A Metaphor for Rough Set Theory: Modular Arithmetic

  • Marcin Wolski
  • Anna Gomolińska
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11103)


Technically put, a metaphor is a conceptual mapping between two domains, which allows one to better understand the target domain; as Lakoff and Núñes put it, the main function of a metaphor is to allow us to reason about relatively abstract domains using the inferential structure of relatively concrete domains. In the paper we would like to apply this idea of framing one domain through conceptual settings of another domain to rough set theory (RST). The main goal is to construe rough sets in terms of the following mathematical metaphor: RST is a modular set-arithmetic. That is, we would like to map/project modular arithmetic onto rough sets, and, as a consequence, to redefine the fundamental concepts/objects of RST. Specifically, we introduce new topological operators (which play a similar role as remainders in modular arithmetic), discuss their formal properties, and finally apply them to the problem of vagueness (which has been intertwined with RST since the 1980’s).


Rough set Modular arithmetic Remainder Topolgy Boundary Vagueness 



We are greatly indebted to anonymous referees for their valuable comments and corrections.


  1. 1.
    Bernstein, B.A.: Operations with respect to which the elements of a Boolean algebra form a group. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 26(2), 171–175 (1924)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jones, W.B.: Modular Arithmetic. Blaisdell, New York (1964)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chakraborty, M.: On some issues in the foundation of rough sets. Fundamenta Informaticae 148(1–2), 123–132 (2016)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
  5. 5.
    Krajewski, S.: Theological metaphors in mathematics. Stud. Log. Gramm. Rhetoric 44(57), 13–30 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lakoff, G., Núñez, R.E.: Where Mathematics Comes From. Basic Books, New York (2000)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Marek, V.M., Truszczyński, M.: Contributions to the theory of rough sets. Fundamenta Informaticae 39(4), 389–409 (1999)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pawlak, Z.: Rough sets. Int. J. Comput. Inf. Sci. 11, 341–356 (1982)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Pawlak, Z.: Rough Sets: Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning about Data. Kluwer Academic Publisher, Dordrecht (1991)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pawlak, Z.: An inquiry into vagueness and uncertainty. Institute of Computer Science report 29/94. Warsaw University of Technology (1994)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pervin, W.J.: Foundations of General Topology. Academic Press, New York (1964)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Skowron, A.: Rough sets and vague concepts. Fundamenta Informaticae 64(1–4), 417–431 (2005)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Skowron, A., Swiniarski, R.: Rough sets and higher order vagueness. In: Ślęzak, D., Wang, G., Szczuka, M., Düntsch, I., Yao, Y. (eds.) RSFDGrC 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3641, pp. 33–42. Springer, Heidelberg (2005). Scholar
  14. 14.
    Weiner, J.: Science and semantics: the case of vagueness and supervaluation. Pac. Philos. Q. 88(3), 355–374 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Willard, S.: General Topology. Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., Reading (1970)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wiweger, A.: On topological rough sets. Bull. Pol. Acad. Scie. Math. 37, 89–93 (1989)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Logic and Cognitive ScienceMaria Curie-Skłodowska UniversityLublinPoland
  2. 2.Faculty of Mathematics and InformaticsUniversity of BiałystokBiałystokPoland

Personalised recommendations