3 views

Uploaded by Mia Amalia

Many past studies largely described the concept of neutrosophic sets, neutrosophic multisets, rough
sets, and rough neutrosophic sets in many areas. However, no paper has discussed about rough neutrosophic multisets. In this paper, we present some definition of rough neutrosophic multisets such as complement, union and intersection. We also have examined some desired properties
of rough neutrosophic multisets based on these definitions. We use the hybrid structure of rough set and neutrosophic multisets since these theories are powerful tool for managing uncertainty, indeterminate, incomplete and imprecise information.

- Fea Assignment 4 Upload
- DS L1 - 02 08 2017 (1)
- Linux Engine Log for the Frontend Error
- Rules Explained-VBA Function Call
- APPLYING ROUGH SET THEORY IN MULTIMEDIA DATA CLASSIFICATION
- Intro to Probability - U of U
- MELJUN CORTES MANUAL Discrete Structure CSCI08
- Pre Class 2 Collegue Algebra
- cmat
- wtp2000-femap-docs-api_ref (1).pdf
- Wtp2000 Femap Docs API Ref
- IJEART02604
- A2 2.4 Solutions
- natasha data topic 9 10 pre-assessment copy
- Window Specification Over Data Streams
- CSTM 0120 - Sample Exam #03 (Solutions)
- Math
- Week 3 - HW
- C3 Solomon I Mark Scheme
- The Pythagorean Academy-Logic Course Intro, Summer 2015

You are on page 1of 9

16, 2017

Suriana Alias1, Daud Mohamad2, Adibah Shuib3

1

Faculty of Computer and Mathematical Sciences, Universiti Teknologi Mara (UiTM) Kelantan, Campus Machang, Kelantan, 18500, Malaysia. E-

mail: suria588@kelantan.uitm.edu.my

2

Faculty of Computer and Mathematical Sciences, Universiti Teknologi Mara (UiTM) Shah Alam, Shah Alam, 40450, Malaysia. E-mail:

daud@tmsk.uitm.edu.my

3

Faculty of Computer and Mathematical Sciences, Universiti Teknologi Mara (UiTM) Shah Alam, Shah Alam, 40450, Malaysia. E-mail:

adibah@tmsk.uitm.edu.my

Abstract. Many past studies largely described the con- intersection. We also have examined some desired prop-

cept of neutrosophic sets, neutrosophic multisets, rough erties of rough neutrosophic multisets based on these def-

sets, and rough neutrosophic sets in many areas. Howev- initions. We use the hybrid structure of rough set and

er, no paper has discussed about rough neutrosophic mul- neutrosophic multisets since these theories are powerful

tisets. In this paper, we present some definition of rough tool for managing uncertainty, indeterminate, incomplete

neutrosophic multisets such as complement, union and and imprecise information.

Keywords: Neutrosophic set, neutrosophic multiset, rough set, rough neutrosophic set, rough neutrosophic multisets

and rough sets. It studies roughness in interval- valued

In our real-life problems, there are situations with un-

neutrosophic sets and some of its properties. After the in-

certain data that may be not be successfully modelled by

troduction of rough neutrosophic set theory, many interest-

the classical mathematics. For example, the opinion about

ing application have been studied such as in medical or-

beauty, which is can be describe by more beauty, beauty,

ganisation [17], [18], [19].

beauty than, or less beauty. Therefore, there are some

But until now, there have been no study on rough neu-

mathematical tools for dealing with uncertainties such as

trosophic multisets (RNM). Therefore, the objective of this

fuzzy set theory introduced by Zadeh [1], intuitionistic

paper is to study the concept of RNM which is combina-

fuzzy set theory introduced by Attanasov [2], rough set

tion of rough set [3] and neutrosophic multisets [20] as a

theory introduced by Pawlak [3], and soft set theory initi-

generalization of rough neutrosophic sets [15].

ated by Molodtsov [4]. Rough set theory introduced by

This paper is arranged in following manner. In section

Pawlak in 1981/1982, deals with the approximation of sets

2, some mathematical preliminary concepts were recall for

that are difficult to describe with the available information.

more understanding about RNM. In section 3, the concepts

It is expressed by a boundary region of set and also ap-

of RNM and some of their properties are presented with

proach to vagueness. After Pawlaks work several re-

examples. Finally, we conclude the paper.

searcher were studied on rough set theory with applications

[5], [6].

2 Mathematical Preliminaries

However, these concepts cannot deal with indetermi-

nacy and inconsistent information. In 1995, Smarandache In this section, we mainly recall some notions related

[7] developed a new concept called neutrosophic set (NS) to neutrosophic sets [7], [21], [22], neutrosophic multisets

which generalizes probability set, fuzzy set and intuition- [23], [24], [20], [25], rough set [3], and rough neutrosophic

istic fuzzy set. There are three degrees of membership de- set [15], [17], that relevant to the present work and for fur-

scribed by NS which is membership degree, indeterminacy ther details and background.

degree and non-membership degree. This theory and their

hybrid structures has proven useful in many different field

[8], [9], [10], [11],[12], [13],[14].

Broumi et al. [15] proposed a hybrid structure called

neutrosophic rough set which is combination of neutro-

sophic set [7] and rough set [3] and studied their properties.

Later, Broumi et al. [16] introduced interval neutrosophic

Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 16, 2017 81

Definition 2.1 (Neutrosophic Set) [7] Let X be an uni- to explain the characteristics of the objects. Suppose A is a

verse of discourse, with a generic element in X denoted by neutrosophic set (NS) of U, such that,

x, the neutrosophic (NS) set is an object having the form

A = {x1, (0.3, 0.4, 0.5) , x2, (0.5, 0.1, 0.4) ,

A = {x, (TA(x), IA(x), FA(x)) | x X} x3, (0.4, 0.3, 0.5)},

where the degree of goodness of prices is 0.4, degree of in-

where the functions T, I, F : X ]0, 1+[ define respective-

determinacy of prices is 0.3 and degree of poorness of

ly the degree of membership (or Truth), the degree of inde-

prices is 0.5 etc.

terminacy, and the degree of non-membership (or False-

hood) of the element x X to the set A with the condition The following definitions are refer to [25].

Definition 2.3 (Neutrosophic Multisets) Let E be a

0 TA(x) + IA(x) + FA(x) 3+

universe. A neutrosophic multiset (NMS) A on E can be

defined as follows:

From a philosophical point of view, the neutrosophic set

takes the value from real standard or non-standard subsets A x, (TA1 ( x),TA2 ( x),...,TAp ( x)),( I 1A ( x), I A2 ( x),...,I Ap ( x)),

of ]0, 1+[. So, instead of ]0, 1+[ we need to take the inter-

val [0, 1] for technical applications, because ]0, 1+[ will be ( FA1 ( x), FA2 ( x),...,FAp ( x)) : x E

difficult to apply in the real applications such as in scien-

tific and engineering problems. Therefore, we have

where, the truth membership sequence

A = {x, (TA(x), IA(x), FA(x)) | x X, TA(x), IA(x), (TA1 ( x),TA2 ( x),...,TAp ( x)) , the indeterminacy membership

FA(x) [0, 1]}. sequence ( I 1A ( x), I A2 ( x),...,I Ap ( x)) and the falsity membership

sequence ( FA1 ( x), FA2 ( x),...,FAp ( x)) may be in decreasing or

There is no restriction on the sum of TA(x); IA(x) and FA(x),

so increasing order, and the sum of

TAi ( x), I Ai ( x), FAi ( x) 0,1 satisfies the condition

0 TAi ( x) I Ai ( x) FAi ( x) 3

for any x E and i =1, 2,, p.

Also, p is called the dimension (cardinality) of NMS A.

For two NS,

For convenience, a NMS A can be denoted by the sim-

A = {x, (TA(x), IA(x), FA(x)) | x X} and plified form:

the relations are defined as follows: Definition 2.4 Let A,B NMS(E). Then,

(i) A B if and only if TA(x) TB(x), IA(x) IB(x),

FA(x) FB(x), ~B

(i) A is said to be NM subset of B is denoted by A

(ii) A = B if and only if TA(x) = TB(x), IA(x) = IB(x),

if TAi ( x) TBi ( x) , I Ai ( x) I Bi ( x) ,

FA(x) = FB(x),

(iii) A B = {x, min(TA(x),TB(x)), max(IA(x),IB(x)), FAi ( x) FBi ( x) , x E .

max(FA(x),FB(x)) | x X},

(iv) A B = {x, max(TA(x),TB(x)), min(IA(x),IB(x)), (ii) A is said to be neutrosophic equal of B is denoted

min(FA(x),FB(x)) | x X}, by A = B if

(v) Ac = {x, FA(x), 1 IA(x), TA(x) | x X}

(vi) 0n = (0, 1, 1) and 1n = (1, 0, 0). TAi ( x) TBi ( x) , I Ai ( x) I Bi ( x) ,

FAi ( x) FBi ( x) , x E.

~

Example 2.2. Assume that the universe of discourse U = (iii) The complement of A denoted by AC is defined by

{x1, x2, x3}, where x1 characterizes the capability, x2 char- ~

AC x, ( FA1 ( x), FA2 ( x),...,FAp ( x)),

acterizes the trustworthiness and x3 indicates the prices of

the objects. It may be further assumed that the values of x1, (1 I 1A ( x),1 I A2 ( x),...,1 I Ap ( x)),

x2, and x3 are in [0, 1] and they are obtained from some (TA1 ( x), TA2 ( x),...,TAp ( x)) : x E

questionnaires of some experts. The experts may impose

their opinion in three components which is the degree of

goodness, the degree of indeterminacy and that of poorness

82 Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 16, 2017

i (iv) The multiplication of A and B is denoted by

A~ B H and is defined by

and i 1, 2, ..., p, then A is called null ns-set and

~ H x, (TH1 ( x),TH2 ( x),...,THp ( x)),

denoted by .

( I 1H ( x), I H2 ( x),...,I Hp ( x)),

(iv) If TA ( x) 1 and I Ai ( x) FAi ( x) 0 for all x E

i

( FH1 ( x), FH2 ( x),...,FHp ( x)) | x E

and i 1, 2, ..., p, then A is called universal ns-

~

set and denoted by E . where

Definition 2.5 Let A,B NMS(E). Then, THi ( x) TAi ( x) TBi ( x),

~ I Hi ( x) I Ai ( x) I Bi ( x) I Ai ( x) I Bi ( x),

(i) The union of A and B is denoted by A B C is

defined by FHi ( x) FAi ( x) FBi ( x) FAi ( x) FBi ( x),

multiplication, subtraction of real numbers respectively.

( F ( x), F ( x),...,F ( x)) : x E

1

C C

2

C

p

where relation on the universal set U. Then, the pair (U, R) is

TCi ( x) TAi ( x) TBi ( x), I Ci ( x) I Ai ( x) I Bi ( x) , called a Pawlaks approximation space. An equivalence

class of R containing x will be denotes by [x]R . Now, for X

FCi ( x) FAi ( x) FBi ( x), U, the upper and lower approximation of X with the re-

spect to (U, R) are denoted by, respectively A1(x) and A2(x)

for x E and i 1, 2, ..., p .

and defined by

(ii) The intersection of A and B is denoted by A1(x) = {x : [x]R X} and A2(x) = {x : [x]R X }

~

A B D and is defined by

Now, if A1(x) = A2(x), then X is called definable; otherwise,

D x, (TD1 ( x),TD2 ( x),...,TDp ( x)), the pair A(X) = (A1(x), A2(x)) is called the rough set of X in

( I 1D ( x), I D2 ( x),...,I Dp ( x)),

U.

Example 2.7 [5] Let A =(U, R) be an approximate space

( FD1 ( x), FD2 ( x),...,FDp ( x)) | x E

where U = {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10} and the relation R

where on U be definable aRb iff a b (mod 5) for all a, b U.

Let us consider a subset X = {1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9} of U. Then,

TDi ( x) TAi ( x) TBi ( x), I Di ( x) I Ai ( x) I Bi ( x) ,

the rough set of X is A(x) = ( A (x), A(x)) where A (x) = {1,

FDi ( x) FAi ( x) FBi ( x), 2, 6, 7} and A(x) = {1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9}. Here, the equiv-

for x E and i 1, 2, ..., p . alence classes are

[0]R = [5]R = [10]R = {0, 5, 10}

(iii) The addition of A and B is denoted by A ~ B G

and is defined by [1]R = [6]R = {1, 6}

G x, (TG1 ( x), TG2 ( x),...,TGp ( x)), [2]R = [7]R = {2, 7}

( I G1 ( x), I G2 ( x),...,I Gp ( x)), [3]R = [8]R = {3, 8}

( FG1 ( x), FG2 ( x),...,FGp ( x)) | xE [4]R = [9]R = {4, 9}

where Thus, A (x) = {x U: [x]R X } ={1, 2, 6, 7} and

TGi ( x) TAi ( x) TBi ( x) TAi ( x) TBi ( x), A(x) = {x : [x]R X }= {1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9}.

FGi ( x) FAi ( x) FBi ( x),

Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 16, 2017 83

Definition 2.8 Let A = (A1,A2) and B = (B1,B2) be two sophic set (0N) and unit neutrosophic sets (1N) are definable

rough sets in the approximation space S = (U, R). Then, neutrosophic sets. Let consider the example in the follow-

ing.

(i) A B = (A1 B1, A2 B2),

Example 2.10 Let U = { p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, p6, p7, p8 }

(ii) A B = (A1 B1, A2 B2), be the universe of discourse. Let R be an equivalence rela-

(iii) A B if A B = A, tion its partition of U is given by

(iv) A = {U A2, U A1}. U/R = { {p1, p4}, {p2, p3, p6}, { p5}, { p7, p8} }.

Definition 2.9 (Rough Neutrosophic Set) Let U be a

non-null set and R be an equivalence relation on U. Let A Let N(A) = { (p1, (0.3, 0.4, 0.5), (p4, (0.4, 0.6, 0.5)), (p5,

be neutrosophic set in U with the membership function TA, (0.5, 0.7, 0.3)), (p7, (0.2, 0.4, 0.6)) } be a neutrosophic set

indeterminacy function IA and non-membership function of U. By definition 2.6 and 2.9, we obtain:

FA. The lower and the upper approximations of A in the

approximation (U, R) denoted by N (A) and N ( A) are re- N(A) = { (p1, (0.3, 0.6, 0.5)), (p4, (0.3, 0.6, 0.5)), (p5,

spectively defined as follows: (0.5, 0.7, 0.3)) } and

N (A) = {x, (TA(x), IA(x), FA(x)) | y [x]R, x U }, N (A) = { (p1, (0.3, 0.4, 0.5)), (p4, (0.3, 0.4, 0.5)), (p5,

(0.5, 0.7, 0.3)), (p7, (0.2, 0.4, 0.6)), (p8, (0.2, 0.4, 0.6)) }.

N ( A) = {x, (TA(x), IA(x), FA(x)) | y [x]R, x U }

TN ( A) ( x) TA ( y ), I N ( A) ( x) I A ( y ), N(B) = { (p1, (0.3, 0.4, 0.5), (p4, (0.3, 0.4, 0.5)), (p5,

yx R yx R (0.5, 0.7, 0.3)) }.

FN ( A) ( x) FA ( y ) The lower approximation and upper approximation of N(B)

yx R

are calculated as

TN ( A) ( x) TA ( y ), I N ( A) ( x) I A ( y ),

yx R yx R N(B) = { (p1, (0.3, 0.4, 0.5)), (p4, (0.3, 0.4, 0.5)), (p5,

(0.5, 0.7, 0.3)) } and

FN ( A) ( x) FA ( y )

yx R

N (B) = { (p1, (0.3, 0.4, 0.5)), (p4, (0.3, 0.4, 0.5)), (p5,

So, (0.5, 0.7, 0.3)) }.

0 TN ( A) ( x) I N ( A) ( x) FN ( A) ( x) 3 , and Obviously, N(B) = N (B) is a definable neutrosophic set in

the approximation space (U, R).

0 TN ( A) ( x) I N ( A) ( x) FN ( A) ( x) 3

Definition 2.11 If N(A) = (N(A), N ( A)) is a rough neutro-

Here and denote min and max operators re- sophic set in (U, R), the rough complement of N(A) is the

spectively. TA(y), IA(y) and FA(y) are the membership, inde- rough neutrosophic set denoted by ~N(A) = (N(A)c,

terminacy and non-membership degrees of y with respect N ( A)c ) where N(A)c, N ( A) c are the complements of neu-

to A. N (A) and N ( A) are two neutrosophic sets in U. trosophic sets N(A) and N ( A) respectively,

tively, referred to as the upper and lower rough NS approx-

imation operators, and the pair is (N (A), N ( A)) called the N ( A) c = { x, FN ( A) ( x),1 I N ( A) ( x),TN ( A) ( x) | x U}

rough neutrosophic set in (U, R).

Definition 2.12 If N ( F1) and N ( F2 ) are two rough neu-

Based on the above definition, it is observed that N (A) trosophic set of the neutrosophic sets F1 and F2 respective-

and N ( A) have a constant membership on the equivalence ly in U, then we define the following:

classes of U, if N (A) = N ( A) ; i.e.,

(i) N(F1) = N(F2) iff N ( F1 ) N ( F2 ) and

TN ( A) ( x) TN ( A) ( x), I N ( A) ( x) I N ( A) ( x),

N ( F1 ) N ( F2 )

FN ( A) ( x) I N ( A) ( x)

(ii) N(F1) N(F2) iff N ( F1) N ( F2 ) and

For any x U , A is called a definable neutrosophic N ( F1 ) N ( F2 )

set in the approximation (U, R). Obviously, zero neutro-

84 Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 16, 2017

Based on the equivalence relation on the universe of

(iv) N ( F1 ) N ( F2 ) N ( F1 ) N ( F2 ), N ( F1 ) N ( F2 ) discourse, we introduce the lower and upper approxima-

tions of neutrosophic multisets [20] in a Pawlaks approx-

imation space [3] and obtained a new notion called rough

(v) N ( F1) N ( F2 ) N ( F1 ) N ( F2 ), N ( F1 ) N ( F2 ) neutrosophic multisets (RNM). Its basic operations such as

complement, union and intersection also discuss over them

with the examples. Some of it is quoted from [15],

(vi) N ( F1) N ( F2 ) N ( F1 ) N ( F2 ), N ( F1 ) N ( F2 )

[25],[20], [26].

If N, M, L are rough neutrosophic set in (U, R), then the re- Definition 3.1 Let U be a non-null set and R be an equiv-

sults in the following proposition are straightforward from alence relation on U. Let A be neutrosophic multisets in U

definitions. with the truth membership sequence TAi , indeterminacy

quences FAi . The lower and the upper approximations of A

(i) N (~N) = N

in the approximation (U, R) denoted by Nm ( A) and

(ii) N M M N , N M M N

Nm(A) are respectively defined as follows:

(iii) ( N M ) L N (M L), and

Nm ( A) = {x, ( TNm( A) ( x) , I Nm( A) ( x) , FNm( A) ( x) ) |

i i i

( N M ) L N (M L)

i

( A)

( x ) , I Nm

i

( A)

( x ) , FNm

i

( A)

( x) ) |

sets:

where

Proposition 2.14. i =1, 2, .., p,

(i) ( N (F1) N (F2) ) = (N (F1)) (~ N (F2))

( A) ( x ) T Ai ( y ),

i

TNm

yx R

(ii) ( N (F1) N (F2) ) = (N (F1)) (~N (F2))

( A) ( x ) I Ai ( y ),

i

I Nm

yx R

( A) ( x ) FAi ( y ),

i

Proposition 2.15. If F1 and F2 are two neutrosophic sets FNm

yx R

in U such that F1 F2, then N (F1) N (F2)

(i) N ( F1 F2 ) N ( F1 ) N ( F2 )

i

TNm ( x) TAi ( y ),

( A) yx R

(ii) N ( F1 F2 ) N ( F1 ) N ( F2 ) i

I Nm ( x) I Ai ( y ),

( A) yx R

Proposition 2.16. i

FNm ( x) FAi ( y )

( A) yx R

(i) N ( F ) ~ N (~ F )

such that,

(ii) N (~ F ) ~ N (~ F )

( A) ( x) , I Nm( A) ( x) , FNm( A) ( x) 0,1 ,

i i i

TNm

(iii) N ( F ) N ( F )

i

TNm ( A)

( x), I Nm

i

( A)

( x), FNm

i

( A)

( x)0,1

,

0 TNm

i

( A) ( x) I Nm( A) ( x) FNm( A) ( x) 3, and

i i

0 TNm

i

( A)

( x) I Nm

i

( A)

( x) FNm

i

( A)

( x) 3

Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 16, 2017 85

Here and denote min and max operators re- Nm(B) = {p1, p4, p5}

spectively. TAi ( y) , I Ai ( y) and FAi ( y) are the membership se-

quences, indeterminacy sequences and non-membership ={<p1, (0.5, 0.6, 0.5), (0.3, 0.4, 0.3), (0.4, 0.3, 0.3)>,

sequences of y with respect to A and i =1, 2, , p. <p4, (0.5, 0.6, 0.5), (0.3, 0.4, 0.3), (0.4, 0.3, 0.3)>, <p5,

(0.2, 0.1, 0.0), (0.3, 0.2, 0.2), (0.8, 0.7, 0.7)>} and

Since Nm(A) and Nm ( A) are two neutrosophic multi- Nm(B) = {p1, p4, p5}

sets in U, thus neutrosophic multisets mappings

Nm , Nm : NmU NmU are respectively referred to as ={<p1, (0.5, 0.6, 0.5), (0.3, 0.4, 0.3), (0.4, 0.3, 0.3)>,

the upper and lower rough neutrosophic multisets approx- <p4, (0.5, 0.6, 0.5), (0.3, 0.4, 0.3), (0.4, 0.3, 0.3)>, <p5,

imation operators, and the pair is (Nm(A), Nm ( A)) called the (0.2, 0.1, 0.0), (0.3, 0.2, 0.2), (0.8, 0.7, 0.7)>}

rough neutrosophic multisets in (U, R).

Obviously, Nm(B) = Nm(B) is a definable neutrosophic

From the above definition, we can see that Nm(A) and multisets in the approximation space (U, R).

Nm ( A) have constant membership on the equivalence clas-

ses of U, if Nm(A) Nm(A) ; i.e., Definition 3.3 Let Nm( A) ( Nm( A), Nm( A)) be a rough

neutrosophic multisets in (U, R). The rough complement of

Nm(A) is denoted by ~ Nm( A) ( Nm( A)c , Nm( A)c ) where

( A) ( x) TNm( A) ( x),

i i

TNm

Nm( A)c and Nm( A)c are the complements of neutrosophic

( A) ( x) I Nm( A) ( x),

i i

I Nm multisets of Nm (A) and Nm(A) respectively,

i i i

( A) ( x) FNm( A) ( x).

i i

FNm

| x U},

Let consider the following example.

Nm( A) c = {x, ( FNm( A) ( x) , 1 I Nm( A) ( x ) , TNm( A) ( x ) )

i i i

Example 3.2 Let U = { p1, p2, p3, p4, p5, p6, p7, p8 } be

the universe of discourse. Let R be an equivalence relation | x U}

its partition of U is given by

U/R = {{p1, p4}, {p2, p3, p6}, { p5}, { p7, p8}}. where i = 1, 2, , p.

Example 3.4 Consider RNM, Nm(A) in the set X = {x1, x2,

Let Nm(A) = {(<p1, (0.8, 0.6, 0.5), (0.3, 0.2, 0.1), (0.4, 0.2,

x3, x4, x5, x6, x7}, y [x]R is equivalence relation and i = 1,

0.1)>, <p4, (0.5, 0.4, 0.3), (0.4, 0.4, 0.3), (0.6, 0.3, 0.3)>),

<p5, (0.2, 0.1, 0.0), (0.3, 0.2, 0.2), (0.8, 0.7, 0.7)>, <p7, (0.7, 2, 3.

0.6, 0.5), (0.3, 0.2, 0.1), (0.4, 0.3, 0.2)> } be a neutrosophic

multisets of U. By definition 3.1 we obtain: Let Nm(A) = {x1, [(0.6, 0.4, 0.4), (0.7, 0.3, 0.4)], [(0.8,

0.4, 0.5), (0.7, 0.6, 0.5)], [(0.4, 0.3, 0.5), (0.3, 0.2, 0.7)] ,

x2, [(0.4, 0.3, 0.3), (0.5, 0.3, 0.4)], [(0.2, 0.4, 0.4), (0.3,

Nm(A) = {p1, p4, p5} 0.3, 0.5)], [(0.7, 0.8, 0.4), (0.7, 0.1, 0.5)], x4, [(0.2, 0.5,

={<p1, (0.5, 0.6, 0.5), (0.3, 0.4, 0.3), (0.4, 0.3, 0.3)>, 0.7), (0.7, 0.8, 0.0)], [(1.0, 1.0, 0.0), (0.9, 0.2, 0.5)], [(0.1,

<p4, (0.5, 0.6, 0.5), (0.3, 0.4, 0.3), (0.4, 0.3, 0.3)>, <p5, 0.5, 0.3), (0.2, 0.8, 0.5)] }

(0.2, 0.1, 0.0), (0.3, 0.2, 0.2), (0.8, 0.7, 0.7)>} and Then the complement of Nm(A) is defined as

Nm( A) = {p1, p4, p5, p7, p8} ~ Nm( A) ( Nm( A)c , Nm ( A)c )

=

{<p1, (0.8, 0.4, 0.3), (0.4, 0.2, 0.1), (0.6, 0.2, 0.1)>, <p4, {x1, [(0.4, 0.6, 0.6), (0.4, 0.7, 0.7)], [(0.5, 0.6, 0.8),

(0.8, 0.4, 0.3), (0.4, 0.2, 0.1), (0.6, 0.2, 0.1)>, <p5, (0.2, (0.5, 0.4, 0.7)], [(0.5, 0.7, 0.4), (0.7, 0.8, 0.3)] , x2,

0.1, 0.0), (0.3, 0.2, 0.2), (0.8, 0.7, 0.7)>, <p7, (0.7, 0.6, [(0.3, 0.7, 0.4), (0.4, 0.7, 0.5)], [(0.4, 0.6, 0.2), (0.5,

0.5), (0.3, 0.2, 0.1), (0.4, 0.3, 0.2)>, <p8, (0.7, 0.6, 0.5), 0.7, 0.3)], [(0.4, 0.2, 0.7), (0.5, 0.9, 0.7)], x4, [(0.7,

(0.3, 0.2, 0.1), (0.4, 0.3, 0.2)>}. 0.5, 0.2), (0.0, 0.2, 0.7)], [(0.0, 0.0, 1.0), (0.5, 0.8,

0.9)], [(0.3, 0.5, 0.1), (0.5, 0.2, 0.2)] }.

For another neutrosophic multisets

Nm(B) = {<p1, (0.8, 0.6, 0.5), (0.3, 0.2, 0.1), (0.4, 0.2,

0.1)>, <p4, (0.5, 0.4, 0.3), (0.4, 0.4, 0.3), (0.6, 0.3, 0.3)>,

<p5, (0.2, 0.1, 0.0), (0.3, 0.2, 0.2), (0.8, 0.7, 0.7)>}.

The lower approximation and upper approximation of

Nm(B) are calculated as

86 Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 16, 2017

Definition 3.5 Let Nm (A) and Nm(B) are RNM respec- [(0.3, 0.4, 0.5), (0.6, 0.4, 0.0)], [(1.0, 1.0, 0.0), (0.7,

tively in U, then the following definitions hold: 0.2, 0.5)], [(0.1, 0.5, 0.3), (0.2, 0.8, 0.5)], x4, [(0.2,

0.5, 0.7), (0.7, 0.8, 0.2)], [(1.0, 1.0, 0.0), (0.9, 0.2,

(i) Nm(A) = Nm(B) iff Nm ( A) Nm ( B) and

0.5)], [(0.1, 0.5, 0.3), (0.2, 0.8, 0.7)] }.

Nm ( A) Nm( B)

Proposition 3.7 If Nm, Mm, Lm are the RNM in (U, R),

(ii) Nm(A) Nm(B) iff Nm ( A) Nm ( B) and then the following propositions are stated from definitions.

Nm ( A) Nm( B) (i) (~Nm) = Nm

Nm ( A) Nm ( B), Nm ( A) Nm ( B )

( Nm Mm) Lm Nm (Mm Lm)

(iv) Nm ( A) Nm( B) (iv) ( Nm Mm) Lm ( Nm Mm) ( Nm Lm), and

(~ Nm( A)) ~ (~ ( Nm( A), Nm( A)))

Nm ( A) Nm ( B ), Nm ( A) Nm ( B )

~ ( Nm( A)c , Nm( A)c )

(vi) Nm ( A) Nm( B)

( Nm( A), Nm( A))

Nm ( A) Nm ( B), Nm ( A) Nm ( B)

= Nm(A)

Example 3.6 Consider Nm(A) in Example 3.4 and Nm(B) Proof (ii iv) : The proofs is straightforward from defini-

are two RNM. tion.

Nm(B) = {x1, [(0.6, 0.1, 0.2), (0.3, 0.3, 0.3)], [(0.7, 0.2, Proposition 3.8 De Morgans Law are satisfied for

0.5), (0.8, 0.6, 0.5)], [(0.7, 0.3, 0.5), (1.0, 0.2, 0.7)] , rough neutrosophic multisets:

x2, [(0.4, 0.4, 0.7), (0.6, 0.5, 0.6)], [(0.3, 0.4, 0.4),

(0.6, 0.2, 0.5)], [(0.7, 0.8, 0.4), (0.6, 0.1, 0.5)], x3, (i) (Nm(A) Nm(B)) = ( Nm(A)) ( ~ Nm(B))

[(0.3, 0.4, 0.5), (0.6, 0.4, 0.0)], [(1.0, 1.0, 0.0), (0.7,

(ii) (Nm(A) Nm(B)) =( Nm(A)) (~ Nm(B))

0.2, 0.5)], [(0.1, 0.5, 0.3), (0.2, 0.8, 0.5)] , x4, [(0.4,

0.5, 0.6), (0.7, 0.8, 0.2)], [(1.0, 1.0, 0.0), (0.9, 0.2, Proof (i):

0.1)], [(0.6, 0.5, 0.3), (0.2, 0.2, 0.7)] }

(Nm(A) Nm(B))

Then, we have

= ({ Nm(A) Nm(B) }, { Nm( A) Nm( B) })

(i) Nm(A) Nm(B)

(ii) Nm ( A) Nm( B) = (~{ Nm(A) Nm(B) }, ~{ Nm( A) Nm( B) })

= {x1, [(0.6, 0.1, 0.2), (0.7, 0.3, 0.3)], [(0.8, 0.2, = ({ Nm(A) Nm(B) }c, { Nm( A) Nm( B) }c)

0.5), (0.7, 0.6, 0.5)], [(0.7, 0.3, 0.5), (1.0, 0.2, 0.7)] ,

x2, [(0.4, 0.3, 0.3), (0.6, 0.3, 0.4)], [(0.3, 0.4, 0.4), = (~{ Nm(A) Nm(B) }, ~{ Nm( A) Nm( B) })

(0.6, 0.2, 0.5)], [(0.7, 0.8, 0.4), (0.7, 0.1, 0.5)], x3,

[(0.3, 0.4, 0.5), (0.6, 0.4, 0.0)], [(1.0, 1.0, 0.0), (0.7, = (Nm(A)) (~Nm(B)).

0.2, 0.5)], [(0.1, 0.5, 0.3), (0.2, 0.8, 0.5)], x4, [(0.4,

Proof (ii): Similar to the proof of (i).

0.5, 0.6), (0.7, 0.8, 0.0)], [(1.0, 1.0, 0.0), (0.9, 0.2,

0.1)], [(0.6, 0.5, 0.3), (0.2, 0.2, 0.5)] }. Proposition 3.9. If A and B are two neutrosophic multi-

sets in U such that A B, then Nm(A) Nm(B)

(iii) Nm ( A) Nm( B)

(i) Nm( A B) Nm( A) Nm( B)

= {x1, [(0.6, 0.4, 0.4), (0.3, 0.3, 0.4)], [(0.7, 0.4,

0.5), (0.7, 0.6, 0.5)], [(0.4, 0.3, 0.5), (0.3, 0.2, 0.7)], (ii) Nm( A B) Nm( A) Nm( B)

x2, [(0.4, 0.4, 0.7), (0.5, 0.5, 0.6)], [(0.2, 0.4, 0.4),

(0.3, 0.3, 0.5)], [(0.7, 0.8, 0.4), (0.6, 0.1, 0.5)], x3,

Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 16, 2017 87

( A B) ( x) inf {TNm( A B) ( x) | x X } ( x) T Ai ( y ),

i i i

TNm TNm (~ A) yx R

i

( A) ( x),TNm( B ) ( x) | x X })

i i

I Nm (~ A)

( x) I Ai ( y ),

yx R

max{inf {TNm

i

( A) ( x) | x X }, inf {TNm( B) ( x) | x X }}

i i

FNm (~ A)

( x) FAi ( y ),

yx R

max{(TNm

i

( A) ( x) , TNm( B) ( x))| x X }

i

Hence Nm(A) = Nm(~ A) .

(TNm

i

( A) TNm( B) ) ( x)

i

Proof (ii): Similar to the proof of (i).

Similarly, Proof (iii): For any y Nm(A), we can have

( A B) ( x) ( I Nm( A) I Nm( B) ) ( x) , ( A) ( x) TA ( y) TA ( y) ,

i i i i i i

I Nm TNm

yx R yx R

( A B) ( x) ( FNm( A) FNm( B) ) ( x)

i i i

FNm

( A) ( x) I A ( y ) I A ( y) , and

i i i

I Nm

yx R yx R

Thus, Nm( A B) Nm( A) Nm( B)

( A) ( x) FA ( y) FA ( y)

i i i

FNm

Hence, yx R yx R

Proof (ii): Similar to the proof of (i).

Proposition 3.10. Conclusion

(i) Nm(A) = Nm(~ A) This paper firstly defined the rough neutrosophic mul-

tisets (RNM) theory and their properties and operations

were studied. The RNM are the extension of rough neutro-

(ii) Nm( A) ~ Nm (~ A)

sophic sets [15]. The future work will cover the others op-

eration in rough set, neutrosophic multisets and rough neu-

(iii) Nm( A) Nm( A) trosophic set that is suitable for RNM theory such as the

Proof (i): According to Definition 3.1, we can obtain notion of inverse, symmetry, and relation.

[1] L. A. Zadeh, Fuzzy sets, Inf. Control, vol. 8(3) (1965),

~A = {x, ( FAi ( x),1 I Ai ( x),TAi ( x) ) | x X}

pp. 338353.

[2] K. T. Atanassov, Intuitionistic Fuzzy Set, Fuzzy Sets

Nm(~ A) = {x, ( FNm

i

(~ A)

( x), 1- I Nm

i

(~ A)

( x),

and Systems, vol. 20 (1986), pp. 8796.

[3] Z. Pawlak, Rough sets, Int. J. Comput. Inf. Sci., vol.

i

TNm(~ A)

( x) ) | y [x]R, x U} 11(5) (1982), pp. 341356.

[4] P. K. Maji, R. Biswas, and A. R. Roy, Soft set theory,

~ Nm(~ A) = {x, ( TNm

i

(~ A)

( x), 1- (1- I Nm

i

(~ A)

( x)), Comput. Math. with Appl., vol. 45(4-5) (2003), pp. 555

562.

i

FNm(~ A)

( x) ) | y [x]R, x U} [5] A. Mukherjee, Generalized Rough Sets: Hybrid Structure

and Applications. Springer, India, 2015.

= {x, ( TNm

i

( x), I Nm

i

( x), [6] Lirong Jian, S. Liu, and Y. Lin, Hybrid Rough Sets and

(~ A) (~ A)

Applications in Uncertain Decision-Making. CRC Press,

Taylor & Francis Group, New York, 2011.

i

FNm(~ A)

( x) ) | y [x]R, x U}

[7] F. Smarandache, A Unifying Field in Logics:

Neutrosophic Logic, Neutrosophy, Neutrosophic Set,

Neutrosophic Probability and Statistic, American

Research Press, 4th Edition, 2005.

88 Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 16, 2017

[8] B. Said, M. Talea, A. Bakali, and F. Smarandache, [19] K. Mondal, S. Pramanik, and F. Smarandache, Several

Single Valued Neutrosophic Graphs, in New Trends in Trigonometric Hamming Similarity Measures of Rough

Neutrosophic Theory and Applications, 2016, pp 187-202. Neutrosophic Sets and their Applications in Decision, in

[9] I. Kandasamy and F. Smarandache, Triple Refined New Trends in Neutrosophic Theory and Applications,

Indeterminate Neutrosophic Sets for Personality 2016, pp. 93-103.

Classification Triple Refined Indeterminate Neutrosophic [20] I. Deli, S. Broumi, and F. Smarandache, On Neutrosophic

Sets for Personality Classification, in New Trends in Refined Sets and Their Applications in Medical. J. of

Neutrosophic Theory and Applications , 2016. New Theory, (6) (2015), pp. 8898.

[10] M. ahin, S. Alkhazaleh, and V. Uluay, Neutrosophic [21] F. Smarandache, Neutrosophic Set - a generalization of

Soft Expert Sets, Appl. Math., vol. 6 (2015), pp. 116 Intuitionistics Fuzzy Sets, Int. J. of Pure and Applied

127. Math, vol. 24 (3) (2005), pp. 287297.

[11] I. Deli, Interval-valued neutrosophic soft sets and its [22] F. Smarandache, Neutrosophic SetA Generalization of

decision making, Int. J. Mach. Learn. Cybern., (2015). the Intuitionistic Fuzzy Set, J. Def. Resour. Manag.,(1)

[12] M. Ali and F. Smarandache, Complex neutrosophic set, (2010), pp. 107116.

Neural Comp. and Applications, (2016), pp. 118. [23] S. Broumi, I. Deli, and F. Smarandache, Neutrosophic

[13] M. Abdel-baset, I. M. Hezam, and F. Smarandache, soft multiset theory, Ital. J. Pure Appl. Math., vol. 32

Neutrosophic Goal Programming, Neutrosophic Sets (2014), pp. 503514.

and System, vol. 11(2016) pp. 112118. [24] S. Broumi, I. Deli, and F. Smarandache, Relations on

[14] W. B. V. Kandasamy and F. Smarandache, Neutrosophic neutrosophic multi sets with properties, (2015), pp. 115.

Rings. Hexis Phoenix, Arizona, 2006. [25] S. Broumi, I. Deli, and F. Smarandache, Neutrosophic

[15] S. Broumi, F. Smarandache, and M. Dhar, Rough Multi relations and Their Properties, (2014), pp. 118.

Neutrosophic Sets, Ital. J. Pure Appl. Math., vol. 32 [26] M. Sa, R. Chatterjee, P. Majumdar, and S. K. Samanta,

(2014), pp. 493502. Single valued neutrosophic multisets, Annals of Fuzzy

[16] S. Broumi and F. Smarandache, Interval Neutrosophic Mathematics and Informatics, vol. x (x) (2015), pp. 499

Rough Set, Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, vol. 7 (2014), 514.

pp. 2331.

[17] S. Pramanik and K. Mondal, Cosine Similarity Measure

Of Rough Neutrosophic Sets And Its Application In

Medical Diagnosis, Global J. and Adv. Research, vol. 2

(1) (2015), pp. 212220.

[18] K. Mondal and S. Pramanik, Rough Neutrosophic Multi-

Attribute Decision-Making Based on Grey Relational

Analysis, Neutrosophic Sets and System., vol. 7 (2015),

pp. 817. Received: June 6, 2017. Accepted: June 21, 2017.

- Fea Assignment 4 UploadUploaded bySwapna Khandekar
- DS L1 - 02 08 2017 (1)Uploaded byAnshuman Padhi
- Linux Engine Log for the Frontend ErrorUploaded byjchaurasia
- Rules Explained-VBA Function CallUploaded byradhika1992
- APPLYING ROUGH SET THEORY IN MULTIMEDIA DATA CLASSIFICATIONUploaded byInternational Journal of New Computer Architectures and their Applications (IJNCAA)
- Intro to Probability - U of UUploaded byChris Whiting
- MELJUN CORTES MANUAL Discrete Structure CSCI08Uploaded byMELJUN CORTES, MBA,MPA
- Pre Class 2 Collegue AlgebraUploaded byVictor Alay
- cmatUploaded byVivek Gusani
- wtp2000-femap-docs-api_ref (1).pdfUploaded byCristi
- Wtp2000 Femap Docs API RefUploaded byhlsimon
- IJEART02604Uploaded byerpublication
- A2 2.4 SolutionsUploaded bymrhomolkamath
- natasha data topic 9 10 pre-assessment copyUploaded byapi-299280421
- Window Specification Over Data StreamsUploaded byMaroun Abi Assaf
- CSTM 0120 - Sample Exam #03 (Solutions)Uploaded byCTL
- MathUploaded byBezalel Ilagan
- Week 3 - HWUploaded bymisterreid
- C3 Solomon I Mark SchemeUploaded bysalma_tt39
- The Pythagorean Academy-Logic Course Intro, Summer 2015Uploaded byAjab Abdur Rauf
- Architectural Traceability Transformation RealityUploaded bysfofoby
- Set RelationsUploaded byLineah Faye M. Untalan
- Enzo Melandri Translated BioUploaded bythesongsofmaldoror
- 9. Decision-making Coordination and Efficient ReasoningUploaded byMiguel Cuya
- ON THE PRIMITIVE NUMBERS OF POWER P AND ITS ASYMPTOTIC PROPERTYUploaded byDon Hass
- HUASWEI HG658 User Guide V2 01 EnglishUploaded byDieGoOChoa
- Logical FormUploaded byMilgam Salam
- Post Test Chap4Alg2Uploaded byROBERT JEAN
- NI FOL Into Df3 ProofUploaded byJanossyA
- Beamer SimpleUploaded bysimplicato

- On Smarandache Curves of Involute-evolute Curve According to Frenet Frame in Minkowski 3-spaceUploaded byMia Amalia
- Bi-level Linear Programming Problem with Neutrosophic NumbersUploaded byMia Amalia
- Neutrosophic Triplet Normed Ring SpaceUploaded byMia Amalia
- A Revisit to NC-VIKOR Based MAGDM Strategy in Neutrosophic Cubic Set EnvironmentUploaded byMia Amalia
- On Neutrosophic Crisp Semi Alpha Closed SetsUploaded byMia Amalia
- An Inventory Model under Space Constraint in Neutrosophic Environment: A Neutrosophic Geometric Programming ApproachUploaded byMia Amalia
- Neutrosophic Units of Neutrosophic Rings and FieldsUploaded byMia Amalia
- Pest Analysis Based on Neutrosophic Cognitive Maps: A Case Study for Food IndustryUploaded byMia Amalia
- Smarandache Curves According to q-Frame in Euclidean 3-SpaceUploaded byMia Amalia
- On Geodesics of the Tangent and Normal Surfaces Defined by TN-Smarandache Curve According to Frenet FrameUploaded byMia Amalia
- Single Valued Neutrosophic Numbers and Analytic Hierarchy Process for Project SelectionUploaded byMia Amalia
- Multi-Objective Portfolio Selection Model with Diversification by Neutrosophic Optimization TechniqueUploaded byMia Amalia
- Fuzzy Neutrosophic Alpha m-Closed Sets in Fuzzy NeutrosophicTopological SpacesUploaded byMia Amalia
- Neutrosophic Crisp Bi-Topological SpacesUploaded byMia Amalia
- Rough Neutrosophic Multisets Relation with Application in Marketing StrategyUploaded byMia Amalia
- Some Generalized Dice Measures for Double-Valued Neutrosophic Sets and Their ApplicationsUploaded byMia Amalia
- Research on Construction Engineering Project Risk Assessment with Some 2-Tuple Linguistic Neutrosophic Hamy Mean OperatorsUploaded byMia Amalia
- Different Methodologies in Treating UncertaintyUploaded byMia Amalia
- Fundamental Homomorphism Theorems for Neutrosophic Extended Triplet GroupsUploaded byMia Amalia
- A Neutrosophic Set Based Fault Diagnosis Method Based on Multi-Stage Fault Template DataUploaded byMia Amalia
- Some Generalized Dice Measures for Double-Valued Neutrosophic Sets and Their ApplicationsUploaded byMia Amalia
- A Generalization of Surfaces Family with Common Smarandache Asymptotic Curves in Galilean SpaceUploaded byMia Amalia
- SINGLE-VALUED NEUTROSOPHIC HYPERGRAPHSUploaded byMia Amalia
- A Forecasting Model Based on Multi-Valued Neutrosophic Sets and Two-Factor, Third-Order Fuzzy Fluctuation Logical RelationshipsUploaded byMia Amalia
- Smarandache Curves of Bertrand Curves Pair According to Frenet FrameUploaded byMia Amalia
- Dual Generalized Nonnegative Normal Neutrosophic Bonferroni Mean Operators and Their Application in Multiple Attribute Decision MakingUploaded byMia Amalia
- Design of Fuzzy Cognitive Model of Mutual Influence and Connectivity of Innovative TechnologiesUploaded byMia Amalia
- An OWA Distance-Based, Single-Valued Neutrosophic Linguistic TOPSIS Approach for Green Supplier Evaluation and Selection in Low-Carbon Supply ChainsUploaded byMia Amalia
- Fixed Point Theorem for Neutrosophic Triplet Partial Metric SpaceUploaded byMia Amalia
- Different Forms of Triangular Neutrosophic Numbers, De-Neutrosophication Techniques, and their ApplicationsUploaded byMia Amalia

- PART I 3RD Critically Reviewing the Literature_2Uploaded byHamza Kayani
- Ludo literacyUploaded byDiego Ponciano
- Test Bank for OB Key Concepts Skills and Best Practices 4th Canadian Edition by KinickiUploaded bya182187097
- Honneth-1997-European Journal of PhilosophyUploaded byDiana Carolina Arbeláez Echeverri
- bday pictograph lpUploaded byapi-252410182
- 10.1.1.118.3791 (1)Uploaded byaxiang88
- Lesson Plan f1 f3 2019Uploaded byYat Cumil
- number recognition math unitUploaded byapi-311981237
- end of unit reflection formUploaded byapi-429691926
- Food EthicsUploaded byDaniel Oon Wei Rhen
- kuliah 2 kpt6044Uploaded byboi83
- Business Ethics FundamentalUploaded bySee_star99
- Knowledge, Knower and the Known- Allamah TabatabaiUploaded bySaleem Andrew McGroarty
- Physical Fitness Test.docxUploaded byJc Sotelo
- The Paper 1 Bible-PHartUploaded byRaul Girbal
- The Success MythUploaded byFmga Ga
- bresler subservientUploaded byapi-281731209
- Analyzing the English TestUploaded bySyilvia Scorvie
- unit plan 1Uploaded byapi-281845173
- Environmental Scanning TechniquesUploaded bydvkris
- Aphasic Discourse Analysis (1)Uploaded bykicsireka
- 1. Sounds EverywhereUploaded byBulah Goribau
- 7- IELTS Writing Task 2 Essay TemplatesUploaded byakburiro89
- Prelim Exam LogicUploaded byANNALENE OLIT
- SandelUploaded byarabelm
- Legal Argumentation and EvidenceUploaded byGuillaume Haddad
- SCHOOLING THE WORLD Discussion GuideUploaded bySTW2010
- Writing-unit-2-ticket.docxUploaded bySaid Sibouih
- Spiritual Research InstituteUploaded bysubin16988
- Ppt Sister Calista Roy1Uploaded byJohaina Tiang