BULLETIN OF THE INTERNATIONAL MATHEMATICAL VIRTUAL INSTITUTE

ISSN (p) 2303-4874, ISSN (o) 2303-4955

www.imvibl.org /JOURNALS / BULLETIN
Vol. 7(2017), 153-164
Former
BULLETIN OF THE SOCIETY OF MATHEMATICIANS BANJA LUKA
ISSN 0354-5792 (o), ISSN 1986-521X (p)

NEUTROSOPHIC HYPERIDEALS
OF -SEMIHYPERRINGS
Debabrata Mandal
Abstract. The purpose of this paper is to introduced neutrosophic hyperideals of a -semihyperring and consider some operations on them to investigate
some of its basic properties.

1. Introduction
Hyperstructures, in particular hypergroups, were introduced in 1934 by Marty
[12] at the eighth congress of Scandinavian Mathematicians. The notion of algebraic hyperstructure has been developed in the following decades and nowadays by
many authors, especially Corsini [2, 3], Davvaz [5, 6, 7, 8, 9], Mittas [13], Spartalis [16], Stratigopoulos [17] and Vougiouklis [20]. Basic definitions and notions
concerning hyperstructure theory can be found in [2].
The classical notion of rings was extended by hyperrings, substituting both or
only one of the binary operations of addition and multiplication by hyperoperations.
Hyperrings were introduced by several authors in dierent ways. If only the addition
is a hyperoperation and the multiplication is a binary operation, then we say that
R is a Krasner hyperring [4]. Davvaz [5] has defined some relations in hyperrings
and prove isomorphism theorems. For a more comprehensive introduction about
hyperrings, we refer to [9].
As a generalization of a ring, semiring was introduced by Vandiver [18] in
1934. A semiring is a structure (R; +; ; 0) with two binary operations + and such
that (R; +; 0) is a commutative semigroup, (R; ) a semigroup, multiplication is
distributive from both sides over addition and 0 x = 0 = x 0 for all x R. In [19],
Vougiouklis generalizes the notion of hyperring and named it as semihyperring,
where both the addition and multiplication are hyperoperation. Semihyperrings
are a generalization of Krasner hyperrings. Note that a semiring with zero is a
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. 16Y99, 20N20, 20N25.
Key words and phrases. Hyperideal, Neutrosophic, Semihyperring.
153

154

D. MANDAL

semihyperring. Davvaz in [12] studied the notion of semihyperrings in a general

form.
The concept of a fuzzy set, introduced by Zadeh in his classical paper [21],
provides a natural framework for generalizing some of the notions of classical algebraic structures.As a generalization of fuzzy sets, the intuitionistic fuzzy set was
introduced by Atanassov [1] in 1986, where besides the degree of membership of
each element there was considered a degree of non-membership with (membership
value + non-membership value)6 1. There are also several well-known theories, for
instances, rough sets, vague sets, interval-valued sets etc. which can be considered
as mathematical tools for dealing with uncertainties.
In 2005, inspired from the sport games (winning/tie/ defeating), votes, from
(yes /NA /no), from decision making(making a decision/ hesitating/not making),
from (accepted /pending /rejected) etc. and guided by the fact that the law of
excluded middle did not work any longer in the modern logics, F. Smarandache [15]
combined the non-standard analysis [8, 18] with a tri-component logic/set/probability
theory and with philosophy and introduced Neutrosophic set which represents the
main distinction between fuzzy and intuitionistic fuzzy logic/set. Here he included
the middle component, i.e., the neutral/ indeterminate/ unknown part (besides
the truth/membership and falsehood/non-membership components that both appear in fuzzy logic/set) to distinguish between absolute membership and relative
member- ship or absolute non-membership and relative non-membership.
Using this concept, in this paper, I have defined neutrosophic ideals of semihyperrings and study some of its basic properties.
2. Preliminaries
Let H be a non-empty set and let P (H) be the set of all non-empty subsets of
H. A hyperoperation on H is a map : H H P (H) and the couple (H, ) is
called a hypergroupoid. If A and B are non-empty subsets of H and x H, then
we denote
AB =

aA,bB

a b, x A = x A and A x = A x

A hypergroupoid (H, ) is called a semihypergroup if for all x, y, z H we have

(x y) z = x (y z) which means that
uz =

uxy

x v.

vyz

A semihyperring is an algebraic structure (R, +, ) which satisfies the following

properties:
(i) (R, +) is a commutative semihypergroup;
(ii) (R, ) is a semihypergroup;
(iii) Multiplication is is distributive with respect to hyperoperation + that is
x (y + z) = x y + x z, (x + y) z = x z + y z
(iv) 0 x = 0 = x 0 for all x R.

NEUTROSOPHIC HYPERIDEALS OF -SEMIHYPERRINGS

155

A semihyperring (R, +, ) is called commutative if and only if a b = b a for all

a, b R. Vougiouklis in [19] and Davvaz in [6] studied the notion of semihyperrings
in a general form, i.e., both the sum and product are hyperoperations.
A semihyperring (R, +, ) with identity 1R R means that 1R x = x 1R = x
for all x R. An element x R is called unit if there exists y R such that
1R = x y = y x.
A nonempty subset S of a semihyperring (R, +, ) is called a sub-semihyperring
if a + b S and a b S for all a, b S. A left hyperideal of a semihyperring R is
a non-empty subset I of R satisfying
(i) If a, b I then a + b I;
(ii) If a I and s R then s a I;
(iii) I = S.
A right hyperideal of R is defined in an analogous manner and an hyperideal
of R is a nonempty subset which is both a left ideal and a right ideal of R. We now
recall the definition of -semihyperring from [11].
Let R be a commutative semihypergroup and be a commutative group. Then
R is called a -semihyperring if there exists a map R R P (R) ( (a, , b)
7 ab) for a, b R, and P (R)the set of all non-empty subsets of R,
satisfying the following conditions:
(i) (a + b)c = ac + bc,
(ii) a(b + c) = ab + ac,
(iii) a( + )b = ab + ab,
(iv) a(bc) = (ab)c
for all a, b, c S and for all , .
We say that R is a -semihyperring with zero, if there exists 0 R such that
a a + 0 and 0 0a, 0 a0 for all a R and .
For more results on semirings and neutrosophic sets we refer to [6, 10] and
[15] respectively.
3. Main Results
Definition 3.1. [15] A neutrosophic set A on the universe of discourse X is
defined as
A = {< x, AT (x), AI (x), AF (x) >, x X},
where
AT , AI , AF : X ] 0, 1+ [
and

0 6 AT (x) + AI (x) + AF (x) 6 3+ .

From philosophical point of view, the neutrosophic set takes the value from real
standard or non-standard subsets of ] 0, 1+ [. But in real life application in scientific
and engineering problems it is dicult to use neutrosophic set with value from real
standard or non-standard subset of ] 0, 1+ [. Hence we consider the neutrosophic
set which takes the value from the subset of [0, 1].
Throughout this section unless otherwise mentioned R denotes a -semihyperring.

156

D. MANDAL

Definition 3.2. Let = (T , I , F ) be a non empty neutrosophic subset of a

semihyperring R (i.e. anyone of T (x), I (x) or F (x) not equal to zero for some
x S). Then is called a neutrosophic left hyperideal of R if
(i) inf T (z) > min{T (x), T (y)}, inf T (z) > T (y)
zx+y

(ii)

zxy

inf I (z) >

zx+y

I (x)+I (y)
, inf I (z)
2
zxy

> I (y)

(iii) sup F (x + y) 6 max{F (x), F (y)}, sup F (z) 6 F (y).

zx+y

zxy

for all x, y R and .

Similarly we can define neutrosophic right hyperideal of R.
Example 3.1. Let R = {a, b, c, d}, = Z2 . Define the hyperoperation and
the multiplication on R as follows:

a
b
c
d

a
a
{a, b} {c, d} {c, d}
a
b {a, b}
b
{c, d} {c, d} and b
c {c, d} {c, d}
c
{c, d}
c
d {c, d} {c, d} {c, d}
d
d

a
{a, b}
{a, b}
{a, b}
{a, b}

b
c
d
{a, b} {a, b} {a, b}
{a, b} {a, b} {a, b}
{a, b} {c, d} {c, d}
{a, b} {c, d} {c, d}

Also, for x, y R and Z2 , define xy = {a, b}. Then (R, , ) is a

-semihyperring.
Define neutrosophic subset of R by (a) = (0.5, 0.3, 0.4), (b) = (0.6, 0.3, 0.4),
(c) = (0.7, 0.4, 0.2), (d) = (0.8, 0.4, 0.1). Then is a neutrosophic left hyperideal
of R.
Theorem 3.1. A neutrosophic set of R is a neutrosophic left hyperideal
of R if and only if any level subsets Tt := {x S : T (x) > t, t [0, 1]},
F
It := {x S : I (x) > t, t [0, 1]} and F
t := {x S : (x) 6 t, t [0, 1]} are
left hyperideals of R.
Proof. Assume that the neutrosophic set of R is a neutrosophic left hyperideal of R. Then anyone of T , I or F is not equal to zero for some x S i.e.,
in other words anyone of Tt , It or F
t is not equal to zero for all t [0, 1]. So it is
sucient to consider that all of them are not equal to zero.
Suppose x, y t = (Tt , It , F
t ) and s R. Then
inf T (z) > min{T (x), T (y)} > min{t, t} = t

zx+y

inf I (z) >

zx+y

I (x)+I (y)
2

>

t+t
2

=t

sup (x + y) 6 max{ (x), F (y)} 6 max{t, t} = t

F

zx+y

which implies x + y Tt , It , F
t i.e., x + y t . Also
inf T (z) > T (x) > t

zsx

inf I (z) > I (x) > t

zsx

sup F (z) 6 F (x) 6 t

zsx

NEUTROSOPHIC HYPERIDEALS OF -SEMIHYPERRINGS

157

Hence sx t . Therefore t is a left hyperideal of R.

Conversely, suppose t (= ) is a left hyperideal of S. If possible is not a
neutrosophic left hyperideal. Then for x, y S anyone of the following inequality
is true.
inf T (z) < min{T (x), T (y)}
zx+y

inf I (z) <

zx+y

I (x)+I (y)
2

sup F (x + y) > max{F (x), F (y)}

zx+y

For the first inequality, choose t1 = 21 [ inf T (z) + min{T (x), T (y)}]. Then
zx+y

inf T (z) < t1 < min{T (x), T (y)} which implies x, y Tt1 but x + y Tt1 - a

zx+y

contradiction.
For the second inequality, choose t2 = 12 [ inf I (z)+min{I (x), I (y)}]. Then
zx+y

inf (z) < t2 <

zx+y

I (x)+I (y)
2

which implies x, y It2 but x + y It2 - a

contradiction.
For the third inequality, choose t3 = 12 [ sup F (x + y) + max{F (x), F (y)}].
zx+y

Then sup F (x + y) > t3 > max{F (x), F (y)} which implies x, y F

t3 but
zx+y

x + y F
t3 - a contradiction.
So, in any case we have a contradiction to the fact that t is a left hyperideal
of R. Hence the result follows.

Definition 3.3. Let and be two neutrosophic subsets of S. The intersection
of and is defined by
(T T )(x) = min{T (x), T (x)},
(I I )(x) = min{I (x), I (x)},
(F F )(x) = max{F (x), F (x)}
for all x S.
Proposition 3.1. Intersection of a nonempty collection of neutrosophic left
hyperideals is a neutrosophic left hyperideal of R.
Proof. Let {i : i I} be a non-empty family of neutrosophic left hyperideals
of S and x, y S and . Then
inf ( T )(z)
zx+y iI i

= inf inf Ti (z)

zx+y iI

> inf {min{Ti (x), Ti (y)}}

iI

= min{inf Ti (x), inf Ti (y)}

iI

iI

= min{( Ti )(x), ( Ti )(y)}

iI

iI

158

D. MANDAL

inf ( I )(z)
zx+y iI i

= inf inf Ii (z)

zx+y iI
Ii (x)+Ii (y)
2
iI

> inf
=
=

inf Ii (x)+inf Ii (y)

iI

iI

2
Ii (x)+ Ii (y)

iI

iI

F
sup ( F
i )(z) = sup sup i (z)

zx+y iI

zx+y iI

F
6 sup {max{F
i (x), i (y)}}
iI

F
= max{sup F
i (x), sup i (y)}
iI

iI

F
= max{( F
i )(x), ( i )(y)}
iI

iI

inf ( Ti )(z) = inf inf Ti (z) > inf Ti (x) = ( Ti )(x).

zsx iI

zsx iI

inf (

zsx iI

Ii )(z)

= inf inf

zsx iI

iI

Ii (z)

> inf

iI

iI

Ii (x)

= ( Ii )(x).
iI

F
F
F
sup ( F
i )(z) = sup sup i (z) 6 sup i (x) = ( i )(x).

zsx iI

zsx iI

iI

iI

Hence i is a neutrosophic left hyperideal of R.

iI

Definition 3.4. Let R, S be -semihyperrings and f : R S be a function.

Then f is said to be a homomorphism if for all a, b R and
(i) f (a + b) f (a) + f (b)
(ii) f (ab) f (a)f (b)
(iii) f (0R ) = 0S where 0R and 0S are the zeroes of R and S respectively.
Proposition 3.2. Let f : R S be a morphism of -semihyperrings. Then
(i) If is a neutrosophic left hyperideal of S, then f 1 () [14] is a neutrosophic left hyperideal of R.
(ii) If f is surjective morphism and is a neutrosophic left hyperideal of R,
then f () [14] is a neutrosophic left hyperideal of S.
Proof. Let f : R S be a morphism of -semihyperrings.
(i) Let be a neutrosophic left hyperideal of S and r, s R and .
inf f 1 (T )(z) = inf T (f (z)) >

zr+s

zr+s

inf

T (f (z))

f (z)f (r)+f (s)

> min{T (f (r)), T (f (s))} = min{(f 1 (T ))(r), (f 1 (T ))(s)}.

inf f 1 (I )(z)

zr+s

= inf I (f (z)) >

>

inf
I (f (z))
zr+s
f (z)f (r)+f (s)
1
I
1
I (f (r))+I (f (s))
(I ))(s)
= (f ( ))(r)+(f
.
2
2

NEUTROSOPHIC HYPERIDEALS OF -SEMIHYPERRINGS

sup f 1 (F )(z)

= sup F (f (z)) 6

zr+s

zr+s

159

F (f (z))

sup
f (z)f (r)+f (s)

6 max{F (f (r)), F (f (s))} = max{(f 1 (F ))(r), (f 1 (F ))(s)}.

Again
inf (f 1 (T ))(z) = inf T (f (z)) >

zrs

zrs
T

> (f (s)) = (f
inf (f 1 (I ))(z)

( ))(s)

= inf I (f (z)) >

zrs

zrs
I

> (f (s)) = (f
zrs
F

6 (f (s)) = (f
Thus f

I (f (z))

inf

f (z)f (r)f (s)

1 I

( ))(s)

sup (f 1 (F ))(z) = sup F (f (z)) 6

zrs

T (f (z))

inf

f (z)f (r)f (s)

1 T

F (f (z))

sup

f (z)f (r)f (s)

1 F

( ))(s)

() is a neutrosophic left hyperideal of R.

(ii)Suppose be a neutrosophic left hyperideal of R and x , y S. Then

inf

z x +y

(f (T ))(z )

=
>

sup T (z)

inf

z x +y zf 1 (z )

sup T (z)

inf

z x +y xf 1 (x ),yf 1 (y )

> sup{min{T (x), T (y)}}

= min{sup T (x), sup T (y)} = min{(f (T ))(x ), (f (T ))(y )}

xf 1 (x )

inf

z x +y

(f (I ))(z ) =
>
=

z x +y

sup I (z)

inf

z x +y zf 1 (z )

inf

sup I (z)

> sup

(x)+I (y)
2

z x +y xf 1 (x ),yf 1 (y )

1
1
I
I
I
2 [sup (x) + sup (y)] = 2 [(f ( ))(x )

xf 1 (x )
yf 1 (y )

sup (f (F ))(x + y )

yf 1 (y )

sup

+ (f (I ))(y )]

inf F (z)

z x +y zf 1 (x +y )
F

sup

inf (z)

z x +y xf 1 (x ),yf 1 (y )
F
F

6 inf{max{F (x), F (y)}}

= max{inf (x), inf (y)} = max{(f (F ))(x ), (f (F ))(y )}

xf 1 (x )

yf 1 (y )

Again
inf

z x y

f (T )(z ) =

inf

sup T (z) >

z x y zf 1 (z )
T
T

sup T (z)
xf 1 (x ),yf 1 (y )

> sup (y) = f ( )(y )

yf 1 (y )

160

D. MANDAL

inf
f (I )(z ) =

z x y

>

inf

sup I (z)

z x y zf 1 (z )
I

sup (z)

xf 1 (x ),yf 1 (y )
I
I

> sup (y) = f ( )(y )

yf 1 (y )

sup

z x y

f (F )(z ) =

sup

inf F (z) 6

z x y zf 1 (z )
F
F

inf F (z)
xf 1 (x ),yf 1 (y )

6 inf (y) = f ( )(y )

yf 1 (y )

Thus f ()is a neutrosophic left hyperideal of S.

Definition 3.5. Let and be two neutrosophic subsets of R. The cartesian

product of and is defined by
(T T )(x, y) = min{T (x), T (y)}
I (x) + I (y)
2
(F F )(x, y) = max{F (x), F (y)}
(I I )(x, y) =

for all x, y R.
Theorem 3.2. Let and be two neutrosophic left hyperideals of R. Then
is a neutrosophic left hyperideal of R R.
Proof. Let (x1 , x2 ), (y1 , y2 ) R R. Then
inf(T T )(z1 , z2 )

= inf(T T )(z1 , z2 )
z1 x1 +y1 ,z2 x2 +y2

(z1 ,z2 )(x1 ,x2 )+(y1 ,y2 )

= inf min{T (z1 ), T (z2 )}

z1 x1 +y1 ,z2 x2 +y2

> min{min{T (x1 ), T (y1 )}, min{ T (x2 ), T (y2 )}}

= min{min{T (x1 ), T (x2 )}, min{T (y1 ), T (y2 )}}
= min{(T T )(x1 , x2 ), (T T )(y1 , y2 )}.
inf(I I )(z1 , z2 )
(z1 ,z2 )(x1 ,x2 )+(y1 ,y2 )

= inf(I I )(z1 , z2 )
=
>
=
=

sup(F F )(z1 , z2 )
(z1 ,z2 )(x1 ,x2 )+(y1 ,y2 )

z1 x1 +y1 ,z2 x2 +y2

I
I
(z2 )
inf (z1 )+
2
z1 x1 +y1 ,z2 x2 +y2
I
I
I
I
(y2 )
1 (x1 )+ (y1 )
+ (x2 )+
}
2{
2
2
I
I
I
I
(y1 )+ (y2 )
1 (x1 )+ (x2 )
{
+
}
2
2
2
1
I
I
I
I
{(

)(x
,
x
)
+
(

)(y1 , y2 )}.
1
2
2

= sup(F F )(z1 , z2 )
z1 x1 +y1 ,z2 x2 +y2

= sup max{F (z1 ), F (z2 )}

z1 x1 +y1 ,z2 x2 +y2

6 max{max{F (x1 ), F (y1 )}, max{ F (x2 ), F (y2 )}}

= max{max{F (x1 ), F (x2 )}, max{F (y1 ), F (y2 )}}
= max{(F F )(x1 , x2 ), (F F )(y1 , y2 )}.

NEUTROSOPHIC HYPERIDEALS OF -SEMIHYPERRINGS

161

inf(T T )((z1 , z2 )) = inf(T T )(z1 , z2 ) = inf min{T (z1 ), T (z2 )}

(z1 ,z2 )(x1 ,x2 )(y1 ,y2 )

(z1 ,z2 )(x1 y1 ,x2 y2 )

z1 x1 y1 ,z2 x2 y2

> min{T (y1 ), T (y2 )} = (T T )(y1 , y2 ).

I (z1 )+ I (z2 )
2
z1 x1 y1 ,z2 x2 y2
I )(y1 , y2 ).

inf(I I )((z1 , z2 )) = inf(I I )(z1 , z2 ) = inf

(z1 ,z2 )(x1 ,x2 )(y1 ,y2 )

>

(z1 ,z2 )(x1 y1 ,x2 y2 )

I (y1 )+ I (y2 )
= (I
2

sup(F F )((z1 , z2 )) = sup(F F )(z1 , z2 ) = sup max{F (z1 ), F (z2 )}

(z1 ,z2 )(x1 ,x2 )(y1 ,y2 )

(z1 ,z2 )(x1 y1 ,x2 y2 )

z1 x1 y1 ,z2 x2 y2

6 max{F (y1 ), F (y2 )} = (F F )(y1 , y2 ).

Hence is a neutrosophic left hyperideal of R R.

Theorem 3.3. Let be a neutrosophic subset of R. Then is a neutrosophic

left hyperideal of R if and only if is a neutrosophic left hyperideal of R R.
Proof. The proof follows by routine verification.

Definition 3.6. Let and be two neutrosophic sets of a semiring R. Define

composition of and by

T T (x) =

sup

{min{T (ai ), T (bi )}}

i

a i i b i

i=1

= 0, if x cannot be expressed as above

I I (x)

sup
n

x
ai i bi

n
i=1

I (ai )+ I (bi )
2n

i=1

= 0, if x cannot be expressed as above

F F (x)

inf
{max{F (ai ), F (bi )}}
n
i

x
ai i bi
i=1

= 0, if x cannot be expressed as above

where x, ai , bi R for i = 1, ..., n.
Theorem 3.4. If and be two neutrosophic left hyperideals of R then o
is also a neutrosophic left hyperideal of R.

162

D. MANDAL

Proof. Suppose
, be two neutrosophic hyperideals of R and x, y R. If
n
x + y is not equal to i=1 ai i bi , for ai , bi R
and i , then there is nothing
n
to proof. So, assume that x + y is not equal to i=1 ai i bi . Then
inf (T o T )(z)

zx+y

{T (ai ), T (bi )}}

sup{min
i

zx+y

ai i bi

i=1

>

sup

ci i di , y

i=1

{min{T (ci ), T (di ), T (ei ), T (fi )}}

i

ei i fi

i=1

= min{

{min{T (ci ), T (di )}},

sup

ci i di

{min{T (ei ), T (fi )}}}

sup

i=1

ei i fi

i=1

= min{(T o T )(x), (T o T )(y)}

inf (I o I )(z)

zx+y

sup
n

zx+y

n
i=1

I (ai )+ I (bi )
2n

ai i bi

i=1

>

sup
ci i di , y

i=1

> 21 [

sup
n

x
ci i di

n
i=1

I (ci )+ I (di )+I (ei )+ I (fi )

4n

ei i f i
i=1
n I (ci )+ I (di )
,
i=1
2n

i=1
(I o I )(x)+(I o I )(y)
2

sup
n

y
ei i fi

n
i=1

I (ei )+ I (fi )
]
2n

i=1

sup (F o F )(z)
zx+y

inf
n

zx+y

{max{F (ai ), F (bi )}}

i

a i i b i

i=1

inf
ci i di , y

i=1

= max{

{max{F (ci ), F (di ), F (ei ), F (fi )}}

i

ei i fi

i=1

inf
{max{F (ci ), F (di )}},
inf
{min{F (ei ), F (fi )}}}
n
n
i
i

x
ci i di
y
ei i f i
i=1

= max{(F o F )(x), (F o F )(y)}

i=1

NEUTROSOPHIC HYPERIDEALS OF -SEMIHYPERRINGS

inf (T o T )(z)

zxy

sup
n

zxy

163

{min{T (ai ), T (bi )}}

i

ai i bi

i=1

>

sup
{min{T (xi ei ), T (fi )}}
i
n

zxy
xi ei i fi

>

sup
{min{T (ei ), T (fi )}} = (T o T )(y)
i
n

y
ei i f i

i=1

i=1

inf (I o I )(z) =

sup
n

zxy

zxy

n
i=1

ai i bi

i=1

>

sup
n

zxy

n
i=1

I (xi ei )+ I (fi )
2n

xi ei fi

i=1

>

I (ai )+ I (bi )
2n

sup
n

y
ei i f i

n
i=1

I (ei )+ I (fi )
2n

= (I o I )(y)

i=1

sup (F o F )(z) =

inf
n

zxy
zxy

ai i bi

i=1

inf
n

zxy

{max{F (ai ), F (bi )}}

{max{F (xei ), F (fi )}}

i

xi ei fi

i=1

inf
{max{F (ei ), F (fi )}} = (F o F )(y)
n
i

y
ei i f i
i=1

Hence o is a neutrosophic left hyperideal of R.

Conclusion: This is the introductory paper on neutrosophic hyperideals of semihyperrings in the sense of Smarandache[15]. Our next aim to use these results to
study some other properties such prime neutrosophic hyperideal, semiprime neutrosophic hyperideal,neutrosophic bi-hyperideal, neutrosophic quasi-hyperideal, radicals
etc..

164

D. MANDAL

References
[1] K. Atanassov, Intuitionistic fuzzy sets, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 20 (1986) 87 - 96.
[2] P. Corsini, Prolegomena of Hypergroup Theory, Second edition, Aviani Editore, Italy, 1993.
[3] P. Corsini and V. Leoreanu, Applications of Hyperstructure Theory Adv. Math., Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 2003.
[4] M. Krasner, A class of hyperrings and hyperfields, Internat. J. Math. Math. Sci. 6(2)(1983),
307-312.
[5] B. Davvaz, Isomorphism theorems of hyperrings, Indian J. Pure Appl. Math. 35(3)(2004),
321-331.
[6] B. Davvaz, Rings derived from semihyperrings, Algebras Groups Geom. 20 (2003), 245-252.
[7] B. Davvaz, Some results on congruences in semihypergroups, Bull. Malays. Math. Sci. Soc.
23(2) (2000), 53-58.
[8] B. Davvaz, Polygroup Theory and Related Systems, World scientific publishing Co. Pte.
Ltd., Hackensack, NJ, 2013.
[9] B. Davvaz and V. Leoreanu-Fotea, Hyperring Theory and Applications, International Academic Press, Palm Harbor, USA, 2007.
[10] B. Davvaz and S. Omidi, Basic notions and ptoperties of ordered semihyperrings, Categories
and General Algebraic Structure with Applications, 4(1) (2016), In press.
[11] S.O. Dehkordi and B. Davvaz, -semihyperrings: Approximations and rough ideals, Bulletin
of the Malaysian Mathematical Sciences Society (2), (32)(3) (2009) 375- 390.
[12] F. Marty, Sur une generalisation de la notion de groupe, 8iem Congress Math. Scandinaves,
Stockholm (1934), 45-49.
[13] J. Mittas, Hypergroupes canoniques, Math. Balkanica 2(1972), 165-179.
[14] A. Rosenfeld, Fuzzy groups, J. Math. Anal. Appl., 35(1971), 512-517.
[15] F. Smarandache, Neutrosophic set, a generalisation of the intuitionistic fuzzy sets, Int. J.
Pure Appl. Math. 24(2005) 287 - 297.
[16] S. Spartalis, A class of hyperrings, Rivista Mat. Pura Appl. 4(1989), 56-64.
[17] D. Stratigopoulos, Hyperanneaux, hypercorps, hypermodules, hyperspaces vectoriels et leurs
proprietes elementaires, C. R. Acad. Sci., Paris A (269)(1969), 489-492.
[18] H.S. Vandiver, Note on a simple type of algebra in which cancellation law of addition does
not hold, Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 40(1934), 914-920.
[19] T. Vougiouklis, On some representations of hypergroups, Ann. Sci. Univ. Clermont Ferrand
II Math. 26(1990), 21-29.
[20] T. Vougiouklis, Hyperstructures and Their Representations, Hadronic Press Inc., Florida,
1994.
[21] L. A. Zadeh, Fuzzy sets, Information and Control 8(1965) 338 - 353.
Reveived 04.04.2016; Available online 14.11.2016.

Department of Mathematics, Raja Peary Mohan College, Uttarpara, Hooghly712258, India

E-mail address: dmandaljumath@gmail.com