Professional Documents
Culture Documents
16, 2017
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
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
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) ,
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
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),
TGi ( x) TAi ( x) TBi ( x) TAi ( x) TBi ( x), A(x) = {x : [x]R X }= {1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9}.
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,
( 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
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,
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
= {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,
( A B) ( x) inf {TNm( A B) ( x) | x X } ( x) T Ai ( y ),
i i i
TNm TNm (~ A) 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
[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.