Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract
In this paper, concept of possibility neutrosophic soft set and its operations
are defined, and their properties are studied. An application of this theory in
decision making is investigated. Also a similarity measure of two possibility
neutrosophic soft sets is introduced and discussed. Finally an application of
this similarity measure in personal selection for a firm.
Keywords: Soft set, neutrosophic soft set, possibility neutrosophic soft set,
similarity measure, decision making
1. Introduction
In this physical world problems in engineering, medical sciences, eco-
nomics and social sciences the information involved are uncertainty in na-
ture. To cope with these problems, researchers proposed some theories such
as the theory of fuzzy set [35], the theory of intuitionistic fuzzy set [4], the
theory of rough set [26], the theory of vague set [18]. In 1999, Molodtsov
[20] initiated the theory of soft sets as a new mathematical tool for dealing
with uncertainties as different from these theories. A wide range of appli-
cations of soft sets have been developed in many different fields, including
the smoothness of functions, game theory, operations research, Riemann in-
tegration, Perron integration, probability theory and measurement theory.
Maji et al. [21, 22] applied soft set theory to decision making problem and in
2003, they introduced some new operations of soft sets. After Majis work,
2
2. Preliminary
In this paper, we recall some definitions, operation and their properties
related to the neutrosophic soft set [19, 23] required in this paper.
Definition 1. A neutrosophic soft set (or namely ns-set) f over U is a
neutrosophic set valued function from E to N (U). It can be written as
n o
f = (e, {hu, tf (e)(u), if (e) (u), ff (e) (u)i : u U}) : e E
where, N (U) denotes set of all neutrosophic sets over U. Note that if f (e) =
{hu, 0, 1, 1i : u U}, the element (e, f (e)) is not appeared in the neutrosophic
soft set f . Set of all ns-sets over U is denoted by NS.
Definition 2. [19] Let f, g NS. f is said to be neutrosophic soft subset
of g, if tf (e) (u) tg(e) (u), if (e) (u) ig(e) (u) ff (e) (u) fg(e) (u), e E,
u U. We denote it by f g. f is said to be neutrosophic soft super set
of g if g is a neutrosophic soft subset of f . We denote it by f g.
If f is neutrosophic soft subset of g and g is neutrosophic soft subset of
f . We denote it f = g
Definition 3. [19] Let f NS. If tf (e) (u) = 0 and if (e) (u) = ff (e) (u) = 1
for all e E and for all u U, then f is called null ns-set and denoted by
.
Definition 4. [19] Let f NS. If tf (e) (u) = 1 and if (e) (u) = ff (e) (u) = 0
for all e E and for all u U, then f is called universal ns-set and denoted
by U.
Definition 5. [19] Let f, g NS. Then union and intersection of ns-sets f
and g denoted by f g and f g respectively, are defined by as follow
n
f g = (e, {hu, tf (e) (u) tg(e) (u), if (e) (u) ig(e) (u),
o
ff (e) (u) fg(e) (u)i : u U}) : e E .
3
Definition 6. [19] Let f, g NS. Then complement of ns-set f , denoted by
f c , is defined as follow
n o
c
f = (e, {hu, ff (e) (u), 1 if (e) (u), tf (e) (u)i : u U}) : e E .
i. f
ii. f U
iii. f f
iv. f g and g h f h
i. c = U
ii. U c =
iii. (f c )c = f .
i. f f = f and f f = f
ii. f g = g f and f g = g f
iii. f = and f U = f
iv. f = f and f U = U
v. f (g h) = (f g) h and f (g h) = (f g) h
Proof. The proof is clear from definition and operations of neutrosophic soft
sets.
Theorem 1. [19] Let f, g NS. Then, De Morgans law is valid.
i. (f g)c = f c g c
4
ii. (f g)c = f c g c
2. (f g)c = f c g c
V W
Then F is called a possibility fuzzy soft set (PFSS in short) over the soft
universe (U, E). For each parameter ei , F (ei ) = (F (ei )(u), (ei )(u)) indi-
cates not only the degree of belongingness of the elements of U in F (ei ), but
also the degree of possibility of belongingness of the elements of U in F (ei ),
which is represented by (ei ).
Definition 10. [5] Let U = {u1 , u2, ..., un } be the universal set of elements
and E = {e1 , e2 , ..., em } be the universal set of parameters. The pair (U, E)
will be called a soft universe. Let F : E (I I)U I U where (I I)U is
5
the collection of all intuitionistic fuzzy subsets of U and I U is the collection
of all intuitionistic fuzzy subsets of U. Let p be a fuzzy subset of E, that is,
p : E I U and let Fp : E (I I)U I U be a function defined as follows:
6
From now on, we will show set of all possibility neutrosophic soft sets
over U with PS(U, E) such that E is parameter set.
Example 1. Let U = {u1, u2 , u3 } be a set of three cars. Let E = {e1 , e2 , e3 }
be a set of qualities where e1 =cheap, e2 =equipment, e3 =fuel consumption
and let : E I U . We define a function f : E N (U) I U as follows:
n o
u1 u2 u3
f (e ) = , 0.8 , , 0.4 , , 0.7
1
n (0.5,0.2,0.6) (0.7,0.3,0.5) (0.4,0.5,0.8)
o
u1 u2 u3
f = f (e2 ) = , 0.6 , (0.5,0.7,0.2) , 0.8 , (0.7,0.3,0.9) , 0.4
n (0.8,0.4,0.5) o
f (e3 ) = u1 u2 u3
, 0.2 , , 0.6 , , 0.5
(0.6,0.7,0.5) (0.5,0.3,0.7) (0.6,0.5,0.4)
where the mth row vector shows f (em ) and nth column vector shows un .
Definition 12. Let f , g PS(U, E). Then, f is said to be a possibility
neutrosophic soft subset (P NS-subset) of g , and denoted by f g , if
7
n o
u1 u2 u3
f (e
1 ) = , 0.8 , , 0.4 , , 0.7
n (0.5,0.2,0.6) (0.7,0.3,0.5) (0.4,0.5,0.9)
o
u1 u2 u3
f = f (e2 ) = , 0.6 , (0.5,0.7,0.2) , 0.8 , (0.7,0.3,0.9) , 0.4
n (0.8,0.4,0.5) o
u1 u2 u3
f (e3 ) = , 0.2 , , 0.6 , , 0.5
(0.6,0.7,0.5) (0.5,0.3,0.8) (0.6,0.5,0.4)
i. f
ii. f U
iii. f f
iv. f g and g h f h
8
1. ft is said to be truth-membership part of f ,
ft = {(fijt (ei ), ij (ei ))} and fijt (ei ) = {(uj , tf (ei ) (uj ))}, ij (ei ) = {(uj , (ei )(uj ))}
ii. is continuous,
ii. is continuous,
9
iii. a 0 = a, a [0, 1],
Here,
= (ht(a),
ab i(a), f (a)i, ht(b), i(b), f (b)i) = ht(a)t(b), i(a)i(b), f (a)f (b)
10
cd
iv. ab whenever a c, b d and a, b, c, d [0, 1] [0, 1] [0, 1].
Here,
= (ht(a),
ab i(a), f (a)i, ht(b), i(b), f (b)i) = ht(a)t(b), i(a)i(b), f (a)f (b)
Definition 22. Let f , g PN (U, E). The union of two possibility neu-
trosophic soft sets f and g over U, denoted by f g is defined by as
follow:
uj
f g = ei , , ij (ei )ij (ei ) : uj U : ei E
t (e ) g t (e ), f i (e )
(fij i (e ), f f (e )
gij f
gij (ei ))
i ij i ij i i ij i
and
n o
u1 u2 u3
(f g )(e1 ) = (0.5,0.3,0.8) , 0.4 , (0.6,0.5,0.5) , 0.4 , (0.2,0.6,0.8) , 0.7
n o
u1 u2 u3
f g = (f g )(e2 ) = , 0.3 , , 0.6 , , 0.4
n (0.5,0.4,0.5) (0.4,0.7,0.5) (0.7,0.3,0.9) o
u1 u2 u3
(f g )(e3 ) =
, 0.2 , , 0.5 , (0.6,0.5,0.4) , 0.5
(0.6,0.7,0.5) (0.4,0.5,0.7)
i. f f = f and f f = f
ii. f g = g f and f g = g f
iii. f = and f U = f
iv. f = f and f U = U
11
v. f (g h ) = (f g ) h and f (g h ) = (f g ) h
Proof. The proof can be obtained from Definitions 22. and 23.
Definition 24. [17, 32] A function N : [0, 1] [0, 1] is called a negation if
N(0) = 1, N(1) = 0 and N is non-increasing (x y N(x) N(y)). A
negation is called a strict negation if it is strictly decreasing (x < y N(x) >
N(y)) and continuous. A strict negation is said to be a strong negation if it
is also involutive, i.e. N(N(x)) = x
Definition 25. [30] A function nN : [0, 1][0, 1][0, 1] [0, 1][0, 1][0, 1]
is called a negation if nN (0) = 1, nN (1) = 0 and nN is non-increasing
(x y nN (x) nN (y)). A negation is called a strict negation if it is
strictly decreasing (x y N(x) N(y)) and continuous.
Definition 26. Let f PN (U, E). Complement of possibility neutrosophic
soft set f , denoted by fc is defined as follow:
c
n uj o
f = e, {( , N(ij (ei )(uj )) : uj U} : e E
nN (f (ei ))
where (nN (fij (ei )) = (N(fijt (ei )), N(fiji (ei )), N(fijf (ei )) for all i, j
Example 4. Let us consider the possibility neutrosophic soft set f define
in Example 1. Suppose that the negation is defined by N(fijt (ei )) = fijf (ei ),
N(fijf (ei )) = fijt (ei ), N(fiji (ei )) = 1 fiji (ei ) and N(ij (ei )) = 1 ij (ei ),
respectively. Then, fc is defined as follow:
n o
c u1 u2 u3
f (e1 ) = , 0.2 , , 0.6 , , 0.3
n (0.6,0.8,0.5) (0.5,0.7,0.7) (0.8,0.5,0.4)
o
c c u1 u2 u3
f = f (e2 ) = , 0.4 , (0.2,0.3,0.5) , 0.2 , (0.9,0.7,0.7) , 0.6
n (0.5,0.6,0.8) o
f c (e3 ) = u1 u2 u3
, 0.8 , , 0.4 , , 0.5
(0.5,0.3,0.6) (0.7,0.7,0.5) (0.4,0.5,0.6)
i. c = U
ii. Uc =
iii. (fc )c = f .
12
Proof. It is clear from Definition 26
Proposition 8. Let f , g PN (U, E). Then, De Morgans law is valid.
i. (f g )c = fc gc
ii. (f g )c = fc gc
Proof. i. Let i, j
uj
c
(f g ) = ei , ,
t (e ) g t (e ), f i (e ) g i (e ), f f (e ) g f (e ))
(fij i ij i ij i ij i ij i ij i
c
ij (ei ) ij (ei ) : uj U : ei E
uj
= ei , ,
f f i (e ) g i (e )), f t (e ) g t (e ))
(fij (ei ) gij (ei ), N(fij i ij i ij i ij i
N(ij (ei ) ij (ei )) : uj U : ei E
uj
= ei , ,
f f i (e )) N(g i (e ))), f t (e ) g t (e ))
(fij (ei ) gij (ei ), N(fij i ij i ij i ij i
N(ij (ei )) N(ij (ei )) : uj U : ei E
uj
= ei , , N(ij (ei )) : uj U : ei E
f i (e )), f t (e )
(fij (ei ), N(fij i ij i
uj
ei , , N(ij (ei )) : uj U : ei E
f i t
gij (ei ), N(gij (ei )), gij (ei ))
c
uj
= ei , , ij (ei ) : uj U : ei E
t (e ), N(f i (e )), f f (e )
(fij
i ij i ij i
c
uj
ei , , ij (ei ) : uj U : ei E
f
g t (e ), g i (e ), g (e ))
ij i ij i ij i
c c
= f g
n
t t i i f f
f g = (ek , el ), (fkj (ek ) glj (el ), fkj (ek ) glj (el ), fkj (ek ) glj (el )),
o
kj (ek ) lj (el ) : (ek , el ) E E, j, k, l
13
Definition 28. Let f and g PN (U, E). Then OR product of PNS-set
f and g denoted by f g , is defined as follow:
n
t t i i f f
f g = (ek , el ), (fkj (ek ) glj (el ), fkj (ek ) glj (el ), fkj (ek ) glj (el )),
o
kj (ek ) lj (el ) : (ek , el ) E E, j, k, l
t (eij , uk ) = t(f g )(eij ) (uk )+(ik (ei )jk (ej ))t(f g )(eij ) (uk )(ik (ei )jk (ej ))
for i, j, k
Definition 30. Let f PN (U, E), t , i and f be the weighed matrices
of ft , fi and ff , respectively. Then, for all ut U such that t , scores
of ut is in the weighted matrices t , i and f are denoted by st (uk ), si (uk )
and sf (uk ), and computed by as follow, respectively
X
st (ut ) = ijt (ut )
i,j
X
si (ut ) = iji (ut )
i,j
14
X
sf (ut ) = ijf (ut )
i,j
here
t (eij , ut), t (eij , ut ) = max{t (eij , uk ) : uk U}
ijt (ut ) =
0, otherwise
i (eij , ut ), i (eij , ut ) = max{i (eij , uk ) : uk U}
iji (ut ) =
0, otherwise
f (eij , ut ), f (eij , ut ) = max{f (eij , uk ) : uk U}
ijf (ut ) =
0, otherwise
Definition 31. Let st (ut ), si (ut ) and sf (ut ) be scores of ut U in the
weighted matrices t , i and f . Then, decision score of ut U, denoted
by ds(ut ), is computed as follow:
Algorithm
Step 1: Input the possibility neutrosophic soft set f ,
15
Example 5. Assume that U = {u1 , u2, u3 } is a set of houses and E =
{e1 , e2 , e3 } = {cheap, large, moderate} is a set of parameters which is at-
tractiveness of houses. Suppose that Mr.X want to buy one the most suitable
house according to to himself depending on three of the parameters only.
Step 1:Based on the choice parameters of Mr.X, let there be two obser-
vations f
and g byn
two experts defined
as follows: o
u1 u2 u3
f (e ) = , 0.6 , (0.6,0.2,0.5) , 0.2 , (0.7,0.6,0.5) , 0.4
1
n (0.5,0.3,0.7)
o
u1 u2 u3
f = f (e2 ) = , 0.4 , , 0.5 , , 0.6
n(0.35,0.2,0.6) (0.7,0.8,0.3) (0.2,0.4,0.4) o
u1 u2 u3
f (e3 ) =
, 0.5 , , 0.3 , , 0.2
(0.7,0.2,0.5) (0.4,0.5,0.2) (0.5,0.3,0.6)
n o
u1 u2 u3
g (e ) = , 0.2 , , 0.5 , , 0.3
1
n (0.3,0.4,0.5) (0.7,0.3,0.4) (0.4,0.5,0.2)
o
u1 u2 u3
g = g (e2 ) = , 0.3 , , 0.7 , , 0.8
n (0.4,0.6,0.2) (0.2,0.5,0.3) (0.4,0.6,0.2) o
u u u3
g (e3 ) =
1
, 0.7 , 2
, 0.4 , , 0.4
(0.2,0.1,0.6) (0.8,0.4,0.5) (0.6,0.4,0.3)
u1 , u2 , u3 ,
e11 (h0.3, 0.4, 0.7i, 0.2) (h0.6, 0.3, 0.5i, 0.2) (h0.4, 0.6, 0.5i, 0.3)
e12 (h0.4, 0.6, 0.7i, 0.3) (h0.2, 0.5, 0.5i, 0.2) (h0.4, 0.6, 0.5i, 0.4)
e13 (h0.2, 0.3, 0.7i, 0.6) (h0.6, 0.4, 0.5i, 0.2) (h0.6, 0.6, 0.5i, 0.4)
e21 (h0.3, 0.4, 0.6i, 0.2) (h0.7, 0.8, 0.4i, 0.5) (h0.2, 0.5, 0.5i, 0.3)
e22 (h0.35, 0.6, 0.6i, 0.3) (h0.2, 0.8, 0.3i, 0.5) (h0.2, 0.6, 0.5i, 0.6)
e23 (h0.2, 0.2, 0.6i, 0.4) (h0.7, 0.8, 0.5i, 0.4) (h0.2, 0.4, 0.5i, 0.4)
e31 (h0.3, 0.4, 0.5i, 0.2) (h0.4, 0.5, 0.4i, 0.3) (h0.4, 0.5, 0.6i, 0.2)
e32 (h0.4, 0.6, 0.5i, 0.3) (h0.2, 0.5, 0.3i, 0.3) (h0.4, 0.6, 0.6i, 0.2)
e33 (h0.2, 0.2, 0.6i, 0.5) (h0.4, 0.5, 0.5i, 0.3) (h0.5, 0.4, 0.6i, 0.2)
16
Step 3: We construct matrices ft , fi and ff as follows:
u1 , u2 , u3 ,
e11 (0.3, 0.2) (0.6, 0.2) (0.4, 0.3)
e12 (0.4, 0.3) (0.2, 0.2) (0.4, 0.4)
e13 (0.2, 0.6) (0.6, 0.2) (0.6, 0.4)
e21 (0.3, 0.2) (0.7, 0.5) (0.2, 0.3)
e22 (0.35, 0.3) (0.2, 0.5) (0.2, 0.6)
e23 (0.2, 0.4) (0.7, 0.4) (0.2, 0.4)
e31 (0.3, 0.2) (0.4, 0.3) (0.4, 0.2)
e32 (0.4, 0.3) (0.2, 0.3) (0.4, 0.2)
e33 (0.2, 0.5) (0.4, 0.3) (0.5, 0.2)
Matrix ft of -product
u1 , u2 , u3 ,
e11 (0.4, 0.2) (0.3, 0.2) (0.6, 0.3)
e12 (0.6, 0.3) (0.5, 0.2) (0.6, 0.4)
e13 (0.3, 0.6) (0.4, 0.2) (0.6, 0.4)
e21 (0.4, 0.2) (0.8, 0.5) (0.5, 0.3)
e22 (0.6, 0.3) (0.8, 0.5) (0.6, 0.6)
e23 (0.2, 0.4) (0.8, 0.4) (0.4, 0.4)
e31 (0.4, 0.2) (0.5, 0.3) (0.5, 0.2)
e32 (0.6, 0.3) (0.5, 0.3) (0.6, 0.2)
e33 (0.2, 0.5) (0.5, 0.3) (0.4, 0.2)
Matrix fi of -product
u1 , u2 , u3 ,
e11 (0.7, 0.2) (0.5, 0.2) (0.5, 0.3)
e12 (0.7, 0.3) (0.5, 0.2) (0.5, 0.4)
e13 (0.7, 0.6) (0.5, 0.2) (0.5, 0.4)
e21 (0.6, 0.2) (0.4, 0.5) (0.5, 0.3)
e22 (0.6, 0.3) (0.3, 0.5) (0.5, 0.6)
e23 (0.6, 0.4) (0.5, 0.4) (0.5, 0.4)
e31 (0.5, 0.2) (0.4, 0.3) (0.6, 0.2)
e32 (0.5, 0.3) (0.3, 0.3) (0.6, 0.2)
e33 (0.6, 0.5) (0.5, 0.3) (0.6, 0.2)
17
Matrix ff of -product
t i f
u1 u2 u3 u1 u2 u3 u1 u2 u3
ds(u1) = 1, 18 0, 18 1, 32 = 0, 32
ds(u2) = 2, 89 1, 42 0, 32 = 0, 90
ds(u3) = 2, 68 0, 66 0, 57 = 1, 45
18
Definition 32. Similarity between two P NS-sets f and g , denoted by
S(f , g ), is defined as follows:
where
v
u n
1 u X
Mi (f (e), g(e)) = 1 p
t (f (e ) (uj ) g (ei ) (uj ))p , 1 p
p
n i=1 i
fijt (ei ) + fiji (ei ) + fijf (ei ) gijt (ei ) + giji (ei ) + gijf (ei )
f (ei ) (uj ) = , g (ei ) (uj ) = ,
3 3
Pn
j=1 |ij (ei ) ij (ei )|
M((ei ), (ei )) = 1 Pn
j=1 |ij (ei ) + ij (ei )|
Definition 33. Let f and g be two PNS-sets over U. We say that f and
g are significantly similar if S(f , g ) 12
Proposition 9. Let f , g PN (U, E). Then,
i. S(f , g ) = S(g , f )
ii. 0 S(f , g ) 1
iii. f = g S(f , g ) = 1
19
n o
u1 u2 u3
f (e
1 ) = , 0.8 , , 0.4 , , 0.7
n (0.5,0.2,0.6) (0.7,0.3,0.5) (0.4,0.5,0.8)
o
u1 u2 u3
f (e2 ) = , 0.6 , (0.5,0.7,0.2) , 0.8 , (0.7,0.3,0.9) , 0.4
n (0.8,0.4,0.5) o
u1 u2 u3
f (e3 ) = , 0.2 , , 0.6 , , 0.5
(0.6,0.7,0.5) (0.5,0.3,0.7) (0.6,0.5,0.4)
and
n o
u1 u2 u3
g (e1 ) = , 0.4 , (0.6,0.5,0.5) , 0.7), (0.2,0.6,0.4) , 0.8
n (0.6,0.3,0.8)
o
u1 u2 u3
g (e2 ) = , 0.3 , , 0.6 , , 0.8
n (0.5,0.4,0.3) (0.4,0.6,0.5) (0.7,0.2,0.5) o
g (e3 ) = u u u3
1
, 0.8 , 2
, 0.5 , , 0.6
(0.7,0.5,0.3) (0.4,0.4,0.6) (0.8,0.5,0.3)
then,
P3
j=1 |1j (e1 ) 1j (e1 )|
M((e1 ), (e1 )) = 1 P3
j=1 |1j (e1 ) + 1j (e1 )|
|0.8 0.4| + |0.4 0.7| + |0.7 0.8|
= 1 = 0.79
|0.8 + 0.4| + |0.4 + 0.7| + |0.7 + 0.8|
Similarly we get M((e2 ), (e2 )) = 0.74 and M((e3 ), (e3 )) = 0.75, then
1
M(, ) = (0.79 + 0.75 + 0.74) = 0.76
3
v
u n
1 u X
M1 (f (e), g(e)) = 1 p
t (f (e ) (uj ) g (ei ) (uj ))p
p
n i=1 i
1 p
= 1 (0.43 0.57)2 + (0, 50 0.53)2 + (0, 57 0, 40)2 = 0.73
3
M2 (f (e), g(e)) = 0.86
M3 (f (e), g(e)) = 0.94
1
M(f (e), g(e)) = (0.73 + 0.86 + 0.94) = 0.84
3
and
S(f , g ) = 0.84 0.76 = 0.64
20
6. Decision-making method based on the similarity measure
In this section, we give a decision making problem involving possibility
neutrosophic soft sets by means of the similarity measure between the possi-
bility neutrosophic soft sets.
Let our universal set contain only two elements yes and no, that is
U = y, n. Assume that P = {p1 , p2 , p3 , p4 , p5 } are five candidates who fill in
a form in order to apply formally for the position. There is a decision maker
committee. They want to interview the candidates by model possibility neu-
trosophic soft set determined by committee. So they want to test similarity
of each of candidate to model possibility neutrosophic soft set.
Let E = {e1 , e2 , e3 , e4 , e5 , e6 , e7 } be the set of parameters, where e1 =experience,
e2 =computer knowledge, e3 =training, e4 =young age, e5 =higher education,
e6 =marriage status and e7 =good health.
Our model possibility neutrosophic soft set determined by committee for
suitable candidates properties f is given in Table 1.
f e1 , e2 , e3 , e4 ,
y (h1, 0, 0i, 1) (h1, 0, 0i, 1) (h0, 1, 1i, 1) (h0, 1, 1i, 1)
n (h0, 1, 1i, 1) (h1, 0, 0i, 1) (h0, 1, 1i, 1) (h1, 0, 0i, 1)
f e5 , e6 , e7 ,
y (h1, 0, 0i, 1) (h0, 1, 1i, 1) (h1, 0, 0i, 1)
n (h0, 1, 1i, 1) (h1, 0, 0i, 1) (h0, 1, 1i, 1)
Table 1: The tabular representation of model possibility neutrosophic soft set
g e1 , e2 , e3 , e4 ,
y (h0.7, 0.2, 0.5i, 0.4) (h0.5, 0.4, 0.6i, 0.2) (h0.2, 0.3, 0.4i, 0.5) (h0.8, 0.4, 0.6i, 0.3)
n (h0.3, 0.7, 0.1i, 0.3) (h0.7, 0.3, 0.5i, 0.4) (h0.6, 0.5, 0.3i, 0.2) (h0.2, 0.1, 0.5i, 0.4)
g e5 , e6 , e7 ,
y (h0.2, 0.4, 0.3i, 0.5) (h0, 1, 1i, 0.3) (h0.1, 0.4, 0.7i, 0.2)
n (h0.1, 0.5, 0.2i, 0.6) (h1, 0, 0i, 0.5) (h0.3, 0.5, 0.1i, 0.4)
Table 2: The tabular representation of possibility neutrosophic soft set for p1
h e1 , e2 , e3 , e4 ,
y (h0.8, 0.2, 0.1i, 0.3) (h0.4, 0.2, 0.6i, 0.1) (h0.7, 0.2, 0.4i, 0.2) (h0.3, 0.2, 0.7i, 0.6)
n (h0.2, 0.4, 0.3i, 0.5) (h0.6, 0.3, 0.2i, 0.3) (h0.4, 0.3, 0.2i, 0.1) (h0.8, 0.1, 0.3i, 0.3)
h e5 , e6 , e7 ,
y (h0.5, 0.2, 0.4i, 0.5) (h0, 1, 1i, 0.5) (h0.3, 0.2, 0.5i, 0.4)
n (h0.4, 0.5, 0.6i, 0.2) (h1, 0, 0i, 0.2) (h0.7, 0.3, 0.4i, 0.2)
21
Table 3: The tabular representation of possibility neutrosophic soft set for p2
r e1 , e2 , e3 , e4 ,
y (h0.3, 0.2, 0.5i, 0.4) (h0.7, 0.1, 0.5i, 0.6) (h0.6, 0.5, 0.3i, 0.2) (h0.3, 0.1, 0.4i, 0.5)
n (h0.1, 0.7, 0.6i, 0.3) (h0.4, 0.2, 0.3i, 0.7) (h0.7, 0.4, 0.3i, 0.5) (h0.7, 0.1, 0.2i, 0.1)
r e5 , e6 , e7 ,
y (h0.6, 0.4, 0.3i, 0.2) (h0, 1, 1i, 0.3) (h0.9, 0.1, 0.1i, 0.5)
n (h0.4, 0.5, 0.9i, 0.1) (h1, 0, 0i, 0.3) (h0.2, 0.1, 0.7i, 0.6)
Table 4: The tabular representation of possibility neutrosophic soft set for p3
s e1 , e2 , e3 , e4 ,
y (h0.2, 0.1, 0.4i, 0.5) (h0.7, 0.5, 0.4i, 0.8) (h0.8, 0.1, 0.2i, 0.4) (h0.5, 0.4, 0.5i, 0.4)
n (h0.6, 0.5, 0.1i, 0.1) (h0.3, 0.7, 0.2i, 0.2) (h0.7, 0.5, 0.1i, 0.7) (h0.1, 0.3, 0.7i, 0.5)
s e5 , e6 , e7 ,
y (h0.3, 0.2, 0.5i, 0.8) (h1, 0, 0i, 0.7) (h0.1, 0.8, 0.9i, 0.7)
n (h0.2, 0.1, 0.5i, 0.3) (h0, 1, 1i, 0.2) (h0.5, 0.1, 0.4i, 0.1)
Table 5: The tabular representation of possibility neutrosophic soft set for p4
m e1 , e2 , e3 , e4 ,
y (h0.1, 0.2, 0.1i, 0.3) (h0.2, 0.3, 0.5i, 0.8) (h0.4, 0.1, 0.3i, 0.9) (h0.7, 0.3, 0.2i, 0.3)
n (h0.4, 0.5, 0.3i, 0.2) (h0.7, 0.6, 0.1i, 0.3) (h0.2, 0.3, 0.4i, 0.5) (h0.5, 0.2, 0.3i, 0.6)
m e5 , e6 , e7 ,
y (h0.4, 0.2, 0.8i, 0.1) (h1, 0, 0i, 0.5) (h0.3, 0.2, 0.1i, 0.7)
n (h0.5, 0.4, 0.7i, 0.2) (h0, 1, 1i, 0.5) (h0.3, 0.2, 0.1i, 0.9)
Table 6: The tabular representation of possibility neutrosophic soft set for p5
Now we find the similarity between the model possibility neutrosophic soft
set and possibility neutrosophic soft set of each person as follow
S(f , g )
= 0, 49 < 12 , S(f , h ) = 0, 47 < 21 , S(f , r )
= 0, 51 > 12 ,
S(f , s )
= 0, 54 > 2 , S(f , m )
1 1
= 0, 57 > 2 ,
22
7. Conclusion
In this paper we have introduced the concept of possibility neutrosophic
soft set and studied some of the related properties. Applications of this theory
have been given to solve a decision making problem. We also presented a new
method to find out the similarity measure of two possibility neutrosophic soft
sets and we applied to a decision making problem. In future, these seem to
have natural applications and algebraic structure.
References
[1] M.I. Ali, F. Feng, X. Liu, W.K. Min, On some new operations in soft
set theory, Comput. Math. Appl. 57 (9) (2009) 15471553.
[2] H. Aktas and N. Cagman, Soft sets and soft groups. Information Sci-
ences, 1(77) (2007) 2726-2735.
[3] S. Alkhazaleh, A.R. Salleh and N. Hassan, Possibility fuzzy soft set,
Advances in Decision Science, doi:10.1155/2011/479756.
[4] K. Atanassov, Intuitionistic fuzzy sets, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 20 (1986)
87-96.
[5] M. Bsahir, A.R. Salleh and S. Alkhazaleh, Possibility intuitionistic fuzzy
soft set, Advances in Decision Science, doi:10.1155/2012/404325.
[6] S. Broumi, Generalized Neutrosophic Soft Set International Journal of
Computer Science, Engineering and Information Technology, 3/2 (2013)
17-30.
[7] S. Broumi, F. Smarandache, Intuitionistic Neutrosophic Soft Set, Jour-
nal of Information and Computing Science, 8/2 (2013) 130-140.
[8] S. Broumi, I. Deli and F. Smarandache, Neutrosophic Parametrized Soft
Set Theory and Its Decision Making, International Frontier Science Let-
ters, 1 (1) (2014) 1-11.
[9] N. Cagman and S. Enginoglu, Soft set theory and uni-int decision mak-
ing, Eur. J. Oper. Res. 207 (2010) 848-855.
[10] N. Cagman, Contributions to the theory of soft sets, Journal of New
Results in Science, 4 (2014) 33-41.
23
[11] N. Cagman, Contributions to the Theory of Soft Sets, Journal of New
Result in Science, 4 (2014) 33-41.
[13] I. Deli, S. Broumi, Neutrosophic soft sets and neutrosophic soft matrices
based on decision making, arXiv:1402.0673
[14] F. Feng, C. Li, B. Davvaz, M.I. Ali, Soft sets combined with fuzzy sets
and rough sets: a tentative approach, Soft Computing, 14(9) (2010)
899-911.
[16] F. Feng, Y.M. Li, Soft subsets and soft product operations, Information
Sciences, 232 (2013) 44-57.
[18] W.L. Gau, D.J. Buehrer, Vague sets, IEEE Transactions on Systems,
Man and Cybernetics 23 (2) (1993) 610-614.
[20] D. Molodtsov, Soft set theory first results, Computers and Mathematics
with Applications, 37 (1999) 19-31.
[21] P.K. Maji, A.R. Roy, R. Biswas, An application of soft sets in a decision
making problem, Comput. Math. Appl. 44 (2002) 1077-1083.
[22] P.K. Maji, R. Biswas, A.R. Roy, Soft set theory, Comput. Math. Appl.
45 (2003) 555562.
[23] P.K. Maji, Neutrosophic soft set, Annals of Fuzzy Mathematics and
Informatics, 5/ 1 (2013) 157-168.
24
[24] T. J. Neog, D.M. Sut, A New Approach to the Theory of Soft Sets,
International Journal of Computer Applications 32/2 (2011) 0975-8887.
[25] D. Pei, D. Miao, From soft sets to information systems, in: X. Hu, Q.
Liu, A. Skowron, T.Y. Lin, R.R. Yager, B. Zhang (Eds.), Proceedings
of Granular Computing, vol. 2, pp. 617-621, 2005, IEEE.
[26] Z. Pawlak, Rough sets, Int. J. Inform. Comput. Sci. 11 (1982) 341356.
[28] R. Sahin, A. Kuuuk, Generalized neutrosophic soft set and its integra-
tion to decision making problem, Applied Mathematics and Information
Sciences, 8(6) 1-9 (2014).
[33] Y. Xia, L. Zuhua, Some new operations of soft sets, Uncertainty Reason-
ing and Knowledge Engineering (URKE), 2nd International Conference,
pp. 290 - 295, 14-15 Aug. 2012, IEEE.
[34] C.F. Yang, A note on Soft Set Theory [Comput. Math. Appl. 45 (45)
(2003) 555562], Comput. Math. Appl., 56 (2008) 1899-1900.
[35] L.A. Zadeh, Fuzzy sets, Information and Control, 8 (1965) 338-353.
25