You are on page 1of 8

Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol.

20, 2018 36

University of New Mexico

Further results on (∈, ∈)-neutrosophic subalgebras and ideals in


BCK/BCI-algebras

G. Muhiuddin1 , Hashem Bordbar2 , Florentin Smarandache3 , Young Bae Jun4,∗


1 Department of Mathematics, University of Tabuk, Tabuk 71491, Saudi Arabia. e-mail: chishtygm@gmail.com
2 Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran. e-mail: bordbar.amirh@gmail.com
3 Mathematics & Science Department, University of New Mexico. 705 Gurley Ave., Gallup, NM 87301, USA. e-mail: fsmarandache@gmail.com
4 Department of Mathematics Education, Gyeongsang National University, Jinju 52828, Korea. e-mail: skywine@gmail.com
∗ Correspondence: Y.B. Jun (skywine@gmail.com)

Abstract: Characterizations of an (∈, ∈)-neutrosophic ideal are ∈)-neutrosophic subalgebra to be a (∈, ∈)-neutrosophic ideal are
considered. Any ideal in a BCK/BCI-algebra will be realized as provided. Using a collection of ideals in a BCK/BCI-algebra, an
level neutrosophic ideals of some (∈, ∈)-neutrosophic ideal. The re- (∈, ∈)-neutrosophic ideal is established. Equivalence relations on
lation between (∈, ∈)-neutrosophic ideal and (∈, ∈)-neutrosophic the family of all (∈, ∈)-neutrosophic ideals are introduced, and re-
subalgebra in a BCK-algebra is discussed. Conditions for an (∈, lated properties are investigated.

Keywords: (∈, ∈)-neutrosophic subalgebra, (∈, ∈)-neutrosophic ideal.

1 Introduction vestigated by several researchers.


By a BCI-algebra, we mean a set X with a special element 0
Neutrosophic set (NS) developed by Smarandache [8, 9, 10] in- and a binary operation ∗ that satisfies the following conditions:
troduced neutrosophic set (NS) as a more general platform which
extends the concepts of the classic set and fuzzy set, intuitionis- (I) (∀x, y, z ∈ X) (((x ∗ y) ∗ (x ∗ z)) ∗ (z ∗ y) = 0),
tic fuzzy set and interval valued intuitionistic fuzzy set. Neutro- (II) (∀x, y ∈ X) ((x ∗ (x ∗ y)) ∗ y = 0),
sophic set theory is applied to various part which is refered to the
site (III) (∀x ∈ X) (x ∗ x = 0),

http://fs.gallup.unm.edu/neutrosophy.htm. (IV) (∀x, y ∈ X) (x ∗ y = 0, y ∗ x = 0 ⇒ x = y).


Jun et al. studied neutrosophic subalgebras/ideals in If a BCI-algebra X satisfies the following identity:
BCK/BCI-algebras based on neutrosophic points (see [1], [5]
(V) (∀x ∈ X) (0 ∗ x = 0),
and [7]).
In this paper, we characterize an (∈, ∈)-neutrosophic ideal in a then X is called a BCK-algebra. Any BCK/BCI-algebra X
BCK/BCI-algebra. We show that any ideal in a BCK/BCI- satisfies the following conditions:
algebra can be realized as level neutrosophic ideals of some
(∈, ∈)-neutrosophic ideal. We investigate the relation between (∀x ∈ X) (x ∗ 0 = x) , (2.1)
(∈, ∈)-neutrosophic ideal and (∈, ∈)-neutrosophic subalgebra
 
x≤y ⇒ x∗z ≤y∗z
in a BCK-algebra. We provide conditions for an (∈, ∈)- (∀x, y, z ∈ X) , (2.2)
x≤y ⇒ z∗y ≤z∗x
neutrosophic subalgebra to be a (∈, ∈)-neutrosophic ideal. Using
(∀x, y, z ∈ X) ((x ∗ y) ∗ z = (x ∗ z) ∗ y) , (2.3)
a collection of ideals in a BCK/BCI-algebra, we establish an
(∈, ∈)-neutrosophic ideal. We discuss equivalence relations on (∀x, y, z ∈ X) ((x ∗ z) ∗ (y ∗ z) ≤ x ∗ y) (2.4)
the family of all (∈, ∈)-neutrosophic ideals, and investigate re-
where x ≤ y if and only if x ∗ y = 0. A nonempty subset S of a
lated properties.
BCK/BCI-algebra X is called a subalgebra of X if x ∗ y ∈ S
for all x, y ∈ S. A subset I of a BCK/BCI-algebra X is called
2 Preliminaries an ideal of X if it satisfies:

A BCK/BCI-algebra is an important class of logical algebras 0 ∈ I, (2.5)


introduced by K. Iséki (see [2] and [3]) and was extensively in- (∀x ∈ X) (∀y ∈ I) (x ∗ y ∈ I ⇒ x ∈ I) . (2.6)

G. Muhiuddin, H. Bordbar, F. Smarandache, Y.B. Jun, Further results on (∈, ∈)-neutrosophic subalgebras and ideals
in BCK/BCI-algebras
Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 20, 2018 37

We refer the reader to the books [4, 6] for further information and
regarding BCK/BCI-algebras.  
x ∗ y ∈ T∈ (A∼ ; αx ), y ∈ T∈ (A∼ ; αy )
For any family {ai | i ∈ Λ} of real numbers, we define  ⇒ x ∈ T∈ (A∼ ; αx ∧ αy ) 
 
 x ∗ y ∈ I∈ (A∼ ; βx ), y ∈ I∈ (A∼ ; βy ) 
(∀x, y ∈ X) 
_
{ai | i ∈ Λ} := sup{ai | i ∈ Λ}


 ⇒ x ∈ I∈ (A∼ ; βx ∧ βy ) 

 x ∗ y ∈ F∈ (A∼ ; γx ), y ∈ F∈ (A∼ ; γy ) 
and ⇒ x ∈ F∈ (A∼ ; γx ∨ γy )
^ (2.9)
{ai | i ∈ Λ} := inf{ai | i ∈ Λ}.
for all αx , αy , βx , βy ∈ (0, 1] and γx , γy ∈ [0, 1).
W If Λ = {1, 2}, weVwill also use a1 ∨ a2 and a1 ∧ a2 instead of
{ai | i ∈ Λ} and {ai | i ∈ Λ}, respectively.
Let X be a non-empty set. A neutrosophic set (NS) in X (see
3 (∈, ∈)-neutrosophic subalgebras and
[9]) is a structure of the form: ideals
A∼ := {hx; AT (x), AI (x), AF (x)i | x ∈ X} We first provide characterizations of an (∈, ∈)-neutrosophic
ideal.
where AT : X → [0, 1] is a truth membership function,
Theorem 3.1. Given a neutrosophic set A∼ = (AT , AI , AF ) in
AI : X → [0, 1] is an indeterminate membership function, and
a BCK/BCI-algebra X, the following assertions are equiva-
AF : X → [0, 1] is a false membership function. For the sake of
lent.
simplicity, we shall use the symbol A∼ = (AT , AI , AF ) for the
neutrosophic set (1) A∼ = (AT , AI , AF ) is an (∈, ∈)-neutrosophic ideal of X.

A∼ := {hx; AT (x), AI (x), AF (x)i | x ∈ X}. (2) A∼ = (AT , AI , AF ) satisfies the following assertions.
 
AT (0) ≥ AT (x),
Given a neutrosophic set A∼ = (AT , AI , AF ) in a set X,
(∀x ∈ X)  AI (0) ≥ AI (x),  (3.1)
α, β ∈ (0, 1] and γ ∈ [0, 1), we consider the following sets:
AF (0) ≤ AF (x)
T∈ (A∼ ; α) := {x ∈ X | AT (x) ≥ α}, and
I∈ (A∼ ; β) := {x ∈ X | AI (x) ≥ β},  
AT (x) ≥ AT (x ∗ y) ∧ AT (y)
F∈ (A∼ ; γ) := {x ∈ X | AF (x) ≤ γ}.
(∀x, y ∈ X)  AI (x) ≥ AI (x ∗ y) ∧ AI (y)  (3.2)
We say T∈ (A∼ ; α), I∈ (A∼ ; β) and F∈ (A∼ ; γ) are neutrosophic AF (x) ≤ AF (x ∗ y) ∨ AF (y)
∈-subsets.
Proof. Assume that A∼ = (AT , AI , AF ) is an (∈, ∈)-
A neutrosophic set A∼ = (AT , AI , AF ) in a BCK/BCI-
neutrosophic ideal of X. Suppose there exist a, b, c ∈ X be
algebra X is called an (∈, ∈)-neutrosophic subalgebra of X (see
such that AT (0) < AT (a), AI (0) < AI (b) and AF (0) >
[5]) if the following assertions are valid.
AF (c). Then a ∈ T∈ (A∼ ; AT (a)), b ∈ I∈ (A∼ ; AI (b)) and

x ∈ T∈ (A∼ ; αx ), y ∈ T∈ (A∼ ; αy )
 c ∈ F∈ (A∼ ; AF (c)). But
 ⇒ x ∗ y ∈ T∈ (A∼ ; αx ∧ αy ), 

 x ∈ I∈ (A∼ ; βx ), y ∈ I∈ (A∼ ; βy )

 0∈
/ T∈ (A∼ ; AT (a)) ∩ I∈ (A∼ ; AI (b)) ∩ F∈ (A∼ ; AF (c)).
(∀x, y ∈ X)    (2.7)
 ⇒ x ∗ y ∈ I∈ (A ∼ ; βx ∧ βy ), 
 This is a contradiction, and thus AT (0) ≥ AT (x), AI (0) ≥
 x ∈ F∈ (A∼ ; γx ), y ∈ F∈ (A∼ ; γy ) 
AI (x) and AF (0) ≤ AF (x) for all x ∈ X. Suppose that
⇒ x ∗ y ∈ F∈ (A∼ ; γx ∨ γy ) AT (x) < AT (x ∗ y) ∧ AT (y), AI (a) < AI (a ∗ b) ∧ AI (b)
and AF (c) > AF (c ∗ d) ∨ AF (d) for some x, y, a, b, c, d ∈ X.
for all αx , αy , βx , βy ∈ (0, 1] and γx , γy ∈ [0, 1).
Taking α := AT (x∗y)∧AT (y), β := AI (a∗b)∧AI (b) and γ :=
A neutrosophic set A∼ = (AT , AI , AF ) in a BCK/BCI- AF (c∗d)∨AF (d) imply that x∗y ∈ T∈ (A∼ ; α), y ∈ T∈ (A∼ ; α),
algebra X is called an (∈, ∈)-neutrosophic ideal of X (see [7]) a ∗ b ∈ I∈ (A∼ ; β), b ∈ I∈ (A∼ ; β), c ∗ d ∈ F∈ (A∼ ; γ) and
if the following assertions are valid. d ∈ F∈ (A∼ ; γ). But x ∈ / T∈ (A∼ ; α), a ∈ / I∈ (A∼ ; β) and
  c∈/ F∈ (A∼ ; γ). This is impossible, and so (3.2) is valid.
x ∈ T∈ (A∼ ; αx ) ⇒ 0 ∈ T∈ (A∼ ; αx ) Conversely, suppose A∼ = (AT , AI , AF ) satisfies two con-
(∀x ∈ X)  x ∈ I∈ (A∼ ; βx ) ⇒ 0 ∈ I∈ (A∼ ; βx )  (2.8) ditions (3.1) and (3.2). For any x, y, z ∈ X, let α, β ∈ (0, 1]
x ∈ F∈ (A∼ ; γx ) ⇒ 0 ∈ F∈ (A∼ ; γx ) and γ ∈ [0, 1) be such that x ∈ T∈ (A∼ ; α), y ∈ I∈ (A∼ ; β) and

G. Muhiuddin, H. Bordbar, F. Smarandache, Y.B. Jun, Further results on (∈, ∈)-neutrosophic subalgebras and ideals in
BCK/BCI-algebras
38 Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 20, 2018

z ∈ F∈ (A∼ ; γ). It follows from (3.1) that AT (0) ≥ AT (x) ≥ α, that


AI (0) ≥ AI (y) ≥ β and AF (0) ≤ AF (z) ≤ γ and so that
0 ∈ T∈ (A∼ ; α)∩I∈ (A∼ ; β)∩F∈ (A∼ ; γ). Let a, b, c, d, x, y ∈ X AT (x) < AT (x ∗ y) ∧ AT (y),
be such that a ∗ b ∈ T∈ (A∼ ; αa ), b ∈ T∈ (A∼ ; αb ), c ∗ d ∈ AI (a) < AI (a ∗ b) ∧ AI (b),
I∈ (A∼ ; βc ), d ∈ I∈ (A∼ ; βd ), x ∗ y ∈ F∈ (A∼ ; γx ), and y ∈ AF (u) > AF (u ∗ v) ∨ AF (v)
F∈ (A∼ ; γy ) for αa , αb , βc , βd ∈ (0, 1] and γx , γy ∈ [0, 1). Us-
for some x, y, a, b, u, v ∈ X. Taking α := AT (x ∗ y) ∧ AT (y),
ing (3.2), we have
β := AI (a ∗ b) ∧ AI (b) and γ := AF (u ∗ v) ∨ AF (v) imply that
AT (a) ≥ AT (a ∗ b) ∧ AT (b) ≥ αa ∧ αb α, β ∈ (0, 1], γ ∈ [0, 1), x ∗ y ∈ T∈ (A∼ ; α), y ∈ T∈ (A∼ ; α),
AI (c) ≥ AI (c ∗ d) ∧ AI (d) ≥ βc ∧ βd a ∗ b ∈ I∈ (A∼ ; β), b ∈ I∈ (A∼ ; β), u ∗ v ∈ F∈ (A∼ ; γ) and
AF (x) ≤ AF (x ∗ y) ∨ AF (y) ≤ γx ∨ γy . v ∈ F∈ (A∼ ; γ). But x ∈ / T∈ (A∼ ; α), a ∈
/ I∈ (A∼ ; β) and u ∈ /
F∈ (A∼ ; γ). This is a contradiction since T∈ (A∼ ; α), I∈ (A∼ ; β)
Hence a ∈ T∈ (A∼ ; αa ∧ αb ), c ∈ I∈ (A∼ ; βc ∧ βd ) and x ∈ and F∈ (A∼ ; γ) are ideals of X. Thus
F∈ (A∼ ; γx ∨ γy ). Therefore A∼ = (AT , AI , AF ) is an (∈, ∈)-
neutrosophic ideal of X. AT (x) ≥ AT (x ∗ y) ∧ AT (y),
AI (x) ≥ AI (x ∗ y) ∧ AI (y),
Theorem 3.2. Let A∼ = (AT , AI , AF ) be a neutrosophic set AF (x) ≤ AF (x ∗ y) ∨ AF (y)
in a BCK/BCI-algebra X. Then the following assertions are
equivalent. for all x, y ∈ X. Therefore A∼ = (AT , AI , AF ) is an (∈,
∈)-neutrosophic ideal of X by Theorem 3.1.
(1) A∼ = (AT , AI , AF ) is an (∈, ∈)-neutrosophic ideal of X.

(2) The nonempty neutrosophic ∈-subsets T∈ (A∼ ; α),


I∈ (A∼ ; β) and F∈ (A∼ ; γ) are ideals of X for all Proposition 3.3. Every (∈, ∈)-neutrosophic ideal A =

α, β ∈ (0, 1] and γ ∈ [0, 1). (AT , AI , AF ) of a BCK/BCI-algebra X satisfies the follow-
Proof. Let A∼ = (AT , AI , AF ) be an (∈, ∈)-neutrosophic ideal ing assertions.
of X and assume that T∈ (A∼ ; α), I∈ (A∼ ; β) and F∈ (A∼ ; γ) are   
 AT (x) ≥ AT (y)
nonempty for α, β ∈ (0, 1] and γ ∈ [0, 1). Then there exist (∀x, y ∈ X) x ≤ y ⇒ AI (x) ≥ AI (y)  , (3.3)
x, y, z ∈ X such that x ∈ T∈ (A∼ ; α), y ∈ I∈ (A∼ ; β) and z ∈ 
AF (x) ≤ AF (y)
F∈ (A∼ ; γ). It follows from (2.8) that   
 AT (x) ≥ AT (y) ∧ AT (z)
0 ∈ T∈ (A∼ ; α) ∩ I∈ (A∼ ; β) ∩ F∈ (A∼ ; γ). (∀x, y, z ∈ X) x ∗ y ≤ z ⇒ AI (x) ≥ AI (y) ∧ AI (z)  .
AF (x) ≤ AF (y) ∨ AF (z)

Let x, y, a, b, u, v ∈ X be such that x ∗ y ∈ T∈ (A∼ ; α), (3.4)
y ∈ T∈ (A∼ ; α), a ∗ b ∈ I∈ (A∼ ; β), b ∈ I∈ (A∼ ; β), u ∗ v ∈
F∈ (A∼ ; γ) and v ∈ F∈ (A∼ ; γ). Then Proof. Let x, y ∈ X be such that x ≤ y. Then x ∗ y = 0, and so
AT (x) ≥ AT (x ∗ y) ∧ AT (y) ≥ α ∧ α = α AT (x) ≥ AT (x ∗ y) ∧ AT (y) = AT (0) ∧ AT (y) = AT (y),
AI (a) ≥ AI (a ∗ b) ∧ AI (b) ≥ β ∧ β = β
AI (x) ≥ AI (x ∗ y) ∧ AI (y) = AI (0) ∧ AI (y) = AI (y),
AF (u) ≤ AF (u ∗ v) ∨ AF (v) ≤ γ ∨ γ = γ
AF (x) ≤ AF (x ∗ y) ∨ AF (y) = AF (0) ∨ AF (y) = AF (y)
by (3.2), and so x ∈ T∈ (A∼ ; α), a ∈ I∈ (A∼ ; β) and
u ∈ F∈ (A∼ ; γ). Hence the nonempty neutrosophic ∈-subsets by Theorem 3.1. Hence (3.3) is valid. Let x, y, z ∈ X be such
T∈ (A∼ ; α), I∈ (A∼ ; β) and F∈ (A∼ ; γ) are ideals of X for all that x ∗ y ≤ z. Then (x ∗ y) ∗ z = 0, and thus
α, β ∈ (0, 1] and γ ∈ [0, 1).
AT (x) ≥ AT (x ∗ y) ∧ AT (y)
Conversely, let A∼ = (AT , AI , AF ) be a neutrosophic
set in X for which T∈ (A∼ ; α), I∈ (A∼ ; β) and F∈ (A∼ ; γ) ≥ (AT ((x ∗ y) ∗ z) ∧ AT (z)) ∧ AT (y)
are nonempty and are ideals of X for all α, β ∈ (0, 1] and ≥ (AT (0) ∧ AT (z)) ∧ AT (y)
γ ∈ [0, 1). Assume that AT (0) < AT (x), AI (0) < AI (y) ≥ AT (z) ∧ AT (y),
and AF (0) > AF (z) for some x, y, z ∈ X. Then x ∈
T∈ (A∼ ; AT (x)), y ∈ I∈ (A∼ ; AI (y)) and z ∈ F∈ (A∼ ; AF (z)),
that is, T∈ (A∼ ; α), I∈ (A∼ ; β) and F∈ (A∼ ; γ) are nonempty. AI (x) ≥ AI (x ∗ y) ∧ AI (y)
But 0 ∈ / T∈ (A∼ ; AT (x)) ∩ I∈ (A∼ ; AI (y)) ∩ F∈ (A∼ ; AF (z)), ≥ (AI ((x ∗ y) ∗ z) ∧ AI (z)) ∧ AI (y)
which is a contradiction since T∈ (A∼ ; AT (x)), I∈ (A∼ ; AI (y))
≥ (AI (0) ∧ AI (z)) ∧ AI (y)
and F∈ (A∼ ; AF (z)) are ideals of X. Hence AT (0) ≥ AT (x),
AI (0) ≥ AI (x) and AF (0) ≤ AF (x) for all x ∈ X. Suppose ≥ AI (z) ∧ AI (y)

G. Muhiuddin, H. Bordbar, F. Smarandache, Y.B. Jun, Further results on (∈, ∈)-neutrosophic subalgebras and ideals
in BCK/BCI-algebras
Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 20, 2018 39

and If x ∗ y ∈ I and y ∈
/ I, then

AF (x) ≤ AF (x ∗ y) ∨ AF (y) AT (x ∗ y) = α and AT (y) = 0,


≤ (AF ((x ∗ y) ∗ z) ∨ AF (z)) ∨ AF (y) AI (x ∗ y) = β and AI (y) = 0,
AF (x ∗ y) = γ and AF (y) = 1,
≤ (AF (0) ∨ AF (z)) ∨ AF (y)
≤ AF (z) ∨ AF (y) It follows that

by Theorem 3.1. AT (x) ≥ 0 = AT (x ∗ y) ∧ AT (y),


AI (x) ≥ 0 = AI (x ∗ y) ∧ AI (y),
AF (x) ≤ 1 = AF (x ∗ y) ∨ AF (y).
Theorem 3.4. Any ideal of a BCK/BCI-algebra X can be re-
Similarly, if x ∗ y ∈
/ I and y ∈ I, then
alized as level neutrosophic ideals of some (∈, ∈)-neutrosophic
ideal of X. AT (x) ≥ AT (x ∗ y) ∧ AT (y),
AI (x) ≥ AI (x ∗ y) ∧ AI (y),
Proof. Let I be an ideal of a BCK/BCI-algebra X and let AF (x) ≤ AF (x ∗ y) ∨ AF (y).
A∼ = (AT , AI , AF ) be a neutrosophic set in X given as fol-
lows: Therefore A∼ = (AT , AI , AF ) is an (∈, ∈)-neutrosophic ideal
 of X by Theorem 3.1. This completes the proof.
α if x ∈ I,
AT : X → [0, 1], x 7→
0 otherwise, Lemma 3.5 ([5]). A neutrosophic set A∼ = (AT , AI , AF ) in a

β if x ∈ I, BCK/BCI-algebra X is an (∈, ∈)-neutrosophic subalgebra of
AI : X → [0, 1], x 7→
0 otherwise, X if and only if it satisfies:

γ if x ∈ I, 
AT (x ∗ y) ≥ AT (x) ∧ AT (y)

AF : X → [0, 1], x 7→
1 otherwise (∀x, y ∈ X)  AI (x ∗ y) ≥ AI (x) ∧ AI (y)  . (3.5)
AF (x ∗ y) ≤ AF (x) ∨ AF (y)
where (α, β, γ) is a fixed ordered triple in (0, 1] × (0, 1] × [0, 1).
Then T∈ (A∼ ; α) = I, I∈ (A∼ ; β) = I and F∈ (A∼ ; γ) = I. Theorem 3.6. In a BCK-algebra, every (∈, ∈)-neutrosophic
Obviously, AT (0) ≥ AT (x), AI (0) ≥ AI (x) and AF (0) ≤ ideal is an (∈, ∈)-neutrosophic subalgebra.
AF (x) for all x ∈ X. Let x, y ∈ X. If x ∗ y ∈ I and y ∈ I, then
x ∈ I. Hence Proof. Let A∼ = (AT , AI , AF ) be an (∈, ∈)-neutrosophic ideal
of a BCK-algebra X. Since x∗y ≤ x for all x, y ∈ X, it follows
AT (x ∗ y) = AT (y) = AT (x) = α, from Proposition 3.3 and (3.2) that
AI (x ∗ y) = AI (y) = AI (x) = β,
AT (x ∗ y) ≥ AT (x) ≥ AT (x ∗ y) ∧ AT (y) ≥ AT (x) ∧ AT (y),
AF (x ∗ y) = AF (y) = AF (x) = γ,
AI (x ∗ y) ≥ AI (x) ≥ AI (x ∗ y) ∧ AI (y) ≥ AI (x) ∧ AI (y),
and so AF (x ∗ y) ≤ AF (x) ≤ AF (x ∗ y) ∨ AF (y) ≤ AF (x) ∨ AF (y).

AT (x) ≥ AT (x ∗ y) ∧ AT (y), Therefore A∼ = (AT , AI , AF ) is an (∈, ∈)-neutrosophic subal-


gebra of X by Lemma 3.5.
AI (x) ≥ AI (x ∗ y) ∧ AI (y),
AF (x) ≤ AF (x ∗ y) ∨ AF (y). The following example shows that the converse of Theorem
3.6 is not true in general.
If x ∗ y ∈
/ I and y ∈
/ I, then
Example 3.7. Consider a set X = {0, 1, 2, 3} with the binary
AT (x ∗ y) = AT (y) = 0, operation ∗ which is given in Table 1.
AI (x ∗ y) = AI (y) = 0, Then (X; ∗, 0) is a BCK-algebra (see [6]). Let A∼ = (AT , AI ,
AF ) be a neutrosophic set in X defined by Table 2
AF (x ∗ y) = AF (y) = 1.
It is routine to verify that A∼ = (AT , AI , AF ) is an (∈, ∈)-
Thus neutrosophic subalgebra of X. We know that I∈ (A∼ ; β) is an
ideal of X for all β ∈ (0, 1]. If α ∈ (0.3, 0.7], then T∈ (A∼ ; α) =
AT (x) ≥ AT (x ∗ y) ∧ AT (y), {0, 1, 3} is not an ideal of X. Also, if γ ∈ [0.2, 0.8), then
F∈ (A∼ ; γ) = {0, 1, 3} is not an ideal of X. Therefore A∼ =
AI (x) ≥ AI (x ∗ y) ∧ AI (y),
(AT , AI , AF ) is not an (∈, ∈)-neutrosophic ideal of X by The-
AF (x) ≤ AF (x ∗ y) ∨ AF (y). orem 3.2.

G. Muhiuddin, H. Bordbar, F. Smarandache, Y.B. Jun, Further results on (∈, ∈)-neutrosophic subalgebras and ideals in
BCK/BCI-algebras
40 Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 20, 2018

ing two cases:


Table 1: Cayley table for the binary operation “∗”
_ _
∗ 0 1 2 3 α = {i ∈ ΛT | i < α} and α 6= {i ∈ ΛT | i < α}.
0 0 0 0 0
1 1 0 0 1 First case implies that
2 2 1 0 2
x ∈ T∈ (A∼ ; α) ⇔ x ∈ Di for all i < α
3 3 3 3 0 (3.9)
⇔ x ∈ ∩{Di | i < α}.

Hence T∈ (A∼ ; α) = ∩{Di | i < α}, which is an ideal of X. For


Table 2: Tabular representation of A∼ = (AT , AI , AF ) the second case, we claim that T∈ (A∼ ; α) = ∪{Di | i ≥ α}.
If x ∈ ∪{Di | i ≥ α}, then x ∈ Di for some i ≥ α. Thus
X AT (x) AI (x) AF (x) AT (x) ≥ i ≥ α, and so x ∈ T∈ (A∼ ; α). If Wx ∈ / ∪{Di | i ≥ α},
0 0.7 0.9 0.2 then x ∈ / Di for all i ≥ α. Since α 6= {i ∈ ΛT | i < α},
1 0.7 0.6 0.2 there exists ε > 0 such that (α − ε, α) ∩ ΛT = ∅. Hence x ∈ / Di
2 0.3 0.6 0.8 for all i > α − ε, which means that if x ∈ Di then i ≤ α − ε.
3 0.7 0.4 0.2 Thus AT (x) ≤ α − ε < α, and so x ∈ / T∈ (A∼ ; α). Therefore
T∈ (A∼ ; α) = ∪{Di | i ≥ α} which is an ideal of X since {Dk }
forms a chain. Similarly, we can verify that I∈ (A∼ ; β) is an ideal
of X. Finally, we consider the following two cases:
We give a condition for an (∈, ∈)-neutrosophic subalgebra to ^ ^
be an (∈, ∈)-neutrosophic ideal. γ = {j ∈ ΛF | γ < j} and γ 6= {j ∈ ΛF | γ < j}.
Theorem 3.8. Let A∼ = (AT , AI , AF ) be a neutrosophic set
For the first case, we have
in a BCK-algebra X. If A∼ = (AT , AI , AF ) is an (∈, ∈)-
neutrosophic subalgebra of X that satisfies the condition (3.4), x ∈ F∈ (A∼ ; γ) ⇔ x ∈ Dj for all j > γ
then it is an (∈, ∈)-neutrosophic ideal of X. (3.10)
⇔ x ∈ ∩{Dj | j > γ},
Proof. Taking x = y in (3.5) and using (III) induce the condition
and thus F∈ (A∼ ; γ) = ∩{Dj | j > γ} which is an ideal of X.
(3.1). Since x ∗ (x ∗ y) ≤ y for all x, y ∈ X, it follows from (3.4)
The second case implies that F∈ (A∼ ; γ) = ∪{Dj | j ≤ γ}. In
that
fact, if x ∈ ∪{Dj | j ≤ γ}, then x ∈ Dj for some j ≤ γ. Thus
AT (x) ≥ AT (x ∗ y) ∧ AT (y), AF (x) ≤ j ≤ γ, that is, x ∈ F∈ (A∼ ; γ). Hence ∪{Dj | j ≤
AI (x) ≥ AI (x ∗ y) ∧ AI (y), γ} ⊆ F∈ (A∼ ; γ). NowVif x ∈ / ∪{Dj | j ≤ γ}, then x ∈ / Dj for
AF (x) ≤ AF (x ∗ y) ∨ AF (y) all j ≤ γ. Since γ 6= {j ∈ ΛF | γ < j}, there exists ε > 0
such that (γ, γ+ε)∩ΛF is empty. Hence x ∈ / Dj for all j < γ+ε,
for all x, y ∈ X. Therefore A∼ = (AT , AI , AF ) is an (∈, and so if x ∈ Dj , then j ≥ γ + ε. Thus AF (x) ≥ γ + ε > γ, and
∈)-neutrosophic ideal of X by Theorem 3.1. hence x ∈ / F∈ (A∼ ; γ). Thus F∈ (A∼ ; γ) ⊆ ∪{Dj | j ≤ γ}, and
therefore F∈ (A∼ ; γ) = ∪{Dj | j ≤ γ} which is an ideal of X.
Theorem 3.9. Let {Dk | k ∈ ΛT ∪ ΛI ∪ ΛF } be a collection of Consequently, A = (A , A , A ) is an (∈, ∈)-neutrosophic
∼ T I F
ideals of a BCK/BCI-algebra X, where ΛT , ΛI and ΛF are ideal of X by Theorem 3.2.
nonempty subsets of [0, 1], such that
A mapping f : X → Y of BCK/BCI-algebras is called
X = {Dα | α ∈ ΛT } ∪ {Dβ | β ∈ ΛI } ∪ {Dγ | γ ∈ ΛF },
a homomorphism if f (x ∗ y) = f (x) ∗ f (y) for all x, y ∈ X.
(3.6)
Note that if f : X → Y is a homomorphism of BCK/BCI-
T I F
(∀i, j ∈ Λ ∪ Λ ∪ Λ ) (i > j ⇔ Di ⊂ Dj ) . (3.7) algebras, then f (0) = 0. Given a homomorphism f : X → Y
of BCK/BCI-algebras and a neutrosophic set A∼ = (AT , AI ,
Let A∼ = (AT , AI , AF ) be a neutrosophic set in X defined as A ) in Y , we define a neutrosophic set Af = (Af , Af , Af ) in
F ∼ T I F
follows: X, which is called the induced neutrosophic set, as follows:
AT : X → [0, 1], x 7→ W {α ∈ ΛT | x ∈ Dα },
W
AfT : X → [0, 1], x 7→ AT (f (x)),
AI : X → [0, 1], x 7→ V{β ∈ ΛI | x ∈ Dβ }, (3.8)
AfI : X → [0, 1], x 7→ AI (f (x)),
AF : X → [0, 1], x 7→ {γ ∈ ΛF | x ∈ Dγ }.
AfF : X → [0, 1], x 7→ AF (f (x)).
Then A∼ = (AT , AI , AF ) is an (∈, ∈)-neutrosophic ideal of X.
Theorem 3.10. Let f : X → Y be a homomorphism of
Proof. Let α, β ∈ (0, 1] and γ ∈ [0, 1) be such that T∈ (A∼ ; α) 6= BCK/BCI-algebras. If A∼ = (AT , AI , AF ) is an (∈,
∅, I∈ (A∼ ; β) 6= ∅ and F∈ (A∼ ; γ) 6= ∅. We consider the follow- ∈)-neutrosophic ideal of Y , then the induced neutrosophic set

G. Muhiuddin, H. Bordbar, F. Smarandache, Y.B. Jun, Further results on (∈, ∈)-neutrosophic subalgebras and ideals
in BCK/BCI-algebras
Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 20, 2018 41

Af∼ = (AfT , AfI , AfF ) in X is an (∈, ∈)-neutrosophic ideal of X. AI (x) = AI (f (a)) = AfI (a)
≥ AfI (a ∗ b) ∧ AfI (b)
Proof. For any x ∈ X, we have
= AI (f (a ∗ b)) ∧ AI (f (b))
AfT (x) = AT (f (x)) ≤ AT (0) = AT (f (0)) = AfT (0), = AI (f (a) ∗ f (b)) ∧ AI (f (b))
AfI (x) = AI (f (x)) ≤ AI (0) = AI (f (0)) = AfI (0), = AI (x ∗ y) ∧ AI (y),
AfF (x) = AF (f (x)) ≥ AF (0) = AF (f (0)) = AfF (0).
and
Let x, y ∈ X. Then
AF (x) = AF (f (a)) = AfF (a)
AfT (x
∗ y) ∧ AfT (y)= AT (f (x ∗ y)) ∧ AT (f (y))
≤ AfF (a ∗ b) ∨ AfF (b)
= AT (f (x) ∗ f (y)) ∧ AT (f (y))
= AF (f (a ∗ b)) ∨ AF (f (b))
≤ AT (f (x)) = AfT (x), = AF (f (a) ∗ f (b)) ∨ AF (f (b))
= AF (x ∗ y) ∨ AF (y).
AfI (x ∗ y) ∧ AfI (y) = AI (f (x ∗ y)) ∧ AI (f (y))
Therefore A∼ = (AT , AI , AF ) is an (∈, ∈)-neutrosophic ideal
= AI (f (x) ∗ f (y)) ∧ AI (f (y)) of Y by Theorem 3.1.
≤ AI (f (x)) = AfI (x),
Let N(∈,∈) (X) be the collection of all (∈, ∈)-neutrosophic
and ideals of X and let α, β ∈ (0, 1] and γ ∈ [0, 1). Define binary
β γ
relations Rα
T , RI and RF on N(∈,∈) (X) as follows:
AfF (x ∗ y) ∨ AfF (y) = AF (f (x ∗ y)) ∨ AF (f (y))
AT Rα
T BT ⇔ T∈ (A∼ ; α) = T∈ (B∼ ; α)
= AF (f (x) ∗ f (y)) ∨ AF (f (y)) β
AI RI BI ⇔ I∈ (A∼ ; β) = I∈ (B∼ ; β) (3.11)
≥ AF (f (x)) = AfF (x). AF RγF BF ⇔ F∈ (A∼ ; γ) = F∈ (B∼ ; γ)

Therefore Af∼ = (AfT , AfI , AfF ) is an (∈, ∈)-neutrosophic ideal for all A∼ = (AT , AI , AF ) and B∼ = (BT , BI , BF ) in
of X by Theorem 3.1. N(∈,∈) (X).
β γ
Clearly Rα T , RI and RF are equivalence relations on
N(∈,∈) (X). For any A∼ = (AT , AI , AF ) ∈ N(∈,∈) (X),
Theorem 3.11. Let f : X → Y be an onto homomorphism of
let [A∼ ]T (resp., [A∼ ]I and [A∼ ]F ) denote the equivalence
BCK/BCI-algebras and let A∼ = (AT , AI , AF ) be a neutro-
class of A∼ = (AT , AI , AF ) in N(∈,∈) (X) under Rα T (resp.,
sophic set in Y . If the induced neutrosophic set Af∼ = (AfT , AfI , β γ α β
R and R ). Denote by N (X)/R , N (X)/R I and
AfF ) in X is an (∈, ∈)-neutrosophic ideal of X, then A∼ = (AT , I F
γ
(∈,∈) T (∈,∈)
N(∈,∈) (X)/RF the collection of all equivalence classes under
AI , AF ) is an (∈, ∈)-neutrosophic ideal of Y . β γ
RαT , RI and RF , respectively, that is,

Proof. Assume that the induced neutrosophic set Af∼ = (AfT , N(∈,∈) (X)/RαT = {[A∼ ]T | A∼ = (AT , AI , AF ) ∈ N(∈,∈) (X),
AfI , AfF ) in X is an (∈, ∈)-neutrosophic ideal of X. For any β
N(∈,∈) (X)/RI = {[A∼ ]I | A∼ = (AT , AI , AF ) ∈ N(∈,∈) (X),
x ∈ Y , there exists a ∈ X such that f (a) = x since f is onto. N(∈,∈) (X)/RγF = {[A∼ ]F | A∼ = (AT , AI , AF ) ∈ N(∈,∈) (X).
Using (3.1), we have
Now let I(X) denote the family of all ideals of X. Define
AT (x) = AT (f (a)) = AfT (a) ≤ AfT (0) = AT (f (0)) = AT (0), maps fα , gβ and hγ from N(∈,∈) (X) to I(X) ∪ {∅} by
AI (x) = AI (f (a)) = AfI (a) ≤ AfI (0) = AI (f (0)) = AI (0), fα (A∼ ) = T∈ (A∼ ; α), gβ (A∼ ) = I∈ (A∼ ; β) and
AF (x) = AF (f (a)) = AfF (a) ≥ AfF (0) = AF (f (0)) = AF (0). hγ (A∼ ) = F∈ (A∼ ; γ),
respectively, for all A∼ = (AT , AI , AF ) in N(∈,∈) (X). Then
Let x, y ∈ Y . Then f (a) = x and f (b) = y for some a, b ∈ X. fα , gβ and hγ are clearly well-defined.
It follows from (3.2) that
Theorem 3.12. For any α, β ∈ (0, 1] and γ ∈ [0, 1), the maps
AT (x) = AT (f (a)) = AfT (a) fα , gβ and hγ are surjective from N(∈,∈) (X) to I(X) ∪ {∅}.
≥ AfT (a ∗ b) ∧ AfT (b) Proof. Let 0∼ := (0T , 0I , 1F ) be a neutrosophic set in X where
= AT (f (a ∗ b)) ∧ AT (f (b)) 0T , 0I and 1F are fuzzy sets in X defined by 0T (x) = 0,
0I (x) = 0 and 1F (x) = 1 for all x ∈ X. Obviously,
= AT (f (a) ∗ f (b)) ∧ AT (f (b))
0∼ := (0T , 0I , 1F ) is an (∈, ∈)-neutrosophic ideal of X.
= AT (x ∗ y) ∧ AT (y), Also, fα (0∼ ) = T∈ (0∼ ; α) = ∅, gβ (0∼ ) = I∈ (0∼ ; β) = ∅

G. Muhiuddin, H. Bordbar, F. Smarandache, Y.B. Jun, Further results on (∈, ∈)-neutrosophic subalgebras and ideals in
BCK/BCI-algebras
42 Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 20, 2018

and hγ (0∼ ) = F∈ (0∼ ; γ) = ∅. For any ideal I of X, let Proof. Consider the (∈, ∈)-neutrosophic ideal 0∼ := (0T , 0I ,
A∼ = (AT , AI , AF ) be the (∈, ∈)-neutrosophic ideal of X 1F ) of X which is given in the proof of Theorem 3.12. Then
in the proof of Theorem 3.4. Then fα (A∼ ) = T∈ (A∼ ; α) = I,
gβ (A∼ ) = I∈ (A∼ ; β) = I and hγ (A∼ ) = F∈ (A∼ ; γ) = I. ϕα (0∼ ) = fα (0∼ ) ∩ hα (0∼ ) = T∈ (0∼ ; α) ∩ F∈ (0∼ ; α) = ∅,
Therefore fα , gβ and hγ are surjective. ϕβ (0∼ ) = gβ (0∼ ) ∩ hβ (0∼ ) = I∈ (0∼ ; β) ∩ F∈ (0∼ ; β) = ∅.

For any ideal I of X, consider the (∈, ∈)-neutrosophic ideal


Theorem 3.13. The quotient sets N(∈,∈) (X)/Rα T , A = (A , A , A ) of X in the proof of Theorem 3.4. Then
∼ T I F
N(∈,∈) (X)/RβI and N(∈,∈) (X)/RγF are equivalent to
I(X) ∪ {∅} for any α, β ∈ (0, 1] and γ ∈ [0, 1). ϕα (A∼ ) = fα (A∼ ) ∩ hα (A∼ )
= T∈ (A∼ ; α) ∩ F∈ (A∼ ; α) = I
Proof. Let A∼ = (AT , AI , AF ) ∈ N(∈,∈) (X). For any α, β ∈
(0, 1] and γ ∈ [0, 1), define and
fα∗ : N(∈,∈) (X)/Rα
T → I(X) ∪ {∅}, [A∼ ]T 7→ fα (A∼ ), ϕβ (A∼ ) = gβ (A∼ ) ∩ hβ (A∼ )
∗ β
gβ : N(∈,∈) (X)/RI → I(X) ∪ {∅}, [A∼ ]I 7→ gβ (A∼ ),
= I∈ (A∼ ; β) ∩ F∈ (A∼ ; β) = I.
h∗γ : N(∈,∈) (X)/RγF → I(X) ∪ {∅}, [A∼ ]F 7→ hγ (A∼ ).
Therefore ϕα and ϕβ are surjective.
Assume that fα (A∼ ) = fα (B∼ ), gβ (A∼ ) = gβ (B∼ ) and
hγ (A∼ ) = hγ (B∼ ) for B∼ = (BT , BI , BF ) ∈ N(∈,∈) (X).
Then T∈ (A∼ ; α) = T∈ (B∼ ; α), I∈ (A∼ ; β) = I∈ (B∼ ; β) and
β
F∈ (A∼ ; γ) = F∈ (B∼ ; γ) which imply that AT Rα T BT , AI RI BI Theorem 3.15. For any α, β ∈ (0, 1), the quotient sets
γ
and AF RF BF . Hence [A∼ ]T = [B∼ ]T , [A∼ ]I = [B∼ ]I N(∈,∈) (X)/ϕα and N(∈,∈) (X)/ϕβ are equivalent to I(X) ∪
and [A∼ ]F = [B∼ ]F . Therefore fα∗ , gβ∗ and h∗γ are injec- {∅}.
tive. Consider the (∈, ∈)-neutrosophic ideal 0∼ := (0T , 0I ,
1F ) of X which is given in the proof of Theorem 3.12. Then
fα∗ ([0∼ ]T ) = fα (0∼ ) = T∈ (0∼ ; α) = ∅, gβ∗ ([0∼ ]I ) = gβ (0∼ ) = Proof. Given α, β ∈ (0, 1), define two maps ϕ∗α and ϕ∗β as fol-
I∈ (0∼ ; β) = ∅, and h∗γ ([0∼ ]F ) = hγ (0∼ ) = F∈ (0∼ ; γ) = ∅. lows:
For any ideal I of X, consider the (∈, ∈)-neutrosophic ideal
ϕ∗α : N(∈,∈) (X)/ϕα → I(X) ∪ {∅}, [A∼ ]Rα 7→ ϕα (A∼ ),
A∼ = (AT , AI , AF ) of X in the proof of Theorem 3.4. Then
ϕ∗β : N(∈,∈) (X)/ϕβ → I(X) ∪ {∅}, [A∼ ]Rβ 7→ ϕβ (A∼ ).
fα∗ ([A∼ ]T ) = fα (A∼ ) = T∈ (A∼ ; α) = I, gβ∗ ([A∼ ]I ) =
gβ (A∼ ) = I∈ (A∼ ; β) = I, and h∗γ ([A∼ ]F ) = hγ (A∼ ) =
If ϕ∗α ([A∼ ]Rα ) = ϕ∗α ([B∼ ]Rα ) and ϕ∗β [A∼ ]Rβ

=
F∈ (A∼ ; γ) = I. Hence fα∗ , gβ∗ and h∗γ are surjective, and the
ϕ∗β [B∼ ]Rβ for all [A∼ ]Rα , [B∼ ]Rα ∈ N(∈,∈) (X)/ϕα and

proof is over.
[A∼ ]Rβ , [B∼ ]Rβ ∈ N(∈,∈) (X)/ϕβ , then
For any α, β ∈ [0, 1], we define another relations Rα and Rβ fα (A∼ ) ∩ hα (A∼ ) = fα (B∼ ) ∩ hα (B∼ )
on N(∈,∈) (X) as follows:
and
(A∼ , B∼ ) ∈ Rα ⇔ T∈ (A∼ ; α) ∩ F∈ (A∼ ; α)
= T∈ (B∼ ; α) ∩ F∈ (B∼ ; α), gβ (A∼ ) ∩ hβ (A∼ ) = gβ (B∼ ) ∩ hβ (B∼ ),
(3.12)
(A∼ , B∼ ) ∈ Rβ ⇔ I∈ (A∼ ; β) ∩ F∈ (A∼ ; β)
= I∈ (B∼ ; β) ∩ F∈ (B∼ ; β) that is,

for all A∼ = (AT , AI , AF ) and B∼ = (BT , BI , BF ) in T∈ (A∼ ; α) ∩ F∈ (A∼ ; α) = T∈ (B∼ ; α) ∩ F∈ (B∼ ; α)


N(∈,∈) (X). Then the relations Rα and Rβ are also equivalence
relations on N(∈,∈) (X). and

Theorem 3.14. Given α, β ∈ (0, 1), we define two maps I∈ (A∼ ; β) ∩ F∈ (A∼ ; β) = I∈ (B∼ ; β) ∩ F∈ (B∼ ; β).

ϕα : N(∈,∈) (X) → I(X) ∪ {∅}, Hence (A∼ , B∼ ) ∈ Rα and (A∼ , B∼ ) ∈ Rβ . It follows that
A∼ 7→ fα (A∼ ) ∩ hα (A∼ ), [A∼ ]Rα = [B∼ ]Rα and [A∼ ]Rβ = [B∼ ]Rβ . Thus ϕ∗α and ϕ∗β
(3.13) are injective. Consider the (∈, ∈)-neutrosophic ideal 0∼ := (0T ,
ϕβ : N(∈,∈) (X) → I(X) ∪ {∅},
A∼ 7→ gβ (A∼ ) ∩ hβ (A∼ ) 0I , 1F ) of X which is given in the proof of Theorem 3.12. Then

for each A∼ = (AT , AI , AF ) ∈ N(∈,∈) (X). Then ϕα and ϕβ ϕ∗α ([0∼ ]Rα ) = ϕα (0∼ ) = fα (0∼ ) ∩ hα (0∼ )
are surjective. = T∈ (0∼ ; α) ∩ F∈ (0∼ ; α) = ∅

G. Muhiuddin, H. Bordbar, F. Smarandache, Y.B. Jun, Further results on (∈, ∈)-neutrosophic subalgebras and ideals
in BCK/BCI-algebras
Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 20, 2018 43

and [11] Abdel-Basset, M., Mohamed, M., Smarandache, F., &


Chang, V. (2018). Neutrosophic Association Rule Mining
ϕ∗β [0∼ ]Rβ = ϕβ (0∼ ) = gβ (0∼ ) ∩ hβ (0∼ ) Algorithm for Big Data Analysis. Symmetry, 10(4), 106.


= I∈ (0∼ ; β) ∩ F∈ (0∼ ; β) = ∅. [12] Abdel-Basset, M., & Mohamed, M. (2018). The Role of
Single Valued Neutrosophic Sets and Rough Sets in Smart
For any ideal I of X, consider the (∈, ∈)-neutrosophic ideal City: Imperfect and Incomplete Information Systems.
A∼ = (AT , AI , AF ) of X in the proof of Theorem 3.4. Then Measurement. Volume 124, August 2018, Pages 47-55
[13] Abdel-Basset, M., Gunasekaran, M., Mohamed, M., &
ϕ∗α ([A∼ ]Rα ) = ϕα (A∼ ) = fα (A∼ ) ∩ hα (A∼ ) Smarandache, F. A novel method for solving the fully
= T∈ (A∼ ; α) ∩ F∈ (A∼ ; α) = I neutrosophic linear programming problems. Neural
Computing and Applications, 1-11.
and [14] Abdel-Basset, M., Manogaran, G., Gamal, A., &
Smarandache, F. (2018). A hybrid approach of neutrosophic
ϕ∗β [A∼ ]Rβ = ϕβ (A∼ ) = gβ (A∼ ) ∩ hβ (A∼ ) sets and DEMATEL method for developing supplier selection

criteria. Design Automation for Embedded Systems, 1-22.
= I∈ (A∼ ; β) ∩ F∈ (A∼ ; β) = I.
[15] Abdel-Basset, M., Mohamed, M., & Chang, V. (2018).
Therefore ϕ∗α and ϕ∗β are surjective. This completes the proof. NMCDA: A framework for evaluating cloud computing
services. Future Generation Computer Systems, 86, 12-29.
[16] Abdel-Basset, M., Mohamed, M., Zhou, Y., & Hezam, I.
(2017). Multi-criteria group decision making based on
neutrosophic analytic hierarchy process. Journal of Intelligent
References & Fuzzy Systems, 33(6), 4055-4066.
[1] A. Borumand Saeid and Y.B. Jun, Neutrosophic subalge- [17] Abdel-Basset, M.; Mohamed, M.; Smarandache, F. An
bras of BCK/BCI-algebras based on neutrosophic points, Extension of Neutrosophic AHP–SWOT Analysis for
Strategic Planning and Decision-Making. Symmetry 2018, 10,
Ann. Fuzzy Math. Inform. 14 (2017), no. 1, 87–97.
116.
[2] K. Iséki, On BCI-algebras, Math. Seminar Notes 8 (1980),
125–130.
[3] K. Iséki and S. Tanaka, An introduction to the theory of Received : March 26, 2018. Accepted : April 16, 2018.
BCK-algebras, Math. Japon. 23 (1978), 1–26.
[4] Y. Huang, BCI-algebra, Science Press, Beijing, 2006.
[5] Y.B. Jun, Neutrosophic subalgebras of several types
in BCK/BCI-algebras, Ann. Fuzzy Math. Inform. 14
(2017), no. 1, 75–86.
[6] J. Meng and Y. B. Jun, BCK-algebras, Kyungmoonsa Co.
Seoul, Korea 1994.
[7] M.A. Öztürk and Y.B. Jun, Neutrosophic ideals in
BCK/BCI-algebras based on neutrosophic points, J. In-
ter. Math. Virtual Inst. 8 (2018), 1–17.
[8] F. Smarandache, Neutrosophy, Neutrosophic Prob-
ability, Set, and Logic, ProQuest Information &
Learning, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA, 105 p., 1998.
http://fs.gallup.unm.edu/eBook-neutrosophics6.pdf (last
edition online).
[9] F. Smarandache, A Unifying Field in Logics: Neutrosophic
Logic. Neutrosophy, Neutrosophic Set, Neutrosophic Prob-
ability, American Reserch Press, Rehoboth, NM, 1999.
[10] F. Smarandache, Neutrosophic set-a generalization of the
intuitionistic fuzzy set, Int. J. Pure Appl. Math. 24 (2005),
no.3, 287–297.

G. Muhiuddin, H. Bordbar, F. Smarandache, Y.B. Jun, Further results on (∈, ∈)-neutrosophic subalgebras and ideals in
BCK/BCI-algebras