Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 99

Vol.

14, 2016
ISSN 2331-6055 (print) ISSN 2331-608X (online)

Neutrosophic Sets and Systems


A Quarterly International Journal in Information Science and Engineering

Editor-in-Chief: Associate Editors:


Prof. FLORENTIN SMARANDACHE W. B. Vasantha Kandasamy, Indian Institute of Technology, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
Said Broumi, Univ. of Hassan II Mohammedia, Casablanca, Morocco.
A. A. Salama, Faculty of Science, Port Said University, Egypt.
Address: Yanhui Guo, School of Science, St. Thomas University, Miami, USA.
Neutrosophic Sets and Systems Francisco Gallego Lupiaez, Universidad Complutense, Madrid, Spain.
(An International Journal in Information Peide Liu, Shandong University of Finance and Economics, China.
Science and Engineering) Pabitra Kumar Maji, Math Department, K. N. University, WB, India.
S. A. Albolwi, King Abdulaziz Univ., Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Department of Mathematics and Science Jun Ye, Shaoxing University, China.
University of New Mexico tefan Vlduescu, University of Craiova, Romania.
705 Gurley Avenue Valeri Kroumov, Okayama University of Science, Japan.
Gallup, NM 87301, USA Dmitri Rabounski and Larissa Borissova, independent researchers.
Surapati Pramanik, Nandalal Ghosh B.T. College, Panpur, West Bengal, India.
E-mail: smarand@unm.edu Irfan Deli, Kilis 7 Aralk University, 79000 Kilis, Turkey.
Home page: http://fs.gallup.unm.edu/NSS Rdvan ahin, Faculty of Science, Ataturk University, Erzurum, Turkey.
Luige Vladareanu, Romanian Academy, Bucharest, Romania.
Associate Editor-in-Chief: Mohamed Abdel-Baset,Faculty of computers and informatics,Zagazig university, Egypt.
A. A. A. Agboola, Federal University of Agriculture, Abeokuta, Nigeria.
Mumtaz Ali Le Hoang Son, VNU Univ. of Science, Vietnam National Univ. Hanoi, Vietnam.
Department of Mathematics, Southern Queensland Huda E. Khalid, University of Telafer, College of Basic Education, Telafer - Mosul, Iraq.
University, Australia. Maikel Leyva-Vzquez, Universidad de Guayaquil, Guayaquil, Ecuador.
Muhammad Akram, University of the Punjab, New Campus, Lahore, Pakistan.
Paul Wang, Pratt School of Engineering, Duke University, Durham, USA.
Darjan Karabasevic, University Business Academy, Novi Sad, Serbia.
Dragisa Stanujkic, John Naisbitt University, Belgrade, Serbia.
Edmundas K. Zavadskas, Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Vilnius, Lithuania.

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 B-algebras ......
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 Single-Valued 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. Interval-valued 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 Neutrosophic Sets and Systems


Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016

Neutrosophic Sets and Systems


An International Journal in Information Science and Engineering

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 non-exclusive, in Neutrosophic Sets and Systems retain their rights to use
worldwide, royalty-free 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 full-size version of the journal and the in- tions must include an appropriate citation of this journal.
dividual papers published therein for non-commercial, ac-

Information for Authors and Subscribers


Neutrosophic Sets and Systems has been created for pub- Neutrosophic Probability is a generalization of the classical
lications on advanced studies in neutrosophy, neutrosophic set, probability and imprecise probability.
neutrosophic logic, neutrosophic probability, neutrosophic statis- Neutrosophic Statistics is a generalization of the classical
tics that started in 1995 and their applications in any field, such statistics.
as the neutrosophic structures developed in algebra, geometry, What distinguishes the neutrosophics from other fields is the
topology, etc. <neutA>, which means neither <A> nor <antiA>.
The submitted papers should be professional, in good Eng- <neutA>, which of course depends on <A>, can be indeter-
lish, containing a brief review of a problem and obtained results. minacy, neutrality, tie game, unknown, contradiction, ignorance,
Neutrosophy is a new branch of philosophy that studies the imprecision, etc.
origin, nature, and scope of neutralities, as well as their interac-
tions with different ideational spectra. All submissions should be designed in MS Word format using
This theory considers every notion or idea <A> together with our template file:
its opposite or negation <antiA> and with their spectrum of neu- http://fs.gallup.unm.edu/NSS/NSS-paper-template.doc.
tralities <neutA> in between them (i.e. notions or ideas support-
ing neither <A> nor <antiA>). The <neutA> and <antiA> ideas
A variety of scientific books in many languages can be down-
together are referred to as <nonA>.
loaded freely from the Digital Library of Science:
Neutrosophy is a generalization of Hegel's dialectics (the last
http://fs.gallup.unm.edu/eBooks-otherformats.htm.
one is based on <A> and <antiA> only).
According to this theory every idea <A> tends to be neutral-
To submit a paper, mail the file to the Editor-in-Chief. To order
ized and balanced by <antiA> and <nonA> ideas - as a state of
printed issues, contact the Editor-in-Chief. This journal is non-
equilibrium.
commercial, academic edition. It is printed from private dona-
In a classical way <A>, <neutA>, <antiA> are disjoint two
tions.
by two. But, since in many cases the borders between notions are
vague, imprecise, Sorites, it is possible that <A>, <neutA>, <an-
Information about the neutrosophics you get from the UNM
tiA> (and <nonA> of course) have common parts two by two, or
website:
even all three of them as well.
http://fs.gallup.unm.edu/neutrosophy.htm.
Neutrosophic Set and Neutrosophic Logic are generalizations
of the fuzzy set and respectively fuzzy logic (especially of intui-
The home page of the journal is accessed on
tionistic fuzzy set and respectively intuitionistic fuzzy logic). In
http://fs.gallup.unm.edu/NSS.
neutrosophic logic a proposition has a degree of truth (T), a de-
gree of indeterminacy (I), and a degree of falsity (F), where T, I,
F are standard or non-standard subsets of ] -0, 1+[.

Copyright Neutrosophic Sets and Systems


Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016 3

University of New Mexico

Multiple Criteria Evaluation Model Based on the Single


Valued Neutrosophic Set
Dragisa Stanujkic1, Florentin Smarandache2, Edmundas Kazimieras Zavadskas3 and Darjan Karabasevic4

1
Faculty of Management in Zajecar, John Naisbitt University, Goce Delceva 8, Belgrade 11070, Serbia. E-mail: dragisa.stanujkic@fmz.edu.rs
2
Department of Mathematics, University of New Mexico, 705 Gurley Avenue, Gallup, NM 87301, USA. E-mail: fsmarandache@gmail.com
3
Research Institute of Smart Building Technologies, Civil Engineering Faculty Vilnius Gediminas Technical University, Saultekio al. 11, Vilnius
10221, Lithuania. E-mail: edmundas.zavadskas@vgtu.lt
4 Faculty of Applied Management, Economics and Finance, University Business Academy in Novi Sad, Jevrejska 24, 11000, Belgrade, Serbia.

E-mail: 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.

1. Introduction tion is based on the ratings generated from respondents, the


In order to deal with indeterminate and incon- NS and the SVNS can provide some advantages in relation
sistent information, Smarandache [1] proposed a to the usage of crisp and other forms of fuzzy numbers.
neutrosophic set (NS), thus simultaneously providing Therefore, the rest of this paper is organized as fol-
a general framework generalizing the concepts of the clas- lows: in Section 2, some basic definitions related to the
sical, fuzzy [2], interval-valued [3, 4], intuitionistic [5] SVNS are given. In Section 3, an approach to the deter-
and interval-valued intuitionistic [6] fuzzy sets. mining of criteria weights is presented, while Section 4
The NS has been applied in different fields, such as: proposes a multiple criteria evaluation model based on the
the database [7], image processing [8, 9, 10], the medical use of the SVNS. In Section 5, an example is considered
diagnosis [11, 12], decision making [13, 14], with a partic- with the aim to explain in detail the proposed methodology.
ular emphasis on multiple criteria decision making [15, 16, The conclusions are presented at the end of the manuscript.
17, 18, 19, 20].
In addition to the membership function, or the so-
2. The Single Valued Neutrosophic Set
called truth-membership TA(x), proposed in fuzzy sets, At-
anassov [5] introduced the non-membership function, or Definition 1. [21] Let X be the universe of discourse,
the so-called falsity-membership FA(x), which expresses with a generic element in X denoted by x. Then, the Neu-
non-membership to a set, thus creating the basis for the trosophic Set (NS) A in X is as follows:
solving of a much larger number of decision-making prob-
lems. A {x TA ( x), I A ( x), FA ( x) | x X } , (1)
In intuitionistic fuzzy sets, the indeterminacy I A (x) is where TA(x), IA(x) and FA(x) are the truth-membership
1 TA ( x) FA ( x) by default. function, the indeterminacy-membership function and the
In the NS, Smarandache [21] introduced independent falsity-membership function, respectively,
indeterminacy-membership I A (x) , thus making the NS TA , I A , FA : X ] 0,1 [ and 0 TA(x)+IA(x)+UA(x)
more flexible and the most suitable for solving some com- 3
plex decision-making problems, especially decision-
making problems related to the use of incomplete and im- Definition 2. [1, 22] Let X be the universe of dis-
precise information, uncertainties and predictions and so course. The Single Valued Neutrosophic Set (SVNS) A
on. over X is an object having the form:
Smarandache [1] and Wang et al. [22] further pro- A {x TA ( x), I A ( x), FA ( x) | x X } , (2)
posed the single valued neutrosophic set (SVNS) suitable
for solving many real-world decision-making problems. where TA(x), IA(x) and FA(x) are the truth-membership
In multiple criteria evaluation models, where evalua- function, the intermediacy-membership function and the

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

falsity-membership function, respectively, 1 when significance of C j C j 1


TA , I A , FA : X [0,1] and 0 TA(x)+IA(x)+UA(x) 3.
s j 1 when significanse of C j C j 1 . (9)
Definition 3. [21] For an SVNS A in X, the tri- 1 when significance of C C
ple t A , i A , f A is called the single valued neutrosophic j j 1
number (SVNN).
By using Eq. (9), respondents are capable of express-
Definition 4. SVNNs. Let x1 t1, i1, f1 and
ing their opinions more realistically compared to the ordi-
x2 t2 , i2 , f 2 be two SVNNs and 0 ; then, the basic
nary SWARA method, proposed by Kersuliene et al. [25].
operations are defined as follows:
Step 3. The third step in the adapted SWARA method
x1 x2 t1 t2 t1t2 , i1i2 , f1 f 2 . (3) should be performed as follows:
x1 x2 t1t2 , i1 i2 i1i2, f1 f 2 f1 f 2 . (4) 1 j 1
kj . (10)

x1 1 (1 t1 ) , i1 , f1 .
(5) 2 s j j 1

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

t Step 5. Determine the relative weights of the evalua-


S x . (7) tion criteria as follows:
t 2 i2 f 2
w j q j nk 1 qk , (12)
Definition 6. [23] Let A j t j , i j , f j be a collection
of SVNSs and W ( w1, w2 ,...,wn )T be an associated where wj denotes the relative weight of the criterion j.
weighting vector. Then the Single Valued Neutrosophic
Weighted Average (SVNWA) operator of Aj is as follows: 4. A Multiple Criteria Evaluation Model Based on
n the Use of the SVNS
SVNWA( A1 , A2 ,...,An ) w j A j
j 1 For a multiple criteria evaluation problem involving
, (8) the m alternatives that should be evaluated by the K re-
n w nw n w
1 (1 t j ) j , (i j ) j , ( f j ) j spondents based on the n criteria, whereby the performanc-
j 1 j 1 j 1 es of alternatives are expressed by using the SVNS, the
calculation procedure can be expressed as follows:
where: wj is the element j of the weighting vector,
The determination of the criteria weights. The deter-
w j [0, 1] and nj 1 w j 1 .
mination of the criteria weights can be done by applying
various methods, for example by using the AHP method.
3. The SWARA Method However, in this approach, it is recommended that the
The Step-wise Weight Assessment Ratio Analysis SWARA method should be used due to its simplicity and a
(SWARA) technique was proposed by Kersuliene et al. smaller number of pairwise comparisons compared with
[25]. The computational procedure of the adapted SWARA the well-known AHP method.
method can be shown through the following steps: The determination of the criteria weight is done by us-
Step 1. Determine the set of the relevant evaluation ing an interactive questionnaire made in a spreadsheet file.
criteria and sort them in descending order, based on their By using such an approach, the interviewee can see the
expected significances. calculated weights of the criteria, which enables him/her
modify his or her answers if he or she is not satisfied with
Step 2. Starting from the second criterion, determine the calculated weights.
the relative importance sj of the criterion j in relation to the Gathering the ratings of the alternatives in relation to
previous (j-1) criterion, and do so for each particular crite- the selected set of the evaluation criteria. Gathering the
rion as follows: ratings of the alternatives in relation to the chosen set of
criteria is also done by using an interactive questionnaire.
In this questionnaire, a declarative sentence is formed for
each one of the criteria, thus giving an opportunity to the

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 e-mail, 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

The ranking orders obtained based on all the three sur-


veys are accounted for in Table 7.

E1 E2 E3 E1 E2 E3 [10] Y. Guo, and H. D. Cheng. New neutrosophic approach to


Si Si Si Rank Rank Rank image segmentation. Pattern Recognition, 42, (2009), 587
595.
A1 0.995 0.963 0.985 2 1 1 [11] S. Broumi, and I. Deli. Correlation measure for neutrosoph-
A2 0.996 0.962 0.966 1 2 2 ic refined sets and its application in medical diagnosis. Pal-
A3 0.991 0.864 0.867 3 4 4 estine Journal of Mathematics, 3(1), (2014), 11-19.
A4 0.978 0.882 0.894 4 3 3 [12] Ansari, A. Q., Biswas, R., and Aggarwal, S. (2011). Pro-
posal for applicability of neutrosophic set theory in medical
Table 7. The ranking orders obtained from the three examinees
AI. International Journal of Computer Applications, 27(5),
5-11.
According to Table 7, the most appropriate alternative [13] A. Kharal. A Neutrosophic Multicriteria Decision Making
based on the theory of dominance is the alternative denoted Method, New Mathematics and Natural Computation,
as A1. Creighton University, USA, 2013.
[14] J. Ye. Multicriteria decision-making method using the cor-
6. Conclusion
relation coefficient under single-valued neutrosophic envi-
A new multiple criteria evaluation model based on us- ronment, International Journal of General Systems, 42(4)
ing the single valued neutrosophic set is proposed in this (2013) 386--394.
paper. For the purpose of determining criteria weights, the [15] J. Chen, and J. Ye. A Projection Model of Neutrosophic
SWARA method is applied due to its simplicity, whereas Numbers for Multiple Attribute Decision Making of Clay-
for the determination of the overall ratings for each re- Brick Selection. NSS, 12, (2016), 139-142.
spondent, the SVNN is applied. In order to intentionally [16] J. Ye, and F. Smarandache Similarity Measure of Refined
Single-Valued Neutrosophic Sets and Its Multicriteria Deci-
avoid the group determination of weights and ratings, the
sion Making Method. NSS, 12, (2016), 41-44
final selection of the most appropriate alternative is deter-
mined by applying the theory of dominance. In order to [17] J. J. Peng, and J. Q. Wang. Multi-valued Neutrosophic Sets
and its Application in Multi-criteria Decision-making Prob-
form a simple questionnaire and obtain the respondents
lems. Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, 10, (2015), 3-17.
real attitudes, a smaller number of the criteria were initially [18] K. Mandal, and K. Basu. Hypercomplex Neutrosophic Simi-
selected. The proposed model has proven to be far more larity Measure & Its Application in Multicriteria Decision
flexible than the other MCDM-based models and is based Making Problem. NSS, 9, (2015), 6-12.
on the conducted numerical example suitable for the solv- [19] S. Pramanik, P. P. Dey, and B. C. Giri. TOPSIS for Single
ing of problems related to the selection of restaurants. The Valued Neutrosophic Soft Expert Set Based Multi-attribute
usability and efficiency of the proposed model have been Decision Making Problems. NSS, 10 (2015), 88-95
demonstrated on the conducted numerical example. [20] Y. Jun. Another Form of Correlation Coefficient between
References Single Valued Neutrosophic Sets and Its Multiple Attribute
Decision Making Method. NSS, 1, (2013), 8-12.
[1] F. Smarandache. Neutrosophy: Neutrosophic probability, [21] F. Smarandache. A unifying field in logics. neutrosophy:
set, and logic, American Research Press, Rehoboth, USA, Neutrosophic probability, set and logic. Rehoboth: Ameri-
1998. can Research Press, 1999.
[2] L. A. Zadeh. Fuzzy Sets. Information and Control, 8, [22] H. Wang, F. Smarandache, Y. Q. Zhang and R. Sunder-
(1965), 338-353. raman. Single valued neutrosophic sets, Multispace and
[3] I. B. Turksen. Interval valued fuzzy sets based on normal Multistructure, 4, (2010), 410-413.
forms. Fuzzy sets and systems, 20(2), (1986), 191-210. [23] R. Sahin. Multi-criteria neutrosophic decision making
[4] I. B. Turksen. Non-specificity and interval-valued fuzzy method based on score and accuracy functions under neu-
sets. Fuzzy sets and systems, 80(1), (1996), 87-100. trosophic environment. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.5202,
[5] K. Atanassov. Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy sets and Sys- 2014.
tems, 20(1), (1986), 87-96. [24] J. Ye. A multicriteria decision-making method using aggre-
[6] K. Atanassov and G. Gargov. Interval valued intuitionistic gation operators for simplified neutrosophic sets. Journal of
fuzzy sets. Fuzzy sets and systems, 31(3), (1989), 343-349.
Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems, 26, (2014), 2459-2466.
[7] M. Arora, R. Biswas, and U. S. Pandy. Neutrosophic rela-
[25] V. Kersuliene, E. K. Zavadskas and Z. Turskis. Selection of
tional database decompositio. International Journal of Ad-
rational dispute resolution method by applying new
vanced Computer Science & Applications, 1(2), (2011),
step wise weight assessment ratio analysis (SWARA).
121-125.
Journal of Business Economics and Management, 11(2),
[8] A. Salama, F. Smarandache, and M. Eisa. Introduction to
(2010), 243-258.
Image Processing via Neutrosophic Techniques. Neutro-
sophic Sets and Systems, 5, (2014), 59-64. [26] W. K. M. Brauers and E. K. Zavadskas. MULTIMOORA
[9] J. Mohan, A. T. S. Chandra, V. Krishnaveni, and Y. Guo. optimization used to decide on a bank loan to buy property.
Evaluation of neutrosophic set approach filtering technique Technological and Economic Development of Economy,
for image denoising. The International Journal of Multime- 17(1), (2011), 174-188.
dia & Its Applications, 4(4), (2012), 73-81.
Received: November 1, 2016. Accepted: November 4, 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

University of New Mexico

A Neutrosophic Binomial Factorial Theorem


with their Refrains
Huda E. Khalid1 Florentin Smarandache2 Ahmed K. Essa3
1
University of Telafer, Head of Math. Depart., College of Basic Education, Telafer, Mosul, Iraq. E-mail: hodaesmail@yahoo.com
2
University of New Mexico, 705 Gurley Ave., Gallup, NM 87301, USA. E-mail: smarand@unm.edu
3
University of Telafer, Math. Depart., College of Basic Education, Telafer, Mosul, Iraq. E-mail: ahmed.ahhu@gmail.com

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.

1 Introduction (Important questions) 2. Let


3
Q 1 What are the types of indeterminacy? = +
There exist two types of indeterminacy 0 + = 3 + 3 2 + 3 2 2 + 3 3
a. Literal indeterminacy (I). 0 + = 3 + (3 2 + 3 2 + 3 )
3
As example: = 0, = 1 = . (5)

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

The form 0 to the power (i.e. 0 ) is an [2.1, 2.5] [2.1, 2.5]


lim ln = lim =
indeterminate form in Neutrosophic calculus; it is 0 0 1 1
tempting to argue that an indeterminate form of ln ln 0
[2.1, 2.5] [2.1, 2.5]
type 0 has zero value since "zero to any power is = =
1 0
zero". However, this is fallacious, since 0 is not a
power of number, but rather a statement about 2.1 2.5
limits. = [ , ] = (, )
0 0
=
Q 4 What about the form 1 ? Hence = = 0
The base "one" pushes the form 1 to one OR it can be solved briefly by
while the power pushes the form 1 to I, so 1 is = [2.1,2.5] = [02.1 , 02.5 ] = [0,0] = 0.
an indeterminate form in neutrosophic calculus.
Example (3.2)
Indeed, the form , is always an
lim [3.5,5.9] [1,2] = [3.5,5.9] [9,11][1,2] =
indeterminate form. [9,11]
Q 5 What is the value of , ? [3.5,5.9] [91 , 112 ] = [(3.5)(9), (5.9)(121)] =
Let 1 = 2 , , 2 = 2 ; it is obvious that [31.5,713.9].
lim 2 = , lim 2 = 0 , lim 2 = 1; while Example (3.3)
0
we cannot determine if
2 0 1, lim [3.5,5.9] [1,2] = [3.5,5.9] [1,2]

therefore we can say that 2 = 2 indeterminate = [3.5,5.9] [1 , 2 ]
form in Neutrosophic calculus. The same for , = [3.5 () ,5.9 ()]
where [2]. = (, ) = .

2 Indeterminate forms in Neutrosophic Example (3.4)


Logic Find the following limit using more than one
[4,5]+11
It is obvious that there are seven types technique lim .
0
of indeterminate forms in classical calculus [4],
Solution:
0 The above limit will be solved firstly by using the
, , 0. , 00 , 0 , 1 , .
0 L'Hpital's rule and secondly by using the
As a conjecture, we can say that there are ten rationalizing technique.
forms of the indeterminate forms in Neutrosophic Using L'Hpital's rule
calculus 1 1
lim ([4, 5] + 1) 2 [4,5]
0 , 0 , , , , , , , 0 2
0 [4,5]
( ), . = lim
0 2([4, 5]
+ 1)
Note that: [4,5] 4 5
= = [ , ] = [2,2.5]
1 2 2 2
= = = .
0 0 Rationalizing technique [3]
3 Various Examples [4,5] + 1 1 [4,5] 0 + 1 1
lim =
Numerical examples on neutrosophic limits 0 0
would be necessary to demonstrate the aims of this [4 0, 5 0] + 1 1 [0, 0] + 1 1
= =
work. 0 0
0 + 1 1 0
Example (3.1) [1], [3] = =
The neutrosophic (numerical indeterminate) values 0 0
= undefined.
can be seen in the following function:
Find lim (), where () = [2.1,2.5] . Multiply with the conjugate of the numerator:
0
Solution:
Let = [2.1,2.5] ln = [2.1, 2.5] ln

Huda E. Khalid, Florentin Smarandache & Ahmed K. Essa, A Neutrosophic Binomial Factorial Theorem
with their Refrains
Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016 9

[4, 5] + 1 1 [4, 5] + 1 + 1 Again, Solving by using L'Hpital's rule


lim
0 [4, 5] + 1 + 1 2 + 3 [1, 2] [3, 6]
2 lim
3 +3
([4, 5] + 1) (1)2
= lim 2 + 3 [1, 2]
0 = lim
([4, 5] + 1 + 1) 3 1
[4, 5] + 1 1 2 (3) + 3 [1, 2]
= lim
= lim 3 1
0
([4, 5] + 1 + 1) = 6 + 3 [1, 2]
[4, 5] = 3 [1, 2]
= lim
0
([4, 5] + 1 + 1) = [3 1, 3 2]
= [5, 4]
[4, 5]
= lim
0
([4, 5] + 1 + 1) The above two methods are identical in results.

[4, 5] [4, 5] 4 New Theorems in Neutrosophic Limits


= =
([4, 5] 0 + 1 + 1) 1 + 1
Theorem (4.1) (Binomial Factorial )
[4, 5] 4 5 1
lim ( + ) = ; I is the literal indeterminacy,
= = [ , ] = [2, 2.5].
2 2 2
Identical results. e = 2.7182828
Proof
Example (3.5) 1 1 0 1 1

Find the value of the following neutrosophic limit ( + ) = ( ) ( ) + ( ) 1 ( )
0 1
2 +3[1,2][3,6]
lim
+3
using more than one 1 2
1 3
3 + ( ) 2 ( ) + ( ) 3 ( )
technique . 2 3
1 4
Analytical technique [1], [3] + ( ) 4 ( ) +
2 +3[1,2][3,6]
4
lim 1 1
3 +3
= + . . + (1 )
By substituting = -3 , 2!
(3)2 + 3 (3) [1, 2] (3) [3, 6] 1 2 1 2
lim + (1 ) (1 ) + (1 ) (1 )
3 3 + 3 3! 4!
3
9 9 [1 (3), 2 (3)] [3, 6] (1 ) +
=
0 1
0 [6, 3] [3, 6] [3, 6] [3,6] It is clear that 0

= = 1
0 0 lim( ) = + + + + +=+
[3 6, 6 3] [3, 3] 2! 3! 4!
= = ,
0 0
=1 !
0 1 1
which has undefined operation , since 0 lim( + ) = , where e = 1 +
0 =1 ! , I is the

[3, 3]. Then we factor out the numerator, and literal indeterminacy.
simplify:
2 + 3 [1, 2] [3, 6] Corollary (4.1.1)
lim =
3 +3 1
( [1, 2]) ( + 3) lim( + ) =
0
lim = lim ( [1,2])
3 ( + 3) 3 Proof:-
= 3 [1,2] = [3, 3] [1,2] 1
Put =

= ([3,3] + [1,2]) = [5, 4].
It is obvious that , as 0
1 1
lim( + ) = lim ( + ) =
0
( using Th. 4.1 )
Corollary (4.1.2)

lim ( + ) = , where k > 0 & 0 , I is the

literal indeterminacy.

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

Corollary (4.2.3) 5 Numerical Examples


Example (5.1)
lim =
0 1 + 54
+ Evaluate the limit lim
0 +

54
Proof
Solution
let = = 54 45

lim = (using corollary 4. 2.1)
0 0 0 +
54
1+

lim = lim = . lim using Example (5.2)
0 + 0 + 0 +

4
Corollary (4.2.2) to get Evaluate the limit lim
0 32
1 Solution
= . ( )=
1 + 1 + 3[ 4 ]
( + )
Theorem (4.3) 4
4
( + )
ln( + ) lim = lim 4
lim = (1 + ) 0 32 0 3[32 ]
0 ( + )
32
Proof ( + 2 )
3
ln( + ) ln( + ) + 3[ 4 ]
lim = lim lim
0 0 0
( + ) lim ( + )
Let = ln( + ) + = ln( + 4 0 4
= 2
) 3[3 ]
lim lim ( + )
0 0 32
( +
32
)
+ = + = =
(using corollary (4.2.3) on numerator & corollary
0 0 (4.2.1) on denominator )
ln( + ) + 4
lim
0 = 1 + 4 = 1.
+ 23
= lim 1 + 32
0

5 Conclusion
lim =
0 lim )
+ 0( + In this article, we introduced for the first time
using corollary (4.2.2) to get the result a new version of binomial factorial theorem
containing the literal indeterminacy (I). This
= = (1 + )
1 theorem enhances three corollaries. As a
1 + conjecture for indeterminate forms in classical
calculus, ten of new indeterminate forms in
Theorem (4.4)
Neutrosophic calculus had been constructed.
Prove that, for any two real numbers , Finally, various examples had been solved.
a
lim = 1 , where , > 0 & , 1
0 b
Proof
References
The direct substitution of the value in the above
0
limit conclude that ,so we need to treat it as [1] F. Smarandache. Neutrosophic Precalculus and
0
Neutrosophic Calculus. EuropaNova Brussels,
follow: 2015.
a[a ] a + [2] F. Smarandache. Introduction to Neutrosophic
a
lim = lim a +
a Statistics. Sitech and Education Publisher, Craiova,
0 b 0 b[b ] b + 2014.

b + b [3] H. E. Khalid & A. K. Essa. Neutrosophic Pre-

a[a ] calculus and Neutrosophic Calculus. Arabic
lim lim ( a + ) b
a + 0 version of the book. Pons asbl 5, Quai du Batelage,
=
b[b ] lim( b + ) a Brussells, Belgium, European Union 2016.
lim
b + 0 [4] H. Anton, I. Bivens & S. Davis, Calculus, 7th
(using Th.(4.2) twice (first in numerator second in Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2002.
denominator ))
a
1+ b
= b = 1. Received: November 7, 2016. Accepted: November 14, 2016
a
1+

Huda E. Khalid, Florentin Smarandache & Ahmed K. Essa, A Neutrosophic Binomial Factorial Theorem
with their Refrains
Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016 12

University of New Mexico

The category of neutrosophic sets


Kul Hur 1, Pyung Ki Lim 2, Jeong Gon Lee 3, Junhui Kim 4,

1Division of Mathematics and Informational Statistics, Institute of Basic Natural Science, Wonkwang University 460, Iksan-daero, Iksan-Si,
Jeonbuk 54538, Korea. E-mail: kulhur@wku.ac.kr
2Division of Mathematics and Informational Statistics, Institute of Basic Natural Science, Wonkwang University 460, Iksan-daero, Iksan-Si,

Jeonbuk 54538, Korea. E-mail: pklim@wku.ac.kr


3Division of Mathematics and Informational Statistics, Institute of Basic Natural Science, Wonkwang University 460, Iksan-daero, Iksan-Si,

Jeonbuk 54538, Korea. E-mail: jukolee@wku.ac.kr


4Department of Mathematics Education, Wonkwang University 460, Iksan-daero, Iksan-Si, Jeonbuk 54538, Korea. E-mail: junhikim@wku.ac.kr

* Corresponding author

Abstract: We introduce the category NSet(H) consisting of neu- sisting of ordinary sets and ordinary mappings between them. Fur-
trosophic H-sets 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-

Keywords: Neutrosophic crisp set, Cartesian closed category, Topological universe.

1 Introduction fective use for several areas of mathematics.


In this paper, we introduce the category NSet(H) consisting
In 1965, Zadeh [20] had introduced a concept of a fuzzy set as of neutrosophic H-sets and morphisms between them. And we
the generalization of a crisp set. In 1986, Atanassov [1] proposed study NSet(H) in the sense of a topological universe and prove
the notion of intuitionistic fuzzy set as the generalization of fuzzy that it is Cartesian closed over Set, where Set denotes the cate-
sets considering the degree of membership and non-membership. gory consisting of ordinary sets and ordinary mappings between
Moreover, in 1998, Smarandache [19] introduced the concept of them. Furthermore, we investigate some relationships between
a neutrosophic set considering the degree of membership, the de- two categories ISet(H) and NSet(H).
gree of indeterminacy and the degree of non-membership.
After that time, many researchers [3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 13, 15, 16,
17] have investigated fuzzy sets in the sense of category theory, 2 Preliminaries
for instance, Set(H), Setf (H), Setg (H), Fuz(H). Among
them, the category Set(H) is the most useful one as the stan- In this section, we list some basic definitions and well-known
dard category, because Set(H) is very suitable for describ- results from [7, 12, 14] which are needed in the next sections.
ing fuzzy sets and mappings between them. In particular, Car-
rega [3], Dubuc [4], Eytan [5], Goguen [6], Pittes [15], Ponasse Definition 2.1 [12] Let A be a concrete category and ((Yj , j ))J
[16, 17] had studied Set(H) in topos view-point. However Hur a family of objects in A indexed by a class J. For any set X, let
et al. investigated Set(H) in topological view-point. Moreover, (fj : X Yj )J be a source of mappings indexed by J. Then
Hur et al. [9] introduced the category ISet(H) consisting of intu- an A-structure on X is said to be initial with respect to (in
itionistic H-fuzzy sets and morphisms between them, and studied short, w.r.t.) (X, (fj ), ((Yj , j )))J , if it satisfies the following
ISet(H) in the sense of topological universe. In particular, Lim conditions:
et al. [13] introduced the new category VSet(H) and investi- (i) for each j J, fj : (X, ) (Yj , j ) is an A-morphism,
gated it in the sense of topological universe. Recently, Lee et al. (ii) if (Z, ) is an A-object and g : Z X is a mapping such
[10] define the category composed of neutrosophic crisp sets and that for each j J, the mapping fj g : (Z, ) (Yj , j ) is an
morphisms between neutrosophic crisp sets and study its some A-morphism, then g : (Z, ) (X, ) is an A-morphism.
properties. In this case, (fj : (X, ) (Yj , j ))J is called an initial
The concept of a topological universe was introduced by Nel source in A.
[14], which implies a Cartesian closed category and a concrete
quasitopos. Furthermore the concept has already been up to ef- Dual notion: cotopological category.

K. Hur, P. K. Lim, J. G. Lee, J. Kim, The category of neutrosophic sets


Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016 13

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 A-fibre of a set X is the class of all A-structures on X. pseudo-complement 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) (Fibre-smallness) for each set X, the A-fibre of X is called negation or the paudo-complement 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 A-fibre of X has precisely one element, algebra and a, b H.
(c) if and are A-structures 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 A-object 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 A-object 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 A-object B A and an A-morphism
A algebra with the least element 0 and the greatest element 1.
eA,B : A B B (called the evaluation) such that for
any A-object C and any A-morphism f : A C B,
there exists a unique A-morphism 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 H-fuzzy 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 H-fuzzy
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 well-structured, i.e., (a) A is a concrete category; (b)
A satisfies the fibre-smallness 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 A-morphism 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.

K. Hur, P. K. Lim, J. G. Lee, J. Kim, The category of neutrosophic sets


14 Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016

3 Neutrosophic sets (v) the union of A and B, denoted by A B, is an NCS in X


defined as:

In [18], Salama and Smarandache introduced the concept of a A B = (TA TB , IA IB , FA FB ).


neutrosophic crisp set in a set X and defined the inclusion be-
tween two neutrosophic crisp sets, the intersection [union] of Let (Aj )jJ N S(X), where Aj = (TA , IA , FA ). Then
j j j
two neutrosophic crisp sets, the complement of a neutrosophic
crisp set, neutrosophic empty [resp., whole] set as more than two (vi) the intersection of (A ) , denoted by T
j jJ jJ Aj (simply,
types. And they studied some properties related to neutrosophic T
Aj ), is an NS in X defined as:
set operations. However, by selecting only one type, we define
the inclusion, the intersection [union] and the neutrosophic empty \ ^ ^ _
Aj = ( TAj , IAj , FAj ),
[resp., whole] set again and obtain some properties.
Definition 3.1 Let X be a non-empty set. Then A is called a (vii) the union of (A ) , denoted by S S
j jJ jJ Aj (simply, Aj ),
neutrosophic set (in short, NS) in X, if A has the form A = is an NCS in X defined as:
(TA , IA , FA ), where
TA : X ] 0, 1+ [, IA : X ] 0, 1+ [, FA : X ] 0, 1+ [.
[ _ _ ^
Aj = ( TAj , IAj , FAj ).
Since there is no restriction on the sum of TA (x), IA (x) and
FA (x), for each x X,
The followings are the immediate results of Definition 3.2.

0 TA (x) + IA (x) + FA (x) 3+ .
Proposition 3.3 Let A, B, C N S(X). Then
Moreover, for each x X, TA (x) [resp., IA (x) and FA (x)] rep- (1) 0N A 1N ,
resent the degree of membership [resp., indeterminacy and non- (2) if A B and B C, then A C,
membership] of x to A. (3) A B A and A B B,
The neutrosophic empty [resp., whole] set, denoted by 0N (4) A A B and B A B,
[resp., 1N ] is an NS in X defined by 0N = (0, 0, 1) [resp., (5) A B if and only if A B = A,
1N = (1, 1, 0)], where 0, 1 : X ] 0, 1+ [ are defined by
(6) A B if and only if A B = B.
0(x) = 0 and 1(x) = 1 respectively. We will denote the set
of all NSs in X as N S(X).
Also the followings are the immediate results of Definition 3.2.
From Example 2.1.1 in [18], we can see that every IFS (intu-
tionistic fuzzy set) A in a non-empty set X is an NS in X having Proposition 3.4 Let A, B, C N S(X). Then
the form (1) (Idempotent laws): A A = A, A A = A,
A = (TA , 1 (TA + FA ), FA ), (2) (Commutative laws): A B = B A, A B = B A,
where (1 (TA + FA ))(x) = 1 (TA (x) + FA (x)). (3) (Associative laws): A (B C) = (A B) C,
A (B C) = (A B) C,
Definition 3.2 Let A = (TA , IA , FA ), B = (TB , IB , FB )
(4) (Distributive laws): A (B C) = (A B) (A C),
N S(X). Then
A (B C) = (A B) (A C),
(i) A is said to be contained in B, denoted by A B, if (5) (Absorption laws): A (A B) = A, A (A B) = A,
TA (x) TB (x), IA (x) IB (x) and FA (x) FB (x) (6) (De Morgans laws): (A B)c = Ac B c ,
for each x X, (A B)c = Ac B c ,
(ii) A is said to equal to B, denoted by A = B, if (7) (Ac )c = A,
(8) (8a) A 0N = A, A 0N = 0N ,
A B and B A,
(8b) A 1N = 1N , A 1N = A,
(iii) the complement of A, denoted by Ac , is an NCS in X de- (8c) 1cN = 0N , 0cN = 1N ,
fined as: (8d) in general, A Ac = 6 1N , A Ac 6= 0N .
c
A = (FA , 1 IA , TA ),
Proposition 3.5 Let A N S(X) and let (Aj )jJ N S(X).
(iv) the intersection of A and B, denoted by A B, is an NCS Then
in X defined as:
(1) ( Aj )c = Acj , ( Aj )c = Acj ,
T S S T
S S T T
A B = (T T , I I , F F ), (2) A ( Aj ) = (A Aj ), A ( Aj ) = (A Aj ).
A B A B A B

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 ).

K. Hur, P. K. Lim, J. G. Lee, J. Kim, The category of neutrosophic sets


Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016 15

Thus 4 Properties of NSet(H)


\ _ ^ ^
( Aj )c = ( FAj , 1 IAj , TAj ) Definition 4.1 A is called a neutrosophic H-set (in short, NHS)
_ _ ^ in a non-empty set X if it satisfies the following conditions:
= ( FAj , (1 IAj ), TAj )
[ (i) A has the form A = (TA , IA , FA ), where TA , IA , FA ) :
= Acj X H are mappings,
Similarly, the second part is proved. (ii) TA N (FA ) and IA N (FA ).
(2) Let A = (TA , IA , FA ) and Aj = (TAj , IAj , FAj ).
Then In this case, the pair (X, A) is called a neutrosophic H-space
(in short, NHSp). We will denote the set of all the NHSs as
N HS(X).
\ ^ ^ _
A ( Aj ) = (TA ( TAj , IA ( IAj ), FA ( FAj ))
^ ^ _ Definition 4.2 Let (X, AX ), (Y, AY ) be two NHSps and let f :
= ( (TA TAj ), (IA IAj ), (FA FAj ) X Y be a mapping. Then f : (X, AX ) (Y, AY ) is called a
\ morphism if AX f 1 (AY ), i.e.,
= (A Aj ). TAX TAY f , IAX IAY f and FAX FAY f .
In particular, f : (X, AX ) (Y, AY ) is called an epimor-
Similarly, the first part is proved.  phism [resp., a monomorphism and an isomorphism], if it is sur-
jective [resp., injective and bijective].
Definition 3.6 Let f : X Y be a mapping and let A X,
B Y . Then The following is the immediate result of Definition 4.2.

(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).

K. Hur, P. K. Lim, J. G. Lee, J. Kim, The category of neutrosophic sets


16 Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016

Let j J and x X. jJ IAj = IA1 IA2 = (IA1 pr1 ) (IA2 pr2 ),


Since Aj = (TAj , IAj , FAj ) N HS(X),
jJ FAj = FA1 FA2 = (FA1 pr1 ) (FA2 pr2 ).
TAj N (FAX ) and IAj N (FAX ). Then
W
N (FAX (x)) = N ( (FAj fj )(x)) The following is the immediate result of Lemma 4.5 and Result
V
= N (FAj (fj (x))) 2.3.
V
TAj (fj (x))
V
= TAj fj (x) Corollary 4.7 The category NSet(H) is complete and cocom-
= TAX (x) plete.
and The following is obvious from Result 2.2. But we show
V
N (FAX (x)) = N (FAj (fj (x))) directly it.
V
IAj (fj (x))
Corollary 4.8 The category NCSet is cotopological over Set.
V
= IAj fj (x)
= IAX (x)
Proof. Let X be any set and let ((Xj , Aj ))J be any family of
Thus TAX TN (FAX ) and IAX N (FAX ).
NHSps indexed by a class J. Suppose (fj : Xj X)J is a sink
So AX = fj1 (Aj ) N HS(X) and thus (X, AX ) is an
of ordinary mappings. We define mappings TAX , IAX , FAX :
NHSp. Moreover, by the definition of AX ,
X H as follows: for each x X,
TAX TAj fj , IAX IAj fj , FAX FAj fj .
Hence AX fj1 (Aj ).
( W W
J xj fj1 (x) TAj (xj ) if fj1 (x) 6= for all j
Therefore each fj : (X, AX ) (Xj , Aj ) is an NSet(H)- TAX (x) =
0 if fj1 (x) = for some j,
mapping.
Now let (Y, AY ) be any NHSp and suppose g : Y X is an ( W W
ordinary mapping for which fj g : (Y, AY ) (Xj , Aj ) is an J xj fj1 (x) IAj (xj ) if fj1 (x) 6= for all j
IAX (x) =
NSet(H)-mapping for each j J. Then 0 if fj1 = for some j,
AY (fj g)1 (Aj ) = g 1 (fj1 (Aj )) for each j J. ( V V
Thus J xj fj1 (x) FAj (xj ) if fj1 6= for all j
FAX (x) =
if fj1 = for some j.
\
AY g 1 ( fj1 (Aj )) = g 1 (AX ). 1

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

(Y, AY ) is an NSet(H)-mapping. In fact, AX = f 1 (AY ). = TAX (x).


and
In this case, AX is called the inverse image under f of the NHS W W
N (FAX (x)) = J xj f 1 (x) N (FAj (xj ))
structure AY . W W 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 .

AX = jJ Aj = (jJ TAj , jJ IAj , jJ FAj ) Hence each fj : (Xj , Aj ) (X, AX ) is an NSet(H)-mapping.


Now for each NHSp (Y, AY ), let g : X Y be an ordinary
and (X, AX ) is called the product NHSp of ((Xj , Aj ))J . mapping for which each g fj : (Xj , Aj ) (Y, AY ) is an
AX = jJ pr1 (Aj )
T
In fact, NSet(H)-mapping. Then clearly for each j J,
and A (g f )1 (A ), i.e., Aj fj1 (g 1 (AY )).
V V
jJ TAj = TAj prj , jJ IAj = IAj prj , S j S 1j 1 Y
W Thus Aj fj (g (AY )).
jJ FAj = FAj prj .
So fj ( Aj ) fj ( fj1 (g1(AY ))). By Proposition 3.7 and
S S

In particular, if J = {1, 2}, then the definition of AX ,


[ [
jJ TAj = TA1 TA2 = (TA1 pr1 ) (TA2 pr2 ), fj ( Aj ) = fj (Aj ) = AX

K. Hur, P. K. Lim, J. G. Lee, J. Kim, The category of neutrosophic sets


Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016 17

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 H-quotient 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)),

K. Hur, P. K. Lim, J. G. Lee, J. Kim, The category of neutrosophic sets


18 Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016

for each x X}, : Z Y X as follows:


define a mapping h

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 ,

We define a mapping eX,Y : X Y X Y as follows: for


TAZ (z) TAY X (h(z)) 1 (TA )(z).
=h YX
each (x, f ) X Y X ,
So TAZ h 1 (TA ). Similarly, we can see that IA
YX Z

eX,Y (x, f ) = f (x). (IA ) and FA h


h 1 1 (FA ). Hence h : Z YX
YX Z YX
is an NSet(H)-mapping, where YX = (Y X , AY X ). Further-
Then clearly, AX AY X N HS(X Y X ), where AX = more, we can prove that h is a unique NSet(H)-mapping such
(TAX , IAX , FAX )
that eX,Y (idX h) = h. 
and for each (x, f ) X Y X ,
TAX AY X (x, f ) = TAX (x) TAY X (f ),
IAX AY X (x, f ) = IAX (x) IAY X (f ), 5 The relation between NSet(H) and
FAX AY X (x, f ) = FAX (x) FAY X (f ). ISet(H)
Let us show that AX AY X e1 X,Y (AY ). Let (x, f )
X Y X . Then Lemma 5.1 Define G1 , G2 : NSet(H) ISet(H) by:

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

TAX (x) TAY X (f )


G1 (f ) = G2 (f ) = f.
= TAX AY X (x, f ),
Then G1 and G2 are functors.
Proof. It is clear that G1 (X, (T, I, F )) = (X, (T, F ))
Ie1 (AY ) (x, f ) = IAY (f (x)) ISet(H) for each (X, (T, I, F ) NSet(H).
X,Y
Let (X, (TX , IX , FX )), (Y, (TY , IY , FY )) NSet(H) and
IAX (x) IAY X (f ) let f : (X, (TX , IX , FX )) (Y, (TY , IY , FY )) be an
= IAX AY X (x, f ), NSet(H)-mapping. Then
TX TY f and FX FY f.
Thus G1 (f ) = f is an ISet(H)-mapping. So G1 : NSet(H)
ISet(H) is a functor.
Fe1 (AY ) (x, f ) = FAY (f (x)) Now let (X, (T, I, F )) NSet(H) and consider
X,Y
(X, (T, N(T ))). Then by Result 2.8, T NN(T ). Thus G2(X,
FAX (x) FAY X (f )
(T, I, F )) = (X, (T, N(T ))) NSet(H).
= FAX AY X (x, f ). Let (X, (TX , IX , FX )), (Y, (TY , IY , FY )) NSet(H) and
let f : (X, (TX , IX , FX )) (Y, (TY , IY , FY )) be an
So AX AY X e1 X,Y (AY ). Hence eX,Y : X Y
X
Y NSet(H)-mapping. Then TX TY f . Thus N (TX )
is an NSet(H)-mapping, where N (TY ) f .
X YX = (X Y X , AX AY X ) and Y = (Y, AY ). So G2 (f ) = f : (X, (TX , N (TX )) (Y, (TY , N (TY )) is an
For any Z = (Z, AZ ) NSet(H), let h : X Z Y be an ISet(H)-mapping. Hence G2 : NSet(H) ISet(H) is a
NSet(H)-mapping where X Z = (X Z, AX AZ ). We functor. 

K. Hur, P. K. Lim, J. G. Lee, J. Kim, The category of neutrosophic sets


Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016 19

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 H-space induced by
N () and N () N (). (X, (, )). Let us denote the category of all induced neutro-
Thus F1 (X, (, )) = (X, (, N (), )) NSet(H). sophic H-spaces 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

K. Hur, P. K. Lim, J. G. Lee, J. Kim, The category of neutrosophic sets


20 Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016

[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 V-sets, 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 H-fuzzy
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

K. Hur, P. K. Lim, J. G. Lee, J. Kim, The category of neutrosophic sets


Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016 21

University of New Mexico

On Single-Valued Neutrosophic Entropy of order


Harish Garg, Nancy
School of Mathematics, Thapar University Patiala - 147004, Punjab, India. E-mail: harishg58iitr@gmail.com

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 single-valued neutro- posed measure has been presented to deal with the multi criteria
sophic set environment by considering the pair of their mem- decision-making problems. Finally, a practical example is pro-
bership functions as well as the hesitation degree between them. vided to illustrate the decision-making process.
Based on this measure, some of its desirable properties have been
Keywords: Entropy measure, neutrosophic set, multi criteria decision-making, 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 indeterminacy-membership
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.
real-life 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 indeterminacy-membership 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 single-valued
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 decision-maker pref-
erences into the measure. Furthermore, the existing measure is and class of SVNSs is denoted by (X).

Harish Garg and Nancy, On Single-Valued Neutrosophic Entropy of order


22 Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016

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.

Definition 2.4. An entropy on SV N S(X) is defined as real val- = 1


ued function E : SV N S(X) [0, 1] which satisfies following
axioms [16]:

(P1) E(A) = 0 if A is crisp set.


Now, let E (A) = 1, that is,
(P2) E(A) = 1 if A (x) = A (x) = A (x)
n
X 


c log3 A (xi ) + A (xi ) + A (xi ) A (xi ) + A (xi )
(P3) E(A) = E( A ) for all A SV N S(X)
i=1

1
(P4) E(A) E(B) if A B that is , A (x) B (x), A (x) + 31 1 A (xi ) A (xi ) A (xi )

+A (xi )
B (x) and A (x) B (x) for B (x) B (x) and B (x)
= n(1 )
B (x). 
log3

A (xi ) + A (xi ) + A (xi ) A (xi ) + A (xi ) +

3 Entropy of order- A (xi )
1
+ 31 1 A (xi ) A (xi ) A (xi )


= (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]

Harish Garg and Nancy, On Single-Valued Neutrosophic Entropy of order


Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016 23

Differentiate it with respect to , we get f


0, whenever x y, x z, > 0, 6= 0. (12)
x
0 1
g () =
Thus, f (x, y, z) is increasing function with respect to x for
00
g () = ( 1) 2 x y, x z and decreasing when x y, x z. Simi-
larly, we have
because g 00 () > 0 for > 1 and g 00 () < 0 for < 1
therefore g() is convex or concave according to > 1 or f f
0 and 0, whenever x y, x z. (13)
< 1. So, for any points 1 , 2 and 3 in [0, 1], we have y z

g(1 ) + g(2 ) + g(3 ) 1 + 2 + 3 


g 0 for > 1 (5) f f
3 3 0 and 0, whenever x y, x z. (14)
y z
g(1 ) + g(2 ) + g(3 ) 1 + 2 + 3  Thus, f (x, y, z) is decreasing function with respect to y and
g 0 for < 1 (6)
3 3 z for x y, x z and increasing when x y, x z.
In above, equality holds only if 1 = 2 = 3 . Hence from Therefore from monotonicity of function f , and by tak-
Eqs. (3),(4), (5) and (6) we conclude Eqs. (2) and (4) holds ing two SV N Ss A B, i.e., A (x) B (x), A (x)
only when A (xi ) = A (xi ) = A (xi ) for all xi X. B (x) and A (x) B (x) for B (x) B (x) and B (x)
B (x), we get E (A) E (B).
(P3) Since Ac = {hx, A (x), A (x), A (x) | x Xi} which
implies that E (Ac ) = E (A).
(P4) Rewrite the entropy function as Example 3.1. Let A be SV N S in universe of discourse X =
{x1 , x2 , x3 , x4 } defined as A = {hx1 , 0.4, 0.3, 0.9i, hx2 , 0.7, 0.5,
f (x, y, z) = 0.3i, hx3 , 0.2, 0.9, 0.8i, hx4 , 0.5, 0.4, 0.6i}. Then entropies val-
n 
1 X 1 ues for different values of is E0.2 (A) = 0.9710; E0.5 (A) =
log3 x + y + z x + y + z
 
1 i=1 0.9303; E2 (A) = 0.7978; E5 (A) = 0.7246; E10 (A) = 0.7039.
 It is clearly seen from this result that with the increase of , the
+31 (1 x y z) (7) values of E (A) is decreases.
The above proposed entropy measure of order satisfies the
where x, y, z [0, 1]. In order to proof the proposed en- following additional properties.
tropy satisfies (P4), it is sufficient to prove that the function Consider two SV N Ss A and B defined over X = {x1 , x2 , . . . , xn }.
f defined in Eq. (7) is an increasing function with respect Take partition of X as X1 = {xi X : A B}, X2 = {xi
to x and decreasing with respect to y and z. For it, take a X : A B}. Then we define the joint and conditional entropies
partial derivative of the function with respect to x, y and z between them as follows
and hence we get.
(i) Joint entropy
(1 )(x + y + z )(x + y + z) E (A B)
f + (x + y + z)1 x1 31 n 
= (8) 1 X


x (x + y + z )(x + y + z)1
=
n(1 )
log3 AB (xi ) + AB (xi ) + AB (xi )
i=1
+ 31 (1 x y z)] 1
AB (xi ) + AB (xi ) + AB (xi )
(1 )(x + y + z )(x + y + z) 
f + (x + y + z)1 y 1 31 +31 1 AB (xi ) AB (xi ) AB (xi )

= (9)
y (1 )[(x + y + z )(x + y + z)1 (  
1
+ 31 (1 x y z)]
X
= log3 B (x i ) +
B (x i ) +
B (xi )
n(1 ) x X
(1 )(x + y + z )(x + y + z) i 1
1
+ (x + y + z)1 z 1 31
 
f B (xi ) + B (xi ) + B (xi ) + 31 1 B (xi )
= (10)
z (1 )[(x + y + z )(x + y + z)1  X 
+ 31 (1 x y z)] B (xi ) B (xi ) + log3
A (xi ) + A (xi )
xi X2
f
= 0, f f  1
After setting x y = 0 and z = 0, we get x = y =
+A (xi ) A (xi ) + A (xi ) + A (xi )
z. Also,
 )
f +31 1 A (xi ) A (xi ) A (xi ) (15)
0, whenever x y, x z, > 0, 6= 0 (11)
x

Harish Garg and Nancy, On Single-Valued Neutrosophic Entropy of order


24 Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016

(  
(ii) Conditional entropy 1 X
+ log3 B (xi ) +
B (x i ) +
B (x i )
n(1 ) x X
E (A|B) 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 (B|A) 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

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 )
 X  
A (xi ) + log3
A (x i ) +
A (x i ) + A

(x i )
xi X2
Here E (A|B) is entropy of A given B.  1 
A (xi ) + A (xi ) + A (xi ) + 31 1 A (xi )
)
Theorem 2. For SV N Ss A and B following statements hold A (xi ) A (xi )
(  
1 X
(i) E (A B) = E (A) + E (B|A) + log3
B (xi ) + B (xi ) + B (xi )
n(1 ) x X
i 1
 1 
B (xi ) + A (xi ) + B (xi ) + 31 1 B (xi )
(ii) E (A B) = E (B) + E (A|B)   
B (xi ) B (xi ) log3
A (xi ) + A (xi ) + A (xi )
 1 
(iii) E (A B) = E (A) + E (B|A) = E (B) + E (A|B) A (xi ) + A (xi ) + A (xi ) + 31 1 A (xi )
)
A (xi ) A (xi )
(iv) E (A B) + E (A B) = E (A) + E (B). (  
1 X
log3 B i(x ) +
(x
B i ) +
(x
B i )
n(1 ) xX
1
Proof. (i) Here, we have to proof (i) only, (ii) and (iii) can be 1
follows from it.
 
B (xi ) + B (xi ) + B (xi ) + 31 1 B (xi )
E (A) + E (B|A) E (A B)   
X
n
B (xi ) B (xi ) log3 (x ) +
(x )
 
1 X A i A i
= log3
A (xi ) + A (xi ) + A (xi ) xi X2
n(1 ) i=1
 1 
1
+ 31 1 A (xi )
 
A (xi ) + A (xi ) + A (xi )
A (xi ) + A (xi ) + A (xi ) + 31 1 A (xi )
 )
A (xi ) A (xi ) A (xi ) A (xi )

= 0

Harish Garg and Nancy, On Single-Valued Neutrosophic Entropy of order


Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016 25

(  
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 (A|B)

This completes the proof.


Theorem 3. For SV N Ss A and B following statements holds
Let A = hx, A (x), A (x), A (x)|x Xi be SV N S in X.
(i) E (A) E (A B) = E (A|B) For n be any positive real number, Zhang et al. [23] defined An
as follows
n
(ii) E (B) E (A B) = E (A|B) An = hx, A (x) , 1 (1 A (x))n , 1 (1 A (x))n i (16)

Definition 4. Contraction of SV N S A in universe of discourse


Proof. We prove (i) part only, other can be proven similarly. X is defined by
Consider
CON (A) = hx, CON (A) (x), CON (A) (x), CON (A) (x)i
E (A) E (A B)
( n
where CON (A) (x) = [A (x)]2 ; CON (A) (x) = 1 [1
 
1 X
= log3
A (xi ) + A (xi ) + A (xi )
n(1 ) i=1 A (x)]2 ; CON (A) (x) = 1 [1 A (x)]2 i.e. CON (A) =
 1  A2
A (xi ) + A (xi ) + A (xi ) + 31 1 A (xi )
 Xn  Definition 5. Dilation of SV N S A in universe of discourse X
A (xi ) A (xi ) log3
AB (xi ) + AB (xi ) is defined by
i=1



 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) =

Harish Garg and Nancy, On Single-Valued Neutrosophic Entropy of order


26 Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016

A1/2 variable More or Less LARGE, LARGE, VERY LARGE


are decreases. Also it has been observed that whenever the values
An illustrative example has been tested on the concentration of are increases from 0 to 15 then the pattern for the variable
and dilation for comparing the performance of proposed entropy LARGE is E (A) > E (A1/2 ) > E (A2 ) > E (A3 ) and the

with the some existing entropies as given below. results coincides with the existing measures results. On the other
(i) Entropy defined by [5]; hand, whenever the value of are increases beyond the 15 then
" # the order the patterns are slightly different. Hence the proposed
1
Pn min(A (xi ), A (xi )) + A (xi ) entropy measure is used as an alternative measure for computing
ESK (A) = n i=1
max(A (xi ), A (xi )) + A (xi ) the order value of the linguistic variable as compared to existing.
Moreover, the proposed measure is more generalized as the dif-
(ii) Entropy defined by [3]; ferent different values of will give the different choices of the
n
decision-maker for assessing the results, and hence more reliable
1X from linguistic variable point-of-view.
EBB (A) = A (xi )
n i=1

(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)

SV N S A LARGE on X may be defined as A = {hx1 , 0.1, 0.7,


0.8i, hx2 , 0.3, 0.6, 0.5i, hx3 , 0.5, 0.3, 0.4i, hx4 , 0.9, 0.2, 0.0i, hx5 ,
1.0, 0.1, 0.0i}. Using the operations defined in Eq. (16) on
SV N S, we can generate following SV N Ss 4 MCDM problem on proposed entropy
A, A1/2 , A2 , A3 measure
which can be defined as In this section, we discuss the method for solving the MCDM
A1/2 may treated as More or Less LARGE, problem based on the proposed entropy measure.
A2 may treated as Very LARGE,
A3 may treated as Quite Very LARGE 4.1 MCDM method based on proposed Entropy
and these corresponding sets are computed as
A1/2 = {hx1 , 0.3162, 0.4523, 0.5528i, hx2 , 0.5477, 0.3675,
measure
0.2929i, hx3 , 0.7071, 0.1633, 0.2254i, hx4 , 0.9487, 0.1056, 0i, Consider the set of different alternatives A = {A1 , A2 , ..., Am }
hx5 , 1.0000, 0.0513, 0i} ; having the different criteria C = {C1 , C2 , ..., Cn } in neutro-
A1 = {hx1 , 0.1, 0.7, 0.8i, hx2 , 0.3, 0.6, 0.5i, hx3 , 0.5, 0.3, 0.4i, sophic environment and the steps for computing the best alter-
hx4 , 0.9, 0.2, 0.0i, hx5 , 1.0, 0.1, 0i} ; native is summarized as follows
A2 = {hx1 , 0.01, 0.91, 0.96i, hx2 , 0.09, 0.84, 0.75i,
hx3 , 0.25, 0.51, 0.64i, hx4 , 0.81, 0.36, 0i, hx5 , 1.00, 0.19, 0i}; Step 1: Construction of decision making matrix :
A3 = {hx1 , 0.0010, 0.9730, 0.9920i, hx2 , 0.0270, 0.9360, 0.8750i, Arrange the each alternatives Ai under the criteria Cj ac-
hx3 , 0.1250, 0.6570, 0.7840i, hx4 , 0.7290, 0.4880, 0i, cording to preferences of the decision maker in the form
hx5 , 1.000, 0.2710, 0i} of neutrosophic matrix Dmn = hij , ij , ij i where
The entropy measures values corresponding to existing mea- ij represents the degree that alternative Ai satisfies the
sures as well as the proposed measures for different values of criteria Cj , ij represents the degree that alternative Ai
are summarized in Table 1 for these different linguistic variable indeterminant about the criteria Cj and ij represents the
SV N Ss. From this table, it has been concluded that with the in- degree that alternative Ai doesnt satisfies the criteria Cj ,
crease of the parameter , the entropy measure for the linguistic where 0 ij , ij , ij 1 and ij + ij + ij 3;

Harish Garg and Nancy, On Single-Valued Neutrosophic Entropy of order


Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016 27

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 multi-criteria 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

(i) A1 is food company;

(ii) A2 is transport company; 5 Conclusion


(iii) A3 is an electronic company; In this article, we have introduced the entropy measure of order
for single valued neutrosophic numbers for measuring the de-
(iv) A4 is an tyre company. gree of the fuzziness of the set in which the uncertainties present
in the data are characterized into the truth, the indeterminacy and
Decision maker take decision according to three criteria given
the falsity membership degrees. Some desirable properties cor-
below:
responding to these entropy have also been illustrated. A struc-
a) C1 is growth analysis; ture linguistic variable has been taken as an illustration. Finally,
a decision-making method has been proposed based on entropy
b) C2 is risk analysis; measures. To demonstrate the efficiency of the proposed coef-
ficients, numerical example from the investment field has been
c) C3 is enviroment impact analysis. taken. A comparative study as well as the effect of the parame-
ters on the ranking of the alternative will support the theory and
Then the following procedure has been followed for comput- hence demonstrate that the proposed measures place an alterna-
ing the best alternative as an investment. tive way for solving the decision-making problems.

Harish Garg and Nancy, On Single-Valued Neutrosophic Entropy of order


28 Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016

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 interval-valued fuzzy sets, Fuzzy sets and systems
78 (3) (1996) 305 316. [15] J. Ye, Multiple attribute group decision-making 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 interval-valued 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 multi-criteria decision making problem, Inter- sets and their applications in multicriteria decision-making,
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 single-valued 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
interval-valued 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 t-norm 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

Harish Garg and Nancy, On Single-Valued Neutrosophic Entropy of order


Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016 29

University of New Mexico

Fuzzy Logic vs. Neutrosophic Logic: Operations Logic


1
Salah Bouzina

1 Department of Philosophy, Faculty of Science Human and Science Social, University of Constantine 2 Abdelhamid
Mehri, Terrene Kadour Boumedous, Constantine, 25000, Algeria. E-mail: 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- non-bivalent 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 far-reaching 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 falsity-membership
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.

Salah Bouzina, Fuzzy Logic vs. Neutrosophic Logic: Operations Logic


30 Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016

A neutrosophic propositions () and () are real stan- 2.4 Conjunction :


dard or non-standard subsets in universal set(), which is
characterized by a truth-membership function , , a 2.4.1 In Fuzzy Logic:
indeterminacy-membership function , and a falsity-
membership function , , of ] 0, 1+[ . That is Conjunction the fuzzy propositions () and () is the fol-
lowing :
] 0, 1+[ = ,
] 0, 1+[ ( And, in similar way, generalized for propositions )
] 0, 1+[ The conjunction link of the two fuzzy propositions () and
() in the following truth table [6] :
And
] 0, 1+[
] 0, 1+[
] 0, 1+[ (1,0) (1,0) (1,0)
(1,0) (0,1) (0,0)
There is no restriction on the sum of , , or (0,1) (1,0) (0,0)
, , , so 0 + + 3+ , and (0,1) (0,1) (0,1)

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

The negation link of the two neutrosophic propositions


() and () in the following truth table : (1,0) (1,0) (1,0)
(1,0) (0,1) (1,1)
(0,1) (1,0) (1,1)
(1,0,0) (1,0,0) (0,1,1) (0,1,1) (0,1) (0,1) (0,1)
(1,0,0) (0,0,1) (0,1,1) (1,1,0)
(0,0,1) (0,1,0) (1,1,0) (1,0,1) 2.5.2 In Neutrosophic Logic:
(0,0,1) (1,0,0) (1,1,0) (0,1,1) Inclusive disjunction the neutrosophic propositions ()
(0,1,0) (0,0,1) (1,0,1) (1,1,0) and () is the following [4]:
(0,1,0) (0,1,0) (1,0,1) (1,0,1) = , ,
( And, in similar way, generalized for propositions )

Salah Bouzina, Fuzzy Logic vs. Neutrosophic Logic: Operations Logic


Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016 31

The inclusive disjunction link of the two neutrosophic pro-


positions () and () in the following truth table : (1,0) (1,0) (1,0)
(1,0) (0,1) (0,1)
(0,1) (1,0) (1,0)
(1,0,0) (1,0,0) (1,0,0) (0,1) (0,1) (0,1)
(1,0,0) (0,0,1) (1,0,1)
(0,0,1) (0,1,0) (0,1,1) 2.7.2 In Neutrosophic Logic:
(0,0,1) (1,0,0) (1,0,1)
(0,1,0) (0,0,1) (0,1,1) Implication the neutrosophic propositions () and () is
(0,1,0) (0,1,0) (0,1,0) the following [4]:
= , ,
The implication link of the two neutrosophic propositions
2.6Strong or exclusive disjunction:
() and () in the following truth table :
2.6.1 In Fuzzy Logic:

Exclusive disjunction the fuzzy propositions () and () (1,0,0) (1,0,0) (1,1,1)
is the following : (1,0,0) (0,0,1) (0,1,1)
(0,0,1) (0,1,0) (1,1,0)
+ ({} ,
() =
+ ({}
(0,0,1) (1,0,0) (1,1,0)
(0,1,0) (0,0,1) (1,0,1)
( And, in similar way, generalized for propositions )
(0,1,0) (0,1,0) (1,1,1)
The exclusive disjunction link of the two fuzzy propositi-
ons () and () in the following truth table [6]:
2.8 Material biconditional ( equivalence ) :

(1,0) (1,0) (0,0) 2.8.1 In Fuzzy Logic:
(1,0) (0,1) (1,1) Equivalencethe fuzzy propositions () and () is the fol-
(0,1) (1,0) (1,1) lowing :
(0,1) (0,1) (0,0)
1 + 1 + ,
( ) =
2.6.2 In Neutrosophic Logic: 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)

Salah Bouzina, Fuzzy Logic vs. Neutrosophic Logic: Operations Logic


32 Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016

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 truth-membership function , a indeterminacy-
propositions () and () in the following truth table : membership function , and a falsity-membership 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 non-standard subset in universal
set(), which is characterized by a truth-truth membership
2.10.2 In Neutrosophic Logic: function , a indeterminacy-truth membership function
, and a falsity-truth 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+[

Salah Bouzina, Fuzzy Logic vs. Neutrosophic Logic: Operations Logic


Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016 33

There is no restriction on the sum of , , , so phic set]; but the neutrosophic probability that the truth

0 + + 3+. value of x is 0.4 with respect to the neutrosophic set A


Let , is real standard or non-standard subset in universal is <0.3, 0.2, 0.4>, the neutrosophic probability that the
set(), which is characterized by a truth-indeterminacy indeterminacy value of x is 0.1 with respect to the neut-
membership function , a indeterminacy-indeterminacy rosophic set A is <0.0, 0.3, 0.8>, and the neutrosophic
membership function , and a falsity-indeterminacy probability that the falsity value of x is 0.7 with respect
membership function , of ] 0, 1+[ . That is to the neutrosophic set A is <0.5, 0.2, 0.2> [now this is
type-2 neutrosophic set].
] 0, 1+[
So, in a type-2 neutrosophic set, when an element x(t, i,
] 0, 1+[
f) belongs to a neutrosophic set A, we are not sure
] 0, 1+[
about the values of t, i, f, we only get each of them with
There is no restriction on the sum of , , , so a given neutrosophic probability.

0 + + 3+.
Let , is real standard or non-standard subset in universal Neutrosophic Probability (NP) of an event E is defined
set(), which is characterized by a truth-falsity members- as: NP(E) = (chance that E occurs, indeterminate chan-
hip function , a indeterminacy-falsity membership ce about E occurrence, chance that E does not occur).
function , and a falsity-falsity membership function Similarly, a type-2 fuzzy set is a fuzzy set of a fuzzy set.
, of ] 0, 1+[ . That is And a type-2 intuitionistic fuzzy set is an intuitionistic
fuzzy set of an intuitionistic fuzzy set.
Surely, one can define a type-3 neutrosophic set (which
] 0, 1+[
is a neutrosophic set of a neutrosophic set of a neutro-
] 0, 1+[ sophic set), and so on (type-n neutrosophic set, for n
] 0, 1+[ 2), but they become useless and confusing.
There is no restriction on the sum of , , ,so Neither in fuzzy set nor in intuitionistic fuzzy set the re-

0 + + 3+. searchers went further that type-2.


Therefore :
Hence : .
+ + : ] 0, 3+[
+ + : ] 0, 3+[ Especially in quantum theory, there is an uncertainty
about the energy and the momentum of particles. And, be-
+ + : ] 0, 3+[ cause the particles in the subatomic world dont have exact
There is no restriction on the sum of , , , and positions, we better calculate their double neutrosophic
of , , , and of , , , so 0 + probabilities (i.e. computation a truth-truth percent, inde-
+ + + + + terminacy-truth percent, falsity-truth percent, and truth-
+ + 9+ . indeterminacy percent, indeterminacy-indeterminacy per-
Therefore : cent, falsity-indeterminacy percent, and truth-falsity per-
cent, indeterminacy-falsity percent, falsity-falsity percent)
( , , ), ( , , ), ( , , ) : ] 0, 1+[^9
of being at some particular points than their neutrosophic
probabilities.
This example: we suggest to be named: Double Neutroso- 3.4 Definition of Double Neutrosophic Logical Connec-
phic Logic (DNL). tives (Operations Logic ) :
This is a particular case of Neutrosophic Logic and Set of One notes the double neutrosophic logical values of the
Type-2 (and Type-n), introduced by Smarandache [8] in 2017, as propositions () and () by:
follows:
= ( , , ), ( , , ), ( , , )
Definition of Type-2 (and Type-n) Neutrosophic Set
(and Logic).
Type-2 Neutrosophic Set is actually a neutrosophic set And
of a neutrosophic set. = ( , , ), ( , , ), ( , , )
See an example for a type-2 single-valued neutrosophic
set below:
Let x(0.4 <0.3, 0.2, 0.4>, 0.1 <0.0, 0.3, 0.8>, 0.7 <0.5, 3.4.1 Negation:
=
0.2, 0.2>) be an element in the neutrosophic set A,
, , , , ,
which means the following: x(0.4, 0.1, 0.7) belongs to
And
the neutrosophic set A in the following way, the truth
=
value of x is 0.4, the indeterminacy value of x is 0.1,
and the falsity value of x is 0.7 [this is type-1 neutroso- , , , , ,

Salah Bouzina, Fuzzy Logic vs. Neutrosophic Logic: Operations Logic


34 Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016

3.4.2 Conjunction : 3.4.8 Peirces connector :


=

( , , ), ( , , ), ( , , ) = =
, , ,
( 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, Yan-qing 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. 119-120.
[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,
, , , 1-3 December 2001, pp. 11-12.
, , [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. 2-3.
3.4.6 Material biconditional ( equivalence ) : [7] Lotfi A. Zadeh, Fuzzy Sets,Information and Control,8,
=
1965.
,
[8] Florentin Smarandache, Definition of Type-2 (and Type-n)
, , Neutrosophic Set, in Nidus idearum. Scilogs, III: Viva la
Neutrosophia!, Section 92, pp. 102-103, Brussels, 2017.
,

, ,
Received: November 14, 2016. Accepted: November 21, 2016

3.4.7 Sheffers connector :


| = =

, , ,
, , ,
, ,

Salah Bouzina, Fuzzy Logic vs. Neutrosophic Logic: Operations Logic


Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016 35

University of New Mexico

Interval-valued Possibility Quadripartitioned Single Valued


Neutrosophic Soft Sets and some uncertainty based
measures on them
Rajashi Chatterjee1 , Pinaki Majumdar 2 , Syamal Kumar Samanta 3
1 Department of Mathematics, Visva-Bharati, Santiniketan, 731235, India. E-mail: rajashi.chatterjee@gmail.com
2 Department of Mathematics, M. U. C. Womens College, Burdwan, 713104, India. E-mail: pmajumdar@gmail.com
3 Department of Mathematics, Visva-Bharati, Santiniketan, 731235, India. E-mail: syamal123@yahoo.co.in

Abstract: The theory of quadripartitioned single valued neutro- ued neutrosophic soft sets. Some basic set-theoretic 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. interval-valued possibility quadripartitioned single val- problem has been shown.

Keywords: Neutrosophic set, entropy measure, inclusion measure, distance measure, similarity measure.

1 Introduction neutrosophic set [18], the theory of quadripartitioned single val-


ued neutrosophic sets [5] was proposed as a generalization of
The theory of soft sets (introduced by D. Molodstov, in 1999) the existing theory of single valued neutrosophic sets [19]. In
([10],[15]) provided a unique approach of dealing with uncer- this paper the concept of interval valued possibility quadriparti-
tainty with the implementation of an adequate parameterization tioned single valued neutrosophic soft sets (IPQSVNSS, in short)
technique. In a very basic sense, given a crisp universe, a soft has been proposed. In the existing literature studies pertaining to
set is a parameterized representation or parameter-wise classifi- a possibility degree has been dealt with so far. Interval valued
cation of the subsets of that universe of discourse with respect to possibility assigns a closed sub-interval of [0, 1] as the degree of
a given set of parameters. It was further shown that fuzzy sets chance or possibility instead of a number in [0, 1] and thus it is
could be represented as a particular class of soft sets when the set a generalization of the existing concept of a possibility degree.
of parameters was considered to be [0, 1]. Since soft sets could The proposed structure can be viewed as a generalization of the
be implemented without the rigorous process of defining a suit- existing theories of possibility fuzzy soft sets and possibility in-
able membership function, the theory of soft sets, which seemed tuitionistic fuzzy soft sets.
much easier to deal with, underwent rapid developments in fields The organization of the rest of the paper is as follows: a cou-
pertaining to analysis as well as applications (as can be seen from ple of preliminary results have been stated in Section 2, some
the works of [1],[6],[7],[12],[14],[16],[17] etc.) basic set-theoretic operations on IPQSVNSS have been defined
On the otherhand, hybridized structures, often designed and in Section 3, some uncertainty based measures viz. entropy, in-
obtained as a result of combining two or more existing struc- clusion measure, distance measure and similarity measure, have
tures, have most of the inherent properties of the combined struc- been defined in Section 4 and their p roperties, applications and
tures and thus provide for a stronger tool in handling applica- inter-relations have been studied. Section 5 concludes the paper.
tion oriented problems. Likewise, the potential of the theory of
soft sets was enhanced to a greater extent with the introduction
of hybridized structures like those of the fuzzy soft sets [8], in- 2 Preliminaries
tuitionistic fuzzy soft sets [9], generalized fuzzy soft sets [13],
neutrosophic soft sets [11], possibility fuzzy soft sets [2], possi- In this section some preliminary results have been outlined which
bility intuitionistic fuzzy soft sets [3] etc. to name a few. would be useful for the smooth reading of the work that follows.
While in case of generalized fuzzy soft sets, corresponding to
each parameter a degree of possibility is assigned to the corre- 2.1 An outline on soft sets and possibility intu-
sponding fuzzy subset of the universe; possibility fuzzy sets, a itionistic fuzzy soft sets
further modification of the generalized fuzzy soft sets, character-
ize each element of the universe with a possible degree of be- Definition 1 [15]. Let X be an initial universe and E be a set of
longingness along with a degree of membership. Based on Bel- parameters. Let P(X) denotes the power set of X and A E.
naps four-valued logic [4] and Smarandaches n-valued refined A pair (F, A) is called a soft set iff F is a mapping of A into

R. Chatterjee, P. Majumdar and S. K. Samanta, Interval-valued Possibility Quadripartitioned Single Valued Neutrosophic Soft Sets
and some uncertainty based measures on them
36 Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016

P(X). WhenP X is discrete, A is represented as,


n
The following results are due to [3]. A = i=1 hTA (xi ), CA (xi ), UA (xi ), FA (xi )i /xi , xi X.
However, when the universe of discourse is continuous, A is
Definition 2 [3]. Let U = {x1 , x2 , ..., xn } be the univer- represented as,
sal sets of elements and let E = {e1 , e1 , ..., em } be the universal A = hTA (x), CA (x), UA (x), FA (x)i /x, xX
set of parameters. The pair (U, E) will be called a soft universe.
U U
Let F : E (I I) I U where (I I) is the collection of Definition 7 [5]. A QSVNS is said to be an absolute QSVNS,
all intuitionistic fuzzy subsets of U and I is the collection of denoted by A, iff its membership values are respectively defined
U

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 set-theoretic 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) De-Morgans 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 non-empty set. A quadripartitioned
neutrosophic set (QSVNS) A, over X characterizes each element
x in X by a truth-membership function TA , a contradiction-
membership function CA , an ignorance-membership 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, Interval-valued Possibility Quadripartitioned Single Valued Neutrosophic Soft Sets
and some uncertainty based measures on them
Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016 37

3 Interval-valued 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 set-theoretic
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 interval-valued 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 contradiction-membership, the ignorance-membership 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, Interval-valued Possibility Quadripartitioned Single Valued Neutrosophic Soft Sets
and some uncertainty based measures on them
38 Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016

3. (i) F 0 = F |ceG (x)ueG (x)| |ceF (x)ueF (x)| and |1{+


e (x)+e (x)}|
+
(ii) F 0 = 0 |1 {e (x) + e (x)}|, xX, eE. Then,

(iii) F A1 = A1 |teG (x) fG
e
(x)|.|ceG (x) ueG (x)|.|1 {+
e (x) + e (x)}|
(iv) F A1 = F

e e
|tF (x) fF (x)|.|cP e
F (x)
e
PuF (x)|.|1 {e (x) +
+
e (x)}|
1
4. (i) Fc = F
c 1 ||X||.||E|| eE xX |tF (x) fFe (x)|.|ceF (x)
e


(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 straight-forward. 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 uncertainty-based 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 straight-forward.
(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 F|t (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 ).

and fG e Step 1: Represent the data in hand in the form of an IPQSVNSS,


(ii) Suppose that F G (x) teG (x),
e e + say F .
uG (x) cG (x) , e (x) + e (x) 1. Automatically,
Step 2: Calculate the entropy measure (F ), as defined in
+ e e e
e (x) + e (x) 1. Thus, fF (x) fG (x), tG (x) tF (x),
e
e e e e Theorem A.
uF (x) uG (x), cG (x) cF (x), e (x) e (x) ,
Step 3: For each E, assign weights F (), given by the
+ + e e e
e (x) e (x), and fG (x) tG (x), uG (x) cG (x) ,
e
+ formula,
e (x) + e (x) 1. (F ) 1
P
F () = F () , where F () = 1 ||X||.||E|| xX |tF (x)
fFe (x) fG e
(x) teG (x) teF (x), ueF (x) ueG (x)
cG (x) cF (x) ,
e e + + fF (x)|.|c +
F (x) uF (x)|.|1 { (x) + (x)}|.
e (x) e (x) , e (x) e (x) and
+ +
e (x) + e (x) 1, e (x) + e (x) 1. Step 4: Corresponding to each option xX, calculate the net
From the above relations it follows that teG (x) fG e
(x) score, defined P as,

e e e e e e
tF (x) fF (x) but tG (x) fG (x) 0, tF (x) fF (x) 0 score(xi ) = e F ().[tF (xi ) + cF (xi ) + {1 uF (xi )} +

+
(xi )+ (xi )
|teG (x) fG e
(x)| |teF (x) fFe (x)|. Similarly, {1 fF (xi )}].{ 2 }.

R. Chatterjee, P. Majumdar and S. K. Samanta, Interval-valued 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 P||X|| 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 6||X||.||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 2-6, 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, Interval-valued Possibility Quadripartitioned Single Valued Neutrosophic Soft Sets
and some uncertainty based measures on them
40 Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016

Example 4. Consider IPQSVNSS F , G in Example 1,


4.4 Similarity measure
then I (F , G ) = 0.493.
Definition 19. A mapping s : IP QSV N SS(X, E)
4.3 Distance measure IP QSV N SS(X, E) R+ is said to be a quasi-
similarity measure between IPQSVNSS if for any
Definition 16. A mapping d : IP QSV N SS(X, E) F , G , H IP QSV N SS(X, E) it satisfies the following
IP QSV N SS(X, E) R+ is said to be a distance measure be- properties:
tween IPQSVNSS if for any F , G , H IP QSV N SS(X, E) (s1) s (F , G ) = s (G , F )
it satisfies the following properties: (s2) 0 s (F , G ) 1 and s (F , G ) = 1 F = G
(d1) d (F , G ) = d (G , F ) In addition, if it satisfies
(d2) d (F , G ) 0 and d (F , G ) = 0 F = G (s3) if F G H then s (F , H ) s (F , G ) s (G , H )
(d3) d (F , H ) d (F , G ) + d (G , H ) then it is known as a similarity measure between IPQSVNSS.
In addition to the above conditions, if the mapping d satisfies the
condition Various similarity measures for quadripartitioned single
(d4) d (F , G ) 1, F , G IP QSV N SS(X, E) valued neutrosophic sets were proposed in [5]. Undertaking a
it is called a Normalized distance measure for IPQSVNSS. similar line of approach, as in our previous work [5] we propose
a similarity measure for IPQSVNSS as follows:
Theorem 4. The mapping dh : IP QSV N SS(X, E)
IP QSV N SS(X, P E) P R+ defined as, Definition 20. Consider F , G IP QSV N SS(X, E). Define
e e e F,G
dh (F , G ) = eE xX (|tF (x) tG (x)| + |cF (x) functions i,e : X [0, 1], i = 1, 2, .., 5 such that for each
e e e e e
cG (x)| + |uF (x) uG (x)| + |fF (x) fG (x)| + |e (x) xX, eE
F,G
+ +
e (x)|+|e (x)e (x)|) is a distance measure for IPQSVNSS. 1,e (x) = |tG (x) tF (x)|
e e

It is known as the Hamming Distance. F,G e e


2,e (x) = |fF (x) fG (x)|
F,G e e
3,e (x) = |cG (x) cF (x)|
Proofs are straight-forward. F,G
4,e (x) = |ueF (x) ueG (x)|
F,G
Definition 17. The corresponding Normalized Hamming 5,e (x) = |e (x) e (x)|
F,G
distance for IPQSVNSS is defined as dN h (F , G ) = 6,e (x) = |+ e (x) e (x)|
+
1
d
6||X||.||E|| h (F , G ), where ||.|| denotes the cardinality Finally, define a mapping s : IP QSV N SS(X, E)
of a set. IP QSV N SS(X, E) R+ as, s (F , G ) = 1
1
P P P6 F,G
6||X||.||E|| eE xX i=1 i,e (x)
Theorem 5. The mapping dE : IP QSV N SS(X, E)
IP QSV N SS(X,P E) P R+ defined as, Theorem 6. The mapping s (F, G) defined above is a
e e 2 e
dE (F , G ) = eE xX {(tF (x) tG (x)) + (cF (x) similarity measure.
ceG (x))2 + (ueF (x) ueG (x))2 + (fFe (x) fG e
(x))2 + (e (x)
2 + + 2 12
e (x)) + (e (x) e (x)) } is a distance measure for Proof:
IPQSVNSS. It is known as the Euclidean Distance.
(i) It is easy to prove that s(F , G ) = s(G , F ).
Proofs are straight-forward.
(ii) We have, teF (x), ceF (x), ueF (x), fFe (x)[0, 1] and
F,G
Definition 18. The corresponding Normalized Hamming e (x), e (x)Int([0, 1]) for each xX, eE. Thus, 1,e (x)
N e e
distance for IPQSVNSS is defined as dE (F , G ) = attains its maximum value if either one of tF (x) or tG (x) is equal
1
6||X||.||E|| dE (F , G ). to 1 while the other is 0 and in that case the maximum value is 1.
Similarly, it attains a minimum value 0 if teF (x) = teG (x). So, it

Proposition 3. F G H iff follows that 0 1,e F,G
(x) 1, for each xX. Similarly it can be
(i) dh (F , H ) = dh (F , G ) + dh (G , H ) F,G
shown that i,e (x), i = 2, ..., 6 lies within [0, 1] for each xX.
(ii) dN N N
h (F , H ) = dh (F , G ) + dh (G , H ) So, P
6 F,G
0 i=1 i,e (x) 6
Proofs are straight-forward. P P Pn F,G
0 eE xX i=1 i,e (x) 6||X||.||E||
Example 5. Consider the IPQSVNSS given in Example 1. which implies 0 s(F , GPn 1.
)
The various distance measures between the sets are obtained Now s(F , G ) = 1 iff i=1 i,e (x) = 0 for each xX, eE
e e e
N
as, d (F , G ) = 5.29, d (F , G ) = 0.882,d (F , G ) = t F (x) = t G (x), cF (x) = ceG (x), ueF (x) = ueG (x),
h h E
N
4.387, dE (F , G ) = 0.731

R. Chatterjee, P. Majumdar and S. K. Samanta, Interval-valued 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 entropy-based 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 entropy-based
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 6||X||.||E||1
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 6||X||.||E|| eE xX i=1 i,e (x) eE (){
P P6
F,G (x)}
s (F , G ) = 1 xX
6||X||.||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) = 6||X||.||E||
P P
P6 1 ,0
A
s(A1 , 0 ) = 1 6||X||.||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
6||X||.||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, Interval-valued Possibility Quadripartitioned Single Valued Neutrosophic Soft Sets
and some uncertainty based measures on them
42 Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016

Hence, s1d (F , H ) s1d (F , G ) s1d (G , H ). |(F ) (G )| is a distance measure.

Remark 4. For any similarity measures (F , G ) , 1s (F , G ) Proof:


may not be a distance measure.
(i) |(F ) (G )| = |(G ) (F )|
1
Theorem 9.s2d (F , G ) = 1+dh (F ,G )
is a similarity measure. (ii) |(F ) (G )| 0 and in particular, |(F ) (G )| =
0 (F ) = (G ) (F ) (G ) and
Proof: (F ) (G ) F = G
(iii) Triangle inequality follows from the fact that,
(i) dh (F , G ) = dh (G , F ) s2d (F , G ) = s2d (G , F ) |(F ) (H )| |(F ) (G )| + |(G ) (H )|
(ii) dh (F , G ) 0 0 s2d (F , G ) 1. Also, for any F , G , H IP QSV N SS(X, E).
s2d (F , G ) = 1 dh (F , G ) = 0 F = G .
(iii) dh (F , H ) = dh (F , G ) + dh (G , H ) whenever
H
F G . 6 Conclusions and Discussions
dh (F , H ) dh (F , G ) and dh (F , H ) dh (G , H ).
1 1
1+dh (F ,H )
1+dh (F ,G )
s2d (G , F ) s2d (F , G ). In this paper, the concept of interval possibility quadripartitioned
Similarly, it can be shown that, s2d (G , F ) s2d (G , H ). single valued neutrosophic sets has been proposed. In the present
set-theoretic structure an interval valued gradation of possibil-
Corollary 1. s3d (F , G ) = 1+dN (F 1
is a similarity ity viz. the chance of occurrence of an element with respect to
,G )
measure.
h
a certain criteria is assigned and depending on that possibility of
occurrence the degree of belongingness, non-belongingness, con-
Proofs follow in the exactly same way as the previous the- tradiction and ignorance are assigned thereafter. Thus, this struc-
orem. ture comes as a generalization of the existing structures involv-
ing the theory of possibility namely, possibility fuzzy soft sets
Remark 5. For any similarity measure s (F , G ) , s(F1,G ) 1 and possibility intuitionistic fuzzy soft sets. In the present work,
may not be a distance measure. the relationship between the various uncertainty based measures
have been established. Applications have been shown where the
Theorem 10 Consider the similarity measure s (F , G ). entropy measure has been utilized to assign weights to the ele-
s (F , F G )is an inclusion measure. ments of the parameter set which were later implemented in a
decision making problem and also in calculating a weighted sim-
Proof: ilarity measure. The proposed theory is expected to have wide
applications in processes where parameter-based selection is in-
(i) Choose F = A1 and G = 0 . Then, s (F , F G ) = volved.

s(A1 , 0 ) = 0, from previous result.
(ii) s (F , F G ) = 1 F = F G F G .
(iii) Let F G H . Then, s (F , H ) s (F , G ) and 7 Acknowledgements

s (F , H ) s (G , H ) hold. Consider s (F , H )
s (F , G ). From commutative property of similarity measure, The research of the first author is supported by University JRF
it follows that, s (H , F ) s (G , F ) s (H , H F ) (Junior Research Fellowship).

s (G , G F ). Similarly, s (H , H F ) s (F , F G ). The research of the third author is partially supported by the Spe-
cial Assistance Programme (SAP) of UGC, New Delhi, India

Theorem 11.1 d (F , F G ) is an inclusion measure. [Grant no. F 510/3/DRS-III/(SAP-I)].
h

Proof follows from the results of Theorem 8 and Theorem


10. References
[1] H. Aktas and N. Cagman Soft sets and soft groups, Information Sciences,
Theorem 12. 1+dh (F1,F G
) and 1+dN
1
are in- 177 (2007), 27262735.
h (F ,F G )
clusion measures. [2] S. Alkhazaleh, A. R. Salleh and Nasruddin Hassan Possibility Fuzzy Soft
Set, Advances in Decision Sciences, 2011 (2011), 1-18.
Proofs follow from Theorem 9,Corollary 1 and Theorem [3] M. Bashir, A. R. Salleh and S. Alkhazaleh Possibility Intuitionistic Fuzzy
Soft Set, Advances in Decision Sciences, 2012 (2012), 1-24.
10.
[4] N. D. Belnap Jr. A useful four valued logic, Modern Uses of Multiple-
Valued Logic, 1904 (1977), 9-37.
Theorem 13. Let e : IP QSV N SS(X, E) [0, 1] be a
[5] R. Chatterjee, P. Majumdar and S. K. Samanta On some similarity mea-
. Then
measure of entropy such that (F ) (G ) F G sures and entropy on quadripartitioned single valued neutrosophic sets,
Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems, 30(4) (2016), 2475-2485.

R. Chatterjee, P. Majumdar and S. K. Samanta, Interval-valued 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), 1425-1432.
with Applications, 49 (2009), 757-763. [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), 50-68.
erties, Journal of Fuzzy Mathematics, 20(3) (2012), 551-576. [15] D. Molodstov Soft set theory-First results, Computers and Mathematics
[8] P. K. Maji, R. Biswas and A. R. Roy Fuzzy soft sets, Journal of fuzzy with Applications, 37 (1999), 19-31.
mathematics, 9(3) (2001), 589-602. [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 soft-set theory based classification algorithm, Springer-Verlag Berlin
of fuzzy mathematics, 9(3) (2001), 677-692. Heidelberg (2006), 246-254.
[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), 555-562. Granular Computing 2 IEEE (2005), 617-621.
[11] P. K. Maji Neutrosophic soft set, Annals of Fuzzy Mathematics and Infor- [18] F. Smarandache n-valued Refined Neutrosophic Logic and Its Applications
matics, 5(1) (2013), 157-168. 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), 1-12. Neutrosophic Sets, Multispace and Multistructure, 4 (2010), 410-413.

Received: November 15, 2016. Accepted: November 22, 2016

R. Chatterjee, P. Majumdar and S. K. Samanta, Interval-valued Possibility Quadripartitioned Single Valued Neutrosophic Soft Sets
and some uncertainty based measures on them
Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016 44

University of New Mexico

Modified Collatz conjecture or (3a + 1) + (3b + 1)I Conjecture


for Neutrosophic Numbers Z I
W.B. Vasantha Kandasamy1, K. Ilanthenral2, and Florentin Smarandache3
1
Department of Mathematics, Indian Institute of Technology (Madras), Chennai, 600 036, India. E-mail: vasantha@iitm.ac.in
2
School of Computer Science and Engg.,VIT University, Vellore, 632 014, India. E-mail: ilanthenral@gmail.com
3
Department of Mathematics, University of New Mexico, USA. E-mail: smarand@unm.edu

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.

Keywords: Collatz Conjecture, Modified Collatz Conjecture, Neutrosophic Numbers.

1 Introduction Let n = 3, the related sequence is 3n + 1, 10, 5, 16, 8, 4,


2, 1.
The Collatz conjecture was proposed by Lothar Collatz Let n = 11, the related sequence is 34, 17, 52, 26, 13,
in 1937. Till date this conjecture remains open. The 3n 1 40, 20, 10, 5, 16, 8, 4, 2, 1.
conjecture was proposed by authors [9]. Later in [9] the 3n Let n = 15, the related sequence is 15, 46, 23, 70, 35,
p conjecture; a generalization of Collatz Conjecture was 106, 53, 160, 80, 40, 20, 10, 5, 16, 8, 4, 2, 1.
proposed in 2016 [9]. In simple notation of mod 2 this conjecture can be
However, to the best of authors knowledge, no one has viewed as
studied the Collatz Conjecture in the context of n if n 0 (mod 2)
neutrosophic numbers Z I = {a + bI / a, b Z; I2 = I} f (n) 2 .
where I is the neutrosophic element or indeterminancy 3n 1 if n 1 (mod 2)
introduced by [7]. Several properties about neutrosophic The total stopping time for very large numbers have
numbers have been studied. In this paper, authors for the been calculated. The 3n 1 conjecture is a kin to Collatz
first time study Collatz Conjecture for neutrosophic conjecture.
numbers. This paper is organized into three sections. Take any positive integer n. If n is even divide by 2 and
Section one is introductory. Section two defines / n n
describes Collatz conjecture for neutrosophic numbers. get if is odd multiply it by 3 and subtract 1 to i.e. 3n
2 2
Final section gives conclusions based on this study.
1, repeat this process indefinitely, [9] calls this method as
Extensive study of Collatz conjecture by researchers can be
Half Or Triple Minus One (HOTMO).
found in [1-6]. Collatz conjecture or 3n + 1 conjecture can
The conjecture state for all positive n, the number will
be described as for any positive integer n perform the
converge to 1 or 5 or 17.
following operations.
In other words, the 3n 1 conjecture can be described
n n as follows.
If n is even divide by 2 and get if is even divide
2 2 n
n if n 0 (mod 2)
by 2 and proceed till t is odd. f (n) 2
if n 1 (mod 2)
2 3n 1
If n is odd multiply n by 3 and add 1 to it and find
Let n = 3, 3n 1 = 8, 4, 2, 1.
3n + 1. Repeat the process (which has been called Half of
Let n = 28, 14, 7, 20, 10, 5.
Triple Plus One or HTPO) indefinitely. The conjecture puts
n = 17, 50, 25, 74, 37, 110, 55, 164, 82, 41, 122, 61, 182, 91,
forth the following hypothesis; whatever positive number
272, 136, 68, 34, 17.
one starts with one will always eventually reach 1 after a
Several interesting features about the 3n 1 conjecture
finite number of steps.
is derived and described explicitly in [9].
W.B. Vasantha Kandasamy, K. Ilanthenral, and Florentin Smarandache3Modified Collatz conjecture or (3a + 1) + (3b + 1)I
Conjecture for Neutrosophic Numbers Z I
Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016 45

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

b Z \ {0} if a = 0 then (3b + 1)I formula and if b = 0 then 3 Conclusions


3a + 1 formula is used.
A = {1, 1, 0, I, I, 1 + I, I + 1, 1 + I, 1 I, 17, 5, In this paper, the modified form of 3n 1 Collatz
17I, 5I, 1 + 2I, 1 2I, 1 2I, 1 + 2I, 2 I, 2 + I, 2 I, conjecture for neutrosophic numbers Z is defined and
2 + I, 5 + I, 5 + 2I, 5 17I, 5 I, 5 2I, 51 + 1, described. It is defined analogously as (3a 1) + (3b 1) I
5I + 2, 5I 2, 5I 1, 5I 17, 17 I, 17 + I, where a + bI Z with a 0 and b 0.
17I + 1, 17I 1, 17 2I, 17 + 2I, 17I + 2, 17I 2, If a = 0 the formula reduces to (3b 1)I and if b = 0 the
1 + 4I, 4I + 1, 4 I, 4I 1, 34 5I, 17I 10, 17 10I, formula reduces to (3a 1).
34I 5, 17 20I, 17I 20, 68I 5, 68 5I, It is conjectured every n Z using the modified
5I + 4, 5 + 4I, 17 + 4I, 17I +4}. form of Collatz conjecture has a finite sequence which
Thus, the modified 3n + 1 Collatz conjecture for terminates at one and only element from the set A or B
neutrosophic numbers Z I is (3a + 1) + (3b + 1) I for n according as (3a + 1) + (3b + 1)I formula is used or (3a 1)
= a + bI Z I, a, b Z \ {0}. + (3b 1)I formula is used respectively. Thus, when a
If a = 0 then we use the formula (3b + 1)I and if b = 0 neutrosophic number is used from Z the number of
then use the classical Collatz conjecture formula 3a + 1. It values to which the sequence terminates after a finite
is conjectured that using (3a + 1) + (3b + 1)I where a, b Z number of steps is increased from 5 in case of 3n 1 Collatz
\ {0} or 3a + 1 if b = 0 or (3b + 1)I if a = 0, formula every n conjecture to 55 when using (3a 1) + (3b 1)I the modified
Z I ends after a finite number of iterations to one and Collatz conjecture.
only one of the 55 elements from the set A given above.
Prove or disprove.
Now the 3n 1 conjecture for neutrosophic numbers Z References
I reads as (3a 1) + (3bI I) where n = a + bI; a, b Z [1] Stefan Andrei and Cristian Masalagiu. About the Collatz con-
\ {0}; if a = 0 then (3b 1)I = 3bI I is used instead of 3n jecture. Acta Informatica, 35(2):167-179, 1998.
1 or (3a 1) + (3b 1) I. [2] Lynn E Garner. On the Collatz 3n+ 1 algorithm. Proceedings
If b = 0 then 3a 1 that is formula 3n 1 is used. of the American Mathematical Society, 82(1):19-22, 1981.
Now every n Z I the sequence converges to using [3] Michael A Idowu. A novel theoretical framework formulated
the modified 3n 1 Collatz conjecture (3a 1) + for information discovery from number system and Collatz
conjecture data. Procedia Computer Science, 61:105-111,
(3b 1)I to one of the elements in the set B; where 2015.
B = {1, 0, 1, I, 5I, 5, 17, 17I, I, 1 + 2I, 1 2I, 1 + 2I, [4] Jefrey C Lagarias. The 3x+ 1 problem and its generalizations.
1 2I, 1 + I, I 2, I + 2, I 2, I + 2, I 1, I 1, 5 + I, The American Mathematical Monthly, 92(1):3-23, 1985.
5 I, 5 2I, 5 + 2I, I + 1, 5 + 17I, 17 I, 17 + I, 17 2I, [5] K LaTourette et al. Explorations of the Collatz conjecture.
17 + 2I, 17 + 5I, 5I 1, 5I 2, 5I + 1, 5I + 2, 17I 1, Moravian College Senior Honours Thesis, 2007.
17I 2, 17I + 1, 17I + 2, 17 + 10I, 17I + 10, 34 + 5I, [6] Jean Paul Van Bendegem. The Collatz conjecture. a case
34I + 5, 17 + 20I, 20 + 17I, 68 + 5I, 68I + 5, 5I 4, 5 4I, study in mathematical problem solving. Logic and Logical
17 4I, 17I 4, 4I + 1, 4I 1, 4 + I, 4 I }. Philosophy, 14(1):7-23, 2005.
We will just illustrate how the (3a 1) + (3b 1)I [7] Florentin Smarandache, Neturosophic logic - Generalization
of Intuitionistic Fuzzy Logic, presented at the special session
formula functions on Z I. on Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets and Related Concepts, of Interna-
Consider 12 + 17I Z the sequence attached to it tional EUSFLAT Conference, Zittau, Germany, 10-2 Septem-
is 12 + 17I, 6 + 50I, 3 + 25I, 8 + 74I, 4 + 37I, 2 + 110I, 1 + ber 2003.
55I, 2 + 164I, 1 + 82I, 2 + 41I, 1 + 122I, 2 + 61I, 1 + 182I, [8] Vasantha Kandasamy and Florentin Smarandache, Basic
2 + 91I, 1 + 272I, 2 + 136I, 1 + 68I, 2 + 34I, 1 + 17I, 2 + Neutrosophic Algebraic Structures and their Application to
50I, 1 + 25I, 2 + 74I, 1 + 37I, 2 + 110I, 1 + 55I, 2 + 164I, 1 Fuzzy and Neutrosophic Models, Hexis, US, 2004.
+ 82I, 2 + 41I, 1 + 122I, 2 + 61I, 1 + 182I, 2 + 91I, 1 + 272I, [9] Vasantha Kandasamy, Ilanthenral and Florentin
2 + 136I, 1 + 68I, 2 + 34I, 1 + 17I. Smarandache, The 3n p conjecture: A generalization of Col-
latz Conjecture, Journal of Ultra Scientist of Physical Sci-
The sequence associated with 12 + 17I terminates at 1
ences, 29(2):83 -88, 2017.
+ 17I.
Thus, it is conjectured that every n Z I using the
modified Collatz conjecture (3a 1) + (3b 1)I; a, b Z
\ {0} or 3a 1 if b = 0 or (3b + 1)I if a = 0, has a finite
sequence which terminates at only one of the elements from
the set B. Received: November 18, 2016. Accepted: November 25, 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

University of New Mexico

Neutrosophic Cubic Subalgebras and Neutrosophic Cubic


Closed Ideals of B-algebras
Rakib Iqbal1 , Sohail Zafar2 , Muhammad Shoaib Sardar2
1 The University of Lahore, 1Km Raiwind Road, Lahore, 54000, Pakistan. E-mail: Rakibiqbal2012@gmail.com
2 University of Management and Technology (UMT), C-II, Johar Town, Lahore, 54000, Pakistan. E-mail: sohailahmad04@gmail.com
2 University of Management and Technology (UMT), C-II, Johar Town, 54000, Pakistan. E-mail: Shoaibsardar093@gmail.com

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-
B-algebra. Links among neutrosophic cubic subalgebra with neu- ties. The Cartesian product of neutrosophic cubic subalgebras will
trosophic cubic ideals and neutrosophic closed ideals of B-algebras also be investigated.
as well as some related properties will be investigated. This study

Keywords: B-algebra, Neutrosophic cubic set, Neutrosophic cubic subalgebra, Neutrosophic cubic closed ideals.

1 Introduction is related to B-algebra. As a generalizations of B-algebras, lots


of researches on BG-algebras (see [11]) have been done by the
The concept of fuzzy sets were first introduced by Zadeh (see authors (see [26, 27, 28, 29]).
[31]) in 1965. After that several researchers conducted researches Smarandache (see [19, 18]) introduced the concept of neu-
on generalization of fuzzy sets notion. Zadeh (see [32]) general- trosophic cubic set is a more general research area which
ized the concept of fuzzy set by an interval-valued fuzzy set in extends the concepts of the classic set and fuzzy set, in-
1975, as a generalization of the notion. The concept of cubic sets tuitionistic fuzzy set and interval valued intuitionistic fuzzy
had been introduced by Jun et al. (see [6]) in 2012, as generaliza- set. Jun et. al. (see [8]) extended the concept of cubic set to
tion of fuzzy set and interval-valued fuzzy set. Jun et al. (see [7]) neutrosophic cubic set and introduced. The notion of truth-
applied the notion of cubic sets to a group, and introduced the internal (indeterminacy-internal, falsity-internal) and truth-
notion of cubic subgroups in 2011. Senapati et. al. (see [25]) ex- external (indeterminacy-external, falsity-external) are introduced
tended the concept of cubic set to subalgebras, ideals and closed and related properties are investigated.
ideals of B-algebra with lots of properties investigated. After the In this paper, we will introduce the concept of neutrosophic
introduction of two classes BCK-algebra and BCI-algebra by cubic set to subalgebras, ideals and closed ideals of B-algebras
Imai and Iseki (see [4, 5]). The concept of cubic sets to subal- and introduce the notion of neutrosophic cubic set and subalge-
gebras, ideals and q-ideals in BCK/BCI-algebras was applied by bras. Relation among neutrosophic cubic algebra with neutro-
Jun et al. (see [9, 10]). B-algebra was introduced by Neggers and sophic cubic ideals and neutrosophic closed ideals of B-algebras
Kim (see [12]) in 2002, which are related to extensive classes of are studied and some related properties will be investigated. This
algebras such as BCI/BCK-algebras. The relations between study will cover homomorphic images and inverse homomorphic
B-algebra and other topics were further discussed by Cho and images of neutrosophic cubic subalgebras, ideals, some related
Kim in (see [3]) 2001. Every quadratic B-algebra on field X properties. The Cartesian product of neutrosophic cubic subalge-
with a BCI-algebra was obtained by Park and Kim (see [14]) in bras will also be investigated.
2001. The notion of fuzzy topological B-algebra was introduced
by Borumand Saeid (see [15]) in 2006. Also Saeid introduced
the concept of interval-valued fuzzy subalgebra of B-algebra (see 2 Preliminaries
[16]) in 2006. Also some of their properties were studied by him.
Walendziak (see [30]) gave some systems of axioms defining a In this section, some basic facets are included that are necessary
B-algebra with the proof of the independent of axioms in 2006. for this paper. A B-algebra is an important class of logical alge-
Fuzzy dot subalgebras, fuzzy dot ideals, interval-valued fuzzy bras introduced by Neggers and Kim [12] and extendedly inves-
closed ideals of B-algebra and fuzzy subalgebras of B-algebras tigated by several researchers. This algebra is defined as follows.
with respect to t-norm were introduced by Senapati et. al. (see A non-empty set X with constant 0 and a binary operation is
[20, 21, 22, 23]). Also L-fuzzy G-subalgebras of G-algebras called to be B-algebra [12] if it satisfies the following axioms:
were introduced by Senapati et. al. (see [24]) in 2014 which B1. x x = 0

Rakib Iqbal, Sohail Zafar and Muhammad Shoaib Sardar, Neutrosophic Cubic Subalgebras and Neutrosophic Cubic Closed
Ideals of B-algebras
48 Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016

B2. x 0 = x denoted by D1 r D2 . Thus, if Di = [a +


i , a2 ] D[0, 1] f or i =
B3. (x y) z = x (z (0 y)) 1, 2, 3, . . . , then we define rsupi (Di ) = [supi (a +
i ), supi (ai )],
r +
A non-empty subset S of B-algebra X is called a subalgebra [1] i.e., i Di = [i ai , i ai ]. Similarly we define rinfi (Di ) =
of X if x y S x, y S. Mapping f | X Y of B-algebras [infi (a + r +
i ), infi (ai )], i.e., i Di = [i ai , i ai ]. Now we call
+ +
is called homomorphism [13] if f (x y) = f (x) f (y) x, y D1 D2 a1 a2 and a1 a2 . Similarly the relations
X. Note that if f | X Y is a Bhomomorphism, then D1 D2 and D1 = D2 are defined.
f (0) = 0. A non-empty subset I of a Balgebra X is called an
ideal [22] if for any x, y X, (i) 0 I, and (ii) x y I and Combine the definition of subalgebra, ideal over crisp set and
y I x I. An ideal I of a Balgebra X is called closed if the idea of fuzzy set Ahn et al. [1] and senapati et al. [21] defined
0 y I x I. fuzzy subalgebra and ideal respectively, which is define bellow.
We know review some fuzzy logic concepts as follows: Definition 2.2 [21, 1] A fuzzy set A = {< x, A (x) >|
Let X be the collection of objects denoted generally by x. x X} is called a fuzzy subalgebra of X if A (x y)
Then a fuzzy set [31] A in X is defined as A = {< x, A (x) > | minA (x), A (y) x, y X,
x X}, where A (x) is called the membership value of x in A A fuzzy set A = {< x, A (x) >| x X} in X is called a fuzzy
and A (x) [0, 1]. ideal of X if it satisfies (i) A (0) A (x) and (ii) A (x)
For a family Ai = {< x, Ai (x) > | x X} of fuzzy sets in min{A (x y), A (y)} x, y X.
X, where i k and k is index set, we define the join () meet
() operations as follows: Jun et al. [8] extend the concept of cubic sets to neutrosophic
_ _  sets [17], and consider the notion of neutrosophic cubic sets as
Ai = Ai (x) = sup{Ai | i k}, an extension of cubic sets, and investigated several properties.
ik ik
Definition 2.3 [8] Let X be a non-empty set. A neutro-
and ^  sophic cubic set in X is pair C = (A, ) where A =:
^ {hx; AT (x), AI (x), AF (x)i | x X} is an interval neutro-
Ai = Ai (x) = inf {Ai | i k}
sophic set in X and =: {hx; T (x), I (x), F (x)i | x X}
ik ik
is a neutrosophic set in X.
respectively, x X.
An Interval-valued fuzzy set [32] A over X is an object having Definition 2.4 [8] For any Ci = (Ai , i ) where
the form A = {< x, A (x) > | x X}, where A | X Ai =: {hx; AiT (x), AiI (x), AiF (x)i | x X},
D[0, 1], here D[0, 1] is the set of all subintervals of [0,1]. The i =: {hx; iT (x), iI (x), iF (x)i | x X} for i k, P-union,
A x = [ + P-inersection, R-union
 Sand R-intersection is defined respectively by
intervals A (x), A (x)] x X denote the degree S W 
of membership of the element x to the set A. Also cA = [1 P-union: P Ci = Ai , i ,
ik
+
A (x), 1 A (x)] represents the complement of A .
ik
T  Tik V 
P-intersection: P Ci = Ai , i
For a family {Ai | i k} of interval-valued S fuzzy sets in ik  ik ik
X where k is an index set, the union G =
Ai (x) and the S
R-union: R Ci =
S V 
Ai , i ,
ik ik
intersection F =
T

Ai (x) are defined below:
ik
T  Tik W 
ik R-intersection: R Ci = Ai , i
ik ik ik
[  where (*   + )
G(x) = Ai (x) | i k}
Ai (x) = rsup{ [  [  [
S
Ai = x; AiT (x), AiI (x), AiF (x) | x X ,
ik ik
(* ik ik ik + )
_  _  _ 
and _
i = x; iT (x), iI (x), iF (x) |xX ,
\  ik ik ik ik
F (x) = Ai (x) = rinf {
Ai (x) | i k}, \
(* \  \  \  + )
ik Ai = x; AiT (x), AiI (x), AiF (x) |xX ,
ik ik ik ik
respectively, x X.
(*^  ^  ^  + )
^
The determination of supremum and infimum between two real i = x; iT (x), iI (x), iF (x) |xX ,
ik ik ik ik
numbers is very simple but it is not simple for two intervals.
Biswas [2] describe a method to find max/sup and min/inf be- Senapati et. al. [25] defined the cubic subalgebras of B-
tween two intervals or a set of intervals. algebra by combining the definitions of subalgebra over crisp set
and the cubic sets.
Definition 2.1 [2] Consider two elements D1 , D2 D[0, 1]. If
D1 = [a + +
1 , a1 ] and D2 = [a2 , a2 ], then rmax(D1 , D2 ) = Definition 2.5 [25] Let C = {< x, A(x), (x) >} be a cubic
+ +
[max(a1 , a2 ), max(a1 , a2 )] which is denoted by D1 r D2 set, where A(x) is an interval-valued fuzzy set in X, (x) is a
and rmin(D1 , D2 ) = [min(a + +
1 , a2 ), min(aa , a2 )] which is fuzzy set in X and X is subalgebra. Then A is cubic subalgebra

Rakib Iqbal, Sohail Zafar and Muhammad Shoaib Sardar, Neutrosophic Cubic Subalgebras and Neutrosophic Cubic Closed
Ideals of B-algebras
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
B-algebra X such that lim AT,I,F (xn ) = [1, 1] and lim T,I,F (xn ) =
n n
Let X denote a B-algebra 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 R-intersection 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 B-algebra
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 R-intersection 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 R-union, 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 B-algebra 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) R-union, 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 B-algebras
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 R-union, 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 B-algebras
Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016 51

X. Then for x, y X, then A refers to a neutrosophic cubic subalgebra of X.

(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 R-union 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

x) max{T,I,F (0), T,I,F (x)} = T,I,F (x). AT,I,F (y)}, min{A +


T,I,F (x), A +
T,I,F (y)}]. Thus, A
T,I,F (x y)

min{AT,I,F (x), AT,I,F (y)}, AT,I,F (x y) min{A+
+
T,I,F (
Lemma 3.1 If a netrosophic cubic set A = (AT,I,F , T,I,F ) of x), A+ (y)} and T,I,F (x y) max{ T,I,F (x), T,I,F (y)
T,I,F
X is a subalgebra, then A(xy) = A(x(0(0y))) x, y X. +
}. Hence AT,I,F , AT,I,F and T,I,F are fuzzy subalgebra of X.

Theorem 3.8 Let A = (AT,I,F , T,I,F ) be a neutrosophic cubic


Proof: Let X be a B-algebra and x, y X. Then we know
subalgebra of X and let n Z+ (the set of positive integer). Then
that y = 0 (0 y) by ([3],lemma 3.1). Hence, AT,I,F (x y) =
n
AT,I,F (x(0(0y))) and T,I,F (xy) = T,I,F (x(0(0y))). Y
Therefore, AT,I,F (x y) = AT,I,F (x (0 (0 y))). 1. AT,I,F ( x x) AT,I,F (x) for n O(the set of odd
number),
Proposition 3.3 If a nuetrosophic cubic set A = n
Y
(AT,I,F , T,I,F ) of X is a neutrosophic cubic subalgebra, then 2. T,I,F ( x x) AT,I,F (x) for n O(the set of odd
x, y X, AT,I,F (x (0 y)) rmin{AT,I,F (x), AT,I,F (y)} number),
and T,I,F (x (0 y)) max{T,I,F (x), T,I,F (y)}.
n
Y
Proof: Let x, y X. Then we have AT,I,F (x (0 y)) 3. AT,I,F ( x x) = AT,I,F (x) for n E(the set of even
rmin{AT,I,F (x), AT,I,F (0 y)} rmin{AT,I,F (x), AT,I,F (y number),
)} and T,I,F (x (0 y)) max{T,I,F (x), T,I,F (0 y)} n
max{T,I,F (x), T,I,F (y)} by Definition 3.1 and Proposition
Y
4. T,I,F ( x x) = AT,I,F (x) for n E(the set of even
3.2. Hence, the proof is completed. number).
Theorem 3.6 If a neutrosophic cubic set A = (AT,I,F , T,I,F ) Proof: Let x X and assume that n is odd. Then n = 2p 1
of X satisfies the following conditions for some positive integer p. We prove the theorem by induction.
1. AT,I,F (0 x) AT,I,F (x) and T,I,F (0 x) T,I,F (x), Now AT,I,F (x x) = AT,I,F (0) AT,I,F (x) and T,I,F (x
2p1
Y
2. AT,I,F (x (0 y)) rmin{AT,I,F (x), AT,I,F (y)} and x) = T,I,F (0) T,I,F (x). Suppose that AT,I,F ( x
T,I,F (x (0 y)) max{T,I,F (x), T,I,F (y)} 2p1
Y
x, y X. x) AT,I,F (x) and T,I,F ( x x) T,I,F (x). Then

Rakib Iqbal, Sohail Zafar and Muhammad Shoaib Sardar, Neutrosophic Cubic Subalgebras and Neutrosophic Cubic Closed
Ideals of B-algebras
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 B-algebra 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 B-algebras.
Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016 53

0 a1 a2 a3 a4 a5 Therefore, U (AT,I,F | [sT,I,F1 , sT,I,F2 ]) and L(T,I,F | tT,I,F1 )


T 0.1 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.5
I 0.2 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.6
. are subalgebras of X. Hence, A = (AT,I,F , T,I,F ) is neutro-
F 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.5 0.7 sophic cubic subalgebra of X.

Theorem 3.13 Any subalgebra of X can be realized as both


Suppose that [sT,I,F1 , sT,I,F2 ]=([0.42, 0.49], [0.31, 0.37], [0.14, the upper [sT,I,F1 , sT,I,F2 ]-level and lower tT,I,F1 -level of some
0.18])T,I,F and tT,I,F1 = (0.4, 0.5, 0.6)T,I,F , thenTA([sT,I,F1 , neutrosophic cubic subalgebra of X.
sT,I,F2 ]; tT,I,F1 )=U (AT,I,F | [sT,I,F1 , sT,I,F2 ]) L(T,I,F | Proof: Let B be a neutrosophic cubic subalgebra of X, and A be
tT,I,F1 )={x X | AT,I,F (x)T [sT,I,F1 , sT,I,F2 ], T,I,F (x) a neutrosophic cubic set on X defined by
tT,I,F1 } = {0, a1 , a2 , a3 } {0, a1 , a2 , a4 } = {0, a1 , a2 }
is a subalgebra of X, but A = (AT,I,F , T,I,F ) is not
(
[T,I,F1 , T,I,F2 ], if x B
a neutrosophic cubic subalgebra since AT (a1 a3 ) = AT,I,F = ,
[0.3, 0.4]  [0.5, 0.6] = rmin{AT (a1 ), AT (a3 )} and [0, 0] otherwise.
T (a2 a4 ) = 0.5  0.4 = max{T (a2 ), T (a4 )}. (
T,I,F1 , if x B
T,I,F =
Theorem 3.12 Let A = (AT,I,F , T,I,F ) be a neutrosophic cu- 0, otherwise.
bic set of X, such that the sets U (AT,I,F | [sT,I,F1 , sT,I,F2 ])
and L(T,I,F | tT,I,F1 ) are subalgebras of X for every [T,I,F1 , T,I,F2 ] D[0, 1] and T,I,F1 [0, 1]. We consider
[sT,I,F1 , sT,I,F2 ] D[0, 1] and tT,I,F1 [0, 1]. Then A = the following cases.
(AT,I,F , T,I,F ) is neutrosophic cubic subalgebra of X.
Case 1: If x, y B then AT,I,F (x) = [T,I,F1 , T,I,F2 ],
Proof: Let U (AT,I,F | [sT,I,F1 , sT,I,F2 ]) and L(T,I,F | tT,I,F1 T,I,F (x) = T,I,F1 and AT,I,F (y) = [T,I,F1 , T,I,F2 ], T,I,F
) are subalgebras of X for every [sT,I,F1 , sT,I,F2 ] D[0, 1] and (y) = T,I,F1 . Thus AT,I,F (x y) = [T,I,F1 , T,I,F2 ] = rmin

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)}.

since AT,I,F (x0 ) = [1 , 2 ] [min{1 , 3 }, min{2 , 4 }] > Case 4: If x


/ B and y
/ B, then A T,I,F (x) = [0, 0], T,I,F (

[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 B-algebras
54 Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016

4 Images and Pre-images of Neutro- Definition 4.1 A neutrosophic cubic set A=(AT,I,F , T,I,F ) in
the B-algebra X is said to have rsup-property and inf-property
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 inverse-image 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 B-algebras. If A = (AT,I,F , T,I,F ) is [0, 0], otherwise,
a neutrosophic cubic subalgebra of Y , then the pre-image
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 B-algebra X onto a B-algebra 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
B-algebras 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 )} B-algebra 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 B-algebras
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 B-algebra 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 B-algebras, Let A = {AT,I,F , T,I,F } be a neutrosophic cubic set X defined
the following results hold: as,

1. If i T k, Ai are neutrosophic cubic subalgebra of X,


then f ( R Ai ) is neutrosophic cubic subalgebra of Y 0 a1 a2 a3
ik AT [1,1] [0.9,0.8] [1,1] [0.5,0.7]
,
AI [0.9,0.9] [0.6,0.8] [0.9,0.9] [0.7,0.5]
2. If Ti k, Bi are neutrosophic cubic subalgebra of Y , then AF [0.8,0.9] [0.5,0.6] [0.8,0.9] [0.9,0.5]
f 1 ( R Bi ) is neutrosophic cubic subalgebra of X.
ik
0 a1 a2 a3
Proof: Straightforward. T 0 0.9 0 0.8
I 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.7
Theorem 4.7 Let f be an isomorphism from a B-algebra X onto F 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.5
a B-algebra Y . If A is a neutrosophic cubic subalgebra of X,
then f 1 (f (A)) = A Then it can be easy verify that A satisfying the conditions N3, N4
and N5. Hence A is a neutrosophic cubic ideal of X.
Proof: For any x X, let f (x) = y. Since f is an isomorphism,
f 1 (y) = {x}. Thus f (A)(f (x)) = f (A)(y) = A(x) Definition 5.2 Let A = {AT,I,F , T,I,F } be a neutrosophic cu-
S
xf 1 (y) bic set X then it is called neutrosophic cubic closed ideal of X if
= A(x). it satisfies N4, N5 and
For any y Y , since f is an isomorphism, f 1 (y) = {x} so N6. AT,I,F (0 x) AT,I,F (x) and T,I,F (0 x)
that f (x) = y. Thus f 1 (A)(x) = A(f (x)) = A(y). T,I,F (x), x X.
Hence, f 1 (f (A)) = f 1 (A) = A.
Example 5.2 Let X = {0, a1 , a2 , a3 , a4 , a5 } be a B-algebra in
Corollary 4.2 Consider f is an Isomorphism from a B-algebra Example 3.2 and A = {AT,I,F , T,I,F } be a neutrosophic cubic
X onto a B-algebra Y . If C is a neutrosophic cubic subalgebra set X defined as
of Y , then f (f 1 (C)) = C.
0 a1 a2 a3 a4 a5
AT [0.3,0.6] [0.2,0.5] [0.2,0.5] [0.1,0.3] [0.1,0.3] [0.1,0.3]
Proof: Straightforward. AI [0.4,0.7] [0.3,0.6] [0.3,0.6] [0.2,0.5] [0.2,0.5] [0.2,0.5]
AF [0.5,0.8] [0.4,0.7] [0.4,0.7] [0.2,0.3] [0.2,0.3] [0.2,0.3]
Corollary 4.3 Let f | X X be an automorphism. If A refers
to a neutrosophic cubic subalgebra of X, then f (A) = A
f 1 (A) = A 0 a1 a2 a3 a4 a5
T 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.7
.
I 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.6
F 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.8 0.8 0.8
5 Neutrosophic Cubic Closed Ideals of
B-algebras By calculations verify that A is a neutrosophic cubic closed ideal
of X.
In this section, neutrosophic cubic ideals and Neutrosophic cu-
bic closed ideals of B-algebra are defined and related results are Proposition 5.1 Every neutrosophic cubic closed ideal is a neu-
proved. trosophic cubic ideal.

Rakib Iqbal, Sohail Zafar and Muhammad Shoaib Sardar, Neutrosophic Cubic Subalgebras and Neutrosophic Cubic Closed
Ideals of B-algebras
56 Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016

The converse of Proposition 5.1 is not true in general as shown and


in the following example.
(iT,I,F )(x) = supiT,I,F (x)
Example 5.3 Let X = {0, a1 , a2 , a3 , a4 , a5 } be a B-algebra in
Example 3.1 and A = {AT,I,F , T,I,F } be a neutrosophic cubic sup{max{iT,I,F (x y), iT,I,F (y)}}
set in X defined as, = max{supiT,I,F (x y), supiT,I,F (y)}
0 a a a a a
= max {(iT,I,F )(x y), (iT,I,F )(y)}
1 2 3 4 5
AT [0.4,0.6] [0.3,0.5] [0.3,0.5] [0.2,0.3] [0.2,0.3] [0.2,0.3]
AI [0.5,0.7] [0.4,0.6] [0.4,0.6] [0.3,0.5] [0.3,0.5] [0.3,0.5] which shows that R-intersection is a neutrosophic cubic ideal of
AF [0.6,0.8] [0.5,0.7] [0.5,0.7] [0.4,0.3] [0.4,0.3] [0.4,0.3] X.

Theorem 5.3 The R-intersection of any set of neutrosophic cubic


0 a1 a2 a3 a4 a5
closed ideals of X is also a neutrosophic cubic closed ideal of X.
T 0.1 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.5
.
I 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.6
F 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.8 0.8 0.8 Proof: It is similar to the proof of Theorem 5.2.

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 R-intersection 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)},

2. if x y, then AT,I,F (x) AT,I,F (y) and T,I,F (x)


(iT,I,F )(0) = supiT,I,F (0) T,I,F (y) x, y, z X.
iT,I,F (x)
= (iT,I,F )(x), Proof: (1) Assume that x, y, z X such that x y z. Then
(xy)z = 0 and thus AT,I,F (x) rmin{AT,I,F (xy), AT,I,F
(y)} rmin{rmin{AT,I,F ((xy)z), AT,I,F (z)}, AT,I,F (y)}
(AiT,I,F )(x) = rinf AiT,I,F (x) =rmin{rmin{AT,I,F (0), AT,I,F (z)}, AT,I,F (y)}=rmin{AT,I,F
rinf {rmin{AiT,I,F (x y), AiT,I,F (y)}} (y), AT,I,F (z)} and T,I,F (x) max{T,I,F (xy), T,I,F (y)}
max{max{T,I,F ((x y) z), T,I,F (z)}, T,I,F (y)}=max
= rmin{rinf AiT,I,F (x y), rinf AiT,I,F (y)}
{max{T,I,F (0), T,I,F (z)}, T,I,F (y)} = max{T,I,F (y),
= rmin {(AiT,I,F )(x y), (AiT,I,F )(y)} T,I,F (z)}.

Rakib Iqbal, Sohail Zafar and Muhammad Shoaib Sardar, Neutrosophic Cubic Subalgebras and Neutrosophic Cubic Closed
Ideals of B-algebras
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 non-empty 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 5.7 If A = {AT,I,F , T,I,F } is a neutrosophic cubic


6 Investigation of Neutrosophic Cubic
ideal of X, then (...((x a1 ) a2 ) ...) an = 0 for any x, a1 , Ideals under Homomorphism
a2 , ..., an X, AT,I,F (x) rmin{AT,I,F (a1 ), AT,I,F (a2 )
, ..., AT,I,F (an )} and T,I,F (x) max{T,I,F (a1 ), T,I,F (a2 In this section, neutrosophic cubic ideals are investigated under
), ..., T,I,F (an )}. homomorphism and some results are studied.
Theorem 6.1 Suppose that f | X Y is a homomorphism of
Proof: We can prove this theorem by using induction on n and
B-algebra. If A=(AT,I,F , T,I,F
 ) is a neutrosophic cubic ideal
Theorem 5.5). 
of Y , then pre-image f (A)= f 1 (AT,I,F ), f 1 (T,I,F ) of
1

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

(f (x)) T,I,F (0) = T,I,F (f (0)) = f 1 (T,I,F )(0).


Proof: Assume that A = (AT,I,F , T,I,F ) is a neutrosophic cu- Let x, y X then f 1 (AT,I,F )(x) = AT,I,F (f (x)) rmin{
bic closed ideal of X. For [sT,I,F1 , sT,I,F2 ] D[0, 1], clearly, AT,I,F (f (x) f (y)), AT,I,F (f (y))} = rmin{AT,I,F (f (x y))
0 x U (AT,I,F | [sT,I,F1 , sT,I,F2 ]), where x X. Let , AT,I,F (f (y))} = rmin{f 1 (AT,I,F )(xy), f 1 (AT,I,F )(y)}
x, y X be such that x y U (AT,I,F | [sT,I,F1 , sT,I,F2 ]) and f 1 (T,I,F )(x) = T,I,F (f (x)) max{T,I,F (f (x)
and y U (AT,I,F | [sT,I,F1 , sT,I,F2 ]). Then AT,I,F (x) f (y)), T,I,F (f (y))} = max{T,I,F (f (x y)), T,I,F (f (y))}
rmin{AT,I,F (x y), AT,I,F (y)} [sT,I,F1 , sT,I,F2 ], = max{f 1 (T,I,F )(x y), f 1 (T,I,F )(y)}.

Rakib Iqbal, Sohail Zafar and Muhammad Shoaib Sardar, Neutrosophic Cubic Subalgebras and Neutrosophic Cubic Closed
Ideals of B-algebras
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 B-algebra
sophic cubic ideal of X. In this section, product of neutrosophic cubic B-algebras are de-
fined and some corresponding results are investigated.
Corollary 6.1 A homomorphic pre-image 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 pre-image 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 B-algebras. 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 B-algebra.
 
als of Y where i k then the pre-image 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 B-algebra.
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 pre-image 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
B-algebra. 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 B-algebras
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 B-algebra 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 B-algebra 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 B-algebra, 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), 429-437.
= {(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), 87-90.

Theorem 6.6 For any two neutrosophic cubic sets A = (AT,I,F [3] J. R. C HO AND H. S. K IM , On B-algebras and quasigroups, Quasigroups
, T,I,F ) and B = (BT,I,F , T,I,F ), A B is a neutrosophic and Related System, 8(2001), 1-6.
cubic closed ideals of XY the non-empty 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), 19-22.
non-empty 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), 26-29.

Rakib Iqbal, Sohail Zafar and Muhammad Shoaib Sardar, Neutrosophic Cubic Subalgebras and Neutrosophic Cubic Closed
Ideals of B-algebras
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), 83-98. fuzzy dot ideals of B-algebra, 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), 9-15. [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), 669-673.
New Mathematics and Natural Computation, (2015), 8-41. [22] T. S ENAPATI , M. B HOWMIK AND M. PAL , Fuzzy closed ideals of B-
algebras, with interval-valued 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), 79-91.
als of BCK/BCI-algebra, Far East Journal of Mathematical Sciences,
44(2010), 239-250. [23] T. S ENAPATI , M. B HOWMIK AND M. PAL , Fuzzy B-subalgebras of B-
algebra with resepect to t-norm, Journal of Fuzzy Set Valued Analysis,
[10] Y. B. J UN , C. S. K IM AND J. G. K ANG , Cubic q-Ideal of BCI-algebras, (2012), doi: 10.5899/2012/jfsva-00111.
Annals of Fuzzy Mathematics and Informatics, 1(2011), 25-31.
[24] T. S ENAPATI , C. JANA , M. B HOWMIK AND M. PAL , L-fuzzy G-
[11] C. B. K IM AND H. S. K IM , On BG-algebra, Demonstration Mathemat- subalgebra of G-algebras, Journal of the Egyptian Mathematical Society,
ica, 41(2008), 497-505. 23(2014), 219223.
[12] J. N EGGERS AND H. S. K IM , On B-algebras, Mathematichki Vensnik, [25] T. S ENAPATI , C.H. K IM , M. B HOWMIK AND M. PAL , Cubic subalgebras
54(2002), 21-29. and cubic closed ideals of B-algebras, Fuzzy Information and Engineer-
ing, 7(2015), 129-149.
[13] J. N EGGERS AND H. S. K IM , A fundamental theorem of B-
homomorphism for B-algebras, International Mathematical Journal, [26] T. S ENAPATI , M. B HOWMIK AND M. PAL , Intuitionistic L-fuzzy ideals
2(2002), 215-219. of BG-algebras, Afrika Matematika, 25(2014), 577-590.
[14] H. K. PARK AND H. S. K IM , On quadratic B-algebras, Qausigroups and [27] T. S ENAPATI , M. B HOWMIK AND M. PAL , Interval-valued intuitionis-
Related System, 7(2001), 67-72. tic fuzzy BG-subalgebras, The Journal of Fuzzy Mathematics, 20(2012),
707-720.
[15] A. B. S AEID , Fuzzy topological B-algebra, International Journal of Fuzzy
Systems, 8(2006), 160-164. [28] T. S ENAPATI , M. B HOWMIK AND M. PAL , Interval-valued intuitionistic
fuzzy closed ideals BG-algebras and their products, International Journal
[16] A. B. S AEID , Interval-valued fuzzy B-algebras, Iranian Journal of Fuzzy of Fuzzy Logic Systems, 2(2012), 27-44.
System, 3(2006), 63-73.
[29] T. S ENAPATI , M. B HOWMIK AND M. PAL , Intuitionistic fuzzifications of
[17] T. S ENAPATI , Bipolar fuzzy structure of BG-algebras, The Journal of ideals in BG-algebra, Mathematica Aeterna, 2(2012), 761-778.
Fuzzy Mathematics, 23(2015), 209-220.
[30] A. WALENDZIAK , Some axiomation of B-algebras, Mathematics Slovaca,
[18] F. S MARANDACHE , Neutrosophic set a generalization of the intuition- 56(2006), 301-306.
istic fuzzy set, International Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics,
24(3)(2005), 287-297. [31] L. A. Z ADEH , Fuzzy sets, Information and control, 8(1965) 338-353.
[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 reasoning-I, Information science, 8(1975), 199-249.
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 B-algebras
Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016 61

University of New Mexico

Static analysis in neutrosophic cognitive maps


Pablo Jos Menndez Vera1, Cristhian Fabin Menndez Delgado2, Susana Paola Carrillo Vera3,
Milton Villegas Alava4, Miriam Pea Gnzales5

1 Universidad Espritu Santo, Sanborondn, Guayas, Ecuador. E-mail: pablomv_63@hotmail.com


2 Universidad Espritu Santo, Sanborondn, Guayas, Ecuador. E-mail: cristhian-menendez@hotmail.com
3 Universidad de Guayaquil, Facultad de Ciencias Administrativas, Guayaquil, Ecuador. E-mail: susana.carrillov@ug.edu.ec
4 Universidad de Guayaquil, Facultad de Ciencias Administrativas, Guayaquil Ecuador. E-mail: milton.villegasa@ug.edu.ec
5 Universidad de Guayaquil, Facultad de Ciencias Matematicas y Fisicas, Guayaquil Ecuador. E-mail: miriam.penag@ug.edu.ec

Abstract. Variables are classified and a de-neutrosophication pro-


Static analysis is developed in neutrosophic cognitive cess gives an interval number for centrality. Finally the
maps to define the importance of each node based on cen- nodes are ordered. An illustrative example based on criti-
trality measures. In this paper a framework static analysis cal success factor of customer relationship management
of neutrosophic cognitive maps is presented. The analysis (CRM) systems implementation is provided to show the
results are given in the form of neutrosophic numbers. applicability of the proposal. The paper ends with conclu-
sion and future research directions.

Keywords: mental model, neutrosophic Logic, neutrosophic cognitive maps, static analysis

1 Introduction NCM are based on neutrosophic logic to represent uncer-


tainty and indeterminacy in cognitive maps [4]. A NCM is
Neutrosophic Cognitive Maps (NCM) [1] was introduced as
a directed graph in which at least one edge is an indetermi-
a generalization of Fuzzy Cognitive Maps (FCM) [2]. A
nacy denoted by dotted lines [8].
special feature of NCMs is their ability to handle
In [9] a static analysis of mental model in the form of NCM
indeterminacy in relations between two concepts, which is
is presented. The result of the static analysis result is in the
denoted by 'I'. NCM are capable of giving results with
form of neutrosophic numbers (a+bI, where I = indetermi-
greater sensitivity than the FCM . It also allows a larger
nacy) [10]. Finally, a de-neutrosophication process as pro-
liberty for expert to express not just the positive, negative posed by Salmeron and Smarandache [11] is applied to give
and absence of relations but also the indeterminacy of the final ranking value In this paper this model is extended
causal relations. and detailed to deal with nodes classification.
Static analysis is develop to define the importance of each
node based on centrality measures [3].In this paper, we pro-
3 Proposed Framework
pose the use of an innovative technique for static analysis in
neutrosophic cognitive maps. The following steps will be used to establish a framework
The outline of this paper is as follows: Section 2 is dedicated static analysis in NCM (Fig. 1).
to neutrosophic cognitve maps and static anlysis. The
proposed framework is presented in Section 3. An Calculate centrality
Measures
illustrative example is discussed in Section 4. The paper
closes with concluding remarks, and discussion of future
work in Section 5. De-
neutrosophication

2 Neutrosophic cognitive maps


Neutrosophic logic is a generalization of fuzzy logic Variable
classification
based on neutrosophy [4]. A neutrosophic matrix is a matrix
where the elements a = (aij ) have been replaced by ele-
ments in R I, where R I is the neutrosophic integer
ring [5]. A neutrosophic graph is a graph in which at least Ranking variables

one edge or one vertex is neutrosophic [6]. If indeterminacy


is introduced in cognitive mapping it is called Neutrosophic
Figura 1Proposed framework
Cognitive Map (NCM) [7].

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

Calculate centrality Measures connected the variable is to other variables


and what the cumulative strength of these
The following measures are calculated connections are. The median of the ex-
[12] with absolute values of the NCM treme values [14] is used :
adjacency matrix [13]:
1 + 2
([1 , 2 ]) = (2)
2
1. Outdegree ( ) is the row sum of
absolute values of a variable in the Then
neutrosophic adjacency matrix. It
1 + 2 1 + 2
shows the cumulative strengths of > > (3)
2 2
connections ( ) exiting the variable.
Finally a ranking of variables is given.
2. Indegree ( ) is the column sum of
absolute values of a variable. It shows
the cumulative strength of variables
entering the variable. 4 Illustrative example
In this section, we present an illustrative example in order
3. The centrality (total degree ( )), to show the applicability of the proposed framework. We
of a variable is the summation of its selected a critical sucess factor(CSF) of custumer
indegree (in-arrows) and outdegree relationship managemente (CRM)sytems implementation
(out-arrows) [15] for modeling interdependencies in the form of NCM
[16]. Building a NCM allows dealing with indeterminacy,
( )= ( )+ ( ) (1) making easy the elicitation of interdependencies CSF [17].

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 de-neutrosophication 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 man-machine studies, 1986. 24(1): p. 65-75.
The next step is the de-neutrosophication 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. DE-NEUTRIFICATION 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, Expert-based
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. 23-41.
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. Prez-Teruel, K. and M. Leyva-Vzquez, 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. 31-3. 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 sub-indeterminacies. Neutrosophic 2): p. 193-219.
Sets and Systems, 2015. 9: p. 58-63. 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 indeterminacy-based success mapping. arXiv preprint cs/0512047, 2005.
inference process. Multispace and Multistructure. 17. Betancourt-Vzquez, A., K. Prez-Teruel, and M.
Neutrosophic Transdisciplinarity (100 Collected Papers Leyva-Vzquez, Modeling and analyzing non-functional
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. 31-36. 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

University of New Mexico

(, ) Standard neutrosophic rough set and its topologies properties

Nguyen Xuan Thao1, Florentin Smarandache2


1
Faculty of Information Technology Vietnam National University of Agriculture Ha Noi, Viet Nam. E-mail: nxthao2000@gmail.com
2
Department of Mathematics University of New Mexico Gallup, NM, USA. E-mail: smarand@umn.edu

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, single-valued, and hence their
mation are defined. sum is 1.

Keywords: standard neutrosophic, (, ) standard neutrosophic rough sets

1. Introduction operational laws for simplified neutrosophic sets and to


propose two aggregation operators, including a simplified
Rough set theory was introduced by Z. Pawlak in 1980s neutrosophic weighted arithmetic average operator and a
[1]. It becomes a useful mathematical tool for data mining, simplified neutrosophic weighted geometric average
especially for redundant and uncertain data. At first, the operator. In 2013, B.C. Cuong and V. Kreinovich
establishment of the rough set theory is based on introduced the concept of picture fuzzy set [4,5], and picture
equivalence relation. The set of equivalence classes of the fuzzy set is regarded the standard neutrosophic set [6].
universal set, obtained by an equivalence relation, is the More recently, rough set have been developed into the
basis for the construction of upper and lower approximation fuzzy environment and obtained many interesting results.
of the subset of the universal set. The approximation of rough (or fuzzy) sets in fuzzy
Fuzzy set theory was introduced by L.Zadeh since 1965 approximation space gives us the fuzzy rough set [7,8,9];
[2]. Immediately, it became a useful method to study the and the approximation of fuzzy sets in crisp approximation
problems of imprecision and uncertainty. Since, a lot of new space gives us the rough fuzzy set [8, 9]. In 2014, X.T.
theories treating imprecision and uncertainty have been Nguyen introduces the rough picture fuzzy set as the result
introduced. For instance, Intuitionistic fuzzy sets were of approximation of a picture fuzzy set with respect to a
introduced in1986, by K. Atanassov [3], which is a crisp approximation space [18]. Radzikowska and Kerre
generalization of the notion of a fuzzy set. When fuzzy set defined (, ) fuzzy rough sets [19], which determined by
give the degree of membership of an element in a given set, an implicator and a t-norm on [0,1]. In 2008, L. Zhou et
Intuitionistic fuzzy set give a degree of membership and a al. [20] constructed (, ) intuitionistic fuzzy rough sets
degree of non-membership of an element in a given set. In determined by an implicator and a t-norm on .
1998 [22], F. Smarandache gave the concept of In this paper, we considered the case when the
neutrosophic set which generalized fuzzy set and neutrosophic components are single valued numbers in [0,
intuitionistic fuzzy set. This new concept is difficult to apply 1] and they are totally dependent [17], which means that
in the real appliction. It is a set in which each proposition is their sum is 1. We defined (, ) standard neutrosophic
estimated to have a degree of truth (T), adegree of rough sets based on an implicator and a t-norm on ;
indeterminacy (I) and a degree of falsity (F). Over time, the in which, implicator and a t-norm on is investigated
subclass of neutrosophic sets was proposed. They are also in [21].
more advantageous in the practical application. Wang et al.
[11] proposed interval neutrosophic sets and some operators 2. Standard neutrosophic logic
of them. Smarandache [22] and Wang et al. [12] proposed a
single valued neutrosophic set as an instance of the We consider the set defined by the following definition.
neutrosophic set accompanied with various set theoretic
operators and properties. Ye [13] defined the concept of Definition 1. We denote:
simplified neutrosophic sets, it is a set where each element = { = (1 , 2 , 3 )|1 + 2 + 3 1, [0,1],
of the universe has a degree of truth, indeterminacy, and = 1,2,3}
falsity respectively and which lie between [0, 1] and some For = (1 , 2 , 3 ), = (1 , 2 , 3 ) , we define:

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 t-norm, for all
1 ) (3 > 3 )) ((1 = 1 ) (3 = 3 ) (2 2 )) , = (1 , 2 , 3 ), = (1 , 2 , 3 )
and = ( ) ( ). + t-conorm max: (, ) = (1 1 , 2 2 , 3 3 )
Then ( , ) is a lattice, in which 0 = (0,0,1) + t-conorm 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 + t-conorm 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, t-norm,
have (0 , 1 ) (1 ) = 1 so that (0 , 1 )
t-conorm, implication.
(0, ) 1 .
2.1. Standard neutrosophic negation + (0 , 0 ) = 0 (obvious).
A standard neutrosophic t-norm and a standard
Definition 2. A standard neutrosophic negation is any neutrosophic t-conorm 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 t-norm and t-conorm dual as follows:
+ 1 () = (3 , 4 , 2 ) where 4 = 1 1 2 3 . a. and
b. and
2.2. Standard neutrosophic t-norm c. and
For = (1 , 2 , 3 ) , we denote Many properties of t-norms, t-conorms, 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 t-norm 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 t-norm, for all standard neutrosophic implicator off class 1 on if it
= (1 , 2 , 3 ), = (1 , 2 , 3 ) satisfying following conditions:
+ t-norm min: (, ) = (1 1 , 2 2 , 3 3 ) (0 , 0 ) = 1 ; (0 , 1 ) = 1 ; (1 , 1 ) = 1 ;
+ t-norm product: P (, ) = (1 1 , 2 2 , 3 + 3 3 3 ) (1 , 0 ) = 0
+ t-norm 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 t-conorm 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 t-conorm We consider border conditions in definition 5.
Definition 4. A standard neutrosophic t-conorm 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

and membership of x in A , A (x)( [0,1]) is called the


(1 , 0 ) = ((1 , 0 ), (1 )) = degree of neutral membership of x in A and
(0 , 0 ) = 0 .
A x 0,1 A (x)( [0,1]) is called the degree of
We have the proof.
Example 5. For all = (1 , 2 , 3 ), = (1 , 2 , 3 ) , negative membership of x in A , and where A , A
we have some standard neutrosophic implication of class 1 A , A and A A satisfy the following condition:
on based on proposition 1 as follows
a. If = , = and 0 () = (3 , 0, 1 ) then A x A x A x 1, x X A (x) + A (x) +
,,0 (, ) =
A (x)) 1, (x X).
(max(min(1 , 1 ) , 3 ) , 0, min(max(3 , 3 ) , 1 ).
b. If = , = and 1 () = (3 , 4 , 1 ) then The family of all standard neutrosophic set in U is denoted
,,1 (, ) = (1 1 +3 by PFS(U).
1 1 3 , 2 2 4 , 1 (3 + 3 3 3 )).
3. Standard neutrosophic rough set
A standard neutrosophic implication off cals 2.
Definition 9.
Definition 6. A mapping : ( )2 is referred to as a
Suppose that is a standard neutrosophic relation on the set
standard neutrosophic implicator off class 2 on if it is
of universe . is a norm on , an implication on
decreasing in its first component, increasing in its second
, for all () , we denote () =
component and satisfying following conditions:
( (), (), ()) . Then (, ) is a standard neutro-
(0 , 0 ) = 1 ; (1 , 1 ) = 1 ;
sophic approximation space. We define the upper and lower
(1 , 0 ) = 0
approximation set of on (, ) as following
Definition 7. A standard neutrosophic implicator off class ()() = ((, ), ()),

2 is called boder standard neutrosophic implication if
and
(1D , ) = for all .
()() = ((, ), ()), .

Proposition 2. Let , and be standard neutrosophic t- Example 7. Let = {, , } be an universe and is a
norm , a standard neutrosophic t-conorm and a standard standard neutrosophic relation on
neutrosophic negation on , respectively. Then, we have (0.7,0.2,0.1) (0.6,0.2,0.1) (0.5,0.3,0.2)
a standard neutrosophic implication on , which defined as
= ((0.5,0.4,0.1) (0.6,0.1,0.2) (0.5,0.1,0.2))
following:
(0.3,0.5,0.1) (0.4,0.2,0.3) (0.7,0.1,0.1)
, (, ) = ((), ), , .
A standard neutrosophic on is =
Example 6. For all = (1 , 2 , 3 ), = (1 , 2 , 3 ) , {, 0,6,0.2,0.2, , 0.5,0.3,0.1, , (0.7,0.2,0.1)} . Let
we have some standard neutrosophic implication of class 1 (, ) = (1 1 , 2 2 , 3 3 ) be a t-norm on ,
on based on proposition ? as follows and (, ) = (3 1 , 2 2 , 1 3 ) be an implication
a. If = and 0 () = (3 , 0, 1 ) then on , forall = (1 , 2 , 3 ) and = (1 , 2 , 3 )
,0 (, ) = (max(x3 , y1 ),0, min(1 , 3 )) , We compute
b. If = and 1 () = (3 , 4 , 1 ) then ((, ), ()) = ((0.7,0.2, 0.1), (0.6,0.2,0.2))
,1 (, ) = (3 +1 3 1 , 4 2 , 1 3 ) = (0.6,0.2,0.2)
Note that, we can define the negation operators from ((, ), ()) = ((0.6,0.2,0.1), (0.5,0.3,0.1))
implication operators, such as, the mapping () = = (0.5,0.2,0.1)
(, 0 ), , is a standard negation on . For ((, ), ()) = ((0.5,0.3,0.2), (0.7,0.2,0.1))
example, if = (0.5,0.2,0.2)
,1 (, ) = (3 +1 3 1 , 4 2 , 1 3 ) then we
Hence ()() = ((, ), ()) = (0.6,0.2,0.1).
obtain ,1 () = ,1 (, 0 ) = (3 , 0, 1 ) =

And
0 ().
((, ), ()) = ((0.5,0.4, 0.1), (0.6,0.2,0.2))
2.5 Standard neutrosophic set = (0.5,0.2,0.2)
((, ), ()) = ((0.6,0.1,0.2), (0.5,0.3,0.1))
Definition 8. Let be a universal set. A standard = (0.5,0.1,0.3)
neutrosophic (PF) set A on the universe U is an object of the ((, ), ()) = ((0.5,0.1,0.2), (0.7,0.2,0.1))
form A { x, A x , A x , A x | x U} = (0.5,0.1,0.2)
Hence ()() = ((, ), ()) = (0.5,0.1,0.2)
where A (x)( [0,1]) is called the degree of positive

Nguyen Xuan Thao, Florentin Smarandache, (I,T)-Standard neutrosophic rough set and its topologies properties
68 Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016

(0.4,0.3,0.3) (0.5,0.2,0.3) (0.4,0.4,0.1)


((, ), ()) = ((0.3,0.5, 0.1), (0.6,0.2,0.2)) Let = + + be standard

= (0.3,0.2,0.2) neutrosophic set on . A norm (, ) = (1
((, ), ()) = ((0.4,0.2,0.3), (0.5,0.3,0.1)) 1 , 2 2 , 3 3 ), and an implication operator (, ) =
= (0.4,0.2,0.3) (3 1 , 2 2 , 1 3 ) for all = (1 , 2 , 3 ) ,
((, ), ()) = ((0.7,0.1,0.1), (0.7,0.2,0.1)) = (1 , 2 , 3 ) , we put
= (0.7,0.1,0.1) ((, ), ()) = ((1,0, 0), (0.7,0.2,0.1))
So that ()() = ((, ), ()) = (0.7,0.1,0.1). = (0.7,0,0.1)

(0.6,0.2,0.1) ((, ), ()) = ((0.6,0.3,0), (0.5,0.2,0.3))
We obtain the upper approximation () = +
= (0.5,0.2,0.3)
(0.5,0.1,0.2) (0.7,0.1,0.1)
+ . ((, ), ()) = ((0.6,0.3,0), (0.4,0.4,0.1))

= (0.4,0.3,0.1)
Similarly, computing with the lower approximation set, we
Then ()()
= ((, ), ()) = (0.7,0,0.1).
have ((0.7,0.2, 0.1), (0.6,0.2,0.2)) = (0.1,0.2, 0.7)
(0.6,0.2,0.2) = (0.6,0.2,0.2) ((, ), ()) = ((0.6,0.3, 0), (0.7,0.2,0.1))
= (0.6,0.2,0.1)
((, ), ()) = ((0.6,0.2,0.1), (0.5,0.3,0.1))
((, ), ()) = ((1,0,0), (0.5,0.2,0.3))
= (0.1,0.2,0.6) (0.5,0.3,0.1)
= (0.5,0,0.3)
= (0.5,0.2,0.1)
((, ), ()) = ((0.6,0.3,0), (0.4,0.4,0.1))
((, ), ()) = ((0.5,0.3,0.2), (0.7,0.2,0.1))
= (0.4,0.3,0.1)
= (0.2,0.3,0.5) (0.7,0.2,0.1)
= (0.7,0.2,0.1) Hence ()() = ((, ), ()) = (0.6,0,0.1).

()() = ((, ), ()) = (0.5,0.2,0.2). ((, ), ()) = ((0.6,0.3, 0), (0.7,0.2,0.1))

And = (0.6,0.2,0.1)
((, ), ()) = ((0.5,0.4, 0.1), (0.6,0.2,0.2)) ((, ), ()) = ((0.6,0.3,0), (0.5,0.2,0.3))
= (0.6,0.2,0.1) = (0.5,0.2,0.3)
((, ), ()) = ((0.6,0.1,0.2), (0.5,0.3,0.1)) ((, ), ()) = ((1,0,0), (0.4,0.4,0.1))
= (0.5,0.1,0.1) = (0.4,0,0.1)
((, ), ()) = ((0.5,0.1,0.2), (0.7,0.2,0.1)) ()() = ((, ), ()) =

= (0.7,0.1,0.1) (0.6,0,0.1).
()() = ((, ), ()) = (0.5,0.1,0.1). (0.7,0,0.1)

We obtain the upper approximation set () = +

((, ), ()) = ((0.3,0.5, 0.1), (0.6,0.2,0.2)) (0.6,0,0.1)
+
(0.6,0,0.1)
.

= (0.6,0.2,0.1) Similarly, computing with the lower approximation, we
((, ), ()) = ((0.4,0.2,0.3), (0.5,0.3,0.1)) have
= (0.5,0.2,0.1) ((, ), ()) = ((1,0, 0), (0.7,0.2,0.1))
((, ), ()) = ((0.7,0.1,0.1), (0.7,0.2,0.1)) = (0,0, 1) (0.7,0.2,0.1) = (0.7,0,0.1)
= (0.7,0.1,0.1) ((, ), ()) = ((0.6,0.3,0), (0.5,0.2,0.3))
Hence ()() = ((, ), ()) = (0.5,0.1,0.1). = (0,0.3,0.6) (0.5,0.2,0.3)

So that = (0.5,0.2,0.3)
(0.5,0.2,0.2) (0.5,0.1,0.1) (0.5,0.1,0.1)
() = + + . ((, ), ()) = ((0.6,0.3,0), (0.4,0.4,0.1))

Now, we have the upper and lower approximations of = = (0,0.3,0.6) (0.4,0.4,0.1)
(0,6,0.2,0.2) (0.5,0.3,0.1) (0.7,0.2,0.1)
+ + are = (0.4,0.3,0.1)

(0,6,0.2,0.1) (0.5,0.1,0.2) (0.7,0.1,0.1) ()() = ((, ), ()) = (0.4,0,0.3).
() = + +

and Compute
(0.5,0.2,0.2) (0.5,0.1,0.1) (0.5,0.1,0.1) ((, ), ()) = ((0.6,0.3, 0), (0.7,0.2,0.1))
() = + +
= (0,0.3, 0.6) (0.7,0.2,0.1)
Example 8. Let = {, , } be an universe set. And is = (0.7,0.2,0.1)
a standard neutrosophic relation on with
((, ), ()) = ((1,0,0), (0.5,0.2,0.3))
(1,0,0) (0.6,0.3,0) (0.6,0.3,0)
= (0,0,1) (0.5,0.2,0.3) = (0.5,0,0.3)
= ((0.6,0.3,0) (1,0,0) (0.6,0.3,0))
(0.6,0.3,0) (0.6,0.3,0) (1,0,0)

Nguyen Xuan Thao, Florentin Smarandache, (I,T)-Standard neutrosophic rough set and its topologies properties
Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016 69

((, ), ()) = ((0.6,0.3,0), (0.4,0.4,0.1)) Hence


= (0,0.3,0.6) (0.4,0.4,0.1) ()()() = ( [(, ), ()])
= (0.4,0.3,0.1)

()() = ((, ), ()) = (0.4,0,0.3). = = [(, ), ()]



and and (~ )() = ()(), .
((, ), ()) = ((0.6,0.3, 0), (0.7,0.2,0.1))
= (0,0.3, 0.6) (0.7,0.2,0.1) (ii) (~ ) = ()
= (0.7,0.2,0.1) Indeed, for all we have
((, ), ()) = ((0.6,0.3, 0), (0.5,0.2,0.3))
= (0,0.3, 0.6) (0.5,0.2,0.3) (~ )() = ((, ), ()),

= (0.5,0.2,0.3) = [(, ), ()]
((, ), ()) = ((1,0,0), (0.4,0.4,0.1))

= (0,0,1) (0.4,0.4,0.1) = (0.4,0,0.1) And ~


()() = ((, ), ()) = (0.4,0,0.3). ()() = ( [(, ), ())]) = [(, ), ()]

Hence
(0.4,0,0.1) (0.4,0,0.3) (0.4,0,0.3) = [(, ), ()]

() = + +

Now, we have the upper and lower approximation sets of It means that (~ )() = ()(), .
(0.4,0.3,0.3) (0.5,0.2,0.3) (0.4,0.4,0.1)
=

+

+

as following Theorem 2. a) ((,, )) (,
, ) , where
(0.7,0,0.1) (0.6,0,0.1) (0.6,0,0.1)
(, , ) = (, , ) ,
() = + +

and b) ((,, )) (,
, ), where is a
(0.4,0,0.3) (0.4,0,0.3) border implication in class 2.
() = + +

(0.4,0,0.3) Proof.
.

Remark 3. If R is reflexive, symmetric transitive then a) We have
() (). ((,
, ))() =
((, ), (,, )()) =

4. Some properties of standard neutrosophic ( (, ), (, , )) (1 , (, , ))
rough set
Theorem 1. Let (, ) be the standard neutrosophic ap- = (, , ) = (,
, )(),
proximation space. Let , be the t-norm , and t conorm
, is a negative on . If and T are dual w.r.t then b) We have
(i) () = (~ )
((,, ))() =
(ii) () = (~) (, ), (, ),
( )= ( ) (1 , (, , )) =
(, , )() (, , )
where (, ) = ((), ), , .

(, , ) = (,, )(),
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 97-115.
3 (1965), p 338-353. [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 multi-criteria group
vol.20, pp.87-96, 1986. decision-making problems, International journal of systems
[4] B.C. Cuong, V. Kreinovick, Picture fuzzy sets a new concept science (2016), V.47, issue 10, pp 2342-2358.
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 15-18, pp 1- Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, vol. 12, 2016, pp. 3-8.
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, 409-420. Neutrosophic Set, Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, vol. 11, 2016,
[6] B.C. Cuong, P.H.Phong and F. Smarandache, Standard pp. 95-97;
Neutrosophic Soft Theory: Some First Results, Neutrosophic Sets http://fs.gallup.unm.edu/NSS/DegreeOfDependenceAndIndepend
and Systems, vol.12, 2016, pp.80-91. 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 191-209, 1990. fuzzy topologies, Science Computer and Cybernetics, Vol 31, No 3
(2015), pp 245-254.
[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 137-155.
[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. 263-282, 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 883-898.
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 132-137.
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 decision-making method using aggrega-
tion operators for simplified neutrosophic sets, Journal of Intelli-
gent & Fuzzy Systems 26 (2014) 2459-2466. 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

University of New Mexico

Real Life Decision Optimization Model


Naga Raju I , Rajeswara Reddy P , Diwakar Reddy V , Krishnaiah G
1 2 3 4

1
Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupati, 517502, India. E-mail: inrajumech@gmail.com
2
Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupati, 517502, India. E-mail: rajeswarlean@gmail.com
3
Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupati, 517502, India. E-mail: vdrsvuce@gmail.com
4
Sri Venkateswara University, Tirupati, 517502, India. E-mail: 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.

1 Introduction consistent, indeterminate information cannot be expressed


In process of decision making real life scientific and engi- in terms of crisp values. To reduce fuzziness and vague-
neering problems includes conflicting, non-commen- ness of subjective information Zadeh [7] proposed Fuzzy
surable, multi criteria and innumerable alternatives. The Set (FS) theory and the decision making methods have de-
input information of decision making problem may involve veloped by Bellman and Zadeh [8] using fuzzy theory.
decision makers qualitative information and actual Subsequent research had been conducted to reduce uncer-
quantitative information. Hence, Multi Criteria Decision tainty in decision makers opinion under fuzzy environ-
Making (MCDM) is a strategy of evaluating practical ment.
complex problems based on various qualitative or quan-
F. Smarandache [8] represents truth function which
titative criteria in certain or uncertain environments to
describes decision maker acceptance value to alternative
recommend best choice among various alternatives. Sever-
categorized by an attribute. But the constraint lies, it
al comparative studies [1] have been taken to demonstrate
doesnt represent false (rejection value) function. There-
its vast applicability [2, 3, 4]. Briefing MCDM methods [5]
fore, Atanassov introduce Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets (IFS)
will give clear understanding over techniques available [6]
[9, 10] which can represent truth membership function T(x)
and benefits [1]. More than one decision maker comprise
as well as falsity membership function F(x), they satisfy
in decision making process stated as Multi Criteria Group
the condition T(x), F(x) [0,1] and 0 T(x) + F(x) 1. In
Decision Making (MCGDM).
IFS the indeterminate function is rest of truth and false
In evaluation process MCDM had undergone quantifica- functions 1-T(x) - F(x), here indeterminate and incon-
tion of decision makers subjective information. Funda- sistence functions are not clearly defined.
mental stages MCDM uses crisp information to represent
Smarandache [11] generalized FS, IFS, and Interval
decision makers opinions. Crisp values can induce impre-
Valued Intuitionistic Fuzzy Set (IVIFS) [10] so on as Neu-
cision and confusion to the decision makers resulting inac-
trosophic Set (NS) by adding indeterminate information. In
curate results. Real world decision making conflicting, in-
NS the truth membership, indeterminacy membership,
Naga Raju et al, Real Life Decision Optimization Model
72 Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016

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 decision-making 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 Credibility-Induced Interval Neutrosophic independently. He presents cosine similarity measures
Weighted Arithmetic Averaging (CIINWAA) operator and based multi criteria decision making method using trape-
a Credibility-Induced 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

Naga Raju et al, Real Life Decision Optimization Model


Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016 73

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 non-linear 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-

Naga Raju et al, Real life Decision Optimization Model


74 Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016

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.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2


briefly describes some basic concepts of neutrosophic
numbers and its operational functions. Section 3 proposes
new approaches to solve real world decision making prob-
lems under neutrosophic environment. In Section 5, illus-
trative examples are presented to demonstrate the applica-
tion of the proposed method, and then the effectiveness
and advantages of the proposed methods are demonstrated
by the comparative analysis with existing relative methods
in sections 6. Finally, Section 7 contains conclusions and
applications of present work. 2.5 Interval Valued Neutrosophic Sets (INS)
The real scientific and engineering applications can be
2 Preliminaries expressed as INS values.
Let be a space of points (objects) and int [0,1] be the set
2.1 Single Valued Neutrosophic Sets (SVNS)
of all closed subsets of [0,1]. For convenience, if let ()
Let be a universe of discourse. A single valued = [(), +()], () = [(), +()] and
neutrosophic set over is an object having the form () = [(), +()], then ={, [(),+()],
={, (), (), ():}where (): [0,1], [(),+()], [(),+()]: } with the
() :[0,1] and ():[0,1] with 0 () + condition, 0 sup()+sup()+sup ()3 for all
() + () 3 for all . The intervals (), () . Here, we only consider the sub-unitary interval of [0,
and () denote the truth membership degree, the 1]. Therefore, an INS is clearly neutrosophic set.
indeterminacy membership degree and the falsity
2.6 Compliment of INS
membership degree of to , respectively.
The complement of an INS is denoted by and is
2.2 Geometric Weighted Average Operator (GWA)
defined as () = (), ()() = 1+(),
for SVNC
(+)() = 1() and () = () for all .
Let (=1, 2,, n) SVNS (). The single valued neu- That is, ={, [(),+()], [1+(),1()],
trosophic weighted geometric average operator is defined [(),+()]: }.
by = (1, 2,, An) = 2.7 Geometric Aggregation Operator for INS
=
Let (=1,2,,) INS(). The interval neutrosophic
weighted geometric average operator is defined by
=(1,2,,) =
(2)
Where is the weight of (=1, 2,,n), [0,1] and
. Principally, assume =1/ (=1, 2,, n),
then is called a geometric average for SVNSs.

2.3 Compliment of SVNS


The complement of an SVNS is denoted by and is de-
fined as () = (), () = 1(), and () =
A () for all . That is, = {, (), 1 (), (4)
() : }. Where is the weight of (=1,2,,), [0,1]
2.4 Improved Cross Entropy Measures of SVNS and . Principally, assume =1/
(=1,2,,), then is called a geometric average for
For any two SVNSs A and B in a universe of discourse X = INSs.
{x1, x2,, xn}. Let weight of each element is wi, i [0,1]

Naga Raju et al, Real Life Decision Optimization Model


Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016 75

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 decision-making 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
.

Step: 1 Obtain decision matrices D_s from each decision


maker. Decision makers expressions of each alternative to
corresponding attributes represented in SVNS/INS.

Step: 2 Establish grouped decision matrix D_ij by aggre-


gating individual decision matrices using Equation 2 in
case of SVNS or Equation 7 in case of INS values.

Step: 3 Normalize group decision matrix ( r_ij) if required


(contains cost & benefit attributes) using Equation 3 for
SVNS or Equation 6 for INS values.
3 Proposed Methodology
Step: 4 Construct Multi Goal Linear Programming using
min _(i=1)^m_(j=1)^n (d^+ (r_ij,r^+ ))/(d^+ (r_ij,
In real life problems decision makers expressions are in-
r^+ )+d^- (r_ij,r^- ) ) w_j where d^+ (r_ij, r^+ ) ,d^-
consistence, indeterminate, incomplete. The Neutrosophic
(r_ij, r^- ) are symmetric discrimination measures of r_ij
sets are most popular in dealing with such a vague and im-
to r^+ and r^- respectively. Here r^+ is PIS assumed as
precise decision makers opinions. The decision maker is
(1,0,0) and r^- is NIS assumed as (0,1,1)
not always aware of all the attributes in complex decision
making problems. So, the results tend to unreasonable or
Step: 5 Determine priorities of goal by solving MGLP ap-
incredible if the evaluations of the decision maker for all
plying Novel Self Adaptive Harmonic Search algorithm
the attributes imply the same credibility.
[46].
Therefore, the credibility of the attribute evaluations given
by the decision maker in the aggregation process of the at- Step: 6 Rank the alternatives based on weighted correla-
tribute values should consider to avoiding the unreasonable tional coefficient derived from improved cross entropy i.e.
or incredible judgments in decision making. In reality, de-
cision making is multi-dimensional (Multi Goal) and prior-
itized goals are considered for evaluations.
The unknown priorities (weights) of goals (attributes) are
determined by constructing Multi Goal Linear Program-
ming (MGLP). While construction MGLP [46, 47] adopts lower the Ai value higher will be the rank.
maximizing deviation method and weighted distance
methods. Some limitations observed as complexity in cal- 4 Illustrative Examples
culations, improper results due to distance measures which
are not effective for discriminating any two NS and MGLP Example: 1 here, we choose the decision making problem
is solved using trade off/ heuristic techniques these focused adapted from [47]. An automotive company is desired to
on local optima implies inaccurate results. Then ranking of select the most appropriate supplier for one of the key ele-
alternatives using score and accuracy or distance measures ments in its manufacturing process. After preevaluation,
from PIS may loss valid information or produces indefinite four suppliers have remained as alternatives for further
outcomes. evaluation. In order to evaluate alternative suppliers, a
Therefore the proposed method is developed by overcom- committee composed of four decision makers has been
ing shortcomings of recent models and designed for real formed. The committee selects four attributes to evaluate
world problems focused on performance factors such as the alternatives: (1) 1: product quality, (2) 2: relation-

Naga Raju et al, Real life Decision Optimization Model


76 Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016

ship closeness, (3) 3: delivery performance and (4) 4: A2=0.8950


price. Suppose that there are four decision makers, denoted
A3=0.9337
by D1, D2, D3, D4, whose corresponding weight vector is
= (0.25, 0.25, 0.25, 0.25). A4=0.1080
Therefore the ranking of alternative A4 > A2 > A1 > A3 (lower
Step: 1 Decision matrices of each decision maker
the Ai value higher the rank)
Case: 2 partially known weights from decision
makers

Step: 5 Priorities of attributes obtain after solving


MGLP with unknown weights using NSAH are

Step: 6 Ranking based on weighted correlation


coefficients of each alternatives
Step: 2 Group Decision Matrix after aggregation A1=0.9047
with decision makers creditability A2=0.8948
A3=0.9333
A4=0.1034
Therefore the ranking of alternative A4 > A2 > A1 > A3
(lower the Ai value higher the rank)
Step: 3 Normalized group decision matrix (criteria
4 is cost type attribute) apply Equation: 3 to step Example: 2 The decision making problem is adapted from
[47]. Suppose that an organization plans to implement ERP
2 to normalize so that all attributes are in benefit
type. system. The first step is to format project team that consists
of CIO and two senior representatives from user
departments. By collecting all information about ERP
vendors and systems, project team chooses four potential
ERP systems ( = 1, 2, 3, 4) as candidates. The company
Step: 4 Multi Goal Linear Equation formed as employs some external professional organizations (experts)
to aid this decision making. The project team selects four
attributes to evaluate the alternatives: (1) 1: function and
Subjected to technology, (2) 2: strategic fitness, (3) 3: vendors
Case: 1 completely unknown weights and ability, and (4) 4: vendors reputation. Suppose that there
[0, 1] here j=1, 2, 3, 4 are three decision makers, denoted by 1, 2, 3, whose
corresponding weight vector is = (1/3, 1/3, 1/3). The four
Step: 5 Priorities of attributes obtain after solving possible alternatives are to be evaluated under these four
MGLP with unknown weights using NSAH are attributes and are in the form of IVNNs for each decision
maker, as shown in the following:
Interval valued neutrosophic decision matrix:

Step: 6 Ranking based on weighted correlation


coefficients of each alternatives

A1=0.9029

Naga Raju et al, Real Life Decision Optimization Model


Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016 77

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)

6. Comparative Analysis and Discussion


The results obtain from two examples with partially known
and completely unknown weights are compared to Sahin
and Liu [44] and Liu and Luo [45] methods.
Step: 4 Multi Goal Linear Equation formed as
1. Sahin and Liu [44] developed score and accuracy
discrimination functions for MCGDM problem after
proposing two aggregation operators. The unknown
weights of attributes are determined by constructing linear
Subjected to equation based on maximizing deviation method. The
attribute weights are obtained by solving linear equation
Case: 1 completely unknown weights and using Lagrange technique. Then individual decision
[0, 1] here j=1, 2, 3, 4 matrixes are grouped with aid of geometric weighted
aggregation operator. For each alternative weighted
Step: 5 Priorities of attributes obtain after solving aggregated neutrosophic values are calculated using
MGLP with unknown weights using NSAH are obtained attribute weights to aggregated group decision
matrix. Therefore the ranking of each alternative is based
on score and accuracy functions applied to alternative
weighted aggregated neutrosophic values.

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.

3. Proposed method aimed to enhance results accuracy,


flexible to operate and effectiveness. In table 2 two
examples are evaluated with two cases. Then the proposed
method given similar results to [44] and [45] except for
example 2 case 2. Liu method and proposed method
ranked first as A4 but sachin method ranks A2 as first. The
Step: 5 Priorities of attributes obtain after successive ranks for Liu are A2, A1 and A3 but in case of
solving MGLP with unknown weights using present method A1, A2, and A3 respectively because
NSAH are present method considers weighted positive and negative
symmetric deviation from PIS and NIS. Therefore the
proposed method is accurate, flexible and effective.

Naga Raju et al, Real life Decision Optimization Model


78 Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016

Table: 2 Comparisons of Methods


Type of Sachin and Liu [44] Liu and Luo [45] Proposed Method
Problem Example 1 Example 2 Example 1 Example 2 Example 1 Example 2
Completely
Unknown 2 4 1 2 4 1 2 4 2 4 4 2 4 2
weights 3 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3
(case 1)
Partially
Unknown 2 4 1 2 4 1 2 4 4 2 4 2 4 1
Weights 3 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 2 3
(case 2)

7. Conclusion
Real world problems involved inconsistent, indeterminate
and imprecise information therefore present method 6. E Triantaphyllou, Multi-Criteria 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. 175-186, (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 interval-valued 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).Interval-valued 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, 287-297.
management decisions. 13. H Wang, F Smarandache, and R.Sunderraman, (2010). Sin-
gle valued neutrosophic sets, Multispace and Multistructure
(4) 410-413.
References
14. J Ye, (2013).Multicriteria decision-making method using
1. N Caterino, I Iervolino (2008), A Comparative Analysis Of the correlation coefficient under single-valued 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) 386-394.
neering October 12-17, 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 Multi-criteria decision-
3. Aarushi Singh, Sanjay Kumar Malik (2014), Major MCDM making. Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems 26 165-
Techniques and their application-A Review, M. Tech. Stu- 172
dent, Hindu College of Engineering, Sonepat, IOSR Journal 17. J Ye (2014). A multicriteria decision-making method using
of Engineering (IOSRJEN) www.iosrjen.org ISSN (e): aggregation operators for simplified neutrosophic sets, J. In-
2250-3021, ISSN (p): 2278-8719 Vol. 04. tell. Fuzzy Syst. 26 (5) 24592466.
4. Rohan K Gavade, Multi-Criteria Decision Making: An 18. Jun Ye (2014), A multicriteria decision-making 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, 5643-5646. 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 Multi-Criteria Decision Making Methods, International weighted Bonferron mean operator and its application to
Journal of Operations Research Vol. 10, No. 2, 56-66 multi-criteria decision making problems. FILOMAT.
(2013). doi:10.2298/FIL1508576F

Naga Raju et al, Real Life Decision Optimization Model


Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016 79

20. Jun Ye (2015), Interval Neutrosophic Multiple Attribute 36. Jun Ye (2016), Fault diagnoses of steam turbine using the
Decision-Making Method with Credibility Information. In- exponential similarity measure of neutrosophic numbers.
ternational Journal of Fuzzy Systems ISSN 1562-2479 Int. J.
Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems 30 (2016) 1927
Fuzzy Syst. DOI 10.1007/s40815-015-0122-4.
1934 DOI: 10.3233/IFS-151903 IOS Press.
21. Y e, J. Single Valued Neutrosophic Cross-Entropy for Mul-
37. Tian et al (2016), Multi-criteria decision-making based on
ticriteria Decision Making Problems. Applied Mathemati-
generalized prioritized aggregation operators under simpli-
cal Modelling, Vol. 38, 2014, pp. 1170-1175.
fied neutrosophic uncertain linguistic environment. Int. J.
22. Jun Ye (2015), Improved Cross Entropy Measures of Single
Mach. Learn. & Cyber. DOI 10.1007/s13042-016-0552-9.
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 Multi-Criteria Decision Making Prob-
netics and Information Technologies January 2015, DOI:
lems. Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on
10.1515/cait-2015-0051
Advanced Mechatronic Systems, Beijing, China, August,
23. Jun Ye (2013), Multicriteria decision-making method using
22-24, 2015.
the correlation coefficient under single-valued 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 interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy
sophic Soft Expert Set Based Multi-attribute 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), Multi-criteria decision-making method
25. Said Broumi et al (2015), An Extended TOPSIS Method for
based on a cross-entropy 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 single-valued trapezoidal neutro-
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/5950747.
sophic numbers and its application to multi-attribute 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 Multi-attribute Decision-making 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
projection-based 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/s13042-015-0456-0.
46. Luo (2013), A Novel Self-Adaptive 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/s00521-015-2123-5.
33. Surapati and Kalyan (2015), Interval Neutrosophic Multi-
Attribute Decision-Making Based on Grey Relational Anal-
ysis. Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 9, 2015.
34. Rdvan ahin (2015), Cross-entropy 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 Clay-Brick Selection in Construction Field Based
on Grey Relational Analysis. Neutrosophic Sets and Sys-
tems, Vol. 9, 2015.

Naga Raju et al, Real life Decision Optimization Model


Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016 80

University of New Mexico

Rough Standard Neutrosophic Sets:


An Application on Standard Neutrosophic Information Systems
Nguyen Xuan Thao1, Bui Cong Cuong2, Florentin Smarandache3
1
Faculty of Information Technology, Vietnam National University of Agriculture. E-mail: nxthao2000@gmail.com
2
Institute of Mathematics, Vietnam Academy of Science and Technology, 18 Hoang Quoc Viet, Hanoi, Vietnam. E-mail: bccuong@gmail.com
3
Department of Mathematics, University of New Mexico, 705 Gurley Avenue, Gallup, NM 87301, USA. E-mail: smarand@unm.edu

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

1 Introduction the neutrosophic set accompanied with various set theoretic


Rough set theory was introduced by Z. Pawlak in 1980s operators and properties. Ye [20] defined the concept of
[1]. It became a useful mathematical tool for data mining, simplified neutrosophic set. It is a set where each element of
especially for redundant and uncertain data. At first, the the universe has a degree of truth, indeterminacy and falsity
establishment of the rough set theory is based on the respectively, stretching between [0, 1]. Ye also suggested
equivalence relation. The set of equivalence classes of the some operational laws for simplified neutrosophic sets, and
universal set, obtained by an equivalence relation, is the two aggregation operators, including a simplified neutros-
basis for the construction of upper and lower approximation ophic weighted arithmetic average operator and a simplified
of the subset of universal set. neutrosophic weighted geometric average operator.
Fuzzy set theory was introduced by L. Zadeh since In 2013, B.C. Cuong and V. Kreinovich introduced the
1965 [2]. Immediately, it became a useful method to study concept of picture fuzzy set [4, 5], in which a given set has
in the problems of imprecision and uncertainty. Ever since, three memberships: a degree of positive membership, a
a lot of new theories treating imprecision and uncertainty degree of negative membership, and a degree of neutral
have been introduced. For instance, intuitionistic fuzzy sets membership of an element in this set. After that, L. H. Son
were introduced in1986, by K. Atanassov [3], which is a gave the application of the picture fuzzy set in the clustering
generalization of the notion of a fuzzy set. While the fuzzy problems [7, 8]. We regard picture fuzzy sets as particular
set gives the degree of membership of an element in a given cases of the standard neutrosophic sets [6].
set, intuitionistic fuzzy set gives a degree of membership In addition, combining rough set and fuzzy set
and a degree of non-membership of an element in a given enhanced many interesting results. The approximation of
set. In 1999 [17], F. Smarandache introduced the concept of rough (or fuzzy) sets in fuzzy approximation space give us
neutrosophic set which generalized fuzzy set and the fuzzy rough set [9,10,11]; and the approximation of
intuitionistic fuzzy set. It is a set in which each proposition fuzzy sets in crisp approximation space give us the rough
is estimated to have a degree of truth (T), a degree of fuzzy set [9,10]. W. Z. Wu et al. [11] presented a general
indeterminacy (I) and a degree of falsity (F). After a while, framework for the study of the fuzzy rough sets in both
the subclass of neutrosophic sets was proposed. They are constructive and axiomatic approaches. Moreover, W. Z.
more advantageous in the practical application. Wang et al. Wu and Y. H. Xu investigated the fuzzy topological
[18] proposed the interval neutrosophic sets, and some of structures on the rough fuzzy sets [12], in which both
their operators. Smarandache [17] and Wang et al. [19] constructive and axiomatic approaches are used. In 2012, Y.
introduced a single valued neutrosophic set as an instance of H. Xu and W. Z. Wu investigated the rough intuitionistic

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

neutrosophic information system: the knowledge reduction


0 if y x ; 0 if y x ,
and extension of the standard neutrosophic information 1 y 1U {x} y
1 if y x 1 if y x
x

system, in Section 5 and Section 6, respectively.


0 if y x , 1 if y x
1 y 1U {x} y
2 Basic notions of standard neutrosophic set and rough 0 if y x 0 if y x
U {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 =

A x 0,1 A (x)( [0,1]) is called the degree of y2 , x3 = y3 ).

negative mem-bership of x in A, where A, A A , A and We have D* , *


D is a lattice. Denote 0D* = (0,0,1) ,
A A satisfy the following condition: 1D* = (1,0,0) Now, we define some operators on D .
A x A x A x 1, x X A (x) + A (x) + Definition 3.
A (x)) 1, (x X). (i) Negative of = (1 , 2 , 3 ) is =
The family of all standard neutrosophic set in U is denoted (3 , 2 , 1 )
by PFS(U). The complement of a picture fuzzy set A is
~ A { x, A x , A x , A x | x U} .
(ii) For all x = (x1 , x2 , x3 ) D* we have
x y x1 y1 , x2 y2 , x3 y3
Obviously, any intuitionistic fuzzy set:
A = {(x, A (x), A (x))} x y x1 y1 , x2 y2 , x3 y3 .

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 }

(a) For all x = (x1 , x2 , x3 ) D* we have

(b1) x y x y x y = x y - level cut set of the degree of positive membership of


x in A as
(b2) x y x y x y = x y
(b) For all x, y, u, v D* and x D* u, y D* v A {x U| A x }
we have the strong - level cut set of the degree of positive member-
(c1) x y D* u v ship of x in A as
A {x U| A x }

(c2) x y D* u v
Proof.
(a) We have x y = (x3 y3 , x2 y2 , x1 y1 ) = - level low cut set of the degree of negative
(x3 , x2 , x1 ) (y3 , y2 , y1 ) = x y membership of x in A as
Similary x y = (x3 y3 , x2 y2 , x1 y1 ) = A {x U| A x }
(x3 , x2 , x1 ) (y3 , y2 , y1 ) = x y
the strong - level low cut set of the degree of negative
(b) For a, b, c, d [0,1] , if a b, c d then a
membership of x in A as
c b d and. From definitions 2 and 3, we have the result
to prove. A {x U| A x }
Example 1. Given the universe U = {u1 , u2 , u3 }. Then
Now, we mention the level sets of the standard neutrosophic A u1 , 0.8, 0.05, 0.1 , u2 , 0.7, 0.1, 0.2 , u3 , 0.5, 0.01, 0.4
sets, where , , D* ; we define: is a standard neutrosophic set on U . Then A0.7,0.2 =
0.1
(, , )- level cut set of the standard neutrosophic set {u1 , u2 } but A0.7,0.1 = {u1 } and A0.7,0.2 = {u1 } ,
0.1 0.1+
A { x, A x , A x , A x | x U}
0.1 u1 , A 0.1+ = , A
0.7 +
A0.7 0.5
= {u1 , u2 , u3 } , A0.5 =
A = {(x, A (x), A (x), A (x))|x U}as follows:
{u1 , u2 }, A0.2+ = {u1 }, A0.2 = {u1 , u2 }.
A ,
{x U| A x , A x , A x , , } = {x Definition 3. Let U be a nonempty universe of discourse
which may be infinite. A subset R P(UU) is referred to
U|(A (x), A (x), A (x)) (, , )}
as a (crisp) binary relation on U. The relation R is referred
strong (, , )- level cut set of the standard to as:
neutrosophic set A as follows: Reflexive: if for all x U, x, x R .
A , {x U| A x , A x , A x , , } x,y U, x, y R x, y

Symmetric: if for all

(+ , , )-- 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 set-valued
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

i.e. is an equivalence relation. Then R s (x) = [x]R holds.


> 0. It means that RP(A) is a standard neutrosophic set.
For each fuzzy set A U , the upper and lower By the same way, we obtain RP(A) a standard neutrosophic
approximations of A (w.r.t) (U, R) denoted by R (A) and set. Moreover, RP(A) RP (A).
R(A), respectively, are defined as follows:
Thus, the standard neutrosophic mappings RP,
(A) = {x U: [x]R A },
R RP: PFS(U) PFS(U)are referred to as the upper and lower
R(A) = {x U: [x]R A} PF approximation operators, respectively, and the pair
This is the rough fuzzy set in [6]. PR( A) ( PR( A), RP A ) is called the rough standard

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

neutrosophic set of A w.r.t the approximation space. The RP A u1 yR u A y min A u1 , A u3


s 1
picture fuzzy set denoted by ~RP(A) and is defined by
RP(A) (u1 ) = yRs(u1) A (y) = min{A (u1 ), A (u3 )} =
PR( A) ( PR( A), RP A ) ~RP(A) =
max{0.7,0.6} = 0.7 min{0.2,0.05} = 0.05
(A)) where ~RP(A) and ~RP
(~RP(A), ~RP (A) are the
(A) and RP(A) respectively.
complements of the PF sets RP Similar calculations for other elements of U, we have upper
approximations of A
Example 2. We consider the universe set U = RP A {(u1 , 0.7, 0.1, 0.05), (u2 , 0.6, 0.2, 0.1),
{u1 , u2 , u3 , u4 , u5 } and a binary relation R on U in Table 1.
Here, if ui Ruj then cell (i, j) takes a value of 1, cell (i, j) u3 ,0.7,0.1, 0.05 , u4 ,0.6, 0.2, 0.1 , u5 ,0.6,0.2, 0.05}
takes a value of 0 (i, j = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5). A standard and lower approximations of A is
neutrosophic
RP A {(u1 ,0.6,0.1,0.2),(u2 ,0.4,0.2,0.2),
A { u1 , 0.7, 0.1, 0.2 , u2 , 0.6, 0.2, 0.1 , u3 , 0.6, 0.2, 0.05 ,
u3 ,0.4,0.1, 0.2 , u4 ,0.5, 0.2, 0.15 , u5 ,0.4,0.2, 0.2} .
u2 , 0.6, 0.2, 0.1 , u3 , 0.6, 0.2, 0.05}
Some basic properties of rough standard neutros-
Table 1: Binary relation on
ophic set operators are presented in the following theorem:
R u1 u2 u3 u4 u5 Theorem 1. Let (U, R) be a crisp approximation space,
then the upper and lower rough standard neutrosophic
approximation operators satisfy the following properties:
u1 1 0 1 0 0
A, B, Aj PFS(U), j J, J is an index set,
(PL1) PR( A) = RP A
u2 0 1 0 1 1
(PL2)
RP A ,, RP A ,,
u3 1 0 1 0 1
RP(A (,
, )) = RP(A) (,
, )

u4 0 1 0 1 0 (PL3) RP U U RP(U) = U

0 0 1 1 1 RP(A) (x) = yRs(x) A (y)


u5

(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)

RP A u1 yR u A y = max{A (u1 ), A (u3 )} (PU2) PR(A (,


, )) = PR(A) (,
, )
s 1

= max{0.7,0.6} = 0.7, (PU3) PR() =

RP A u1 yR u A y min A u1 , A u3 (PU4) RP(jJ Aj ) = jJ RP(Aj )


s 1

=max{0.7,0.6} = 0.7,
(PU5) RP(A B) RP(A) RP(B)

(PU6) 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 ; a) RP(U) = U = RP(U) and


RP RP RP() = = RP().
RP ~A x yR x ~ A y yR x A y =
s s b) RP(A) RP(A) forall A PFS(U).

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 (b) Based on definition 5, we have

RP A x yR A y
x
PR( A) = RP A .
s

From that and lemma 1, we have


RP A x yR A y ,
x
s
(PL2) Because (,
, ) = {(x, , , )|x U}, we have
RP A x yR x A y RP A x ,
RP A ,,

x = yR x RP A,, y
s
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),

RP A ,, x RPA ,, ( x) . RP( A) B A RP( B)



Proof.
It means RP(A (,
, )) = RP(A) (,
, ).
Let R be a symmetric crisp binary relation on U, i.e. y
= {(x, 1,0,0)|x U} , then
(PL3) Since U = 1U = (1,0,0) R s (x) x R s (y), x, y U. We assume contradiction
we can obtain (PL3) RP(U) = U by using definition 5. that RP( A) B but A RP( B) .

For each , we consider all the cases:

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

+ if A ( x) RP B x y then it exists y0 It means A RP A , A PFS U , i.e. (a2) is


yR x B s

R s (x) such that A ( x) B ( y0 ) RP ( A) y0 satisfied.

Now, assume that (a1) RP A A , A PFS U ; we


y
zR s
0
A ( z) A ( x) (because y0 R s (x) then
show that R is reflexive. Indeed, we assume contradiction
x R s y0 . This is not true. that R is not reflexive, i.e. x R x .
s
+ the cases A
( x)
RP ( B )
( x) or A ( x) RP ( B ) ( x) are
A = 1U {x}
0 if y x
also not true. We consider , i.e. 1U {x} y ,
Theorem 3. Let (U, R) be a crisp approximation space, and 1 if y x
, the upper and lower PF approximation operators.
RP 0 if y x 1 if y x
1 y , 1 y .
0 if y x 0 if y x
U {x } U {x }
Then:
(a) R is reflexive if and only if at least one of the
following conditions are satisfied
Then RP A x yR s x A
y 0 A x 1 .
This is not true. It implies R is reflexive.
(a1) (PLR)RP(A) AA PFS(U)
Similarly, we assume that (a2) A RP A , A PFS U ;
(a2) (PUR)A RP(A)A PFS(U)
we show that R is reflexive. Indeed, we assume
(b) R is symmetric if and only if at least one of the contradiction that R is not reflexive, i.e., x R x .
following conditions are satisfied s
1 if y x
(b1) (PLR)RP(RP(A)) AA PFS(U) A = 1x , i.e., 1x y
We consider ,
0 if y x
(b2) (PUR)A RP (RP(A)) A PFS(U)
0 if y x 0 if y x
(c) R is transitive if and only if at least one of the 1x y 0 if y x , 1x y 1 if y x .
following conditions are satisfied

(c1) (PLT)RP(A) RP(RP(A))A PFS(U) Then RP A x yR x A y 0 A x 1 .


s

(c2) (PUT)RP(A) RP (RP(A)) A PFS(U) This is not true. It implies R is reflexive.


(b).
Proof.
We verify case (b1).
(a). We assume that R is reflexive, i.e., x RS ( x) , so that x RS ( y )
A PFS U we have
We assume that R is symmetric, i.e., if x RS then
( y)
y RS ( x) . For all A PFS U , because
RP A x yR x A y A x ,
zR s y A z A x zR s y A z
s
then ,
RP A x yR x A y A x ,
A x , zR y A z A x for all y RS ( x) ,
s

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

It means that RP RP A A A PFS U . Theorem 4. Let R be a similarity crisp binary relation


on , RP: PFS(U) PFS(U) the upper and
U and RP
We assume contradiction that RP RP A A A PFS U
lower PF approximation operators. Then, for all A
but R is not symmetric, i.e., if x RS ( y ) then y RS ( x) PFS(U)
and if y RS ( x) then x RS ( y ) . A RP A RP A A
~ A RP ~ A RP ~ A ~ A .
We consider A = 1U {x} . Then, RP (RP A ) x

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

Table 2: A standard neutrosophic information system Di x


x , x

{ y U : Di y , Di y , Di y
U a1 a2 a3 D1 D2 D3 ((x), (x), (x))}.
u1 3 2 1 (0.2,0,3,0.5) (0.15,0.6,0.2) (0.4,0.05,0.5)

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

u4 3 3 1 (0.15,0.1,0.7) (0.1,0.05,0.8) (0.2,0.4,0.3)


and x y x D y . So that, for any x U, y [x]B
i B

then Di (y) (x) , D y x Di (y) (x) and


2 2 4 (0.05,0,2,0.7) (0.2,0.4,0.3) (0.05,0.4,0.5)
u5 i

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

u9 3 2 1 (0.45,0,1,0.45) (0.25,0.4,0.3) (0.2,0.5,0.3) Now, since

u10 1 3 2 (0.05,0.05,0.9) (0.4,0.2,0.3) (0.05,0.7,0.2)


x , x , x RP D x RP D x i j
B i B j

then there exists y [x]B such that

5. The knowledge discovery in the standard neutro-


sophic information systems
y , y , y x , x , x
Di Di Di

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 (

lower rough standard neutrosophic approximation of Dj (x),0 (x),0


Dj )(x) . So that [x]B ( Dj )(x) .
PFS(U) on approximation space (U, R B ).
Let (U, A, F, D, G) be the standard neutrosophic
Theorem 5. Let (U, A, F, D, G) be the standard information system, R A the equivalence classes which are
neutrosophic information system and B A. If for any induced by the condition attribute set , and the universe is
: divided by R A as following: UR A = {X1 , X2 , Xk }. Then
x , x , x x , x , x
Di Di Di
the approximation of the standard neutrosophic decision
denoted as, for all i = 1,2, , k
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 89


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

U / RA RP A D1 X i RP A D2 X i RP A D3 X i maxi={1,2,3} RPA (Di )(x) = RPA (D3 )(x) = (0.2,0.3,0.4)

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

(0.05,0.05,0.9) (0.3,0.1,0.3) (0.05,0.1,0.4)


X4 = {u5 , u8 } (D2 )0.2,0.3
0.4 = {u2 , u5 , u8 , u9 , u10 }.
X2
For X3 = {u4 }, we have x X2 ,
X3 (0.15, 0.1,0.7) (0.1,0.05,0.8) (0.2,0.4,0.3)
maxi={1,2,3} RPA (Di )(x) = RPA (D3 )(x) = (0.2,0.3,0.4), and
X4 (0.05,0.2,0.7) (0.2,0.3,0.4) (0.05,0,0.6)
X 5 u6 D2 0 u6 .
1,0

X5 (0.1,0.3,0.5) (0.2,0.3,0.4) (1,0,0)

6 The knowledge reduction and extension of stand-


Indeed, for X1 = {u1 , u3 , u9 }. ard neutrosophic information systems
We have x X1 ,
RP A
x yX D y min 0.2, 0.6, 0.45 0.2 ,
D1 1 1
Definition 7.
Let U , A, F (U, A, F) be the classical infor-
RP D x yX D y min 0.3, 0, 0.1 0
(i)
A 1 1 1
mation system and B A. B is called the standard neutro-
RP D x yX D y max 0.5, 0.4, 0.45 0.5 ,
A 1 1 1 sophic reduction of the classical information system
(x),0
y ( Dj )(x) , so that RPA (D1 )(x) = (0.2,0.5,0). And (U, A, F), if is the minimum set which satisfies the fol-
lowing relations: for any X PFS(U), x U.
RP D2 x yX D y min 0.15,0.3,0.25 0.15 ,
RP A X RP B X , RP A X RP B X
A 1 2

RPA(D2) (x) =yX1 D2 (y) = min{0.6,0.05,0.4} = 0.05 ,


(ii) B is called the standard neutrosophic lower approx-
RP A D2
x yX D y max 0.2, 0.6, 0.3 0.6
1 2 imation reduction of the classical information system
so RPA (D2 )(x) = (0.15,0.6,0.05) and (U, A, F), if B is the minimum set which satisfies the fol-
RPA (D3) (x) =yX1 D3 (y) = min{0.4,0.1,0.2} = 0.1, lowing relations: for any X PFS(U), x U
RP A
x yX D y min 0.05,0.45,0.5 0.05
D3 1 3 ,
RPA (X) = RPB (X),
(iii) B is called the standard neutrosophic upper approx-
RP D x yX D y max 0.5,0.2,03 0.5
A 3 1 3 imation reduction of the classical information system
so that RPA (D3 )(x) = (0.1,0.5,0.05). (U, A, F), if B is the minimum set which satisfies the fol-
Hence, for X1 = {u1 , u3 , u9 } , x X2 , lowing relations: for any X PFS(U), x U
maxi 1,2,3 RP A Di x
RP A X RP B X
RP A D1 x 0.2,0.5,0 ,maxi={1,2,3} RPA (Di )(x) =
where RP A X , RP B X , RP A X , RP B X
and X1 = {u1 , u3 , u9 } (D1 )0.2,0
0.5 = {u1 , u2 , u3 , u7 , u9 };

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

Table 4: The approximation of the standard neutrosophic References


decision

U / RB RP B D1 X i RP B D2 X i RP B D3 X i [1] Z. Pawlak, Rough sets, International Journal of Computer and


Information Sciences, vol. 11, no.5 , pp 341 356, 1982.
X1 (0.2,0,0.5) (0.15,0.05,0.6) (0.1,0.05,0.5) [2] L. A. Zadeh, Fuzzy Sets, Information and Control, Vol. 8, No.
3 (1965), p 338-353
X2 (0.05,0.05,0.9) (0.3,0.1,0.3) (0.05,0.1,0.4) [3] K. Atanassov, Intuitionistic fuzzy sets, Fuzzy set and systems,
vol.20, pp.87-96, 1986.
X3 (0.15, 0.1,0.7) (0.1,0.05,0.8) (0.2,0.4,0.3) [4] B.C. Cuong, V. Kreinovick, Picture fuzzy sets a new concept
for computational intelligence problems, in the Proceedings of the
X4 (0.05,0.2,0.7) (0.2,0.3,0.4) (0.05,0,0.6)
3rd World congress on information and communication
technologies WICT2013, Hanoi, Vietnam, December 15-18, pp 1-
X5 (0.1,0.3,0.5) (0.2,0.3,0.4) (1,0,0)
6, 2013.
[5] B.C. Cuong, Picture Fuzzy Sets, Journal of Computer Science
It is easy to see that satisfies Definition 7 (ii), i.e., and Cybernetics, Vol.30, n.4, 2014, 409-420.
is the standard neutrosophic lower reduction of the classical [6] B.C. Cuong, P.H.Phong and F. Smarandache, Standard Neu-
trosophic Soft Theory: Some First Results, Neutrosophic Sets and
information system (, , ).
Systems, vol.12, 2016, pp.80-91.
The discernibility matrix of the standard neutrosophic
[7] L.H. Son, DPFCM: A novel distributed picture fuzzy clustering
information system (, , , , ) will be presented in method on picture fuzzy sets, Expert systems with applications 42,
Table 5. pp 51-66, 2015.
[8] P.H. Thong and L.H.Son, Picture Fuzzy Clustering : A New
Computational Intelligence Method, Soft Computing, v.20 (9)
Table 5: The discernibility matrix of the standard neutrosophic 3544-3562, 2016.
information system [9] D. Dubois, H. Prade, Rough fuzzy sets and fuzzy rough sets,
X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 International journal of general systems, Vol. 17, p 191-209, 1990.
[10] Y.Y. Yao, Combination of rough and fuzzy sets based on -
X1 level sets, Rough sets and Data mining: analysis for imprecise data,
Kluwer Academic Publisher, Boston, p 301 321, 1997.
X2 [11] W. Z. Wu, J. S. Mi, W. X. Zhang, Generalized fuzzy rough
sets, Information Sciences 151, p. 263-282, 2003.
X3 {2 } {1 , 3 } [12] W. Z. Wu, Y. H. Xu, On fuzzy topological structures of rough
fuzzy sets, Transactions on rough sets XVI, LNCS 7736, Springer
X4 {1 , 3 }
Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, p 125-143, 2013.
{1 , 3 } {2 }
[13] Y.H. Xu, W.Z. Wu, Intuitionistic fuzzy topologies in crisp
X5
approximation spaces, RSKT 2012, LNAI 7414, Springer
Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, pp 496-503, 2012.
7 Conclusion [14] B. Davvaz, M. Jafarzadeh, Rough intuitionistic fuzzy
information systems, Fuzzy Inform., vol.4, pp 445-458, 2013.
In this paper, we introduced the concept of standard [15] N.X. Thao, N.V. Dinh, Rough picture fuzzy set and picture
neutrosophic information system, and studied the know- fuzzy topologies, Science computer and Cybernetics, Vol 31, No
ledge discovery of standard neutrosophic information 3 (2015), pp 245-254.
system based on rough standard neutrosophic sets. We [16] B. Sun, Z. Gong, Rough fuzzy set in generalized
investigated some problems of the knowledge discovery of approximation space, Fifth Int. Conf. on Fuzzy Systems and
standard neutrosophic information system: the knowledge Knowledge Discovery, IEEE computer society 2008, pp 416-420.
[17] F. Smarandache, A unifying field in logics. Neutrosophy:
reduction and extension of the standard neutrosophic
Neutrosophic probability, set and logic, ARP, Rehoboth 1999.
information systems.
[18] H. Wang, F. Smarandache, Y.Q. Zhang et al., Interval neutro-
Acknowledgment sophic sets and logic: Theory and applications in computing,
This research is funded by the Vietnam National Foundation Hexis, Phoenix, AZ 2005.
for Science and Technology Development (NAFOSTED) [19] H. Wang, F. Smarandache, Y.Q. Zhang, et al., Single valued
under grant number 102.01-2017.02 . neutrosophic sets, Multispace & Multistructure 4 (2010), 410-413.

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 decision-making 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 multi-criteria group
gent & Fuzzy Systems 26 (2014) 2459-2466. decision-making problems, International journal of
[21] P. Majumdar, Neutrosophic sets and its applications to deci- systems science (2016), V.47, issue 10, pp 2342-2358.
sion making, Computation intelligentce for big data analysis
(2015), V.19, pp 97-115. 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

University of New Mexico

Optimal Design of Truss Structures Using a Neutrosophic


Number Optimization Model under an Indeterminate
Environment
Wenzhong Jiang & Jun Ye
Department of Electrical and Information Engineering and Department of Civil Engineering, Shaoxing University, 508 Huancheng West Road,
Shaoxing, Zhejiang Province 312000, P.R. China.
Corresponding author: Jun Ye, E-mail: yehjun@aliyun.com

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 two-bar truss structure ment.

Keywords: Neutrosophic number, neutrosophic number function, neutrosophic number optimization model, neutrosophic
number optimal solution, truss structure design.

1 Introduction also express such an indeterminate function involving neu-


trosophic numbers. Till now, there are no concepts of neu-
In the real-world, there is incomplete, unknown, and
trosophic number functions and neutrosophic number op-
indeterminate information. How to express incomplete,
timization designs in all existing literature. Therefore, one
unknown, and indeterminate information is an important
has to define new functions containing NNs to handle inde-
problem. Hence, Smarandache [1-3] firstly introduced a
terminate optimization problems of engineering designs
concept of indeterminacy, which is denoted by the symbol
under a neutrosophic number environment. To handle this
I as the imaginary value, and defined a neutrosophic
issue, this paper firstly defines a new concept of neutro-
number as N = a + bI for a, b R (all real numbers),
sophic number functions for the neutrosophic number ob-
which consists of both the determinate part a and the
jective functions and constraints in engineering optimiza-
indeter-minate part bI. So it can express determinate and/or
tion design problems with determinate and indeterminate
inde-terminate information in incomplete, uncertain, and
information, and then proposes a general neutrosophic
inde-terminate problems. After that, Ye [4, 5] applied
number optimization model and a solution method to real-
neutro-sophic numbers to decision making problems.
ize neutrosophic number optimization problems of truss
Then, Kong et al. [6] and Ye [7] applied neutrosophic
structure design, where the obtained neutrosophic number
numbers to fault diagnosis problems under indeterminate
optimal solution can satisfy the design requirements in in-
environments. Further, Smarandache [8] introduced an
determinate situations.
interval function (so-called neutrosophic function/thick
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows.
function g(x) = [g1(x), g2(x)] for x R) to describe
Section 2 defines some new concepts of neutrosophic
indeterminate problems by the interval functions. And
number functions to establish the neutrosophic number ob-
also, Ye et al. [9] introduced neutrosophic/interval
jective functions and constraints in indeterminate optimiza-
functions of the joint roughness coef-ficient and the shear
tion design problems, and proposes a general neutrosophic
strength in rock mechanics under in-determinate
number optimization model for truss structure designs. In
environments.
It is obvious that neutrosophic numbers are very suita-
Section 3, the neutrosophic number optimal design of a
ble for the expression of determinate and/or indeterminate
two-bar truss structure is presented under a neutrosophic
information. Unfortunately, existing optimization design
number environment to illustrate the application and effec-
methods [10-13] cannot express and deal with indetermi-
tiveness of the proposed neutrosophic number optimization
nate optimization design problems of engineering struc-
design method. Section 4 contains some conclusions and
tures under neutrosophic number environments. Further-
future research directions.
more, the Smarandaches neutrosophic function [8] cannot
Wenzhong Jiang, Jun Ye, Optimal Design of Truss Structures Using a Neutrosophic Number Optimization Model under an
Indeterminate Environment
94 Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016

2 Neutrosophic numbers and optimization models N1 N 2 a1a2 (a1b2 a2b1 ) I b1b2 I 2


2.1 Some basic operations of neutrosophic num- (a1 b1 (inf I ))(a2 b2 (inf I )),

min (a1 b1 (inf I ))(a2 b2 (sup I )), ,
bers
It is well known that there are some indeterminate de- (a1 b1 (sup I ))(a2 b2 (inf I )),
sign parameters and applied forces in engineering design (3) ;
problems. For example, the allowable compressive stress (a1 b1 (sup I ))(a2 b2 (sup I ))
of some metal material is given in design handbooks by a
possible range between 420 MPa and 460 MPa, denoted by (a1 b1 (inf I ))(a2 b2 (inf I )),

p = [420, 460], which reveals the value of p is an inde- (a1 b1 (inf I ))(a2 b2 (sup I )),
max
terminate range within the interval [420, 460]. Then a neu-
(a1 b1 (sup I ))(a2 b2 (inf I )),
trosophic number N = a + bI for a, b R (all real numbers)

can effectively express the determinate and/or indetermi- (a1 b1 (sup I ))(a2 b2 (sup I ))
nate information as N = 420 + 40I for I [0, 1], where its
determinate part is a = 420, its indeterminate part bI = 40I,
N1 a1 b1 I [a b (inf I ), a1 b1 (sup I )]
and the symbol I denotes indeterminacy and belongs to 1 1
the indeterminate interval [inf I, sup I] = [0, 1]. For another N 2 a2 b2 I [a2 b2 (inf I ), a2 b2 (sup I )]
example, if some external force is within [2000, 2500] kN,
a1 b1 (inf I ) a1 b1 (inf I )
then it can be expressed as the neutrosophic number N = a b (sup I ) , a b (inf I ) ,
2000 + 50I kN for I [0, 10] or N = 2000 + 5I kN for I min 2 2 2 2 ,
[0, 100] corresponding to some actual requirement.
(4) a1 b1 (sup I ) a1 b1 (sup I ) .
It is noteworthy that there are N = a for bI = 0 and N = a b (sup I ) , a b (inf I )
2 2

bI for a = 0 in two special cases. Clearly, the neutrosophic 2 2
number can easily express its determinate and/or indeter- a1 b1 (inf I ) a1 b1 (inf I )
minate information, where I is usually specified as a possi- a b (sup I ) , a b (inf I ) ,
ble interval range [inf I, sup I] in actual applications. 2 2 2 2
Therefore, neutrosophic numbers can easily and effectively max a b (sup I ) a b (sup I )
express determinate and/or indeterminate information un- a b (sup I ) , a b (inf I )
1 1 1 1

der indeterminate environments. 2 2 2 2


For convenience, let Z be all neutrosophic numbers (Z
domain), then a neutrosophic number is denoted by N = a 2.2 Neutrosophic number functions and neutro-
+ bI = [a + b(inf I), a + b(sup I)] for I [inf I, sup I] and N sophic number optimization model
Z. For any two neutrosophic numbers N1, N2 Z, we can
In engineering optimal design problems, a general op-
define the following operations:
timization model consists of the objective function and
constrained functions. In indeterminate optimization prob-
N1 N 2 a1 a2 (b1 b2 ) I lems of engineering designs, then, objective functions and
(1) [a1 a2 b1 (inf I ) b2 (inf I ), ; constrained functions may contain indeterminate infor-
mation. To establish an indeterminate optimization model
a1 a2 b1 (sup I ) b2 (sup I )] in a neutrosophic number environment, we need to define
neutrosophic number functions in Z domain.
N1 N 2 a1 a2 (b1 b2 ) I Definition 1. A neutrosophic number function with n de-
(2) [a1 a2 b1 (inf I ) b2 (inf I ), ; sign variables in Z domain is defined as
a1 a2 b1 (sup I ) b2 (sup I )] F(X, I): Zn Z. (1)

where X = [x1, x2, , xn]T for X Zn is a n-dimensional


vector and F(X, I) is either a neutrosophic number linear
function or a neutrosophic number nonlinear function.
For example, F1 ( X , I ) (1 2I ) x1 x2 (2 3) I
for X = [x1, x2]T Z2 is a neutrosophic number linear func-
tion, then F2 ( X , I ) Ix12 (3 I ) x22 for X = [x1, x2]T Z2
is a neutrosophic number nonlinear function.

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 two-bar 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 two-bar 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 cross-sectional 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 Karush-Kuhn-Tucker (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

combined with the original constraints, complementary


slackness for the inequality constraints and k 0 for k = 1,
2, , m.
However, it may be difficult to solve neutrosophic non-
linear optimization models in indeterminate nonlinear op-
timization design problems, such as multiple-bar truss
structure designs under neutrosophic number environments,
by the Karush-Kuhn-Tucker (KKT) necessary conditions.
Hence, this paper will research on the neutrosophic number
optimization design problem of a simple two-bar truss
structure in the following section to realize the primal in-
vestigation of the truss structure optimal design in a neu-
trosophic number environment.
Fig. 1 Two-bar truss structure
Wenzhong Jiang, Jun Ye, Optimal Design of Truss Structures Using a Neutrosophic Number Optimization Model under
an Indeterminate Environment
96 Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 14, 2016

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 )
*

where WI is the inertia moment of the cross-section of the 2


x
,
B
tube.
The critical stress of the tube is given as 1.414(1.5 0.2 I ) 105
7.85(420 40 I )
Fc 2 E (T 2 x12 ) .
c 760
A 8( B 2 x22 )
In this case, the neutrosophic number optimal value of
Thus, the constrained condition of the stability for the the objective function is obtained as follows:
tube is written as
4 FB 2371.2(1.5 0.2 I ) .
M ( X *, I )
F ( B 2 x22 )1/2 2 E (T 2 x12 ) . p (420 40 I )

Tx1 x2 8( B 2 x22 )
Since there exists the indeterminacy I in these neutro-
Finally, the neutrosophic optimization model of the sophic number optimal values, it is necessary that we dis-
truss structure can be formulated as: cuss them when the indeterminacy I is specified as possible
ranges according to actual indeterminate requirements in
min M ( X , I ) 2Tx1 ( B2 x22 )1/2 the actual application.
Obviously, the neutrosophic number optimization
F ( B 2 x22 )1/2 problem reveals indeterminate optimal results (usually
s.t. G1 ( X , I ) p 0 neutrosophic number optimal solutions, but not always). If
Tx1 x2 . the indeterminacy I is specified as different possible ranges
F ( B 2 x22 )1/2 2 E (T 2 x12 ) of I =0, I [0, 1], I [1, 3], I [3, 5], I [5, 7], and I
G2 ( X , I ) 0 [7, 10] for convenient analyses, then all the results are
Tx1 x2 8( B 2 x22 ) shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Optimal results of two-bar truss structure design in different specified ranges of I [inf I, sup I]

I [inf I, sup I] D =x1* (mm) H =x2* (mm) M(X*, I) (kg)


I=0 64.3312 760 8.4686
I [0, 1] [58.7372, 72.9087] 760 [7.7322, 9.5977]
I [1, 3] [56.7068, 82.2321] 760 [7.4649, 10.8250]
I [3, 5] [61.0109, 83.3923] 760 [8.0315, 10.9778]
I [5, 7] [64.3312, 84.2531] 760 [8.4686, 11.0911]
I [7, 10] [63.7036, 90.0637] 760 [8.3860, 11.8560]

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 de-neutrosophication 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 two-bar 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 de-neutrosophication 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 two-bar 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/s00521-015-2123-5. [11] S.O. Degertekin. An improved harmony search algorithms
[5] J. Ye. Multiple-attribute group decision-making 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), 377-386. [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), 1721-1747.
neutrosophic numbers. Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, 8 [13] S. Wang, X. Qing. A mixed interval arithmetic/affine
(2015), 43-46. 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 -041403-10.
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/NSS-paper-template.doc
To submit a paper, mail the file to the Editor-in-Chief. To order printed issues, contact the Editor-in-
Chief. This journal is non-commercial, 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

Editor-in-Chief: Associate Editor-in-Chief:


Prof. Florentin Smarandache Mumtaz Ali
Department of Mathematics and Science University of Southern
University of New Mexico Queensland 4300, Australia
705 Gurley Avenue
Gallup, NM 87301, USA
E-mails: fsmarandache@gmail.com, smarand@unm.edu E-mail: Mumtaz.Ali@usq.edu.au

$39.95