International Journal on Recent and Innovation Trends in Computing and Communication

Volume: 2 Issue: 2

ISSN: 2321-8169
216 221

______________________________________________________________________________________

Nave Properties on Rough Connectives under Fuzziness

G.Ganesan

BNV Satish

Department of Mathematics
Adikavi Nannaya University
Rajahmundry, India
Email Id: prof.ganesan@yahoo.com

Department of Mathematics
Adikavi Nannaya University
Rajahmundry, India
Email Id: bnvsathish@gmail.com

AbstractIn recent era, since implementing fuzzy concepts into the existing conventional models improve the efficiency, several hybridized
models are being derived by the researchers. In this line, in 2005, G.Ganesan et. al., have introduced rough approximations on fuzzy sets using
thresholds. Later, in 2008, G.Ganesan et.al., introduced an innovative way of approximating the connectives in fuzzy predicate calculus through
rough sets. In this paper, additional properties of the connectives thus derived have been derived.
Keywords: fuzzy sets, rough sets, fuzzy predicate calculus,

_____________________________________________*****____________________________________________

1. INTRODUCTION

properties of rough connectives in fuzzy predicates by

considering the underlying properties as in [6]. Fourth
section is devoted for the concluding remarks.

In 2005, G.Ganesan et. al., [2] discussed the concept of

thresholds in rough fuzzy computing. Later, in 2008, they
introduced rough connectives for fuzzy predicates using [2].
In 1982, Z. Pawlak developed a mathematical model namely
Rough Sets [8]. This model has been currently used by the
researchers in the areas such as Knowledge acquisition,
Knowledge Discovery, information retrieval etc to improve
the efficiency.

2. ROUGH SETS AND FUZZY PREDICATE CALCULUS

2.1. Rough Sets
According to Pawlak [8], for a given concept A, the lower
approximation and upper approximations are given by

Since the work of Atanassovs intuitionistic fuzzy sets [1]

which is the generalization of fuzzy model [7] of Zadeh, in
2013, G.Ganesan et.al., developed the concept of rough
connectives [5] on intuitionistic fuzzy predicates.

{x U /[ x]E

A} and

{x U /[ x]E

} respectively, where E is an

equivalence relation defined on U .

2.2. Fuzzy Predicates

As these papers had focused only on the basic axioms of

these connectives, in this paper, an initiative is made to
derive additional properties on these connectives. This paper
is organized into four sections. In the second section, we
discussed the basic definition of Rough Sets and fuzzy
predicates. In third section, we derived a few of the

The predicates, which do not have precise logical value, are

called fuzzy predicates [4]. For any two fuzzy predicates
p(x) and q(x), the fuzzy conjunction ( ), fuzzy disjunction
( ), fuzzy negation (neg), fuzzy implication ( ) and fuzzy
bi implication ( ) are defined as follows.

For any two fuzzy predicates p(a) and q(b),

Fuzzy Conjunction ( )

Fuzzy Disjunction ( )

( p ( a ) q ( b ))

Fuzzy Negation (neg)

( neg ( p ( a )))

Fuzzy implication () :

( p ( a ) q (b ))

( p(a)

q ( b ))

min(

p(a) ,

max(

p(a)

q (b ) )
q (b )

p(a)

max(1

p(a)

q (b )

216
IJRITCC | February 2014, Available @ http://www.ijritcc.org

_______________________________________________________________________________________

International Journal on Recent and Innovation Trends in Computing and Communication

Volume: 2 Issue: 2

ISSN: 2321-8169
216 221

______________________________________________________________________________________
Fuzzy bi-implication ( ): ( p ( a ) q (b )) min( ( p ( a ) q (b)) , ( q (b) p ( a )) )
In [5], we have established the approximated connectives
under fuzziness and intuitionistic fuzziness proposed by
Atanasov [1]. However to make the paper to be self
explanatory, we describe the concepts of rough
approximations on these predicates as given in [3, 5].

For each , define P[ ]={x: P{x}> }.

The lower and upper rough approximations are defined by

3. ROUGH CONNECTIVES OF FUZZY PREDICATES

P( x)

[ x] X :[ x]

P[ ] and

[ x] X :[ x]

P[ ]

respectively.

For any fuzzy predicate P with an argument x, according to

[3, 5] P{x} [may also be written as

] denotes the

3.1 Results:

grade of membership of P(x).

Pi c [ ]={Pi[1- ]}c

a)

For any collection of fuzzy predicates {P1,P2,,Pk} and the

arguments {x1,x2,,xn}, let X be any partition defined on
the collection of all arguments using some equivalence
relation. Then Pi can be denoted as Pi=(Pi{x1}, Pi{x2},,
Pi{xn}). The complement of Pi is given by

)c

b) ( Pi ) =( Pi
c

( Pi ) =( Pi ,1

c)

)c

Hence, the corresponding membership values can be written

as

Pi =(1-Pi{x1}, 1-

(negPi ( x))

( Pi1 ( x))

grades of membership of the elements of Pi are merely the

(negPi ( x))

( Pi,1 ( x)) where represents negation

grades of membership of the negations of Pi(x).

in usual predicate calculus.

As in [3, 5], define the set M={s/s=Pi{xj} or s=1- Pi{xj};

i=1,2,,k; j=1,2,,n}.

3.2. Rough Connectives on Fuzzy Predicates

Let

In this section, the connectives are introduced similar to the

connectives used in the predicate calculus.

Pi{x2},, 1-Pi{xn}). From this, it can be observed that the

c

(0,1)-M

For the given fuzzy predicates Pi(x) and Pj(y):

Rough conjunction (

) is defined as Pi(x)

Pj(y) = Pi, (x)

Pj, (y) and

Pi(x)

Pj(y) = Pi (x)

Pj (y)

Pi(x)

Pj(y) = Pi (x)

Pj (y)

respectively.
Rough disjunction (

) is defined as Pi(x)

Pj(y) = Pi, (x)

Pj, (y) and

respectively.
Rough implication (

Pi,1 (x)

(x)

Pj, (y) and Pi(x)

Pj(y)=

Pj (y) respectively.

Rough bi-implication (

Pi(x)] and

Pi(x)

Pj(y) =

Rough

negation

Pi ( x)

Pj(y) = Pi

) is defined as Pi(x)

(negPi ( x))

) is defined as Pi(x)
[Pi(x)
)

is

Pj(y)]
defined

Pj(y) =
[Pj(y)

as

[Pi(x)

Pj(y)]

[Pj(y)

Pi(x)] respectively.

Pi ( x)

(negPi ( x))

( Pi1 ( x))

and

( Pi,1 ( x)) respectively.

The Truth values of the above connectives are shown in the

following table by using following example.

Consider the universe of discourse U={a,b,c,d,e,f} with the

partition
={{a,c,e},{b,f},{d}}. Consider the fuzzy

217
IJRITCC | February 2014, Available @ http://www.ijritcc.org

_______________________________________________________________________________________

International Journal on Recent and Innovation Trends in Computing and Communication

Volume: 2 Issue: 2

ISSN: 2321-8169
216 221

______________________________________________________________________________________
Proof: LHS P( x)
Q( y )

predicates P and Q defined on U which are given by P= (0.2,

0.6, 0.5, 0.4, 0.3, 0.7) and Q= (0.4, 0.6, 0.3, 0.6, 0.5, 0.8).

= ((negP ( x))
Let =0.45. Then P[ ]={b,c,f} and Q[ ]={b,d,e,f}. Hence,
P ={b,f}, P ={a,b,c,e,f}, Q ={b,d,f} and Q = .

Q( y ))

= (Q( y ) (negP ( x)))

x1

= (neg (negQ( y ))

x2

= ((negQ( y ))

P( x1 ) Q( x2 )

P( x1 ) Q( x2 )

P( x1 ) Q( x2 )

P( x1 ) Q( x2 )

P( x1 )

Q( x2 )

P( x1 )

Q( x2 )

P( x1 )

Q( x2 )

P( x1 )

Q( x2 )

P( x1 )

P( x1 )

P( x)

Property3.2.3:

P( x)

((negQ( y ))
Proof: LHS

Q( y )

Q( y ))

Proof: LHS

P( x)

(Q( y )

= (Q( y )

Property

Q( y ))

( P( x )

P( x)

3.2.4:

Q( y))

R( z )

(Q( y )

P( x)

R( z ))

= (negP( x)) (Q( y )

R( z ))

= ((negP( x)) (negQ( y ))

= ( P( x)

Q( y )

R( z )

= (negP( x)) (negQ( y )

(negP( x)))

R( z ))

(Q( y )

Proof: LHS

= ( P( x )

((negQ( y ))

Q( y )) R( z )

RHS

negP( x))

P( x)

R( z )

RHS
Property3.2.2:

R( z ))

= ( P( x)

negP( x))

= ((negQ( y ))

R( z ))

= (((negP( x)) (negQ( y )))

Q( y ))

= (neg (negQ( y ))

R( z )

= (negP( x)) (negQ( y )

Q( y )

= (negP( x)

R( z ))

R( z )

= (negP( x)) (Q( y )

(negP( x)))

P( x)

(Q( y )

( P( x)

The above rough connectives satisfy the following

properties.
3.2.1:

(negP( x)))

RHS

= ( P( x)

Property

negP( x))

R( z ))

R( z )

Q( y )) R( z )

Q( y))

R( z )

RHS

(negP( x)))

Property 3.2.5: P( x)
Proof: LHS

P( x)

= ( P( x)
= (negP( x)

negQ( y ) = ( P( x)

Q( y ))

negQ( y )
negQ( y ))
negQ( y ))

(negQ( y )

P( x))

(Q( y ) P( x))

218
IJRITCC | February 2014, Available @ http://www.ijritcc.org

_______________________________________________________________________________________

International Journal on Recent and Innovation Trends in Computing and Communication

Volume: 2 Issue: 2

ISSN: 2321-8169
216 221

______________________________________________________________________________________
(negQ( y )) ) P ( x)]
(negQ( y )) ) Q ( y )] [((negP( x))
= [((negP( x))
= ((negP( x))

Q ( y ))

((negQ( y ))

= ((negP ( x))

Q ( y ))

.f.

= ((negP ( x))

Q ( y ))

((negQ( y ))

= ((negP ( x)

Q( y ))

.f.

negQ( y ))

(negQ( y )

(Q( y )

negP( x))
1

P( x))

(negP( x)

Q( y ))

(Q( y )

P( x))

( P( x)

Q( y ))

( P( x)

Q( y ))

(Q( y )

P( x))

[( P( x)

( P( x)

1
1

Q( y ))

(Q( y )

Q( y ))

RHS

P( x))]

negQ( y ) = ( P( x)

Property3.2.6: P( x)

P( x)

Q( y ))

negQ( y )

= ( P( x)

negQ( y ))

= (negP( x)

negQ( y ))

= [(negP( x))

(negQ( y )

P( x))

(Q( y ) P( x))

(negQ( y )) ]

[Q ( y ) P ( x)]

= [((negP( x))

(negQ( y )) ) Q ( y )]

[((negP( x))

= ((negP( x))

Q ( y ))

Q ( y )) ((negP( x))

((negQ( y ))

= ((negP( x))

Q ( y ))

.f.

= ((negP( x))

Q ( y ))

((negQ( y ))

= (negP( x)

Q( y ))

.f.

negQ( y ))

= (negQ( y )

((negQ( y ))

((negQ( y ))

P ( x))

P ( x))

P( x))

(Q( y )

[(negQ( y ) (neg (negP( x)))]

1

negP( x))

(negP( x)

Q( y ))

(Q( y )

P( x))

( P( x)

( P( x)

Q( y ))

(Q( y )

P( x))

(Q( y )

P( x))]

= [( P( x)

Q( y ))

= ( P( x)

Q( y ))

P( x)

P ( x))

P ( x))

Property 3.2.7: P( x)

(negQ( y )) ) P ( x)]

((negQ( y ) P( x))

= [(negP( x)) (neg (negQ( y )))]

Proof: LHS

P ( x))

P ( x))

= ( P( x)

P ( x))

[(negQ( y ) (neg (negP( x)))]

Proof: LHS

((negQ( y ))

( P( x)

((negQ( y ))

P ( x))

((negQ( y ) P( x))

= [(negP( x) (neg (negQ( y )))]

=

((negP( x))

Q ( y ))

Q( y ))

RHS

Q( y ) = ( P( x) Q( y ))

(negP( x) negQ( y ))

Q( y )
219

IJRITCC | February 2014, Available @ http://www.ijritcc.org

_______________________________________________________________________________________

International Journal on Recent and Innovation Trends in Computing and Communication

Volume: 2 Issue: 2

ISSN: 2321-8169
216 221

______________________________________________________________________________________
Q( y ))
(Q( y )
P( x))
= ( P( x)
= (negP( x)
= ((negP ( x))

Q ( y ))

= [((negP( x))
= [(negP( x))

(negQ( y ) P( x))

Q( y ))

((negQ( y ))

P ( x))

Q ( y )) (negQ( y )) ]

[((negP( x))

[Q ( y ) (negQ( y )) ]

(negQ( y )) ]

= [(negP( x))

(negQ( y )) ]

= [(negP( x))

(negQ( y )) ]

.f.

.f.

(negQ( y )) ]

= [ P ( x)

Q ( y)]

[(negP( x))

(negQ( y )) ]

Proof: LHS

(negP( x) negQ( y ))

Q( y ))

= (negP( x)

Q( y ))

= ((negP( x))

(Q( y )

Q ( y ))

((negQ( y ))

Q ( y )) (negQ( y )) ]

= [((negP( x))

((negQ( y )) ]

= [((negP( x))
= [((negP( x))
= [Q ( y )

((negQ( y )) ]

Q ( y )]

Q( y ))

P ( x))

[((negP( x))

Q ( y )) P ( x)]

[Q ( y) ((negQ( y)) ]

((negQ( y )) ]

P ( x)]

P( x))

(negQ( y )) P( x))

= [((negP( x))

= ( P( x)

(negP( x)) negQ( y ))

Q( y )

= ( P( x)

= [ P ( x)

RHS

Q( y ) = ( P( x) Q( y ))

P( x)

[Q ( y) P ( x)]

[Q ( y) P ( x)]

[(negP( x))

Q( y ))

P ( x)]

[Q ( y) P ( x)]

P ( x)]

Property 3.2.8: P( x)

[((negP( x))
[((negP( x))

.f.

.f.

[((negP( x))

P ( x)]

[Q ( y ) P ( x)]

[Q ( y ) P ( x)]

[Q ( y ) P ( x)]
((negQ( y )) ]
((negQ( y )) ]

(negP( x)) negQ( y )) RHS

4. CONCLUSION
In this paper, have discussed the nave properties of the
rough connectives defined for fuzzy predicates. In future, it
is further aimed to define the rough approximated
quantifiers on fuzzy and rough connectives and also aimed
to derive various properties such as Implications, Modus
Ponens, and Modus Tollens etc.

[2]

[3]

[4]

REFERENCES
[1]

[(negP( x))

= [Q ( y )

= ( P( x)

Q ( y)) P ( x)]

Atanasov KT, Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets, Fuzzy Sets

& Systems, 20, pp: 87-96, 1986

[5]

G.Ganesan et. al., Rough Set: Analysis of Fuzzy

Sets using thresholds, Computational Mathematics,
Narosa Publishers, pp:81-87, 2005
G.Ganesan et. al., Rough Connectives of Fuzzy
Predicates, International Journal of Computer,
Math. Sciences and Applications, vol:1, No:2,
pp:189-196, 2008
George J.Klir. Bo Yuan, Fuzzy Sets and Fuzzy
Logic Theory and Applications, Prentice-Hall of
India Pvt Ltd.,1997
Satish BNV, Ganesan G, Approximations on
Intuitionistic Fuzzy Predicate Calculus through
Rough Computing, Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy
Systems, IOS Press [In Print]
220

IJRITCC | February 2014, Available @ http://www.ijritcc.org

_______________________________________________________________________________________

International Journal on Recent and Innovation Trends in Computing and Communication

Volume: 2 Issue: 2

ISSN: 2321-8169
216 221

______________________________________________________________________________________
[6]

[7]
[8]

J.P.Tremblay, R, Manohar, Discrete Mathematical

structures with Applications to Computer Science,
McGraw-Hill International Edition, 1987.
Zadeh L., Fuzzy Sets, Journal of Information and
Control, 8, pp. 338-353, 1965.
Zdzislaw Pawlak, Rough Sets-Theoretical Aspects
and Reasoning about Data, Kluwer Academic
Publications, 1991.

221
IJRITCC | February 2014, Available @ http://www.ijritcc.org

_______________________________________________________________________________________