Abstract
In this article, we introduce the notion of the complementary soft neighborhood and present three kinds of covering soft rough set (\(\mathcal {CSR}\)) models. The basic properties of these models are investigated. The relationships among these models are also discussed. Moreover, we establish the topological approach to \(\mathcal {CSR}\) say, \(\varDelta \)-topological spaces (i.e., \(\varDelta \)-TS). Hence, the topological properties for \(\varDelta \)-TS models such as \(\varDelta \)-open sets, \(\varDelta \)-closed sets, \(\varDelta \)-interior, \(\varDelta \)-closure, \(\varDelta \)-boundary, \(\varDelta \)-neighborhood and \(\varDelta \)-limit point are studied and the relationships between them are given. Finally, we make use of an algorithm for these proposed models to deal with uncertainties for solving the MGDM problems using the constructed topologies.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
The concept of rough set theory (briefly, RST) was launched by Pawlak in 1982 (Pawlak 1982, 1985) as a tool for representing and computing information in data tables. The fuzzy rough set theory (briefly, FRS) was introduced by Dubois and Prade (1990) as a combination between fuzzy set and rough set which offers a wide variety of techniques to analyze imprecise data and the RST. Since the uncertainty and incompleteness of knowledge are widespread phenomena in information systems, the FRS is a helpful approach to handle such situations. The first step in studying rough set theory was based on equivalence relations, but various extensions were developed to different mathematical concepts such as a binary relation, or a neighborhood system of a topological space and a covering (Atef et al. 2020; Alcantud and Zhan 2020; El Atik et al. 2021; Herawan et al. 2010; Hu et al. 2010; Huang et al. 2011; Jensen and Shen 2004; Liu and Zhu 2008; Pal and Mitra 2004; Qian et al. 2009; Yang and Li 2006; Yao 2010; Zhang et al. 2004; Sun et al. 2017; Wu and Zhang 2004; Yeung et al. 2015; Ziarko 1993; Pomykala 1987, 1988; Yao 1998; Yao and Yao 2012; Couso and Dubois 2011; Bonikowski et al. 1998; Zhu 2007; Zhu and Wang 2003, 2007, 2012; Tsang et al. 2008; Xu and Zhang 2007; Liu and Sai 2009).
In 2007, Deng et al. (2007) developed a new model for fuzzy rough set based on the concepts of both fuzzy covering and binary fuzzy conjunction and fuzzy implication in the framework of lattice theory. In 2008, Li et al. (2008) focused on studying the covering based rough set models via the fuzzy covering that are constructed by the lower and upper fuzzy rough approximation operators. In 2012, Ma (2012) defined the notion of complementary neighborhood of an element in the universal set and according to this notion and the classical neighborhood notion; she showed the equivalency of both notions to some types of covering rough sets.
Later, in 2016, Ma (2016) introduced the concepts of fuzzy \(\beta \)-covering and fuzzy \(\beta \)-neighborhood and then constructed two kinds of fuzzy covering-based rough set models. It should be noted that the concept of fuzzy covering is a special case of fuzzy \(\beta \)-covering. Yang and Hu (2017), Yang and Hu (2019) introduced three types of fuzzy covering based rough set models which are generalizations of Ma’s models, and also they proposed four types of fuzzy neighborhood operators based on a fuzzy \(\beta \)-covering using the notions fuzzy \(\beta \)-minimal and \(\beta \)-maximal descriptions. The concept of fuzzy neighborhood system of an object based on a given fuzzy covering was defined and discussed by D’eer et al. (2017).
We were in much need to the soft set theory (briefly, SST) notion considered by Molodtsov (1999) since many mathematical models cannot use the previous classical tools such as theory of fuzzy sets , theory of intuitionistic fuzzy sets and theory of rough sets because of the difficulties of some types of uncertainties. The absence of all restrictions on the approximate description in soft set theory makes this theory easily applicable in practice in different topics. A combination of fuzzy sets with soft sets made by Maji et al. (2002) initiated an important model. Several authors have applied this theory in their research (Alcantud 2020; Ali 2011; Feng et al. 2010; Li and Xie 2014; Min 2020; Zhan and Alcantud 2019; Zhan and Wang 2019).
In 2010, Feng et al. (2011) introduced soft approximation spaces, soft rough approximations and soft rough sets based on granulation structures. Later, Feng (2011) gave an application of soft rough approximation in multi-criteria group decision-making problems. Yüksel et al. (2014), Yüksel et al. (2015) established a soft covering approximation space from a covering soft set and then defined the soft minimal description of an object, and explored an application of soft covering based rough set. Li et al. (2015) investigated parameter reductions of a soft covering. Riaz et al. (2019) brought out topological structures of soft rough sets. Another extension was made by Zhan and Alcantud (2019). They introduced a soft rough covering (\(\mathcal {CSR}\)) by means of soft neighborhoods and then used it to improve decision making in a multi-criteria group environment. A new approach called modified soft rough set, for studying roughness through soft sets in order to find approximations of a set was done by Shabir et al. (2013).
The objective of this article is to introduce new types of soft neighborhoods and use them to construct novel models of \(\mathcal {CSR}\) which are of better quality than the existence models (i.e., growing the lower approximation and lowering the upper approximation of Feng’s, Riaz’s and Zhan’s models). The relationships between them being clarified. In addition, we discuss some topological properties of the four topologies introduced based on the \(\mathcal {CSR}\) approach. Finally, we explain the relationships among these kinds and establish a numerical example to solve MGDM problems. The body of this paper is implemented here. Section 2 gives basic terminologies. Section 3 describes three types of \(\mathcal {CSR}\) by using the notions of soft neighborhoods and complementary soft neighborhoods. In Sect. 4, we establish the topological approach for \(\mathcal {CSR}\) models and study their properties. In Sect. 5, we solve a real problem through the proposed study. We write the aim of this article in Sect. 6.
2 Preliminaries
a quick survey of the notions which will be used in the coming sections.
Definition 2.1
Yang and Hu (2019) Let \(\Upsilon \) be a universe of discourse, and \({\textbf{E}}\) be a finite set of relevant parameters regarding \(\Upsilon \). The pair \({\textbf{S}} = ({{\textbf{F}}}, {\textbf{A}})\) is a soft set over \(\Upsilon \), when \({\textbf{A}} \subseteq {\textbf{E}}\) and \({{\textbf{F}}}: {\textbf{A}} \rightarrow {\mathscr {P}}(\Upsilon )\) (i.e., \({{\textbf{F}}}\) is a set-valued mapping from the subset of attributes \({\textbf{A}}\) to \(\Upsilon \) and \({\mathscr {P}}(\Upsilon )\) denotes the set of all subsets of \(\Upsilon \)).
Definition 2.2
Feng et al. (2010); Min (2020) The soft set \({\textbf{S}} = ({{\textbf{F}}}, {\textbf{A}})\) is called a full soft set if \(\bigcup _{g\in {\textbf{A}}}{{\textbf{F}}}(g)=\Upsilon \) and a full soft set \({\textbf{S}} = ({{\textbf{F}}}, {\textbf{A}})\) is called a soft covering (briefly, \({{\mathcal {S}}}{{\mathcal {C}}}\)) over \(\Upsilon \) if for each \(g \in {\textbf{A}}\), then \({{\textbf{F}}}(g)\ne \emptyset .\) In addition, \((\Upsilon ,{{\textbf{F}}},{\textbf{A}})\) is called a soft covering approximation space (\(\mathcal {SCAS}\) for short).
Definition 2.3
Feng (2011) Let \((\Upsilon ,{\textbf{S}})\) be a soft approximation space. For each \({L} \subseteq \Upsilon \), define the Feng-lower and Feng-upper approximations, respectively, as follows.
If \({\mathscr {F}}^{\ominus }({L}) \ne {\mathscr {F}}^{\oplus }({L})\), then L is called Feng-approximation soft rough sets(\(\mathcal {F-ASR}\) for short), otherwise it is definable.
In Shabir et al. (2013), Shabir et al. introduced the concept of modified soft rough sets (\(\mathcal {MSR}\)-sets for short) as follows.
Definition 2.4
Shabir et al. (2013) Let \((\Upsilon ,{\textbf{S}})\) be a soft approximation space. For each \({L} \subseteq \Upsilon \), define the function \(\delta : \Upsilon \rightarrow {\mathscr {P}}({\textbf{A}})\) by \( \delta (g)=\{\nu \in {\textbf{A}}:g\in {{\textbf{F}}}(\nu ) \}, \forall g \in \Upsilon \). Thus the Shabir-lower and Shabir-upper approximations are defined, respectively, as follows.
If \({\mathscr {S}}^{\ominus }({L}) \ne {\mathscr {S}}^{\oplus }({L})\), then L is called Shabir-approximation modified soft rough sets (\(\mathcal {S-AMSR}\) for short), otherwise it is definable.
Definition 2.5
Yüksel et al. (2014, 2015) Let \((\Upsilon ,{{\textbf{F}}},{\textbf{A}})\) be an \(\mathcal {SCAS}\). For each \(g \in \Upsilon \), define a soft minimal description of g as follows.
Definition 2.6
Yüksel et al. (2014, 2015) Let \((\Upsilon ,{{\textbf{F}}},{\textbf{A}})\) be an \(\mathcal {SCAS}\). For each \({L} \subseteq \Upsilon \), define the 1(2)-Yüksel-lower and 1(2)-Yüksel-upper approximations, respectively, as follows.
If \({\mathscr {Y}}^{\ominus }_{1}({L})\)(\({\mathscr {Y}}^{\ominus }_{2}({L})\)) \(\ne {\mathscr {S}}^{\oplus }({L})\) (\({\mathscr {Y}}^{\oplus }_{2}({L})\)), then L is called 1(2)-Yüksel-covering modified soft rough sets (\(1-\mathcal {Y-CMSR}\) and \(2-\mathcal {Y-CMSR}\) for short), otherwise it is definable.
Definition 2.7
Li et al. (2015) Let \((\Upsilon ,{{\textbf{F}}},{\textbf{A}})\) be an \(\mathcal {SCAS}\). For each \({L} \subseteq \Upsilon \), define the Li-lower and Li-upper approximations, respectively, as follows.
If \({\mathscr {L}}^{\ominus }({L}) \ne {\mathscr {L}}^{\oplus }({L})\), then L is called Li-covering soft rough sets (\(\mathcal {L-CSR}\) for short), otherwise it is definable.
Definition 2.8
Zhan and Alcantud (2019) Let \((\Upsilon ,{{\textbf{F}}},{\textbf{A}})\) be an \(\mathcal {SCAS}\). For each \(g \in \Upsilon \), define a soft neighborhood of g as follows.
Definition 2.9
Zhan and Alcantud (2019) Let \((\Upsilon ,{{\textbf{F}}},{\textbf{A}})\) be an \(\mathcal {SCAS}\). For each \({L} \subseteq \Upsilon \), define the Zhan-lower and Zhan-upper approximations, respectively, as follows.
If \({\hat{P}}_{-1}({L}) \ne {\hat{P}}_{+1}({L})\), then L is called Zhan-covering soft rough sets (\(\mathcal {CSR}^{1}\) for short), otherwise it is definable.
3 Covering soft rough sets
The aim of this section is to extent the idea of Zhan’s method given in [61]. This will be done via the complementary soft neighborhood. Also, we generalize it using two known neighborhoods through combining between Zhan’s and complementary neighborhoods. Thus three new kinds of \(\mathcal {CSR}\) are investigated. The relevant characteristics are also discussed.
Definition 3.1
Let \((\Upsilon ,{{\textbf{F}}},{\textbf{A}})\) be an \(\mathcal {SCAS}\). For each \(g \in \Upsilon \), define three kinds of the soft neighborhood of g as follows.
Example 3.2
Let \((\Upsilon ,{{\textbf{F}}},{\textbf{A}})\) be an \(\mathcal {SCAS}\) and \(({{\textbf{F}}},{\textbf{A}})\) be a soft set given as listed in Table 1.
Compute the four types of soft neighborhoods as the following.
\({\mathscr {X}}_{1}(g_1)=\{g_1,g_2\}, {\mathscr {X}}_{1}(g_2)=\{g_1,g_2\}, {\mathscr {X}}_{1}(g_3)=\{g_3\}, {\mathscr {X}}_{1}(g_4)=\{g_4,g_5\}, {\mathscr {X}}_{1}(g_5)=\{g_5\},\)
\({\mathscr {X}}_{2}(g_1)=\{g_1,g_2\}, {\mathscr {X}}_{2}(g_2)=\{g_1,g_2\}, {\mathscr {X}}_{2}(g_3)=\{g_3\}, {\mathscr {X}}_{2}(g_4)=\{g_4\}, {\mathscr {X}}_{2}(g_5)=\{g_4,g_5\},\)
\({\mathscr {X}}_{3}(g_1)=\{g_1,g_2\}, {\mathscr {X}}_{3}(g_2)=\{g_1,g_2\}, {\mathscr {X}}_{3}(g_3)=\{g_3\}, {\mathscr {X}}_{3}(g_4)=\{g_4\}, {\mathscr {X}}_{3}(g_5)=\{g_5\},\) and
\({\mathscr {X}}_{4}(g_1)=\{g_1,g_2\}, {\mathscr {X}}_{4}(g_2)=\{g_1,g_2\}, {\mathscr {X}}_{4}(g_3)=\{g_3\}, {\mathscr {X}}_{4}(g_4)=\{g_4,g_5\}, {\mathscr {X}}_{4}(g_5)=\{g_4,g_5\}.\)
Definition 3.3
Let \((\Upsilon ,{{\textbf{F}}},{\textbf{A}})\) be an \(\mathcal {SCAS}\). For each \({L} \subseteq \Upsilon \), define three kinds of lower (\({\hat{P}}_{-2}, {\hat{P}}_{-3}\) and \({\hat{P}}_{-4}\)) and corresponding upper (\({\hat{P}}_{+2}, {\hat{P}}_{+3}\) and \({\hat{P}}_{+4}\)) approximation, respectively, as follows.
If \({\hat{P}}_{-2}({L})\) (resp., \({\hat{P}}_{-3}({L}), {\hat{P}}_{-4}({L})\))\(\ne {\hat{P}}_{+2}({L})\) (resp., \({\hat{P}}_{+3}({L}), {\hat{P}}_{+4}({L})\)), then L is called a covering soft rough (\(\mathcal {CSR}^{2}\), \(\mathcal {CSR}^{3}\), and \(\mathcal {CSR}^{4}\)), otherwise it is definable.
Example 3.4
Consider again Example 3.2. Calculate \(\mathcal {CSR}^{1}, \mathcal {CSR}^{2}, \mathcal {CSR}^{3}\), and \(\mathcal {CSR}^{4}\) for \({L}=\{g_1,g_3,g_5\}\) as follows.
In the following, we can obtain the accuracy measure for the four types of covering soft rough sets in Definitions 2.9 and 3.3 as follows.
Definition 3.5
Let \((\Upsilon ,{{\textbf{F}}},{\textbf{A}})\) be an \(\mathcal {SCAS}\). For each \({L} \subseteq \Upsilon \), define four types of accuracy measures \(Acc_{k}\), forall \(k \in \{1,2,3,4\}\) as follows.
-
(1)
\({Acc}_{1}({L})=\frac{|{\hat{P}}_{-1}({L})|}{|{\hat{P}}_{+1}({L})|}\).
-
(2)
\({Acc}_{2}({L})=\frac{|{\hat{P}}_{-2}({L})|}{|{\hat{P}}_{+2}({L})|}\).
-
(3)
\({Acc}_{3}({L})=\frac{|{\hat{P}}_{-3}({L})|}{|{\hat{P}}_{+3}({L})|}\).
-
(4)
\({Acc}_{4}({L})=\frac{|{\hat{P}}_{-4}({L})|}{|{\hat{P}}_{+4}({L})|}\), Where |L| represents the cardinal numbers of L.
The following example shows the differences between these types of measures.
Example 3.6
Consider again Example 3.4. Calculate the accuracy measures as follows.
From the above example, it is easy to see that \(\mathcal {CSR}^{3}\) is more accurate than the others.
The following two Theorems 3.7 and 3.8 for \(\mathcal {CSR}^{2}\), \(\mathcal {CSR}^{3}\), and \(\mathcal {CSR}^{4}\) hold. We prove them in the case of \(\mathcal {CSR}^{2}\) only and the others are similar.
Theorem 3.7
Let \((\Upsilon ,{{\textbf{F}}},{\textbf{A}})\) be an \(\mathcal {SCAS}\). If \({L}_{1}, {L}_{2} \subseteq \Upsilon \), then we have the following relations hold.
-
(1)
\({\hat{P}}_{-2}(\emptyset )=\emptyset , {\hat{P}}_{-2}(\Upsilon )=\Upsilon .\)
-
(2)
\({\hat{P}}_{-2}({L}) \subseteq {L}.\)
-
(3)
\({\hat{P}}_{-2}({L}^{c})=\big ({\hat{P}}_{+2}({L})\big )^{c}.\)
-
(4)
If \({L}_{1} \subseteq {L}_{2}\), then \({\hat{P}}_{-2}({L}_{1}) \subseteq {\hat{P}}_{-2}({L}_{2}).\)
-
(5)
\({\hat{P}}_{-2}({\hat{P}}_{-2}({L}))={\hat{P}}_{-2}({L}).\)
-
(6)
\({\hat{P}}_{-2}({L}_{1}\cap {L}_{2})={\hat{P}}_{-2}({L}_{1}) \cap {\hat{P}}_{-2}({L}_{2}).\)
-
(7)
\({\hat{P}}_{-2}({L}_{1}) \cup {\hat{P}}_{-2}({L}_{2}) \subseteq {\hat{P}}_{-2}({L}_{1}\cup {L}_{2}).\)
Proof
-
(1)
\({\hat{P}}_{-2}(\emptyset )=\big \{h \in \Upsilon : {\mathscr {X}}_{2}(h)\subseteq \emptyset \big \}=\emptyset .\)
-
(2)
\({\hat{P}}_{-2}(\Upsilon )=\big \{h \in \Upsilon : {\mathscr {X}}_{2}(h)\subseteq \Upsilon \big \}=\Upsilon .\)
-
(3)
\({\hat{P}}_{-2}({L}^{c})=\big \{h \in \Upsilon : {\mathscr {X}}_{2}(h)\subseteq {L}^{c} \big \}=\big \{h \in \Upsilon : {\mathscr {X}}_{2}(h)\subseteq {L}^{c} \big \}=\big \{h \in \Upsilon : {\mathscr {X}}_{2}(h)\cap {L} \ne \emptyset \big \}^{c}=\big ({\hat{P}}_{+2}({L})\big )^{c}.\)
-
(4)
\({\hat{P}}_{-2}({L}_{1})=\big \{h \in \Upsilon : {\mathscr {X}}_{2}(h)\subseteq {L}_{1} \big \}\subseteq \big \{h \in \Upsilon : {\mathscr {X}}_{2}(h)\subseteq {L}_{2} \big \}={\hat{P}}_{-2}({L}_{2}).\)
-
(5)
If \(g \in {\hat{P}}_{-2}({L}) \implies {\mathscr {X}}_{2}(g)\subseteq {L}, \text {by (4)} \implies {\hat{P}}_{-2}({\mathscr {X}}_{2}(g)) \subseteq {\hat{P}}_{-2}({L}).\) Let \(h \in {\mathscr {X}}_{2}(g) \implies {\mathscr {X}}_{2}(h) \subseteq {\mathscr {X}}_{2}(g) \implies h \in {\hat{P}}_{-2}({\mathscr {X}}_{2}(g)) \implies {\mathscr {X}}_{2}(g) \subseteq {\hat{P}}_{-2}({\mathscr {X}}_{2}(g)) \subseteq {\hat{P}}_{-2}({L}) \implies g \in {\hat{P}}_{-2}({\hat{P}}_{-2}({L})) \implies {\hat{P}}_{-2}({L}) \subseteq {\hat{P}}_{-2}({\hat{P}}_{-2}({L})).\)
As \({\hat{P}}_{-2}({L}) \subseteq {L}\), by (2), \({\hat{P}}_{-2}({\hat{P}}_{-2}({L})) \subseteq {\hat{P}}_{-2}({L}).\) Therefore, \({\hat{P}}_{-2}({\hat{P}}_{-2}({L})) = {\hat{P}}_{-2}({L})\).
-
(6)
\({\hat{P}}_{-2}({L}_{1}\cap {L}_{2})=\big \{h \in \Upsilon : {\mathscr {X}}_{2}(h)\subseteq ({L}_{1} \cap {L}_{2}) \big \}=\big \{h \in \Upsilon : {\mathscr {X}}_{2}(h)\subseteq {L}_{1} \wedge {\mathscr {X}}_{2}(h)\subseteq {L}_{2} \big \}=\big \{h \in \Upsilon : {\mathscr {X}}_{2}(h)\subseteq {L}_{1} \big \}\wedge \big \{h \in \Upsilon : {\mathscr {X}}_{2}(h)\subseteq {L}_{2} \big \}={\hat{P}}_{-2}({L}_{1}) \cap {\hat{P}}_{-2}({L}_{2}).\)
-
(7)
Since \({L}_{1} \subseteq {L}_{1} \cup {L}_{2}\), then by (5), we have \({\hat{P}}_{-2}({L}_{1})\subseteq {\hat{P}}_{-2}({L}_{1}\cup {L}_{2}) \). Also, \({L}_{2} \subseteq {L}_{1} \cup {L}_{2}\), by (5) we have \({\hat{P}}_{-2}({L}_{2}) \subseteq {\hat{P}}_{-2}({L}_{1}\cup {L}_{2})\). Thus \({\hat{P}}_{-2}({L}_{1}) \cup {\hat{P}}_{-2}({L}_{2}) \subseteq {\hat{P}}_{-2}({L}_{1}\cup {L}_{2}).\)
\(\square \)
Theorem 3.8
Let \((\Upsilon ,{{\textbf{F}}},{\textbf{A}})\) be an \(\mathcal {SCAS}\). If \({L}_{1}, {L}_{2} \subseteq \Upsilon \), then we have the following relations hold.
-
(1)
\({\hat{P}}_{+2}(\emptyset )=\emptyset , {\hat{P}}_{+2}(\Upsilon )=\Upsilon .\)
-
(2)
\({L} \subseteq {\hat{P}}_{+2}({L}).\)
-
(3)
\({\hat{P}}_{+2}({L}^{c})=\big ({\hat{P}}_{-2}({L})\big )^{c}.\)
-
(4)
\({\hat{P}}_{+2}({\hat{P}}_{+2}({L}))={\hat{P}}_{+2}({L}).\)
-
(5)
If \({L}_{1} \subseteq {L}_{2}\), then \({\hat{P}}_{+2}({L}_{1}) \subseteq {\hat{P}}_{+2}({L}_{2}).\)
-
(6)
\({\hat{P}}_{+2}({L}_{1}\cap {L}_{2})\subseteq {\hat{P}}_{+2}({L}_{1}) \cap {\hat{P}}_{+2}({L}_{2}).\)
-
(7)
\({\hat{P}}_{+2}({L}_{1}\cup {L}_{2})={\hat{P}}_{+2}({L}_{1}) \cup {\hat{P}}_{+2}({L}_{2}).\)
Proof
The proof is similar to Theorem 3.7. \(\square \)
Definition 3.9
Let \((\Upsilon ,{{\textbf{F}}},{\textbf{A}})\) be an \(\mathcal {SCAS}\). For each \({L} \subseteq \Upsilon \), define the positive, negative and boundary region for the three kinds \(\mathcal {CSR}\) of L as follows.
Example 3.10
Consider Example 3.4. If \({L}=\{g_1,g_3,g_5\}\), then we obtain the following outcomes.
and
The next remark explains the comparisons between the given approximations by using the boundary region.
Remark 3.11
The goal of approximations is to reduce the boundary zone as possible to get a reliable solution. Here, by the above Example 3.10, \({\mathscr {B}}_{3}({L})\) is least than the others (i.e., \({\mathscr {B}}_{1}({L})\), \({\mathscr {B}}_{2}({L})\) and \({\mathscr {B}}_{4}({L})\)) . This means that \(\mathcal {CSR}^{3}\) is more accurate than the others.
Next, we present new kind of a degree of soft rough membership as follows.
Definition 3.12
Let \((\Upsilon ,{{\textbf{F}}},{\textbf{A}})\) be an \(\mathcal {SCAS}\). For each \({L} \subseteq \Upsilon \), define three new kinds of a degree of soft rough membership of L as follows.
and
Example 3.13
Consider Example 3.2. If \({L}=\{g_1,g_3,g_5\}\), then we get the following values.
The next two Theorems 3.14 and 3.15 are true for \({{\mathbb {D}}}_{2}(h,{L})\), \({{\mathbb {D}}}_{3}(h,{L})\), and \({{\mathbb {D}}}_{4}(h,{L})\). We prove them for \({{\mathbb {D}}}_{2}(h,{L})\) only and for the other cases the proofs are similar.
Theorem 3.14
Let \((\Upsilon ,{{\textbf{F}}},{\textbf{A}})\) be an \(\mathcal {SCAS}\). If \(L \subseteq \Upsilon \) and \(h \in \Upsilon \), then we have the following characteristics.
-
(1)
\({{\mathbb {D}}}_{2}(h,{L})=1 \iff h \in {\hat{P}}_{-2}({L}).\)
-
(2)
\({{\mathbb {D}}}_{2}(h,{L})=0 \iff h \in \Upsilon -{\hat{P}}_{+2}({L}).\)
-
(3)
\(0<{{\mathbb {D}}}_{2}(h,{L})<1 \iff h \in {\hat{P}}_{+2}({L})-{\hat{P}}_{-2}({L}).\)
Proof
-
(1)
\({{\mathbb {D}}}_{2}(h,{L})=1 \iff {\mathscr {X}}_{2}(h) \subseteq {L} \iff h \in {\hat{P}}_{-2}({L}).\)
-
(2)
\({{\mathbb {D}}}_{2}(h,{L})=0 \iff {\mathscr {X}}_{2}(h) \cap {L}=\emptyset \iff h \notin {\hat{P}}_{+2}({L}) \iff h \in \Upsilon -{\hat{P}}_{+2}({L}).\)
-
(3)
It is clear by Definition 3.12.
\(\square \)
Theorem 3.15
Let \((\Upsilon ,{{\textbf{F}}},{\textbf{A}})\) be an \(\mathcal {SCAS}\). If \({L} \subseteq \Upsilon \) and \(h \in \Upsilon \), then we have the following items.
-
(1)
If \({L}_{1} \subseteq {L}_{2}\), then \({{\mathbb {D}}}_{2}(h,{L}_{1}) {L}eq {{\mathbb {D}}}_{2}(h,{L}_{2}).\)
-
(2)
\({{\mathbb {D}}}_{2}(h,{L}_{1} \cup {L}_{2})\ge {{\mathbb {D}}}_{2}(h,{L}_{1}) \vee {{\mathbb {D}}}_{2}(h,{L}_{2})\).
-
(3)
If \({L}_{1} \subseteq {L}_{2}\) or \({L}_{2} \subseteq {L}_{1}\), then \({{\mathbb {D}}}_{2}(h,{L}_{1} \cup {L}_{2})= {{\mathbb {D}}}_{2}(h,{L}_{1}) \vee {{\mathbb {D}}}_{2}(h,{L}_{2})\).
-
(4)
\({{\mathbb {D}}}_{2}(h,{L}_{1} \cap {L}_{2}){L}eq {{\mathbb {D}}}_{2}(h,{L}_{1}) \wedge {{\mathbb {D}}}_{2}(h,{L}_{2})\).
-
(5)
If \({L}_{1} \subseteq {L}_{2}\) or \({L}_{2} \subseteq {L}_{1}\), then \({{\mathbb {D}}}_{2}(h,{L}_{1} \cap {L}_{2})= {{\mathbb {D}}}_{2}(h,{L}_{1}) \wedge {{\mathbb {D}}}_{2}(h,{L}_{2})\).
-
(6)
\({{\mathbb {D}}}_{2}(h,{L})+{{\mathbb {D}}}_{2}(h,{L}^{c})=1.\)
Proof
-
(1)
Suppose that \({L}_{1} \subseteq {L}_{2}\) and \(h \in \Upsilon \). Then \(|{L}_{1} \cap {\mathscr {X}}_{2}(h)| {L}eq |{L}_{2} \cap {\mathscr {X}}_{2}(h)|\), and hence \(\frac{|{L}_{1} \cap {\mathscr {X}}_{2}(h)|}{|{\mathscr {X}}_{2}(h)|} \le \frac{|{L}_{2} \cap {\mathscr {X}}_{2}(h)|}{|{\mathscr {X}}_{2}(h)|}\), i.e., \({{\mathbb {D}}}_{2}(h,{L}_{1}) \le {{\mathbb {D}}}_{2}(h,{L}_{2}).\)
-
(2)
If \({L}_{1} \subseteq {L}_{2}\), then we obtain \({{\mathbb {D}}}_{2}(h,{L}_{1} \cup {L}_{2})=\frac{|({L}_{1}\cup {L}_{2}) \cap {\mathscr {X}}_{2}(h)|}{|{\mathscr {X}}_{2}(h)|}=\frac{|({L}_{1}\cap {\mathscr {X}}_{2}(h))\cup ({L}_{2} \cap {\mathscr {X}}_{2}(h))|}{|{\mathscr {X}}_{2}(h)|} \ge \frac{\bigvee \big [|{L}_{1} \cap {\mathscr {X}}_{2}(h)|,|{L}_{2} \cap {\mathscr {X}}_{2}(h)|\big ]}{|{\mathscr {X}}_{2}(h)|} =\bigvee \bigg [\frac{|{L}_{1} \cap {\mathscr {X}}_{2}(h)|}{|{\mathscr {X}}_{2}(h)|}, \frac{|{L}_{2} \cap {\mathscr {X}}_{2}(h)|}{|{\mathscr {X}}_{2}(h)|} \bigg ]=\bigvee \big [{{\mathbb {D}}}_{2}(h,{L}_{1}), {{\mathbb {D}}}_{2}(h,{L}_{2})\big ] ={{\mathbb {D}}}_{2}(h,{L}_{1}) \vee {{\mathbb {D}}}_{2}(h,{L}_{2}).\)
-
(3), (4) and (5)
Straightforward by (2).
-
(6)
\({{\mathbb {D}}}_{2}(h,{L})+{{\mathbb {D}}}_{2}(h,{L}^{c})=\frac{|{L} \cap {\mathscr {X}}_{2}(h)|}{|{\mathscr {X}}_{2}(h)|}+\frac{|{L}^{c} \cap {\mathscr {X}}_{2}(h)|}{|{\mathscr {X}}_{2}(h)|}=\frac{|{L}_{1} \cap {\mathscr {X}}_{2}(h)|+|{L}^{c} \cap {\mathscr {X}}_{2}(h)|}{|{\mathscr {X}}_{2}(h)|}=\frac{|{\mathscr {X}}_{2}(h)|}{|{\mathscr {X}}_{2}(h)|}=1.\)
\(\square \)
Example 3.16
Consider Example 3.2. If \({L}_{1}=\{g_1\}\) and \({L}_{2}=\{g_2\}\), then we get the following values.
-
(1)
\({{\mathbb {D}}}_{2}(g_1,{L}_{1})=\frac{1}{2}, \ \ {{\mathbb {D}}}_{2}(g_1,{L}_{2})=\frac{1}{2}, \ \ {{\mathbb {D}}}_{2}(g_1,{L}_{1} \cup {L}_{2})=1\) but \({{\mathbb {D}}}_{2}(g_1,{L}_{1}) \vee {{\mathbb {D}}}_{2}(g_1,{L}_{2})=\frac{1}{2}\). Hence, \({{\mathbb {D}}}_{2}(g_{1},{L}_{1} \cup {L}_{2})\ngeq {{\mathbb {D}}}_{2}(g_{1},{L}_{1}) \vee {{\mathbb {D}}}_{2}(g_{1},{L}_{2}).\)
-
(2)
\({L}_{1} \cap {L}_{2}=\emptyset \), then we have \({{\mathbb {D}}}_{2}(g_{2},{L}_{1}) \wedge {{\mathbb {D}}}_{2}(g_{2},{L}_{2})=\frac{1}{2}\) and \({{\mathbb {D}}}_{2}(g_{2},{L}_{1} \cap {L}_{2})=0\). Thus, \({{\mathbb {D}}}_{2}(g_{2},{L}_{1} \cap {L}_{2})\nleq {{\mathbb {D}}}_{2}(g_{2},{L}_{1}) \wedge {{\mathbb {D}}}_{2}(g_{2},{L}_{2}).\)
Next, let us show the relationship between the different \(\mathcal {CSR}\) models. These are clarified by the following propositions.
Proposition 3.17
Let \((\Upsilon ,{{\textbf{F}}},{\textbf{A}})\) be an \(\mathcal {SCAS}\). If \({L} \subseteq \Upsilon \) and \(h \in \Upsilon \), then we have the following characteristics.
-
(1)
\({\hat{P}}_{-4}({L}) \subseteq {\hat{P}}_{-2}({L}) \subseteq {\hat{P}}_{-3}({L}).\)
-
(2)
\({\hat{P}}_{-4}({L}) \subseteq {\hat{P}}_{-1}({L}) \subseteq {\hat{P}}_{-3}({L}).\)
-
(3)
\({\hat{P}}_{+3}({L}) \subseteq {\hat{P}}_{+2}({L}) \subseteq {\hat{P}}_{+4}({L}).\)
-
(4)
\({\hat{P}}_{+3}({L}) \subseteq {\hat{P}}_{+1}({L}) \subseteq {\hat{P}}_{+4}({L}).\)
Proof
Obvious. \(\square \)
Proposition 3.18
Let \((\Upsilon ,{{\textbf{F}}},{\textbf{A}})\) be an \(\mathcal {SCAS}\). If \({L} \subseteq \Upsilon \) and \(h \in \Upsilon \), then we have the following characteristics.
-
(1)
\({\hat{P}}_{-3}({L}) = {\hat{P}}_{-1}({L}) \cup {\hat{P}}_{-2}({L}).\)
-
(2)
\({\hat{P}}_{-4}({L}) = {\hat{P}}_{-1}({L}) \cap {\hat{P}}_{-2}({L}).\)
-
(3)
\({\hat{P}}_{+3}({L}) = {\hat{P}}_{+1}({L}) \cap {\hat{P}}_{+2}({L}).\)
-
(4)
\({\hat{P}}_{+4}({L}) = {\hat{P}}_{+1}({L}) \cup {\hat{P}}_{+2}({L}).\)
Proof
Obvious. \(\square \)
4 Topological approach to \(\mathcal {CSR}\)
This section deals with all the definitions of four types of topologies come from \(\mathcal {CSR}\) models called \(\varDelta -{{\mathcal {T}}}{{\mathcal {S}}}\) and explored their relevant properties.
Definition 4.1
Let \((\Upsilon ,{{\textbf{F}}},{\textbf{A}})\) be an \(\mathcal {SCAS}\) of \(\Upsilon \). For each \(g \in \Upsilon \), define four kinds of topologies as follow.
each of which satisfies the topological conditions as for each \(\varDelta = \{i\}, i \in \{1,2,3,4\}\). For \(i=1\), \(\varDelta =\{1\}.\)
-
(1)
It is obvious that \(\Upsilon \) and \(\emptyset \) are in \({\mathscr {T}}_{1}\).
-
(2)
Assume that \(\{{L}_{l} : l \in I\}\) be in \({\mathscr {T}}_{1}\) and let \(g \in \cup {L}_{l}\). Then \(\exists \) \(l_1 \in l\) and \(g \in {L}_{1}\) such that \({\mathscr {X}}_{1}(g) \subseteq {L}_{1}\) \(\implies \) \({\mathscr {X}}_{1}(g) \subseteq \cup {L}_{l}\). Thus \(\cup {L}_{l} \in {\mathscr {T}}_{1}\).
-
(3)
Consider \({L}_{1}, {L}_{2} \in {\mathscr {T}}_{1}\) and \(g \in {L}_{1} \cap {L}_{2}\), thus \(g \in {L}_{1}\) and \(g \in {L}_{2}\). So, \({\mathscr {X}}_{1}(g) \subseteq {L}_{1}\) and \({\mathscr {X}}_{1}(g) \subseteq {L}_{2}\). Hence, \({\mathscr {X}}_{1}(g) \subseteq {L}_{1} \cap {L}_{2}\). Therefore \({L}_{1} \cap {L}_{2} \in {\mathscr {T}}_{1}.\)
From the above relations, \({\mathscr {T}}_{\varDelta }({L})\) is called \(\varDelta \)-topology, then \((\Upsilon ,{\mathscr {T}}_{\varDelta }({L}),{\textbf{A}})\) is called \(\varDelta \)-topological space (\(\varDelta \)-\({{\mathcal {T}}}{{\mathcal {S}}}\)).
Now, let us show in details these topologies when we consider Example 4.2.
Example 4.2
Consider Example 3.2, then the four topologies are listed below. The steps for calculating the first type of topology is as follows.
-
(1)
The subbase is \(\{\{g_1,g_2\},\{g_3\},\{g_4,g_5\},\{g_5\}\}\),
-
(2)
The base is a finite intersection of the members of the subbase as \(\{\{g_1,g_2\},\{g_3\},\{g_4,g_5\},\{g_5\},\emptyset \}\),
-
(3)
Topology is the arbitrary union of the members of the base as
\({\mathscr {T}}_{1}=\{\Upsilon ,\emptyset ,\{g_3\}, \{g_5\}, \{g_1,g_2\}, \{g_3,g_5\}, \{g_4,g_5\}, \) \( \{g_1,g_2,g_3\},\{g_1,g_2,g_5\},\{g_3,g_4,g_5\}, \{g_1,g_2,g_3,g_5\},\) \(\{g_1,g_2,g_4,g_5\} \},\)
In the same manner, we can compute the other three kinds as next.
\({\mathscr {T}}_{2}=\{\Upsilon ,\emptyset ,\{g_3\}, \{g_4\}, \{g_1,g_2\}, \{g_3,g_4\}, \{g_4,g_5\},\) \( \{g_1,g_2,g_3\},\{g_1,g_2,g_4\},\{g_3,g_4,g_5\}, \) \(\{g_1,g_2,g_3,g_4\},\{g_1,g_2,g_4,g_5\} \},\)
\({\mathscr {T}}_{3}=\{\Upsilon ,\emptyset ,\{g_3\},\{g_4\},\{g_5\},\{g_1,g_2\}, \{g_3,g_4\}, \{g_3,g_5\}, \) \(\{g_4,g_5\}, \{g_1,g_2,g_3\},\{g_1,g_2,g_4\}, \{g_1,g_2,g_5\},\) \(\{g_3,g_4,g_5\}, \{g_1,g_2,g_3,g_4\},\{g_1,g_2,g_3,g_5\},\) \( \{g_1,g_2,g_4,g_5\} \}\) and
\({\mathscr {T}}_{4}=\{\Upsilon ,\emptyset ,\{g_3\},\{g_1,g_2\}, \{g_4,g_5\}, \) \(\{g_1,g_2,g_3\},\{g_3,g_4,g_5\}, \{g_1,g_2,g_4,g_5\} \}.\)
Definition 4.3
Let \((\Upsilon ,{\mathscr {T}}_{\varDelta }({L}),{\textbf{A}})\) be a \(\varDelta \)-\({{\mathcal {T}}}{{\mathcal {S}}}\). Define the \(\varDelta \)-closed sets as follows.
Definition 4.4
Let \((\Upsilon ,{\mathscr {T}}_{\varDelta }({L}),{\textbf{A}})\) be a \(\varDelta \)-\({{\mathcal {T}}}{{\mathcal {S}}}\). Define the \(\varDelta \)-interior and \(\varDelta \)-closure of \({L} \subseteq \Upsilon \), respectively, as follows.
Example 4.5
Consider Example 3.2. If \({L}=\{g_1,g_3,g_5\}\), then we have
-
(1)
\(\Im ^{1}({L})=\{g_3,g_5\},\ \ {{\mathbb {C}}}^{1}({L})=\Upsilon .\)
-
(2)
\(\Im ^{2}({L})=\{g_3\},\ \ {{\mathbb {C}}}^{2}({L})=\{g_1,g_2,g_3,g_5\}.\)
-
(3)
\(\Im ^{3}({L})=\{g_3,g_5\},\ \ {{\mathbb {C}}}^{3}({L})=\{g_1,g_2,g_3,g_5\}.\)
-
(4)
\(\Im ^{4}({L})=\{g_3\},\ \ {{\mathbb {C}}}^{4}({L})=\Upsilon .\)
Corollary 4.6
Let \((\Upsilon ,{\mathscr {T}}_{\varDelta }({L}),{\textbf{A}})\) be a \(\varDelta \)-\({{\mathcal {T}}}{{\mathcal {S}}}\). Then we have the following equalities hold.
-
(1)
\({\hat{P}}_{-1}({L})=\Im ^{1}({L}), \ \ {\hat{P}}_{+1}({L})={{\mathbb {C}}}^{1}({L}).\)
-
(2)
\({\hat{P}}_{-2}({L})=\Im ^{2}({L}), \ \ {\hat{P}}_{+2}({L})={{\mathbb {C}}}^{2}({L}).\)
-
(3)
\({\hat{P}}_{-3}({L})=\Im ^{3}({L}), \ \ {\hat{P}}_{+3}({L})={{\mathbb {C}}}^{3}({L}).\)
-
(4)
\({\hat{P}}_{-4}({L})=\Im ^{4}({L}), \ \ {\hat{P}}_{+4}({L})={{\mathbb {C}}}^{4}({L}).\)
Theorem 4.7
Let \((\Upsilon ,{\mathscr {T}}_{\varDelta }({L}),{\textbf{A}})\) be a \(\varDelta \)-\({{\mathcal {T}}}{{\mathcal {S}}}\). For each \({L},{L}_{1},{L}_{2} \subseteq \Upsilon \), the following relations are correct.
-
(1)
\(\Im ^{\varDelta }(\emptyset )=\emptyset , \Im ^{\varDelta }(\Upsilon )=\Upsilon .\)
-
(2)
\(\Im ^{\varDelta }({L}) \subseteq {L}.\)
-
(3)
L is open set \(\iff \ \) \(\Im ^{\varDelta }({L}) = {L}.\)
-
(4)
\(\Im ^{\varDelta }(\Im ^{\varDelta }({L}))=\Im ^{\varDelta }({L}).\)
-
(5)
If \({L}_{1} \subseteq {L}_{2}\), then \(\Im ^{\varDelta }({L}_{1}) \subseteq \Im ^{\varDelta }({L}_{2}).\)
-
(6)
\(\Im ^{\varDelta }({L}_{1}\cap {L}_{2})=\Im ^{\varDelta }({L}_{1}) \cap \Im ^{\varDelta }({L}_{2}).\)
-
(7)
\(\Im ^{\varDelta }({L}_{1}) \cup \Im ^{\varDelta }({L}_{2}) \subseteq \Im ^{\varDelta }({L}_{1}\cup {L}_{2}).\)
Proof
We shall prove only the theorem when \(\varDelta =\{1\}\). The other cases are similar.
-
(1)
\(\Im ^{1}(\emptyset )=\cup \{{{\mathbb {D}}}\in {\mathscr {T}}_{1}: {{\mathbb {D}}}\subseteq \emptyset \}=\emptyset , \ \ \Im ^{1}(\Upsilon )=\cup \{{{\mathbb {D}}}\in {\mathscr {T}}_{1}: {{\mathbb {D}}}\subseteq \Upsilon \}=\Upsilon .\)
-
(2)
This is clear by Definition 4.4.
-
(3)
If L is open set, then the largest open set that is contained in L is L itself. Hence, \(\Im ^{\varDelta }({L}) = {L}.\)
On the other hand, let \(\Im ^{\varDelta }({L}) = {L}\). As \(\Im ^{\varDelta }({L})\) is \(\varDelta \)-open set, L is \(\varDelta \)-open set.
-
(4)
\(\Im ^{1}(\Im ^{1}({L}))=\cup \{{{\mathbb {D}}}\in {\mathscr {T}}_{1}: {{\mathbb {D}}}\subseteq \Im ^{1}({L})\}=\cup \{{{\mathbb {D}}}\in {\mathscr {T}}_{1}: {{\mathbb {D}}}\subseteq \cup \big [{{\mathbb {D}}}\in {\mathscr {T}}_{1}: {{\mathbb {D}}}\subseteq {L}\big ]\}=\cup \{{{\mathbb {D}}}\in {\mathscr {T}}_{1}: {{\mathbb {D}}}\subseteq {L}\}=\Im ^{1}({L}).\)
-
(5)
\(\Im ^{1}({L}_{1})=\cup \{{{\mathbb {D}}}\in {\mathscr {T}}_{1}: {{\mathbb {D}}}\subseteq {L}_{1}\} \subseteq \cup \{{{\mathbb {D}}}\in {\mathscr {T}}_{1}: {{\mathbb {D}}}\subseteq {L}_{2}\}=\Im ^{1}({L}_{2}).\)
-
(6)
\(\Im ^{\varDelta }({L}_{1}\cap {L}_{2})=\cup \{{{\mathbb {D}}}\in {\mathscr {T}}_{1}: {{\mathbb {D}}}\subseteq ({L}_{1}\cap {L}_{2})\}=\cup \{{{\mathbb {D}}}\in {\mathscr {T}}_{1}: {{\mathbb {D}}}\subseteq {L}_{1} \wedge {{\mathbb {D}}}\subseteq {L}_{2}\}=\cup \{{{\mathbb {D}}}\in {\mathscr {T}}_{1}: {{\mathbb {D}}}\subseteq {L}_{1}\}\wedge \cup \{{{\mathbb {D}}}\in {\mathscr {T}}_{1}: {{\mathbb {D}}}\subseteq {L}_{2}\}=\Im ^{\varDelta }({L}_{1}) \cap \Im ^{\varDelta }({L}_{2}).\)
-
(7)
Since \({L}_{1} \subseteq {L}_{1} \cup {L}_{2}\), by (5) we have \(\Im ^{\varDelta }({L}_{1})\subseteq \Im ^{\varDelta }({L}_{1}\cup {L}_{2}) \). Also, \({L}_{2} \subseteq {L}_{1} \cup {L}_{2}\), implies that by (5), \(\Im ^{\varDelta }({L}_{2})\subseteq \Im ^{\varDelta }({L}_{1}\cup {L}_{2})\). Thus \(\Im ^{\varDelta }({L}_{1}) \cup \Im ^{\varDelta }({L}_{2}) \subseteq \Im ^{\varDelta }({L}_{1}\cup {L}_{2}).\)
\(\square \)
Theorem 4.8
Let \((\Upsilon ,{\mathscr {T}}_{\varDelta }({L}),{\textbf{A}})\) be a \(\varDelta \)-\({{\mathcal {T}}}{{\mathcal {S}}}\). For each \({L},{L}_{1},{L}_{2} \subseteq \Upsilon \). Then the following relations hold.
-
(1)
\({{\mathbb {C}}}^{\varDelta }(\emptyset )=\emptyset , {{\mathbb {C}}}^{\varDelta }(\Upsilon )=\Upsilon .\)
-
(2)
\({{\mathbb {C}}}^{\varDelta }({L}) \subseteq {L}.\)
-
(3)
L is \(\varDelta \)-closed set \(\iff \ \) \({{\mathbb {C}}}^{\varDelta }({L}) = {L}.\)
-
(4)
\({{\mathbb {C}}}^{\varDelta }({{\mathbb {C}}}^{\varDelta }({L}))={{\mathbb {C}}}^{\varDelta }({L}).\)
-
(5)
If \({L}_{1} \subseteq {L}_{2}\), then \({{\mathbb {C}}}^{\varDelta }({L}_{1}) \subseteq {{\mathbb {C}}}^{\varDelta }({L}_{2}).\)
-
(6)
\({{\mathbb {C}}}^{\varDelta }({L}_{1}) \cup {{\mathbb {C}}}^{\varDelta }({L}_{2}) = {{\mathbb {C}}}^{\varDelta }({L}_{1}\cup {L}_{2}).\)
-
(7)
\({{\mathbb {C}}}^{\varDelta }({L}_{1} \cap {L}_{2}) \subseteq {{\mathbb {C}}}^{\varDelta }({L}_{1}) \cap {{\mathbb {C}}}^{\varDelta }({L}_{2}).\)
Proof
The proof is similar to the one in Theorem 4.7. \(\square \)
Definition 4.9
Let \((\Upsilon ,{\mathscr {T}}_{\varDelta }({L}),{\textbf{A}})\) be a \(\varDelta \)-\({{\mathcal {T}}}{{\mathcal {S}}}\). For each \({L} \subseteq \Upsilon \), define the \(\varDelta \)-boundary of L as follows.
Theorem 4.10
Let \((\Upsilon ,{\mathscr {T}}_{\varDelta }({L}),{\textbf{A}})\) be a \(\varDelta \)-\({{\mathcal {T}}}{{\mathcal {S}}}\). For each \({L} \subseteq \Upsilon \). Then the following equalities hold.
-
(1)
\({{\mathbb {C}}}^{\varDelta }({L})={L} \cup {{{\mathcal {B}}}}^{\varDelta }({L}).\)
-
(2)
\(\Im ^{\varDelta }({L})={L}-{{{\mathcal {B}}}}^{\varDelta }({L}).\)
Proof
We shall only prove the theorem taking \(\varDelta =\{1\}\). The other cases are almost similar.
-
(1)
Suppose that \({L} \subseteq \Upsilon \). Then \(\Upsilon ={L} \cup {L}^{c} \subseteq {L} \cup {{\mathbb {C}}}^{1}({L}^{c}) \subseteq \Upsilon \). Thus \(\Upsilon = {L} \cup {{\mathbb {C}}}^{1}({L}^{c})\). So, we have
\({L} \cup {{{\mathcal {B}}}}^{1}({L})={L} \cup \big ({{\mathbb {C}}}^{1}({L}) \cap {{\mathbb {C}}}^{1}({L}^{c})\big ) =\big ({L} \cup {{\mathbb {C}}}^{1}({L})\big )\cap \big ({L} \cup {{\mathbb {C}}}^{1}({L}^{c})\big ) ={{\mathbb {C}}}^{1}({L}) \cap \big ({L} \cup {{\mathbb {C}}}^{1}(\upsilon -\Im ^{1}({L}))\big )= {{\mathbb {C}}}^{1}({L}) \cap \Upsilon ={{\mathbb {C}}}^{1}({L}).\)
-
(2)
\({L}-{{{\mathcal {B}}}}^{\varDelta }({L})={L}-\big ({{\mathbb {C}}}^{1}({L}) \cap {{\mathbb {C}}}^{1}({L}^{c})\big )={L} \cap \big ({{\mathbb {C}}}^{1}({L}) \cap {{\mathbb {C}}}^{1}({L}^{c})\big )^{c}= {L} \cap \big (({{\mathbb {C}}}^{1}({L}))^{c} \cup ({{\mathbb {C}}}^{1}({L}^{c}))^{c}\big ) ={L} \cap \big (\Im ^{1}({L}^{c})\cup \Im ^{1}({L})\big )= \big ({L}\cap \Im ^{1}({L}^{c})\big )\cup \big ({L}\cap \Im ^{1}({L})\big )=\emptyset \cup \Im ^{1}({L})=\Im ^{1}({L}).\) \(\square \)
As a consensus of the above theorem we have the following remark.
Remark 4.11
Let \((\Upsilon ,{\mathscr {T}}_{\varDelta }({L}),{\textbf{A}})\) be a \(\varDelta \)-\({{\mathcal {T}}}{{\mathcal {S}}}\). For each \({L} \subseteq \Upsilon \), the following results hold.
-
(1)
L is open set \(\iff \ \) \({L} \cap {{{\mathcal {B}}}}^{\varDelta }({L})=\emptyset .\)
-
(2)
L is closed set \(\iff \ \) \({L} \supseteq {{{\mathcal {B}}}}^{\varDelta }({L}).\)
-
(3)
\({{{\mathcal {B}}}}^{\varDelta }({L})=\emptyset \iff \) L is \(\varDelta \)-open and \(\varDelta \)-closed set.
Definition 4.12
Let \((\Upsilon ,{\mathscr {T}}_{\varDelta }({L}),{\textbf{A}})\) be a \(\varDelta \)-\({{\mathcal {T}}}{{\mathcal {S}}}\). For each \(g \in \Upsilon \) and \({L} \subseteq \Upsilon \). We say L is a \(\varDelta \)-neighborhood of g if \(\exists {L}_{g} \in {\mathscr {T}}_{\varDelta }\) with \(g \in {L}_{g} \subseteq {L}.\)
Definition 4.13
Let \((\Upsilon ,{\mathscr {T}}_{\varDelta }({L}),{\textbf{A}})\) be a \(\varDelta \)-\({{\mathcal {T}}}{{\mathcal {S}}}\). For each \(g \in \Upsilon \) and \({L} \subseteq \Upsilon \). We say L is a \(\varDelta \)-limit point of g if every \(\varDelta \)-open set \({{\mathbb {T}}}\) containing g, it is also contains a point of L different from g, i.e.,
Also, the set of all \(\varDelta \)-limit points of L is said to be the derived set of L and is denoted by \({L}^{{{\mathbb {D}}}}.\)
It is an easy target to prove the following theorem, so we omit it.
Theorem 4.14
Let \((\Upsilon ,{\mathscr {T}}_{\varDelta }({L}),{\textbf{A}})\) be a \(\varDelta \)-\({{\mathcal {T}}}{{\mathcal {S}}}\). For each \({L} \subseteq \Upsilon \). Then the following properties holds.
-
(1)
\({{\mathbb {C}}}^{\varDelta }({L})={L} \cup {L}^{{{\mathbb {D}}}}.\)
-
(2)
L is closed set \(\iff \ {L} \supseteq {L}^{{{\mathbb {D}}}}.\)
Next, we discuss the relationships between these different kinds of topologies as follows.
Proposition 4.15
Let \((\Upsilon ,{\mathscr {T}}_{\varDelta }({L}),{\textbf{A}})\) be a \(\varDelta \)-\({{\mathcal {T}}}{{\mathcal {S}}}\). Then for each \({L} \subseteq \Upsilon \), we have the following relations.
-
(1)
\(\Im ^{4}({L}) \subseteq \Im ^{2}({L}) \subseteq \Im ^{3}({L}).\)
-
(2)
\(\Im ^{4}({L}) \subseteq \Im ^{1}({L}) \subseteq \Im ^{3}({L}).\)
-
(3)
\({{\mathbb {C}}}^{3}({L}) \subseteq {{\mathbb {C}}}^{2}({L}) \subseteq {{\mathbb {C}}}^{4}({L}).\)
-
(4)
\({{\mathbb {C}}}^{3}({L}) \subseteq {{\mathbb {C}}}^{1}({L}) \subseteq {{\mathbb {C}}}^{4}({L}).\)
Proof
Follows directly from Definition 4.1. \(\square \)
Proposition 4.16
Let \((\Upsilon ,{\mathscr {T}}_{\varDelta }({L}),{\textbf{A}})\) be a \(\varDelta \)-\({{\mathcal {T}}}{{\mathcal {S}}}\). Then we have the following relations.
-
(1)
\(\Im ^{3}({L})= \Im ^{1}({L}) \cup \Im ^{2}({L}).\)
-
(2)
\({{\mathbb {C}}}^{3}({L})= {{\mathbb {C}}}^{1}({L}) \cap {{\mathbb {C}}}^{2}({L}).\)
-
(3)
\(\Im ^{4}({L})= \Im ^{1}({L}) \cap \Im ^{2}({L}).\)
-
(4)
\({{\mathbb {C}}}^{4}({L})= {{\mathbb {C}}}^{1}({L}) \cup {{\mathbb {C}}}^{2}({L}).\)
Proof
Straightforward. \(\square \)
5 An application by using the proposed method
Let us presume that \(\{g_1,g_2,g_3,...,g_{r}\}\) be r engineers (alternatives) and \(\{\nu _{1}, \nu _{2},...,\nu _{m}\}\) be m attributes connected to a company which needs to offer a job for an engineering. Thus we use the beauty of soft set to evaluate the optimal engineer through our suggested covering method. So, we establish the MGDM with \((\Upsilon ,{{\textbf{F}}},{\textbf{A}})\), where \(\Upsilon =\{g_1,g_2,g_3,...,g_{r}\}\) and \({\textbf{A}}=\{\nu _{1}, \nu _{2},...,\nu _{m}\}\). According to the presented models, we built the following algorithm to select the best.
The clarified steps in Algorithm 1 are summarized by the following numerical example.
Example 5.1
Let us consider the engineers form a set \(\Upsilon =\{g_1,g_2,g_3,...,g_{40}\}\) and the given parameters are presented by the set \({\textbf{A}}=\{\nu _{1}, \nu _{2},...,\nu _{4}\}\). These parameters corresponding to the following features, respectively (experience, skills, personality and self-confidence). So, the following steps are obtained.
Step 1 Establish the \({{\mathcal {S}}}{{\mathcal {C}}}\) \(({{\textbf{F}}},{\textbf{A}})\) as in Table 2.
Step 2 Construct the proficient estimation \({\mathcal {P}}=({\mathcal {M}},{\textbf{P}})\) and let the output of this estimation be \({\mathscr {Y}}\). Then \({\mathcal {M}}({\textbf{P}}_{i})={\mathscr {Y}}_{i}\) \((\forall i \in \{1,2,3\})\), and Table 3 contains the data gained by the experts.
So, we have
\({\mathscr {Y}}_{1}={\mathcal {M}}({\textbf{P}}_{1})=\{g_3,g_5\}, \ {\mathscr {Y}}_{2}={\mathcal {M}}({\textbf{P}}_{2})=\{g_2,g_4\},\) and \({\mathscr {Y}}_{3}={\mathcal {M}}({\textbf{P}}_{3})=\{g_1,g_3,g_6\}.\)
Step 3 Compute the lower and upper approximation for the two soft sets \({\mathcal {P}}^{\circ }=({\mathcal {M}}^{\circ },{\textbf{P}})\) and \({\mathcal {P}}^{\bullet }=({\mathcal {M}}^{\bullet },{\textbf{P}})\), where \({\mathcal {M}}^{\circ }({\textbf{P}}_{i})={\hat{P}}_{-3}({\mathscr {Y}}_{i}), \ \ {\mathcal {M}}^{\bullet }({\textbf{P}}_{i})={\hat{P}}_{+3}({\mathscr {Y}}_{i}),\) as shown in Tables 4 and 5.
\( {\mathscr {X}}_{1}(g_1)=\{g_1,g_5\}, {\mathscr {X}}_{1}(g_2)=\{g_2,g_4\}, {\mathscr {X}}_{1}(g_3)=\{g_3\}, {\mathscr {X}}_{1}(g_4)=\{g_2,g_4\}, {\mathscr {X}}_{1}(g_5)=\{g_5\}, {\mathscr {X}}_{1}(g_6)=\{g_3,g_6\}.\)
\({\mathscr {X}}_{2}(g_1)=\{g_1\}, {\mathscr {X}}_{2}(g_2)=\{g_2,g_4\}, {\mathscr {X}}_{2}(g_3)=\{g_3,g_6\},\) \( {\mathscr {X}}_{2}(g_4)=\{g_2,g_4\}, {\mathscr {X}}_{2}(g_5)=\{g_1,g_5\}, {\mathscr {X}}_{2}(g_6)=\{g_6\}.\)
\({\mathscr {X}}_{3}(g_1)=\{g_1\}, {\mathscr {X}}_{3}(g_2)=\{g_2,g_4\}, {\mathscr {X}}_{3}(g_3)=\{g_3\}, \) \({\mathscr {X}}_{3}(g_4)=\{g_2,g_4\}, {\mathscr {X}}_{3}(g_5)=\{g_5\}, {\mathscr {X}}_{3}(g_6)=\{g_6\}.\)
Thus
\({\mathcal {M}}^{\circ }({\textbf{P}}_{1})={\hat{P}}_{-3}({\mathscr {Y}}_{1})= {\mathcal {M}}^{\bullet }({\textbf{P}}_{1})={\hat{P}}_{+3}({\mathscr {Y}}_{1})=\{g_3,g_5\}.\)
\({\mathcal {M}}^{\circ }({\textbf{P}}_{2})={\hat{P}}_{-3}({\mathscr {Y}}_{2})={\mathcal {M}}^{\bullet }({\textbf{P}}_{2})={\hat{P}}_{+3}({\mathscr {Y}}_{2})=\{g_2,g_4\},\)
\({\mathcal {M}}^{\circ }({\textbf{P}}_{3})={\hat{P}}_{-3}({\mathscr {Y}}_{3})= {\mathcal {M}}^{\bullet }({\textbf{P}}_{3})={\hat{P}}_{+3}({\mathscr {Y}}_{3})=\{g_1,g_3,g_6\}.\)
Step 4 Build the characteristic function \(\xi _{{\mathscr {Y}}}\) of \({\mathscr {Y}}\) and investigate the function of \({\mathcal {P}}=({\mathcal {M}},{\textbf{P}})\) as follows.
Also, we obtain the functions for the other two soft set as follows.
Hence, the following results are obtained.
and
Step 5 Assume that \(({\mathscr {L}}\)(Low gratification)\(,{\mathscr {M}}\) (Medium gratification), and \({\mathscr {H}}\)(High gratification)) be the parameter set through experts. Thus we can establish Table 6 for the soft set \({{{\mathcal {B}}}}=(\varLambda ,\S )\), where \(\varLambda ({\mathscr {L}})(g_r)=\zeta _{{\mathcal {P}}^{\bullet }}(g_r), \ \ \varLambda ({\mathscr {M}})(g_r)=\zeta _{{\mathcal {P}}}(g_r), \ \ \varLambda ({\mathscr {H}})(g_r)=\zeta _{{\mathcal {P}}^{\circ }}(g_r)\) and \(\S =\{{\mathscr {L}},{\mathscr {M}},{\mathscr {H}}\}\).
Hence, the ordering of the alternatives are as follows. Let the select outcome is \(\varDelta (g_r)={\mathscr {L}}(g_r)+{\mathscr {M}}(g_r)+{\mathscr {H}}(g_r).\) So, we have
Thus,
Therefore, the 3th engineering is the best among others.
5.1 Comparative analysis
The prime objective of this work is to growing the lower approximation and lowering the upper approximation of Zhan and Alcantud (2019), Feng (2011) and Riaz et al. (2019) as seen in Example 3.4. Now, we intend to clarify the rapprochement between Zhan and Alcantud (2019), Feng (2011), Riaz et al. (2019) and our’s, the sorting outcomes of these models are set in Table 7.
In view of Table 7, the optimal alternative is the same (i.e., \(g_3\)) among all distinct methods that are Feng’s method Feng (2011), Zhan’s method Zhan and Alcantud (2019) and Riaz’s method Riaz et al. (2019), this means that our approach is credible and effective, with vantage to our’s in increasing the lower approximation and decreasing the upper approximation which lead to decrease the boundary region as in .
6 Conclusion
The aim of the employed techniques is to grow the lower approximation and lower the upper approximation depending very strongly on property soft neighborhoods and uses them to construct models of \(\mathcal {CSR}\). Also, we studied the relations between these models. Then we turned our attention to study some of the topological properties based on the \(\mathcal {CSR}\) approach. Finally, we utilized the algorithm for the proposed model to deal with MGDM problems.
Data Availability
Enquiries about data availability should be directed to the authors.
References
Alcantud JCR (2020) Soft open bases and a novel construction of soft topologies from bases for topologies. Mathematics 8(5):672
Alcantud JCR, Zhan J (2020) Multi-granular soft rough covering sets. Soft Comput 24:9391–9402
Ali MI (2011) A note on soft sets, rough sets and fuzzy soft sets. Appl Soft Comput 11(4):3329–3332
Atef M, Khalil AM, Li SG, Azzam A, El Atik AA (2020) Comparison of six types of rough approximations based on j-neighborhood space and j-adhesion neighborhood space. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 39:4515–4531
Bonikowski Z, Bryniarski E, Wybraniec-Skardowska U (1998) Extensions and intentions in rough set theory. Inf Sci 107:149–167
Couso I, Dubois D (2011) Rough sets, coverings and incomplete information. Fund Inform 108(3–4):223–247
D’eer L, Cornelis C, Godo L (2017) Fuzzy neighborhood operators based on fuzzy coverings. Fuzzy Sets Syst 312:17–35
Deng T, Chen Y, Xu W, Dai Q (2007) A novel approach to fuzzy rough sets based on a fuzzy covering. Inf Sci 177:2308–2326
Dubois D, Prade H (1990) Rough fuzzy sets and fuzzy rough sets. Int J Gen Syst 17(2–3):191–201
El Atik AA, Nawar AS, Atef M (2021) Rough approximation models via graphs based on neighborhood systems, Granular. Computing 6:1025–1035
Feng F (2011) Soft rough sets applied to multi-criteria group decision making. Ann Fuzzy Math Inform 2(1):69–80
Feng F, Li C, Davvaz B, Ali MI (2010) Soft sets combined with fuzzy sets and rough sets: a tentative approach. Soft Comput 14(9):899–911
Feng F, Liu XY, Leoreanu-Fotea V, Jun YB (2011) Soft sets and soft rough sets. Inf Sci 181(6):1125–1137
Herawan T, Deris M, Abawajy J (2010) Rough set approach for selecting clustering attribute. Knowl-Based Syst 23:220–231
Hu Q, Zhang L, Chen D, Pedrycz W, Yu D (2010) Gaussian kernel based fuzzy rough sets: model, uncertainty measures and applications. Int J Approx Reason 51(4):453–471
Huang KY, Chang T-H, Chang T-C (2011) Determination of the threshold value \(\beta \) of variable precision rough set by fuzzy algorithms. Int J Approx Reason 52(7):1056–1072
Jensen R, Shen Q (2004) Semantics-preserving dimensionality reduction: rough and fuzzy-rough-based approaches. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 16(12):1457–1471
Li Z, Xie T (2014) The relationships among soft sets, soft rough sets and topologies. Soft Comput 18:717–728
Li TJ, Leung Y, Zhang WX (2008) Generalized fuzzy rough approximation operators based on fuzzy coverings. Int J Approx Reason 48(3):836–856
Li Z, Xie N, Wen G (2015) Soft coverings and their parameter reductions. Appl Soft Comput 31:48–60
Liu G, Sai Y (2009) A comparison of two types of rough sets induced by coverings. Int J Approx Reason 50:521–528
Liu G, Zhu W (2008) The algebraic structures of generalized rough set theory. Inf Sci 178:4105–4113
Ma L (2012) On some types of neighborhood related covering rough sets. Int J Approx Reason 53:901–911
Ma L (2016) Two fuzzy covering rough set models and their generalizations over fuzzy lattices. Fuzzy Sets Syst 294:1–17
Maji PK, Roy AR, Biswas R (2002) An application of soft sets in a decision making problem. Comput Math Appl 44(8):1077–1083
Min WK (2020) Attribute reduction in soft contexts based on soft sets and its application to formal contexts. Mathematics 8(5):689
Molodtsov D (1999) Soft set theory-first results. Comput Math Appl 37:19–31
Pal S, Mitra P (2004) Case generation using rough sets with fuzzy representation. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 16:293–300
Pawlak Z (1982) Rough sets. Int J Comput Inf Sci 11(5):341–356
Pawlak Z (1985) Rough concept analysis. Bull Polish Acad Sci Math 33:9–10
Pomykala JA (1987) Approximation operations in approximation space. Bull Polish Acad Sci 35:653–662
Pomykala JA (1988) On definability in the nondeterministic information system. Bull Polish Acad Sci 36:193–210
Qian Y, Liang J, Dang C (2009) Knowledge structure, knowledge granulation and knowledge distance in a knowledge base. Int J Approx Reason 50(1):174–188
Riaz M, Davvaz B, Firdous A, Fakhar A (2019) Novel concepts of soft rough set topology with applications. J Intell Fuzzy Syst 36(4):3579–3590
Shabir M, Ali MI, Shaheen T (2013) Another approach to soft rough sets. Knowl-Based Syst 40:72–80
Sun B, Ma W, Qian Y (2017) Multigranulation fuzzy rough set over two universes and its application to decision making. Knowl-Based Syst 123:61–74
Tsang ECC, Chen D, Yeung DS (2008) Approximations and reducts with covering generalized rough sets. Comput Math Appl 56:279–289
Wu WZ, Zhang WX (2004) Neighborhood operator systems and approximation operators. Inf Sci 159:233–254
Xu WH, Zhang WX (2007) Measuring roughness of generalized rough sets induced a covering. Fuzzy Sets Syst 158:2443–2455
Yang B, Hu BQ (2017) On some types of fuzzy covering based rough sets. Fuzzy Sets Syst 312:36–65
Yang B, Hu BQ (2019) Fuzzy neighborhood operators and derived fuzzy coverings. Fuzzy Sets Syst 370:1–33
Yang XP, Li TJ (2006) The minimization of axiom sets characterizing generalized approximation operators. Inf Sci 176:887–899
Yao YY (1998) Relational interpretations of neighborhood operators and rough set approximation operators. Inf Sci 111:239–259
Yao YY (2010) Three-way decisions with probabilistic rough sets. Inf Sci 180(3):341–353
Yao YY, Yao B (2012) Covering based rough set approximations. Inf Sci 200:91–107
Yeung DS, Chen D, Lee J, Wang X (2015) On the generalization of fuzzy rough sets. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 13:343–361
Yüksel S, Güzel Ergül Z, Tozlu N (2014) Soft covering based rough sets and their application. Sci World J. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/970893
Yüksel S, Tozlu N, Dizman TH (2015) An application of multicriteria group decision making by soft covering based rough sets. Filomat 29(1):209–219
Zhan J, Alcantud JCR (2019) A novel type of soft rough covering and its application to multicriteria group decision making. Artif Intell Rev 52(4):2381–2410
Zhan J, Alcantud JCR (2019) A novel type of soft rough covering and its application to multicriteria group decision making. Artif Intell Rev 52(4):2381–2410
Zhan J, Wang Q (2019) Certain types of soft coverings based rough sets with applications. Int J Mach Learn Cybern 10(5):1065–1076
Zhang H, Liang H, Liu D (2004) Two new operators in rough set theory with applications to fuzzy sets. Inf Sci 166(1–4):147–165
Zhu W (2007) Topological approaches to covering rough sets. Inf Sci 177:1499–1508
Zhu W, Wang F (2003) Reduction and axiomization of covering generalized rough sets. Inf Sci 152:217–230
Zhu W, Wang F (2007) On three types of covering rough sets. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 19:1131–1144
Zhu W, Wang F (2012) The fourth types of covering-based rough sets. Inf Sci 201:80–92
Ziarko W (1993) Variable precision rough set model. J Comput Syst Sci 46(1):39–59
Funding
Open access funding provided by The Science, Technology & Innovation Funding Authority (STDF) in cooperation with The Egyptian Knowledge Bank (EKB). Not applicable.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
MA, SN and AN contributed to conceptualization, methodology, investigation, writing-original draft preparation, writing-reviewing and editing.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interests
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Informed consent
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Atef, M., Nada, S. & Nawar, A. Covering soft rough sets and its topological properties with application. Soft Comput 27, 4451–4461 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-023-07812-x
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-023-07812-x