutrosophic statistics. in Engineering, Volume 2016, (2016), 9 pages.
Sitech & Education Publishing, 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/4825709.
[4] J. Ye. Bidirectional projection method for multiple attribute [10] M. Sonmez. Artificial bee colony algorithm for optimiza
group decision making with neutrosophic numbers. Neural tion of truss optimization. Applied Soft Computing, 11
Computing and Applications, (2015), DOI: (2011), 24062418.
10.1007/s0052101521235. [11] S.O. Degertekin. An improved harmony search algorithms
[5] J. Ye. Multipleattribute group decisionmaking method for sizing optimization of truss structures. Computers and
under a neutrosophic number environment. Journal of Intel Structures, 9293 (2012), 229241.
ligent Systems, 25(3) (2016), 377386. [12] S. Jalili, Y. Hosseinzadeh. A cultural algorithm for optimal
[6] L.W. Kong, Y.F. Wu, J. Ye. Misfire fault diagnosis method design of truss structures. Latin American Journal of Solids
of gasoline engines using the cosine similarity measure of and Structures, 12(9) (2015), 17211747.
neutrosophic numbers. Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, 8 [13] S. Wang, X. Qing. A mixed interval arithmetic/affine
(2015), 4346. arithmetic approach for robust design optimization with in
[7] J. Ye. Fault diagnoses of steam turbine using the exponen terval uncertainty. Journal of Mechanical Design, 138(4)
tial similarity measure of neutrosophic numbers. Journal of (2016), 041403 04140310.
Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 30 (2016), 19271934.
Received: December 9, 2016. Accepted: December 22, 2016
Wenzhong Jiang, Jun Ye, Optimal Design of Truss Structures Using a Neutrosophic Number Optimization Model under
an Indeterminate Environment
Information about the journal:
Neutrosophic Sets and Systems has been created for publications on advanced studies in neutrosophy,
neutrosophic set, neutrosophic logic, neutrosophic probability, neutrosophic statistics, and their
applications in any field.
The papers should be professional, in good English, containing a brief review of a problem and ob
tained results.
All submissions should be designed in MS Word format using our template file:
http://fs.gallup.unm.edu/NSS/NSSpapertemplate.doc
To submit a paper, mail the file to the EditorinChief. To order printed issues, contact the Editorin
Chief. This journal is noncommercial, academic edition. It is printed from private donations.
The neutrosophics website at UNM is: http://fs.gallup.unm.edu/neutrosophy.htm
The home page of the journal is accessed on http://fs.gallup.unm.edu/NSS
$39.95