DOCSLIB.ORG

Difference and Symmetric Difference Operations Defined on Intuitionistic Fuzzy Multisets

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Difference and Symmetric Difference Operations Defined on Intuitionistic Fuzzy Multisets Book of proceedings - The Academic Conference of African Scholar Publications & Research International on Achieving Unprecedented Transformation in a fast- moving World: Agenda for Sub-Sahara Africa. Vol.3 No. 3. 21st May, 2015- University of Abuja, Teaching Hospital Conference Hall, Gwagwalada, Abuja FCT. Vol.5 No.3 DIFFERENCE AND SYMMETRIC DIFFERENCE OPERATIONS DEFINED ON INTUITIONISTIC FUZZY MULTISETS PAUL AUGUSTINE EJEGWA Department of Mathematics/Statistics/Computer Science, University of Agriculture, P.M.B. 2373, Makurdi Nigeria Abstract: The concept of intuitionistic fuzzy multisets which is an extension of intuitionistic fuzzy sets is a relative new research area that ushers wide range of applications in real world. We gave a comprehensive note on the fundamentals of intuitionistic fuzzy multisets (IFMSs) which cuts across some foundational definitions, basic operations, Cartesian product, and some laws of algebra. We proposed and defined relative complement and symmetric difference over IFMSs. Thereafter, some theorems and corollaries are given, and proved respectively. Keywords: algebra, difference, intuitionistic fuzzy sets, intuitionistic fuzzy multisets, operations, symmetric difference. Introduction Intuitionistic fuzzy set (IFS) introduced by Atanassov [1] as a generalization of fuzzy set proposed earlier by Zadeh [13] received ample attentions in fuzzy community due to its flexibility, applicability and resourcefulness in tackling the issue of vagueness or the representation of imperfect knowledge in Cantor’s set theory. The main advantage of IFSs is their capability to cope with the hesitancy that may exist. This is achieved by incorporating a second function, along with the membership function of the conventional fuzzy sets called non-membership function. Atanassov [3, 4] carried out rigorous research based on the theory and applications of intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Notwithstanding, there are times that each element has different membership values with a corresponding non-membership values. Due to such situations, Shinoj and Sunil [8] introduced IFMSs from the combination of IFSs [2] and fuzzy multisets (FMSs) proposed by Yager [12] and showed it application in medical diagnosis. Obviously, IFMS is a generalized IFS or an extension of FMSs as in [7]. Shinoj and Sunil [10] proposed the accuracy of collaborative robots using the concept of intuitionistic fuzzy multiset approached and also provided an in depth work on IFMS in [9]. Ibrahim and Ejegwa [7] proposed some modal operators on IFMS and gave some proofs based on the concept. Ejegwa and Awolola [17]gave an application of IFMSs in binomial distributions. Some distance measures in line with the ones proposed by Szmidt and Kacprzyk [14, 15] with respect to IFSs were introduced in [16] in terms of IFMSs. In this paper, we will defined relative complement and symmetric difference over IFMS and thereafter, give some theorems and corollaries with proofs. Concept of intuitionistic fuzzy multisets Definition 1 [8]: Let be a nonempty set. An IFMS drawn from is characterized by two functions: “count membership” of denoted as and “count non-membership” of denoted as given respectively by : ⟶ and :⟶ where is the set of all crisp multisets drawn from the unit interval [0,1] s.t. for each ∈ , the membership sequence is defined as a decreasingly ordered sequence of elements in () and it is denoted as ((), (),…,()), where()≥ ()≥…≥ () whereas the corresponding non-membership sequence of elements in () is denoted by ( (), (), …, ()) s.t. 0 ()+ ()1 for every ∈ and = 1, . ., . This means, an IFMS is defined as; = {,() ,(): x∈X } or A= {, (), (): ∈ }, for = 1, . , . For each IFMS in , π() = 1 – ()− () is the intuitionistic fuzzy multisets index or hesitation margin of x in . The hesitation margin π()for each = 1, . ., is the degree of non-determinacy of ∈ , to the set and π() ∈ [0,1]. Similarly, π()as in IFS, is the function that expresses lack of knowledge of whether ∈ or ∉ . In general, an IFMS is given as = {,(), (),π(): ∈X}, or {,(x), (x),1 – ()− (): ∈X}, or {, (x),1−(x ) − π(),π(): ∈ }, or {,1– ()− π(), (),π(): ∈X} since ()+ ()+π() =1 for each = 1, . ., . Definition 2: We define IFMS alternatively. Let be nonempty set. An IFMS drawn from is given as ={µ(),…, µ(),…, (),…, (), … : ∈ } where the functions (), (): → [0,1] define the belongingness degrees and the non-belongingness degrees of in s.t. 0 ()+ ()1 for = 1,… If the sequence of the membership functions and non-membership ( belongingness functions and non-belongingness functions) have only n-terms (i.e. finite), n is called the ‘dimension’ of . Consequently ={µ(),…, µ(), (),…, (): ∈ } for = 1,…, . when no ambiguity arises, we define ={µ(), (): ∈ } for =1,…, . Definition 3 [9]: The length of an element in an IFMS is defined as the cardinality of () or () for which 0≤ () + ()≤1 and it is denoted by (: ) i.e. the length of in for each . Then, (: ) = ⃒() ⃒ = ⃒()⃒ Definition 4: If and are IFMSs drawn from , then (: , ) = { (: ), (: )} or () = [(: ), (: )] where ()= (: , ) and denotes maximum. Example Consider the set ={, , , } with : (0.3, 0.2), (0.4,0.5), (0.3,0.3), = : (1.0,0.5, 0.5), (0.0,0.5, 0.5), (0.0, 0.0,0.0), : (0.5,0.4,0.3,0.2),(0.4,0.6,0.6,0.7),(0.1,0.0,0.1,0.1) : (0.4), (0.2), (0.4), = : (1.0,0.3, 0.2), (0.0,0.4,0.5), (0.0,0.3,0.3), : (0.2,0.1), (0.7 0.8), (0.1,0.1) Find: (: ), (: ), (: ), (: ), (: ), (: ), (: ), (: ), (: , ), (: , ), (: , ) an d (: , ) respectively. Solution (: ) = 0 i.e. IFMS,(: ) = 2, (: ) = 3, (: ) = 4, (: ) = 1, (: )= 3,(: ) = 2, (: ) = 0 . IFMS, (: , ) = 1, (: , )= 3, (: , ) = 3 , (: , ) = 4. Note:1. In an IFMS, |() | = | () | for each = 1,2,…, . 2. Whenever =1, an IFMS becomes IFS. 3. IFMS and FMS of the same length have equal cardinality. 4. Whenever the hesitation margin equals zero, an IFMS becomes FMS. Definition 5 (Empty IFMS): If (: ) = | () | = | () | = 0 is an empty IFMS. That is ()=1. Definition 6 (Similar IFMSs): Two IFMSs and are said to be similar or cognate if () = () or () = () for at least one ( = 1,…, ). Definition 7 (Comparable IFMSs): Two IFMSs and are said to be equal or comparable if () = () and () =() . Definition 8 (Equivalent IFMSs): Two IFMSs and are said to be equivalent to each other i.e. is equivalent to , denoted by ~ if ∃ function : → which is both injection and surjection (i.e. bijection). Then, the function defines a one-to-one correspondence between and . In short, ~ iff (: ) = (: ) provided and are drawn from a nonempty set such that . Definition 9 (Inclusive IFMS): Let and be two IFMSs, () ≤() and () ≥() for and = 1,2,…, . Then is a subset of and is a superset of . Definition 10 (Proper Subset): is a proper subset of i.e. if and . It means () ≤ () and () ≥() but () and () () for and = 1,2,…, . Definition 11 (Dominations): An IFMS is dominated by another IFMS (i.e. ≼), if there exist an injection from to . is strictly dominated by (i.e. ≺), if (i) ≼ and (ii) is not equinumerous with . Definition 12 (Relations): Let , and be IFMS in , Then; i. ≼ i.e. is reflexive relation, ii. ≼ and ≼ i.e. symmetric relation, iii. ≼ and ≼≼ i.e. transitive relation iv. ≼ and ≼⇒= i.e. antisymmetric. Corollary 1: For any IFMS and , if ≼ and ≼ ~ i.e. (: ) = (: ). Corollary 2: For any IFMS and , if ≼, ≼ and ≼ and are compatible to each other. The proofs of corollary 1 and 2 are straightforward. Note: If a relation is reflexive, symmetric and transitive, such a relation is called an “equivalence relation”. Operations on intuitionistic fuzzy multisets [8] For any two IFMSs and drawn from , the following operations hold. Let ={,(), (): ∈ X}and ={,(), (): ∈X}, for each = 1,2,…, . 1. Complement: ={,(), (): x∈X} 2. Union: ∪ ={, ((), ()), ((),()): } 3. Intersection: ∩ ={, ((), ()), ((),()):} 4. Addition: ={,()+ ()− ()(), () ():} 5. Multiplication: ={, ()(), ()+ ()−() ():} Algebraic laws in intuitionistic fuzzy multisets Let , and be IFMSs in , then the following algebra follow: 1. Complementary law: () = 2. Idempotent laws: () ∪ = () ∩ = 3. Commutative laws: () ∪ = ∪ () ∩ = ∩ () = () = 4. Associative laws: ()( ∪ ) ∪ = ∪ ( ∪ ) () ( ∩ ) ∩ = ∩ ( ∩ ) ()( ) = ( ) ()( ) = ( ) 5. Distributive laws:() ∪ ( ∩ ) = ( ∪ ) ∩ ( ∪ ) () ∩ ( ∪ ) = ( ∩ ) ∪ ( ∩ ) () ( ∪ ) = () ∪ ( ) ()( ∩ ) = ( ) ∩ ( ) ()( ∪ ) = () ∪ ( ) ()( ∩ ) = () ∩ ( ) 6. De Morgan’s laws: () ( ∪ ) = ∩ () ( ∩ ) = ∪ ()( ) = ()( ) = 7. Absorption laws: () ∩ ( ∪ ) = () ∪ ( ∩ ) = Note: Distributive laws hold for both right and left hands. Theorem 1: Let , , be IFMSs in and ⊆ , then (i) B⊆A (ii) B⊆A (iii) ∪B⊆ A∪ (iv) ∩B⊆A∩ . Proof: (i) Given that , , ∈ and ⊆ , it means () ≤ () and () ≥ () for every . If another IFMS ∈ is added to ⊆ and since ⊆ , it is certain that, B⊆A and the result follows. Results of (ii) – (iv) follow from the proof of (i). Theorem 2: Let and be IFMSs in, then (i) ∩ = or ∩ = , (ii) ∪ = or ∪ = iff = . Proof: (i) For , ∈ , it implies that ∩ ∈ . = ⇒ () = ()and() = () ∈ . Since = , from idempotent laws, ∩ = and ∩ = . Result of (ii) follows from (i). Definition 13: We defined Cartesian product by extending its definition from IFS. Let ={, μ(),…,μ(), (),…, (): ∈ } and ={,μ(),…,μ(), (),…, (): ∈ } for = 1,…, , × = ={μ()μ (), () (): ∈ } for = 1,…, . From Def. 13 and
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Class of Symmetric Difference-Closed Sets Related to Commuting Involutions John Campbell
    A class of symmetric difference-closed sets related to commuting involutions John Campbell To cite this version: John Campbell. A class of symmetric difference-closed sets related to commuting involutions. Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science, DMTCS, 2017, Vol 19 no. 1. hal-01345066v4 HAL Id: hal-01345066 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01345066v4 Submitted on 18 Mar 2017 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Discrete Mathematics and Theoretical Computer Science DMTCS vol. 19:1, 2017, #8 A class of symmetric difference-closed sets related to commuting involutions John M. Campbell York University, Canada received 19th July 2016, revised 15th Dec. 2016, 1st Feb. 2017, accepted 10th Feb. 2017. Recent research on the combinatorics of finite sets has explored the structure of symmetric difference-closed sets, and recent research in combinatorial group theory has concerned the enumeration of commuting involutions in Sn and An. In this article, we consider an interesting combination of these two subjects, by introducing classes of symmetric difference-closed sets of elements which correspond in a natural way to commuting involutions in Sn and An. We consider the natural combinatorial problem of enumerating symmetric difference-closed sets consisting of subsets of sets consisting of pairwise disjoint 2-subsets of [n], and the problem of enumerating symmetric difference-closed sets consisting of elements which correspond to commuting involutions in An.
    [Show full text]
  • TOPOLOGY and ITS APPLICATIONS the Number of Complements in The
    TOPOLOGY AND ITS APPLICATIONS ELSEVIER Topology and its Applications 55 (1994) 101-125 The number of complements in the lattice of topologies on a fixed set Stephen Watson Department of Mathematics, York Uniuersity, 4700 Keele Street, North York, Ont., Canada M3J IP3 (Received 3 May 1989) (Revised 14 November 1989 and 2 June 1992) Abstract In 1936, Birkhoff ordered the family of all topologies on a set by inclusion and obtained a lattice with 1 and 0. The study of this lattice ought to be a basic pursuit both in combinatorial set theory and in general topology. In this paper, we study the nature of complementation in this lattice. We say that topologies 7 and (T are complementary if and only if 7 A c = 0 and 7 V (T = 1. For simplicity, we call any topology other than the discrete and the indiscrete a proper topology. Hartmanis showed in 1958 that any proper topology on a finite set of size at least 3 has at least two complements. Gaifman showed in 1961 that any proper topology on a countable set has at least two complements. In 1965, Steiner showed that any topology has a complement. The question of the number of distinct complements a topology on a set must possess was first raised by Berri in 1964 who asked if every proper topology on an infinite set must have at least two complements. In 1969, Schnare showed that any proper topology on a set of infinite cardinality K has at least K distinct complements and at most 2” many distinct complements.
    [Show full text]
  • Determinacy in Linear Rational Expectations Models
    Journal of Mathematical Economics 40 (2004) 815–830 Determinacy in linear rational expectations models Stéphane Gauthier∗ CREST, Laboratoire de Macroéconomie (Timbre J-360), 15 bd Gabriel Péri, 92245 Malakoff Cedex, France Received 15 February 2002; received in revised form 5 June 2003; accepted 17 July 2003 Available online 21 January 2004 Abstract The purpose of this paper is to assess the relevance of rational expectations solutions to the class of linear univariate models where both the number of leads in expectations and the number of lags in predetermined variables are arbitrary. It recommends to rule out all the solutions that would fail to be locally unique, or equivalently, locally determinate. So far, this determinacy criterion has been applied to particular solutions, in general some steady state or periodic cycle. However solutions to linear models with rational expectations typically do not conform to such simple dynamic patterns but express instead the current state of the economic system as a linear difference equation of lagged states. The innovation of this paper is to apply the determinacy criterion to the sets of coefficients of these linear difference equations. Its main result shows that only one set of such coefficients, or the corresponding solution, is locally determinate. This solution is commonly referred to as the fundamental one in the literature. In particular, in the saddle point configuration, it coincides with the saddle stable (pure forward) equilibrium trajectory. © 2004 Published by Elsevier B.V. JEL classification: C32; E32 Keywords: Rational expectations; Selection; Determinacy; Saddle point property 1. Introduction The rational expectations hypothesis is commonly justified by the fact that individual forecasts are based on the relevant theory of the economic system.
    [Show full text]
  • 180: Counting Techniques
    180: Counting Techniques In the following exercise we demonstrate the use of a few fundamental counting principles, namely the addition, multiplication, complementary, and inclusion-exclusion principles. While none of the principles are particular complicated in their own right, it does take some practice to become familiar with them, and recognise when they are applicable. I have attempted to indicate where alternate approaches are possible (and reasonable). Problem: Assume n ≥ 2 and m ≥ 1. Count the number of functions f :[n] ! [m] (i) in total. (ii) such that f(1) = 1 or f(2) = 1. (iii) with minx2[n] f(x) ≤ 5. (iv) such that f(1) ≥ f(2). (v) that are strictly increasing; that is, whenever x < y, f(x) < f(y). (vi) that are one-to-one (injective). (vii) that are onto (surjective). (viii) that are bijections. (ix) such that f(x) + f(y) is even for every x; y 2 [n]. (x) with maxx2[n] f(x) = minx2[n] f(x) + 1. Solution: (i) A function f :[n] ! [m] assigns for every integer 1 ≤ x ≤ n an integer 1 ≤ f(x) ≤ m. For each integer x, we have m options. As we make n such choices (independently), the total number of functions is m × m × : : : m = mn. (ii) (We assume n ≥ 2.) Let A1 be the set of functions with f(1) = 1, and A2 the set of functions with f(2) = 1. Then A1 [ A2 represents those functions with f(1) = 1 or f(2) = 1, which is precisely what we need to count. We have jA1 [ A2j = jA1j + jA2j − jA1 \ A2j.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Measurable Sets
    Math 4351, Fall 2018 Chapter 11 in Goldberg 1 Measurable Sets Our goal is to define what is meant by a measurable set E ⊆ [a; b] ⊂ R and a measurable function f :[a; b] ! R. We defined the length of an open set and a closed set, denoted as jGj and jF j, e.g., j[a; b]j = b − a: We will use another notation for complement and the notation in the Goldberg text. Let Ec = [a; b] n E = [a; b] − E. Also, E1 n E2 = E1 − E2: Definitions: Let E ⊆ [a; b]. Outer measure of a set E: m(E) = inffjGj : for all G open and E ⊆ Gg. Inner measure of a set E: m(E) = supfjF j : for all F closed and F ⊆ Eg: 0 ≤ m(E) ≤ m(E). A set E is a measurable set if m(E) = m(E) and the measure of E is denoted as m(E). The symmetric difference of two sets E1 and E2 is defined as E1∆E2 = (E1 − E2) [ (E2 − E1): A set is called an Fσ set (F-sigma set) if it is a union of a countable number of closed sets. A set is called a Gδ set (G-delta set) if it is a countable intersection of open sets. Properties of Measurable Sets on [a; b]: 1. If E1 and E2 are subsets of [a; b] and E1 ⊆ E2, then m(E1) ≤ m(E2) and m(E1) ≤ m(E2). In addition, if E1 and E2 are measurable subsets of [a; b] and E1 ⊆ E2, then m(E1) ≤ m(E2).
    [Show full text]
  • Set Difference and Symmetric Difference of Fuzzy Sets
    Preliminaries Symmetric Dierence Set Dierence and Symmetric Dierence of Fuzzy Sets N.R. Vemuri A.S. Hareesh M.S. Srinath Department of Mathematics Indian Institute of Technology, Hyderabad and Department of Mathematics and Computer Science Sri Sathya Sai Institute of Higher Learning, India Fuzzy Sets Theory and Applications 2014, Liptovský Ján, Slovak Republic Vemuri, Sai Hareesh & Srinath Symmetric Dierence Preliminaries Introduction Symmetric Dierence Earlier work Outline 1 Preliminaries Introduction Earlier work 2 Symmetric Dierence Denition Examples Properties Applications Future Work References Vemuri, Sai Hareesh & Srinath Symmetric Dierence Preliminaries Introduction Symmetric Dierence Earlier work Classical set theory Set operations Union- [ Intersection - \ Complement - c Dierence -n Symmetric dierence - ∆ .... Vemuri, Sai Hareesh & Srinath Symmetric Dierence Preliminaries Introduction Symmetric Dierence Earlier work Classical set theory Set operations Union- [ Intersection - \ Complement - c Dierence -n Symmetric dierence - ∆ .... Vemuri, Sai Hareesh & Srinath Symmetric Dierence Preliminaries Introduction Symmetric Dierence Earlier work Classical set theory Set operations Union- [ Intersection - \ Complement - c Dierence -n Symmetric dierence - ∆ .... Vemuri, Sai Hareesh & Srinath Symmetric Dierence Preliminaries Introduction Symmetric Dierence Earlier work Classical set theory Set operations Union- [ Intersection - \ Complement - c Dierence -n Symmetric dierence - ∆ .... Vemuri, Sai Hareesh & Srinath Symmetric Dierence Preliminaries
    [Show full text]
  • E. A. Emerson and C. S. Jutla, Tree Automata, Mu-Calculus, And
    Tree Automata MuCalculus and Determinacy Extended Abstract EA Emerson and CS Jutla The University of Texas at Austin IBM TJ Watson Research Center Abstract that tree automata are closed under disjunction pro jection and complementation While the rst two We show that the prop ositional MuCalculus is eq are rather easy the pro of of Rabins Complemen uivalent in expressivepower to nite automata on in tation Lemma is extraordinarily complex and di nite trees Since complementation is trivial in the Mu cult Because of the imp ortance of the Complemen Calculus our equivalence provides a radically sim tation Lemma a numb er of authors have endeavored plied alternative pro of of Rabins complementation and continue to endeavor to simplify the argument lemma for tree automata which is the heart of one HR GH MS Mu Perhaps the b est of the deep est decidability results We also showhow known of these is the imp ortant work of Gurevich MuCalculus can b e used to establish determinacy of and Harrington GH which attacks the problem innite games used in earlier pro ofs of complementa from the standp oint of determinacy of innite games tion lemma and certain games used in the theory of While the presentation is brief the argument is still online algorithms extremely dicult and is probably b est appreciated Intro duction y the page supplementofMonk when accompanied b Mon We prop ose the prop ositional Mucalculus as a uniform framework for understanding and simplify In this pap er we present a new enormously sim ing the imp ortant and technically challenging
    [Show full text]
  • Naïve Set Theory Basic Definitions Naïve Set Theory Is the Non-Axiomatic Treatment of Set Theory
    Naïve Set Theory Basic Definitions Naïve set theory is the non-axiomatic treatment of set theory. In the axiomatic treatment, which we will only allude to at times, a set is an undefined term. For us however, a set will be thought of as a collection of some (possibly none) objects. These objects are called the members (or elements) of the set. We use the symbol "∈" to indicate membership in a set. Thus, if A is a set and x is one of its members, we write x ∈ A and say "x is an element of A" or "x is in A" or "x is a member of A". Note that "∈" is not the same as the Greek letter "ε" epsilon. Basic Definitions Sets can be described notationally in many ways, but always using the set brackets "{" and "}". If possible, one can just list the elements of the set: A = {1,3, oranges, lions, an old wad of gum} or give an indication of the elements: ℕ = {1,2,3, ... } ℤ = {..., -2,-1,0,1,2, ...} or (most frequently in mathematics) using set-builder notation: S = {x ∈ ℝ | 1 < x ≤ 7 } or {x ∈ ℝ : 1 < x ≤ 7 } which is read as "S is the set of real numbers x, such that x is greater than 1 and less than or equal to 7". In some areas of mathematics sets may be denoted by special notations. For instance, in analysis S would be written (1,7]. Basic Definitions Note that sets do not contain repeated elements. An element is either in or not in a set, never "in the set 5 times" for instance.
    [Show full text]
  • Regularity Properties and Determinacy
    Regularity Properties and Determinacy MSc Thesis (Afstudeerscriptie) written by Yurii Khomskii (born September 5, 1980 in Moscow, Russia) under the supervision of Dr. Benedikt L¨owe, and submitted to the Board of Examiners in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MSc in Logic at the Universiteit van Amsterdam. Date of the public defense: Members of the Thesis Committee: August 14, 2007 Dr. Benedikt L¨owe Prof. Dr. Jouko V¨a¨an¨anen Prof. Dr. Joel David Hamkins Prof. Dr. Peter van Emde Boas Brian Semmes i Contents 0. Introduction............................ 1 1. Preliminaries ........................... 4 1.1 Notation. ........................... 4 1.2 The Real Numbers. ...................... 5 1.3 Trees. ............................. 6 1.4 The Forcing Notions. ..................... 7 2. ClasswiseConsequencesofDeterminacy . 11 2.1 Regularity Properties. .................... 11 2.2 Infinite Games. ........................ 14 2.3 Classwise Implications. .................... 16 3. The Marczewski-Burstin Algebra and the Baire Property . 20 3.1 MB and BP. ......................... 20 3.2 Fusion Sequences. ...................... 23 3.3 Counter-examples. ...................... 26 4. DeterminacyandtheBaireProperty.. 29 4.1 Generalized MB-algebras. .................. 29 4.2 Determinacy and BP(P). ................... 31 4.3 Determinacy and wBP(P). .................. 34 5. Determinacy andAsymmetric Properties. 39 5.1 The Asymmetric Properties. ................. 39 5.2 The General Definition of Asym(P). ............. 43 5.3 Determinacy and Asym(P). ................. 46 ii iii 0. Introduction One of the most intriguing developments of modern set theory is the investi- gation of two-player infinite games of perfect information. Of course, it is clear that applied game theory, as any other branch of mathematics, can be modeled in set theory. But we are talking about the converse: the use of infinite games as a tool to study fundamental set theoretic questions.
    [Show full text]
  • Set (Mathematics) from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
    Set (mathematics) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia A set in mathematics is a collection of well defined and distinct objects, considered as an object in its own right. Sets are one of the most fundamental concepts in mathematics. Developed at the end of the 19th century, set theory is now a ubiquitous part of mathematics, and can be used as a foundation from which nearly all of mathematics can be derived. In mathematics education, elementary topics such as Venn diagrams are taught at a young age, while more advanced concepts are taught as part of a university degree. Contents The intersection of two sets is made up of the objects contained in 1 Definition both sets, shown in a Venn 2 Describing sets diagram. 3 Membership 3.1 Subsets 3.2 Power sets 4 Cardinality 5 Special sets 6 Basic operations 6.1 Unions 6.2 Intersections 6.3 Complements 6.4 Cartesian product 7 Applications 8 Axiomatic set theory 9 Principle of inclusion and exclusion 10 See also 11 Notes 12 References 13 External links Definition A set is a well defined collection of objects. Georg Cantor, the founder of set theory, gave the following definition of a set at the beginning of his Beiträge zur Begründung der transfiniten Mengenlehre:[1] A set is a gathering together into a whole of definite, distinct objects of our perception [Anschauung] and of our thought – which are called elements of the set. The elements or members of a set can be anything: numbers, people, letters of the alphabet, other sets, and so on.
    [Show full text]
  • The Axiom of Choice
    THE AXIOM OF CHOICE THOMAS J. JECH State University of New York at Bufalo and The Institute for Advanced Study Princeton, New Jersey 1973 NORTH-HOLLAND PUBLISHING COMPANY - AMSTERDAM LONDON AMERICAN ELSEVIER PUBLISHING COMPANY, INC. - NEW YORK 0 NORTH-HOLLAND PUBLISHING COMPANY - 1973 AN Rights Reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the Copyright owner. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 73-15535 North-Holland ISBN for the series 0 7204 2200 0 for this volume 0 1204 2215 2 American Elsevier ISBN 0 444 10484 4 Published by: North-Holland Publishing Company - Amsterdam North-Holland Publishing Company, Ltd. - London Sole distributors for the U.S.A. and Canada: American Elsevier Publishing Company, Inc. 52 Vanderbilt Avenue New York, N.Y. 10017 PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS To my parents PREFACE The book was written in the long Buffalo winter of 1971-72. It is an attempt to show the place of the Axiom of Choice in contemporary mathe- matics. Most of the material covered in the book deals with independence and relative strength of various weaker versions and consequences of the Axiom of Choice. Also included are some other results that I found relevant to the subject. The selection of the topics and results is fairly comprehensive, nevertheless it is a selection and as such reflects the personal taste of the author. So does the treatment of the subject. The main tool used throughout the text is Cohen’s method of forcing.
    [Show full text]
  • The Duality of Similarity and Metric Spaces
    applied sciences Article The Duality of Similarity and Metric Spaces OndˇrejRozinek 1,2,* and Jan Mareš 1,3,* 1 Department of Process Control, Faculty of Electrical Engineering and Informatics, University of Pardubice, 530 02 Pardubice, Czech Republic 2 CEO at Rozinet s.r.o., 533 52 Srch, Czech Republic 3 Department of Computing and Control Engineering, Faculty of Chemical Engineering, University of Chemistry and Technology, 166 28 Prague, Czech Republic * Correspondence: [email protected] (O.R.); [email protected] (J.M.) Abstract: We introduce a new mathematical basis for similarity space. For the first time, we describe the relationship between distance and similarity from set theory. Then, we derive generally valid relations for the conversion between similarity and a metric and vice versa. We present a general solution for the normalization of a given similarity space or metric space. The derived solutions lead to many already used similarity and distance functions, and combine them into a unified theory. The Jaccard coefficient, Tanimoto coefficient, Steinhaus distance, Ruzicka similarity, Gaussian similarity, edit distance and edit similarity satisfy this relationship, which verifies our fundamental theory. Keywords: similarity metric; similarity space; distance metric; metric space; normalized similarity metric; normalized distance metric; edit distance; edit similarity; Jaccard coefficient; Gaussian similarity 1. Introduction Mathematical spaces have been studied for centuries and belong to the basic math- ematical theories, which are used in various real-world applications [1]. In general, a mathematical space is a set of mathematical objects with an associated structure. This Citation: Rozinek, O.; Mareš, J. The structure can be specified by a number of operations on the objects of the set.
    [Show full text]