Information Sciences 174 (2005) 103–122

www.elsevier.com/locate/ins

The monoid structure of e-implications

and pseudo-e-implications
Gh. Khaledi, Mashalah Mashinchi *, S.A. Ziaie
Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science, Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman, Kerman, Iran

Received 3 March 2004

Abstract

In this paper we consider the set of all e-implications and pseudo-e-implications. We

define operators to endow these sets as monoid structures which are also complete lat-
tices. The set of all pseudo-e-implications becomes a De Morgan algebra. We introduce
a class of e-implications such that it becomes a De Morgan algebra. Moreover contra-
positive and self-dual pseudo-e-implication and contrapositive e-implication are also
studied. Finally we introduce a class of pseudo-e-implications such that it becomes a
complete sublattice of the set of all pseudo-e-implications, which is also a De Morgan
algebra.

2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Uninorm; e-implication; Pseudo-e-implication; Monoid; Complete lattice; De Morgan

algebra

*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +98 341 322 1079; fax: +98 341 322 1080.
E-mail address: mashinchi@mail.uk.ac.ir (M. Mashinchi).

0020-0255/$ - see front matter
2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ins.2004.08.007
104 Gh. Khaledi et al. / Information Sciences 174 (2005) 103–122

1. Introduction

In fuzzy set theory the concepts of t-norm and t-conorm play an important
role in generalizing the AND and OR aggregation operators [9]. Uninorms
were studied by Yager and Rybalov [10], among others, as a generalization
for t-norm and t-conorm. From a theoretical point of view [2], it is interesting
to notice that uninorms U with a neutral element in (0, 1) are just those binary
operators which make the structures ([0, 1], sup, U) and ([0, 1], inf, U) distribu-
tive semirings in the sense of Golan [5]. A uninorm U play an important role
in constructing e-implications and pseudo-e-implications and also in introduc-
ing special classes of e-implications and pseudo-e-implications where e is the
neutral element of U. Then many other researchers developed this notion
[1,2,4,6–8]. In this generalization a neutral element is introduced that can
be any number from the unit interval. The uninorm becomes a t-norm or a
t-conorm, if this neutral element is 1 or 0, respectively. Fodor et al. [4] studied
the structure of uninorms. The structure of the uninorm U with neutral ele-
ment e 2 (0, 1) on the squares [0, e]2 and [e, 1]2 is closely related to t-norms
and t-conorms. They have investigated the existence of representable uni-
norms. This representation is in terms of a single-variable function. In fact,
this is similar to representation of continuous Archimedean t-norm and t-con-
orm [9].
The algebraic structures of t-norm and t-conorm were studied by Ziaie et al.
[11]. Baczynski et al. [3] have introduced fuzzy implications as a special case of
fuzzy relations in [0, 1], and have shown that under some simple assumption the
sup–min composition of fuzzy implications also gives a fuzzy implication
which leads to a semigroup structure on fuzzy implications.
In this paper for any e in the real interval (0, 1], we introduce e-implication
and pseudo-e-implication. Then we will show that under appropriate opera-
tions on the set of all e-implications and on the set of all pseudo-e-implications
we will get monoid structures. Moreover we will show that the set of all
pseudo-e-implications is both complete lattice and De Morgan algebra. We
introduce a class of e-implications such that it becomes a De Morgan algebra.
Also contrapositive, self-dual pseudo-e-implication and contrapositive e-impli-
cation are disscussed.

2. Preliminaries

In this section we will review some known definitions and results which we
need throughout the paper. For more details see [4,10].

Definition 2.1 [4]. A strong negation N : [0, 1] ! [0, 1] is a continuous, strictly

decreasing mapping with property N(N(x)) = x for all x 2 [0, 1].
 Gh. Khaledi et al. / Information Sciences 174 (2005) 103–122 105

Definition 2.2 [4]. A mapping U : [0, 1]2 ! [0, 1] is called uninorm if it is

commutative, associative, non decreasing, and there exists e 2 [0, 1] (called a
neutral element) such that U(e, x) = x for all x 2 [0, 1].

Remark. As explained in [4], Definition 2.2 is rather general one. The following
important particular cases are included. If e = 1, then Definition 2.2 gives back
the notion of t-norms, which are well-accepted models for AND in fuzzy logic.
If e = 0, then the class of t-conorms is obtained. These operations model logical
OR in fuzzy set theory. Therefore in the sequel we assume 0 < e < 1, where e is
neutral element of uninorm U, unless otherwise stated explicitly.
Let R ¼ R [ f
1; 1g, denotes the extended real numbers.

Theorem 2.3 [4]. Consider e2(0, 1) and a strictly increasing continuous mapping
h : ½0; 1 ! R with h(e) = 0,h(0) =
1, h(1) = + 1. The binary operator U
defined by
2
U ðx; yÞ ¼ h
1 ðhðxÞ þ hðyÞÞ8ðx; yÞ 2 ½0; 1 n fð0; 1Þ; ð1; 0Þg

and either U(0, 1) = U(1,0) = 0 or U(0, 1) = U(1,0) = 1 is a uninorm with neutral

element e.
The mapping h in Theorem 2.3 is called an additive generator of the uninorm U.
If U(0, 1) = 0 then we call the uninorm U conjunctive, and if U(0, 1) = 1 then
we call the uninorm U disjunctive.

Theorem 2.4 [4]. Consider a uninorm U. There exists a strictly increasing

continuous function h : ½0; 1 ! R with h(e) = 0, h(0) =
1, h(1) = + 1 such
that
2
U ðx; yÞ ¼ h
1 ðhðxÞ þ hðyÞÞ8ðx; yÞ 2 ½0; 1 n fð0; 1Þ; ð1; 0Þg

if and only if

(i) U is strictly increasing and continuous on (0, 1)2.

(ii) There exists an involutive negator N with fixed point e, i.e. N(e) = e so that

2
ð8ðx; yÞ 2 ½0; 1 n fð0; 1Þ; ð1; 0ÞgÞðU ðx; yÞ ¼ N ðU ðN ðxÞ; N ðyÞÞÞÞ:

The uninorms characterized by Theorem 2.4 are called representable uninorms.

h is called an additive generator of U, N is called an involutive negator of U
which is denoted by NU and is given by

N U ðxÞ ¼ h
1 ð
hðxÞÞ:

106 Gh. Khaledi et al. / Information Sciences 174 (2005) 103–122

Theorem 2.5 [2]. Consider a representable uninorm U, then it holds that

ð8x 2 ð0; 1ÞÞðU ðx; N U ðxÞÞ ¼ N U ðeÞ ¼ eÞ:

Example 2.6 [4]. Let h : ½0; 1 ! R be defined by

x
hðxÞ ¼ log

1
x
then the corresponding representable uninorm U with neutral element 1/2 is
given by
(
xy 2
if ðx; yÞ 2 ½0; 1 n fð0; 1Þ; ð1; 0Þg;
U ðx; yÞ ¼ ð1
xÞð1
yÞþxy
0 elsewhere:

3. e-implications and pseudo-e-implications

Definition 3.1. Let e be a real number in the interval (0, 1]. The mapping
Ie : [0, 1]2 ! [0, 1] such that

(i) Ie(0, 0) = Ie(1, 1) = 1.

(ii) ("x2(0, 1)) (Ie(x, x) = e).
(iii) ("x2[0, 1]) (Ie(e, x) = x).
(iv) (1) For all x1, x2 and t in the unit interval [0, 1] if x1 6 x2 then
Ie(x1, t) P Ie(x2, t).
(2) For all y1, y2 and t in the unit interval [0, 1] if y1 6 y2 then Ie(t, y1) 6
Ie(t, y2) is called an e-implication.

Example 3.2. Let e be a real number in the interval (0, 1]. Then


MinfMaxfe
x þ y; 0g; 1g ðx; yÞ 2 ð0; 1  ½0; 1Þ;
I e ðx; yÞ ¼
1 elsewhere

is an e-implication.

Remark. We can see that Ie in Example 3.2 is a Lukasiewicz implication [3] for
e = 1.

Example 3.3. Let U be a disjunctive representable uninorm with neutral

element e 2 (0, 1). Define Ie(x, y) = U(NU(x), y). Then by Theorems 2.4 and 2.5,
Ie is an e-implication.
 Gh. Khaledi et al. / Information Sciences 174 (2005) 103–122 107

Lemma 3.4. Let e be a real number in the interval (0, 1] and Ie be an e-

implication. Then

(i) ("y 2 [0,1]) (Ie(0, y) = 1).

(ii) ("x 2 [0,1]) (Ie(x, 1) = 1).
(iii) Ie(1, 0) = 0.

Proof
(i) We have y P 0. Since Ie is an e-implication, by Definition 3.1(iv)(2) we
have
I e ð0; yÞ P I e ð0; 0Þ ¼ 1 or I e ð0; yÞ ¼ 1:
(ii) Since x 6 1 and Ie is an e-implication, by Definition 3.1(iv)(1) we have
I e ðx; 1Þ P I e ð1; 1Þ ¼ 1 or I e ðx; 1Þ ¼ 1:
(iii) Since 0 < e 6 1, so by Definition 3.1 parts (iv) and (iii) we will have
I e ð1; 0Þ 6 I e ðe; 0Þ ¼ 0 or I e ð1; 0Þ ¼ 0:

Definition 3.5. Let e be a real number in the interval (0, 1]. The mapping
Ie : [0, 1]2 ! [0, 1] is called a pseudo-e-implication if it satisfies conditions (i)–(iii)
of Definition 3.1 and the following condition:

(iv) (1) "x1, x2 2 [0, 1] and t 2 (0, 1) x1 6 x2 ) Ie(x1, t) P Ie(x2, t).

(2) "y1, y22[0, 1] and t 2 (0, 1) y1 6 y2 ) Ie(t, y1) 6 Ie(t, y2).

Example 3.6. Let e be a real number in the interval (0, 1]. Then
(
2
MinfMaxfe
x þ y; 0g; 1g ðx; yÞ 2 ½0; 1 n fð0; 0Þ; ð1; 1Þg;
I e ðx; yÞ ¼
1 elsewhere

is a pseudo-e-implication.

Example 3.7. Let U be a representable uninorm with neutral element e 2 (0, 1).
Define
(
U ðN U ðxÞ; yÞ ðx; yÞ 2 ½0; 12 n fð0; 0Þ; ð1; 1Þg;
I e ðx; yÞ ¼
1 elsewhere:
Then by Theorems 2.4 and 2.5 Ie is a pseudo-e-implication.
Let e be a real number in the interval (0, 1]. The set of all e-implications and
the set of all pseudo-e-implications are denoted by Ie and PIe, respectively.
108 Gh. Khaledi et al. / Information Sciences 174 (2005) 103–122

Let Ie and Je be in Ie (PIe). Define the operations ^ and _ on Ie (PIe) by the

following:
2
I e ^ J e : ½0; 1 ! ½0; 1ðx; yÞ 7! MinfI e ðx; yÞ; J e ðx; yÞg;
2
I e _ J e : ½0; 1 ! ½0; 1ðx; yÞ 7! MaxfI e ðx; yÞ; J e ðx; yÞg;

where Min and Max are the usual minimum and maximum operations on real
numbers.

We can prove the following lemma.

Lemma 3.8
(a) ^ and _ are closed operations on Ie(PIe)
(b) ^ and _ are associative on Ie(PIe).

Proof. (a) Due to similarity we only give the proof for Ie. First we prove that Ie
is closed under the operation ^. To this end we show that Ie ^ Je satisfies the
conditions of Definition 3.1.

(i) (Ie ^ Je)(0, 0) = Min{Ie(0, 0), Je(0, 0)} = Min{1,1} = 1

(Ie ^ Je)(1, 1) = Min{Ie(1, 1), Je(1, 1)} = Min{1,1} = 1.
(ii) ("x 2 (0, 1)) ((Ie ^ Je)(x, x) = Min{Ie(x, x), Je(x, x)} = Min{e, e} = e).
(iii) ("x2[0,1]) ((Ie ^ Je)(e, x) = Min{Ie (e, x), Je(e, x)} = Min{x, x} = x).
(iv) (1) If x1 6 x2, then Je(x1, t) P Je(x2, t) and Ie(x1, t) P Ie(x2, t) for all
t 2 [0, 1]. So we have
ðI e ^ J e Þðx1 ; tÞ ¼ MinfI e ðx1 ; tÞ; J e ðx1 ; tÞg P MinfI e ðx2 ; tÞ; J e ðx2 ; tÞg
¼ ðI e ^ J e Þðx2 ; tÞ:
(2) Similarly we can show that y1 6 y2 implies Ie(t, y1) 6 Ie(t, y2) for all t 2 [0, 1].
Similarly we can prove that Ie is closed under the operation _.
(b) The proof is straightforward from the associativity of Min and Max. h

Let e be a real number in the interval (0, 1]. Define the mappings 1e,0e,
ue, ze : [0, 1]2 ! [0, 1] as follows:

1e ðx; yÞ ¼ sup I e ðx; yÞ and 0e ðx; yÞ ¼ inf I e ðx; yÞ;

I e 2Ie I e 2Ie

ue ðx; yÞ ¼ sup I e ðx; yÞ and ze ðx; yÞ ¼ inf I e ðx; yÞ:

I e 2PIe I e 2PIe

We can prove the following lemma.

 Gh. Khaledi et al. / Information Sciences 174 (2005) 103–122 109

Lemma 3.9. Let e be a real number in the interval (0, 1]. Then

(a) 1e and 0e are in Ie.

(b) ue and ze are in PIe.

Proof. (a) Due to similarity we only prove that 1e 2 Ie. It is clear that 1e is well-
defined. To show that 1e 2 Ie, we prove the conditions of Definition 3.1 hold.

(i) 1e ð0; 0Þ ¼ supfI e ð0; 0ÞjI e 2 Ieg

¼ supf1g ¼ 1;
1e ð1; 1Þ ¼ supfI e ð1; 1ÞjI e 2 Ieg
¼ supf1g ¼ 1:
(ii) ("x2(0, 1)) ð1e ðx; xÞ ¼ sup I e ðx; xÞ ¼ supfI e ðx; xÞjI e 2 Ieg ¼ supfeg ¼ eÞ.
I e 2Ie
(iii) ("x2[0, 1]) ð1e ðe; xÞ ¼ sup I e ðe; xÞ ¼ supfI e ðe; xÞjI e 2 Ieg ¼ supfxg ¼ xÞ.
I e 2Ie
(iv) (1)
x1 6 x2 ) ð8I e 2 IeÞð8t 2 ½0; 1ÞðI e ðx1 ; tÞ P I e ðx2 ; tÞÞ
) sup I e ðx1 ; tÞ P sup I e ðx2 ; tÞ
I e 2Ie I e 2Ie
) 1e ðx1 ; tÞ P 1e ðx2 ; tÞ:
(2) In the case that y1 6 y2, similarly we can show that
1e ðt; y 1 Þ P 1e ðt; y 2 Þfor all t 2 ½0; 1:

Lemma 3.10. Let e be a real number in the interval (0, 1] and Ie be an e-

implication (pseudo-e-implication). Then

(1) Ie ^ 0e = 0e ^ Ie = 0e (Ie ^ ze = ze ^ Ie = ze).

(2) Ie ^ 1e = 1e ^ Ie = Ie (Ie ^ ue = ue ^ Ie = Ie).
(3) Ie _ 0e = 0e _ Ie = Ie (Ie _ ze = ze _ Ie = Ie).
(4) Ie _ 1e = 1e _ Ie = 1e (Ie _ ue = ue _ Ie = ue).

Proof. Suppose Ie 2 Ie and (x, y) 2 [0, 1]2 be arbitrary.

(1) Clearly Ie ^ 0e = 0e ^ Ie, by commutativity property of minimum. We

have:
ðI e ^ 0e Þðx; yÞ ¼ MinfI e ðx; yÞ; 0e ðx; yÞg ¼ MinfI e ðx; yÞ; inf I e ðx; yÞg
I e 2Ie

¼ inf I e ðx; yÞ ¼ 0e ðx; yÞ:

I e 2Ie
110 Gh. Khaledi et al. / Information Sciences 174 (2005) 103–122

(2) Clearly Ie ^ 1e = 1e ^ Ie, by commutativity property of minimum. We have

ðI e ^ 1e Þðx; yÞ ¼ MinfI e ðx; yÞ; 1e ðx; yÞg ¼ I e ðx; yÞ:
(3) Clearly Ie _ 0e = 0e _ Ie, by commutativity property of maximum. We
have
ðI e _ 0e Þðx; yÞ ¼ MaxfI e ðx; yÞ; 0e ðx; yÞg ¼ I e ðx; yÞ:
(4) Clearly Ie _ 1e = 1e _ Ie, by commutativity property of maximum. We
have
ðI e _ 1e Þðx; yÞ ¼ MaxfI e ðx; yÞ; 1e ðx; yÞg ¼ 1e ðx; yÞ:

In the case that Ie 2 PIe the proof is similar. h

Theorem 3.11. Let e be a real number in the interval (0, 1]. Then (Ie, ^), (Ie, _),
(PIe, ^) and (PIe, _) are monoids.

Proof. Follows from Lemmas 3.8–3.10. h

In the sequel we let 6 be the usual ordering of the real functions on Ie(PIe).
That is
2
I e 6 J e () ð8ðx; yÞ 2 ½0; 1 ÞðI e ðx; yÞ
6 J e ðx; yÞÞ for all I e ; J e 2 IeðI e ; J e 2 PIeÞ:

Definition 3.12 [9]. A lattice is a partially ordered set (V, 6 ) in which every
pair of elements of V has a sup and an inf in V. Moreover a complete lattice is a
lattice, if every subset of V has both a sup and an inf in V.

Lemma 3.13. Let e be a real number in the interval (0, 1]. Then (Ie, _, ^, 6) and
(PIe, _, ^, 6) are complete lattices.

Proof. Due to similarity we only prove that (Ie, _, ^, 6) is a complete lattice. Ie

is a lattice, by Lemma 3.8. Now we show that Ie is a complete lattice. Let A be
an arbitrary subset of Ie. We define V 0e as the following:
2
V 0e : ½0; 1 ! ½0; 1;
V 0e ðx; yÞ ¼ sup I e ðx; yÞ:
I e 2A

It is clear that V is well-defined and V 0e 2 Ie. Suppose that Ie 2 A is arbitrary

0
e
then
2
ð8ðx; yÞ 2 ½0; 1 ÞðI e ðx; yÞ 6 V 0e ðx; yÞÞ:
 Gh. Khaledi et al. / Information Sciences 174 (2005) 103–122 111

So I e 6 V 0e .
Now suppose that L0e 2 Ie is such that
ð8I e 2 AÞ ðI e 6 L0e Þ:
So, we have
2
ð8ðx; yÞ 2 ½0; 1 Þ ðI e ðx; yÞ 6 L0e ðx; yÞÞ:
Therefore
2
ð8ðx; yÞ 2 ½0; 1 Þ ðV 0e ðx; yÞ 6 L0e ðx; yÞÞ:
So V 0e 6 L0e .
Hence V 0e is the sup of A. Similarly we can show that A has inf. h

Let e be a real number in the interval (0, 1]. Assume u : [0, 1] ! [0, 1] be an
increasing bijection with fixed point e, and let Ie 2 Ie(Ie 2 PIe). Define Iue as
the following:
I ue : ½0; 12 ! ½0; 1;
I ue ðx; yÞ ¼ u
1 ðI e ðuðxÞ; uðyÞÞÞ:
One can find many examples of such functions u such as the following:

Example 3.14. Let e be a real number in the interval (0, 1]. Define
u : [0, 1] ! [0, 1] as the following:


ð1=eÞx2 0 6 x < e;
uðxÞ ¼
x e 6 x 6 1:
Then u is an increasing bijection such that u(e) = e.

Lemma 3.15. Let e be a real number in the interval (0, 1] and u : [0, 1] ! [0, 1]
be an increasing bijection with fixed point e. Then Iue 2 Ie(Iue 2 PIe) for every
Ie 2 Ie(Ie 2 PIe).

Proof. Due to similarity we only prove that Iue 2 Ie for every Ie 2 Ie

(i) Iue(0, 0) = u
1[Ie(u(0), u(0))] = u
1[Ie(0, 0)] = u
1(1) = 1,

I ue ð1; 1Þ ¼ u
1 ½I e ðuð1Þ; uð1ÞÞ ¼ u
1 ½I e ð1; 1Þ ¼ u
1 ð1Þ ¼ 1:
(ii) ("x 2 (0, 1)) (Iue(x, x) = u
1(Ie (u(x),u(x))) = u
1(e) = e).
(iii) ("x 2 [0, 1]) (Iue(e, x) = u
1(Ie (u(e), u(x))) = u
1(Ie(e,u(x))) = u
1(u(x)) =
x).
(iv) (1) Suppose x1 6 x2, since u is increasing, therefore u(x1) 6 u(x2) and we
will have
112 Gh. Khaledi et al. / Information Sciences 174 (2005) 103–122

I ue ðx1 ; tÞ ¼ u
1 ðI e ðuðx1 Þ; uðtÞÞÞ P u
1 ðI e ðuðx2 Þ; uðtÞÞÞ ¼ I ue ðx2 ; tÞ

for all t 2 [0, 1].(2) Similarly we can show that

y 1 6 y 2 ) I ue ðt; y 1 Þ 6 I ue ðt; y 2 Þ for all t 2 ½0; 1:

Lemma 3.16. Let e be a real number in the interval (0, 1]. Then

(i) ("Ie, Je 2 Ie) ((Ie ^ Je)u = Iue ^ Jue).

(ii) ("Ie, Je 2 Ie) ((Ie _ Je)u = Iue _ Jue).
(iii) ("Ie, Je 2 PIe) ((Ie ^ Je)u = Iue ^ Jue).
(iv) ("Ie, Je 2 PIe) ((Ie _ Je)u = Iue _ Jue).

Proof. (i) Suppose Ie, Je 2 Ie and (x, y) 2 [0, 1]2, then

ðI e ^ J e Þu ðx; yÞ ¼ u
1 fðI e ^ J e ÞðuðxÞ; uðyÞÞg

¼ u
1 ½MinfI e ðuðxÞ; uðyÞÞ; J e ðuðxÞ; uðyÞÞg
¼ Minfu
1 ðI e ðuðxÞ; uðyÞÞÞ; u
1 ðJ e ðuðxÞ; uðyÞÞÞg
¼ MinfI ue ðx; yÞ; J ue ðx; yÞg ¼ ðI ue ^ J ue Þðx; yÞ:

The proof of the other parts is similar. h

Remark. Note that Definition 3.1 (Definition 3.5) could be more general by
requiring only the condition

(i) be changed to
(ii) 0 x 2 (0, 1) Ie(x, x) P e.

Then, with this definition, all the results proved in the paper until now remain
true. However, with this change one can easily check that a new important
family of implicators, characterized by Proposition 7 of [2], obtained by resid-
uation from any uninorm U with neutral element e2(0, 1) such that U(x,0) = 0
for all x 2 [0, 1) in the form of
I e ðx; yÞ ¼ supfz 2 ½0; 1jU ðx; zÞ 6 yg

satisfy the generalized Definition 3.1 (Definition 5.1). But in this paper we will
not adopt this generalization.
Let e be a real number in the interval (0, 1) and N : [0, 1] ! [0, 1] be a strong
negation with fixed point e and Ie 2 PIe(Ie 2 Ie), then we define I Ne as the
following:
 Gh. Khaledi et al. / Information Sciences 174 (2005) 103–122 113

8 N 2
< I e : ½0; 1 ! ½0; 1
>
I Ne ðx; yÞ ¼ N fI e ðN ðxÞ; N ðyÞÞg; ðx; yÞ 2 ½0; 12 n fð0; 0Þ; ð1; 1Þg;
>
:
1; elsewhere:

I Ne is the dual of Ie with respect to the strong negation N.

There are many such strong negations with fixed point e. For suppose
e2(0, 1) is given. Then we can see that in Sugeno negation
N k ðxÞ ¼ 1
x
1þx
; k 2 ð
1; 1Þ, Nk(e) = e, where k ¼ 1
2e
e2
.

Lemma 3.17. Let e be a real number in the interval (0, 1) and N : [0, 1] ! [0, 1]
be a strong negation with fixed point e and Ie 2 PIe. Then

(1) I Ne 2 PIe
(2) (a) ðI Ne ÞN ¼ I e
(b) ð8I e ; J e 2 PIe ðI e 6 J e ) J Ne 6 I Ne Þ.
(3) (De Morgan properties)
N
(i) ð8I e ; J e 2 PIe ððI e _ J e Þ ¼ I Ne ^ J Ne Þ,
N
(ii) ð8I e ; J e 2 PIe ððI e ^ J e Þ ¼ I Ne _ J Ne Þ,

Proof. Let (x, y) 2 [0, 1]2. Then

(1) (i) I Ne ð0; 0Þ ¼ I Ne ð1; 1Þ ¼ 1.

(ii) ð8x 2 ð0; 1ÞÞðI Ne ðx; xÞ ¼ N fI e ðN ðxÞ; N ðxÞÞg ¼ N ðeÞ ¼ eÞ.
(iii) ðx 2 ½0;1ÞðI Ne ðe;xÞ ¼ N fI e ðN ðeÞ;N ðxÞÞg ¼ N fI e ðe;N ðxÞÞg ¼ N ðN ðxÞÞÞ ¼ x.
(iv) (1) Suppose x1, x2 2 [0, 1], t 2 (0, 1) and x1 6 x2. Then(x1, t),
(x2, t) 2 [0, 1]2n{(0, 0),(1, 1)}. Since N is strictly decreasing, there-
fore N(x1) P N(x2). So we have I ae N ðx1 ; tÞ ¼ N fI e ðN ðx1 Þ; N ðtÞÞg
P N fI e ðN ðx2 Þ; N ðtÞÞg ¼ I Ne ðx2 ; tÞ:

(2) Similarly we can show that Definition 3.5(iv)(2) holds

I Ne ðt; x1 Þ 6 I Ne ðt; x2 Þ for all t 2 ð0; 1Þ:
(2) (a) Let (x, y)2[0, 1]2. The following two cases occur:
(i) (x, y)2[0, 1]2{(0, 0),(1, 1)}.
We have
ðI Ne ÞN ðx; yÞ ¼ N ½I Ne ðN ðxÞ; N ðyÞÞ ¼ N ½N fI e ðN ðN ðxÞÞ; N ðN ðyÞÞÞg
since (N(x), N(y)) 2 [0, 1]2n{(0, 0),(1, 1)} = Ie(x, y).
(ii) (x, y) 62 [0, 1]2n{(0, 0), (1, 1)}.
N
We have ðI Ne Þ ðx; yÞ ¼ 1 ¼ I e ðx; yÞ.
114 Gh. Khaledi et al. / Information Sciences 174 (2005) 103–122

(b) Let Ie, Je 2 PIe, Ie 6 Je and (x, y) 2 [0, 1]2. Consider the following two
cases:
(i) (x, y) 2 [0, 1]2n{(0, 0), (1, 1)}.
Since Ie 6 Je we have
I e ðN ðxÞ; N ðyÞÞ 6 J e ðN ðxÞ; N ðyÞÞ:
Hence,
N ðJ e ðN ðxÞ; N ðyÞÞÞ 6 N ðI e ðN ðxÞ; N ðyÞÞÞ:
So
J Ne ðx; yÞ 6 I Ne ðx; yÞ:
(ii) (x, y) 62 [0, 1]26{(0, 0),(1, 1)}.
We have
J Ne ðx; yÞ ¼ 1 6 1 ¼ I Ne ðx; yÞ:
Therefore, J Ne 6 I Ne .
(3) (De Morgan properties)
(i) Let Ie, Je 2 PIe and (x, y) 2 [0, 1]2. The following two cases occur
(a) (x, y) 2 [0, 1]2n{(0, 0), (1, 1)}.
We have
N
ðI e _ J e Þ ðx; yÞ ¼ N ððI e _ J e ÞðN ðxÞ; N ðyÞÞÞ
¼ N ðMaxfI e ðN ðxÞ; N ðyÞÞ; J e ðN ðxÞ; N ðyÞÞgÞ
¼ MinfN ðI e ðN ðxÞ; N ðyÞÞÞ; N ðJ e ðN ðxÞ; N ðyÞÞÞg
since N is strictly decreasing
¼ MinfI Ne ðx; yÞ; J Ne ðx; yÞg ¼ ðI Ne ^ J Ne Þðx; yÞ:
(b) (x, y) 62 [0, 1]2n{(0, 0), (1, 1)}.
We have (Ie _ Je)N(x, y) = 1.
On the other hand we have:
ðI Ne ^ J Ne Þðx; yÞ ¼ MinfI Ne ðx; yÞ; J Ne ðx; yÞg ¼ Minf1; 1g ¼ 1:
N
Therefore, ðI e _ J e Þ ¼ I Ne ^ J Ne .
(ii) The proof follows from Lemma 3.17 (2-a) and Lemma 3.17 (3-i). h

Theorem 3.18. Let e be a real number in the interval (0, 1) and

N : [0, 1] ! [0, 1] be a strong negation with fixed point e. Then
(i) zNe ¼ ue .
(ii) uNe ¼ ze .
 Gh. Khaledi et al. / Information Sciences 174 (2005) 103–122 115

Proof
(i) Obviously, ze 6 uNe . From Lemma 3.17 (2) we have
ðuNe ÞN 6 zNe ) ue 6 zNe ) ue ¼ zNe :
(ii) Proof is similar to (i). h

Theorem 3.19. Let e be a real number in the interval (0, 1) and

N : [0, 1] ! [0, 1] be a strong negation with fixed point e. Then (PIe, _, ^, N,
ze, ue) is a De Morgan algebra.

Proof. The proof follows from Lemma 3.17 and Theorem 3.18. h

Definition 3.20. Let e be a real number in the interval (0, 1) and

N : [0, 1] ! [0, 1] be a strong negation with fixed point e. Then Ie 2 PIe is called
self-dual with respect to N if I Ne ¼ I e .

Example 3.21. Let U be a representable uninorm with neutral element e 2 (0, 1).
Ie is self-dual with respect to NU, where Ie(x, y) = U(NU(x),y);x, y 2 [0, 1].

In the following we consider an example such that Ie 2 Iebut I Ne 62 Ie. This

shows that Ie is not necessarily closed under negation operator I Ne .

Example 3.22. Let e = 0.5 and N(x) = 1
x. Hence, N is a strong negation with
fixed point e. Consider Ie in Example 3.1. We know that I0.5 2 I0.5, but I N0:5 62 I 0:5 ,
since Definition 3.1(i)(iv) does not hold for t = 1, x2 = 1 and x1 = 0.75.

In the following we give a characterization for the case that Ie is closed un-
der negation operator I Ne .

Lemma 3.23. Let e be a real number in the interval (0, 1), N : [0, 1] ! [0, 1] be a
strong negation with fixed point e and Ie 2 Ie. Then I Ne 2 Ie if and only if
ð8x 2 ½0; 1ÞðI Ne ðx; 1Þ ¼ 1Þ:

Proof. ()) Follows by Lemma 3.4-(ii).

(() Suppose I Ne be such that
ð8x 2 ½0; 1ÞðI Ne ðx; 1Þ ¼ 1Þ:
We show that I Ne 2 Ie. Similar to the proof of Lemma 3.17(1), we can prove
that Definition 3.1(i–iii) hold. Now we prove Definition 3.1(iv) holds.
(1) Let x1, x2, t 2 [0, 1] and x1 6 x2. Consider the following two cases:
(a) (x1, t) 2 [0, 1]2n{(0, 0), (1, 1)}.
116 Gh. Khaledi et al. / Information Sciences 174 (2005) 103–122

This case involves the following three sub cases:

2
ða1 Þðx2 ; tÞ 2 ½0; 1 n fð0; 0Þ; ð1; 1Þg:
In this case, the proof is similar to Lemma 3.17(1).
ða2 Þðx2 ; tÞ ¼ ð0; 0Þ:
Since x1 6 x2 we have (x1, t) = (0, 0) and it is in contradiction with
(x1, t) 2 [0, 1]2n{(0, 0),(1, 1)}. Hence this case does not hold.
ða3 Þðx2 ; tÞ ¼ ð1; 1Þ:
In this case t = 1, so by hypothesis we have
I Ne ðx1 ; tÞ ¼ I Ne ðx1 ; 1Þ ¼ 1:
Therefore
I Ne ðx1 ; tÞ ¼ 1 P 1 ¼ I Ne ðx2 ; tÞ:
(b) (x1, t) 62 [0, 1]2n{(0, 0), (1, 1)}.
In this case we have
I Ne ðx1 ; tÞ ¼ 1 P I Ne ðx2 ; tÞ:
(2) Similarly we can show that for all y1, y2, t2[0, 1] if y1 6 y2 then
I Ne ðt; y 1 Þ 6 I Ne ðt; y 2 Þ. h

Now by considering Lemma 3.23, we will confine our study to a restricted

class of e-implications. Let U be a disjunctive representable uninorm with neu-
tral element e2(0, 1) and N be a strong negation with fixed point e. Define CNe as
the following:
CNe ¼ fI e 2 IejI Ne ðx; 1Þ ¼ 18x 2 ½0; 1g:
CNe is not empty, since Ie(x, y) = U(NU(x),y) is in CNe .

Lemma 3.24. CNe is closed under the operations ^ and _.

Proof. Let Ie and Je be in CNe , then Ie ^ Je is in Ie by Lemma 3.8. To complete

the proof we must show that
N
ð8x 2 ½0; 1ÞððI e ^ J e Þ ðx; 1Þ ¼ 1Þ:
If x = 1, then we are done. Let x 2 [0, 1), then we have
ðI e ^ J e ÞN ðx; 1Þ ¼ N ððI e ^ J e ÞðN ðxÞ; N ð1ÞÞÞ
¼ N ðMinfI e ðN ðxÞ; N ð1ÞÞ; J e ðN ðxÞ; N ð1ÞÞgÞ
¼ MaxfN ðI e ðN ðxÞ; N ð1ÞÞÞ; N ðJ e ðN ðxÞ; N ð1ÞÞÞg
since N is strictly decreasing
¼ MaxfI Ne ðx; 1Þ; J Ne ðx; 1g ¼ Maxf1; 1g ¼ 1:
Similarly we can show that CNe is closed under the operation _. h
 Gh. Khaledi et al. / Information Sciences 174 (2005) 103–122 117

Define the mappings 1C, 0C : [0, 1]2 ! [0, 1] as the following:

1C ðx; yÞ ¼ sup I e ðx; yÞ and 0C ðx; yÞ ¼ infN I e ðx; yÞ
I e 2CN I e 2Ce
e

Lemma 3.25. 1C and 0C are in CNe .

Proof. It is clear that 1C 2 Ie. To complete the proof we show the following
statement:
ð8x 2 ½0; 1Þð1C ðx; 1Þ ¼ 1Þ:
If x = 1, the statement holds, since 1C 2 Ie. Let x 2 [0, 1) then we have
" #
1NC ðx; 1Þ ¼ N ½1C ðN ðxÞ; N ð1ÞÞ ¼ N sup I e ðN ðxÞ; N ð1ÞÞ
I e 2CN
e

¼ infN N ðI e ðN ðxÞ; N ð1ÞÞÞ; sinceN is strictly decreasing

I e 2Ce

¼ infN I Ne ðx; 1Þ ¼ infN f1g ¼ 1:

I e 2Ce I e 2Ce

Similarly we can show that 0C is in CNe . h

Lemma 3.26. Consider the set CNe . Then

(i)
N
(1) ð8I e 2 CNe Þ ððI Ne Þ ¼ I e Þ.
(2) ð8I e 2 CNe Þ ðI Ne 2 CNe Þ.
(ii) ð8I e ; J e 2 CNe Þ ðI e J e ) J Ne I Ne Þ.
(iii) (De Morgan properties)
N
(1) ð8I e ; J e 2 CNe Þ ððI e _ J e Þ ¼ I Ne ^ J Ne Þ
N N
(2) ð8I e ; J e 2 Ce Þ ððI e ^ J e Þ ¼ I Ne _ J Ne Þ.

Proof. Since the proof of the other parts are similar to the proof of Lemma
3.17, we only prove part (i-2). Since I e 2 CNe , so I Ne 2 Ie by Lemma 3.23. To
complete the proof we must prove the following statement:
N
ðx 2 ½0; 1ÞððI Ne Þ ðx; 1Þ ¼ 1Þ:
We have
N
ðI Ne Þ ðx; 1Þ ¼ I e ðx; 1Þby part ði
1Þ ¼ 1 by Lemma 3.4 ðiiÞ:

Theorem 3.27. For the mapping 0C and 1C we have

(i) 0NC ¼ 1C .
(ii) 1NC ¼ 0C .
118 Gh. Khaledi et al. / Information Sciences 174 (2005) 103–122

Proof. The proof is similar to Theorem 3.18. h

Theorem 3.28. The system ðCNe ; ^; _; N ; 0C ; 1C Þ is a De Morgan algebra.

Proof. The proof follows from Lemma 3.26 and Theorem 3.27. h

Let N : [0, 1] ! [0, 1] be a strong negation and

U ¼ fuju : ½0; 1 ! ½0; 1; u is increasing and bijectiong
We define UN as the following:
UN ¼ fu 2 UjuðN ðxÞÞ ¼ N ðuðxÞÞg:

Example 3.29. Let U be a representable uninorm with an additive generator h.

We introduce a class of functions such that they belong to UN U . Define
uk : [0, 1] ! [0, 1] by u½kðxÞ ¼ h
1 ðkhðxÞÞ, where k is an arbitrary positive real
number. Since h is strictly increasing, so we have

(i) uk2U.
Moreover
(ii) I 2 UN U , where I is identity function.
(iii) uk 2 UN U , since

uk ðN U ðxÞÞ ¼ h
1 ðkhðh
1 ð
hðxÞÞÞÞ ¼ h
1 ð
khðxÞÞ:

On the other hand
N U ðuk ðxÞÞ ¼ h
1 ð
hðuk ðxÞÞÞ ¼ h
1 ð
hðh
1 ðkhðxÞÞÞÞ ¼ h
1 ð
khðxÞÞ:
Let N be a strong negation. One can show that UN is closed under ‘‘’’ the com-
position of functions and the inverse ‘‘
1’’ of the functions.

Lemma 3.30
(i) u 2 UN ) u
1 2 UN.
(ii) u1, u2 2 UN)u1  u2 2 UN.

Proof. It is clear. h
Theorem 3.31. (UN, ) is a group.

Proof. Follows from Lemma 3.30. h

Theorem 3.32. Let e be a real number in the interval (0, 1), N be a strong
negation with fixed point e and u 2 UN be a function with fixed point e. If Ie 2 PIe
is self-dual with respect to N, then Iue is self-dual with respect to N.
 Gh. Khaledi et al. / Information Sciences 174 (2005) 103–122 119

Proof. Let (x, y) 2 [0, 1]2. We consider the following two cases:

(i) (x, y) 2 [0, 1]2n{(0, 0), (1, 1)}. Then

I Nue ðx; yÞ ¼ N fI ue ðN ðxÞ; N ðyÞÞg ¼ N bu
1 fI e ðuðN ðxÞÞ; uðN ðyÞÞÞgc
¼ N ½u
1 fI e ðN ðuðxÞÞ; N ðuðyÞÞÞg; since u 2 UN
¼ u
1 fN ½I e ðN ðuðxÞÞ; N ðuðyÞÞÞg; since u
1 2 UN
¼ u
1 fI e ðuðxÞ; uðyÞÞg; since I Ne ¼ I e ¼ I ue ðx; yÞ:
(ii) (x, y) 62 [0, 1]2n{(0, 0), (1, 1)}. Then
I Nue ðx; yÞ ¼ 1 ¼ I ue ðx; yÞ:

Therefore I Nue ¼ I ue . h

Definition 3.33. Let e be a real number in the interval (0, 1] and N be a strong
negation. Ie 2 Ie (Ie 2 PIe) has the contrapositive property with respect to N if
2
ð8ðx; yÞ 2 ½0; 1 ÞðI e ðx; yÞ ¼ I e ðN ðyÞ; N ðxÞÞÞ:

Example 3.34. Let U be a disjunctive representable uninorm with neutral ele-

ment e 2 (0, 1). Ie(x, y) = U(NU(x, y) is an e-implication such that it has contra-
positive property with respect to NU.

Example 3.35. Let U be a representable uninorm with neutral element e2(0, 1).
Then Ie inPIe in the Example 3.7 has contrapositive property with respect to NU.

Theorem 3.36. Let e be a real number in the interval (0, 1] and N be a strong
negation. Suppose Ie 2 Ie (Ie 2 PIe) has the contrapositive property with respect
to N and u 2 UN be a function with fixed point e, then Iue has the contrapositive
property with respect to N.

Proof. Let Ie 2 Ie has contrapositive property with respect to N and

(x, y) 2 [0, 1]2, then
I ue ðx; yÞ ¼ u
1 fI e ðuðxÞ; uðyÞÞg ¼ u
1 fI e ðN ðuðyÞÞ; N ðuðxÞÞÞg
¼ u
1 fI e ðuðN ðyÞÞ; uðN ðxÞÞÞg ¼ I ue ðN ðyÞ; N ðxÞÞ:
Therefore, Iue has the contropositive property with respect to N.
The proof for PIe is similar. h
Let U be a representable uninorm with neutral element e 2 (0, 1) and
CPIe = {Ie 2 PIejIe has contrapositive property with respect to NU}.
Clearly CPIe is not empty by Example 3.35.
120 Gh. Khaledi et al. / Information Sciences 174 (2005) 103–122

Lemma 3.37. ^ and _ are closed operations on CPIe.

Proof. We first prove that ^ is closed. To this end we show that Ie ^ Je has
contrapositive property with respect to NU if Ie and Je be in CPIe.
ðI e ^ J e Þðx; yÞ ¼ MinfI e ðx; yÞ; J e ðx; yÞg
¼ MinfI e ðN U ðyÞ; N U ðxÞÞ; J e ðN U ðyÞ; N U ðxÞÞg
ðsince I e and J e are in CPIe:Þ ¼ ðI e ^ J e ÞðN U ðyÞ; N U ðxÞÞ:
Similarly we can prove that _ is closed. h

Define the mappings 1Ce, 0Ce : [0, 1]2 ! [0, 1] as follows:

1Ce ðx; yÞ ¼ sup I e ðx; yÞ and 0Ce ðx; yÞ ¼ inf I e ðx; yÞ:
I e 2CPIe I e 2CPIe

Lemma 3.38. 1Ce and 0Ce are in CPIe.

Proof. It is clear that 1Ce and 0Ce are well-defined. To show that 1Ce 2 CPIe,
we prove the condition of Definition 3.33, holds.
1Ce ðx; yÞ ¼ sup I e ðx; yÞ ¼ sup I e ðN U ðyÞ; N U ðxÞÞ ðsince I e 2 CPIe:Þ
I e 2CPIe I e 2CPIe

¼ 1Ce ðN U ðyÞ; N U ðxÞÞ:

The proof that 0Ce is in CPIe is similar. h

Lemma 3.39. 1Ce and 0Ce are the neutral elements of operators ^ and _
respectively.

Proof. It is similar to the proof of Lemma 3.10. h

Lemma 3.40. (CPIe, ^) and (CPIe, _) are submonoids of (PIe, ^) and (PIe, _),
respectively.

Proof. Follows from Lemmas 3.8(ii) and 3.39. h

Lemma 3.41. (CPIe,_,^,6) is a complete sublattice of (PIe, ^, _, 6).

Proof. It is similar to the proof of Lemma 3.13. h

Lemma 3.42. Let Ie 2 CPIe. Then I Ne U 2 CPIe:

Proof. Let (x, y)2[0, 1]2. Consider the following two cases:
 Gh. Khaledi et al. / Information Sciences 174 (2005) 103–122 121

(i) (x, y) 2 [0, 1]2n{(0, 0), (1, 1)}. Then

I Ne U ðx; yÞ ¼ N U fI e ðN U ðxÞ; N U ðyÞÞg ¼ N U fI e ðy; xÞg

¼ N U fI e ðN U ðN U ðyÞÞ; N U ðN U ðxÞÞÞg ¼ I Ne ðN U ðyÞ; N U ðxÞÞ:

(ii) (x, y) 62 [0, 1]2n{(0, 0), (1, 1)}. Then we consider the following two sub cases:

(a) (x, y) = (0, 0). Then

I Ne U ð0; 0Þ ¼ 1 ¼ I Ne U ð1; 1Þ ¼ I Ne U ðN U ð0Þ; N U ð0ÞÞ:
(b) (x, y) = (1, 1). It is similar to (a). h

Lemma 3.43
(i) 0NCeU ¼ 1Ce
(ii) 1NCeU ¼ 0Ce .

Proof. It is similar to the proof of Theorem 3.18. h

Theorem 3.44. (CPIe,_,^,NU, 6 ,0Ce,1Ce) is a sub-De Morgan algebra of

(PIe, _, ^, NU, 6 ,ze, ue).

Proof. The proof follows from Lemma 3.17 (2–3), Lemmas 3.42 and 3.43. h

4. Conclusion

In this paper, we have studied the structure of the set of all e-implications
and the structure of the set of all pseudo-e-implications. We showed that these
sets are a complete lattice, where the set of all pseudo-e-implications becomes a
De Morgan algebra. Moreover it is shown that a class of e-implications is a De
Morgan algebra. Also it is shown that by considering a representable uninorm
with neutral element e 2 (0, 1), the set of all contrapositive pseudo-e-implica-
tions with respect to the involutive negator of the uninorm U is a complete sub-
lattice of the set of all pseudo-e-implications which is also a De Morgan
algebra.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the referees for their many constructive
comments which evolved the paper thoroughly and Mahani Mathematical
122 Gh. Khaledi et al. / Information Sciences 174 (2005) 103–122

Research Center at Shahid Bahonar University of Kerman in Iran for the

financial support.

References

[1] B. De Baets, Idempotent uninorms, European Journal of Operational Research 118 (1999)
631–642.
[2] B. De Baets, J. Fodor, Residual operators of uninorms, Soft Computing 3 (1999) 89–100.
[3] M. Baczynski, J. Drewniak, J. Sobera, Semigroups of fuzzy implications, Department of
Mathematics, Silesian University, Poland, Preprint.
[4] J. Fodor, R.R. Yager, A. Rybalov, Structure of uninorms, International Journal of
Uncertainity of Fuzziness Knowledge-Based Systems 5 (1997) 411–427.
[5] J. Golan, The theory of semirings with applications in mathematics and theoretical computer
science, Pitman Monographs and Surveys in Pure and Applied Mathematics, vol. 54,
Longman Scientific and Technical, 1992.
[6] Yong-Ming Li, Zhong-Ke Shi, Weak uninorm aggregation operators, Information Sciences
124 (2000) 317–323.
[7] M. Mas, G. Mayor, J. Torrens, The modularity condition for uninorms and t-operators,
Fuzzy Sets and Systems 126 (2002) 207–218.
[8] M. Mas, G. Mayor, J. Torrens, The distributivity condition for uninorms and t-operators,
Fuzzy Sets and Systems 128 (2002) 209–225.
[9] H.T. Nguyen, E.A. Walker, A First Course in Fuzzy Logic, second ed., Chapman and Hall,
London, 2000.
[10] R.R. Yager, A. Rybalov, Uninorm aggregation operators, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 80 (1996)
111–120.
[11] S.A. Ziaie, S. Ray, M. Mashinchi, R. Kamran, Boolean structure of triangular norms,
Mathware and Soft Computing 6 (1999) 63–78.