Skip to main content

Fuzzy quantic nuclei and conuclei with applications to fuzzy semi-quantales and (L, M)-quasi-fuzzy topologies

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to introduce and study the notions of M-fuzzy quantic nuclei and conuclei on quantales. Firstly, the concept of an M-fuzzy quantic nuclei is introduced and some of its properties are discussed. Secondly, the concept of an M-fuzzy quantic conuclei is introduced. As an application of M-fuzzy quantic conuclei on quantales, a characterization of an (L, M)-quasi-fuzzy interior operator on a non-empty set X is given and the relationship between it and an (L, M)-quasi-fuzzy topology is discussed. Finally, the concept of an M-fuzzy left (resp., right) ideal conucleus is introduced and the relationship with the concept of M-fuzzy left (resp., right) ideal is introduced.

Introduction

Quantales were introduced by C. J. Mulvey in [1], with the purpose of studying the foundations of quantum mechanics and the spectrum of C-algebras. In 2007, Rodabaugh [2] introduced the notion of semi-quantale as a generalization of quantale and used it as an appropriate lattice-theoretic basis to formulate powerset, topological, and fuzzy topological theories. The notion of semi-quantale provides a useful tool to gather various lattice-theoretic notions, which have been extensively studied in non-commutative structures; it has a wide application, especially in studying the non-commutative lattice-valued quasi-topology [26].

In 2015, Demirici [7] introduced the notion of M-fuzzy semi-quantales as a fuzzy version of notion of Rodabaugh’s semi-quantales, providing a common framework for (L, M)-fuzzy topological spaces of Kubiak and S̆ostak [8], L-quasi-fuzzy topological spaces of Rodabaugh [2], and L-fuzzy topological spaces of Höhle and S̆ostak [9].

As we all know, the quantic nuclei and the quantic conuclei play an important role in quantale theory. In this paper, we aim to introduce the notions of M-fuzzy quantic nuclei and conuclei on quantales and study some of their properties. Firstly, in “The (direct) product of two quantales” section, we will define and study the (direct) product of two quantales which will be used through this paper. In “M-fuzzy quantic nuclei” section, the concept of an M-fuzzy quantic (or quantale) nuclei is introduced and a relationship between it and the notion of M-fuzzy semi-quantales is discussed. In “M-fuzzy quantic conuclei” section, the concept of an M-fuzzy quantic (or quantale) conuclei is introduced. As an application of M-fuzzy quantic conuclei on quantales, we characterize and study the notion of (L, M)-quasi-fuzzy interior operator on a non-empty set X and discuss the relationship between it and an (L, M)-quasi-fuzzy topology on X. Finally, in “M-fuzzy ideal conuclei on quantales” section, the concept of an M-fuzzy left (resp., right) ideal conucleus is introduced and the relationship with the concept of M-fuzzy left (resp., right) quantale ideals is introduced.

Preliminaries

A semi-quantale L=(L,≤,) [2, 10] is a complete lattice L=(L,≤) equipped with a binary operation :L×LL (called a tensor product) with no additional assumptions. As convention, we denote the join, meet, top, and bottom in the complete lattice (L,≤) by \(\bigvee, \bigwedge, \top _{L}\), and L, respectively. Semi-quantales include various classes of ordered algebraic structures (e.g., complete residuated lattices, unit interval [0,1] equipped with t-norms or t-conorms, quantales, frames, semi-frames) playing a major role in fuzzy set theory and fuzzy logics [11, 12]. Now, we list only some of their definitions that will be needed in the following text.

Definition 1

A semi-quantale L=(L,≤,) is called:

  • A unital semi-quantale [2] if the groupoid (L,) has an identity element eL called the unit. If the unit e coincides with the top element L of L, then a unital semi-quantale is called a strictly two-sided semi-quantale.

  • A commutative semi-quantate [2] if is commutative, i.e., ab=ba for every a, bL.

  • A quantale [13] if the binary operation is associative and satisfies

    $$ a\otimes(\mathop {\bigvee}\limits_{i\in I}b_{i})=\mathop {\bigvee}\limits_{i\in I}(a\otimes b_{i})\ \text{and}\ (\mathop {\bigvee}\limits_{i\in I}b_{i})\otimes a=\mathop {\bigvee}\limits_{i\in I}(b_{i}\otimes a)\ \text{for all}\ a\in L, \{b\}_{i\in I}\subseteq L. $$
  • A coquantale [14] if the multiplication is associative and satisfies

    $$ a\otimes(\mathop {\bigwedge}\limits_{i\in I}b_{i})=\mathop {\bigwedge}\limits_{i\in I}(a\otimes b_{i})\ \text{and}\ (\mathop {\bigwedge}\limits_{i\in I}b_{i})\otimes a=\mathop {\bigwedge}\limits_{i\in I}(b_{i}\otimes a)\ \text{for all}\ a\in L, \{b\}_{i\in I}\subseteq L.$$

A semi-quantale morphism [2] h from a semi-quantale L=(L,≤,) to an other semi-quantale M=(M,≤,) is a map h:LM preserving the tensor product and the arbitrary joins. If a semi-quantale morphism h:LM additionally preserves the top (resp., unit) element, i.e., h(L)=M(resp., h(eL)=eM), then it is said to be strong (resp., unital). The category SQuant comprises all semi-quantales together with semi-quantale morphisms. The non-full subcategory UnSQuant of SQuant comprises all unital semi-quantales and all unital semi-quantale morphisms [2]. Quant is the full subcategory of SQuant, which has as objects all quantales.

CoQuant is the full subcategory of SQuant, which has as objects all coquantales and as morphisms, all maps that preserve the tensor product and arbitrary meets.

Let X be a non-empty set and L|SQuant|. An L-fuzzy subset (or L-subset) of X is a mapping A:XL. The family of all L-fuzzy subsets on X will be denoted by LX. The smallest element and the largest element in LX are denoted by \(\underline {\bot }\) and \(\underline {\top }\), respectively. The algebraic and lattice-theoretic structures can be extended from the semi-quantale \((L,\leq,\bigvee,\otimes)\) to LX pointwisely:

  • ABA(x)≤B(x),

  • (AB)(x)=A(x)B(x),

for all xX.

Obviously, (L,≤,) is again a semi-quantale with respect to the multiplication and the joins of a subset {Ai:iI} of LX is given by

\((\mathop {\bigvee }\limits _{i\in I}A_{i})(x)=\mathop {\bigvee }\limits _{i\in I}A_{i}(x)\,\,\,\forall \,x\in X\).

In the case where L is unital with unit e, then LX becomes a unital semi-quantale with the unit \(\underline {e}\). For an ordinary mapping f:XY, one can define the mappings \(f^{\rightarrow }_{L}:L^{X}\longrightarrow L^{Y}\) and \(f^{\leftarrow }_{L}:L^{Y}\longrightarrow L^{X}\) by \(f^{\rightarrow }_{L}(A)(y)=\bigvee \{A(x):x\in X, f(x)=y\}\) for every ALX and every yY, \(f^{\leftarrow }_{L}(B)=B\circ f\) for every BLY, respectively. For more details, we refer to [2,15].

Every quantale L has two residuals, which are induced by its binary operation and which are defined by \(a\searrow b=\bigvee \{c:a\otimes c\leq b\}\) and \( b\swarrow a =\bigvee \{c:c\otimes a\leq b\}\), respectively, providing a single residuum → in case of a commutative multiplication (resulting complete residuated lattices of Denniston et al. [16]). These operations have the standard properties of poset adjunctions [17] or (order preserving) Galois connections [18], for example,

$$ a{\otimes}b\leq c\Leftrightarrow a\leq b\searrow c\Leftrightarrow b\leq c\swarrow a. $$
(1)

For the convenience of the reader, the following proposition recalls some of their other properties, which will be heavily used throughout this paper.

Proposition 1

[13,19] For L|Quant| with a, b,cL and BL, we have the following properties:

  • a(ab)≤b and (ba)ab,

  • b(ac)=(ab)c and (cb)a=c(ab),

  • a(cb)=(ac)b.

  • ab implies cacb and bcac.

Before going too much further, we recall that if L=(L,≤) is a poset, an order preserving function g:LL is called a closure (resp., coclosure) operator on the poset L=(L,≤) [13,17] iff it satisfies the following conditions:

  • ag(a) (resp., g(a)≤a), for all aL,

  • g(g(a))=g(a), for all aL.

Definition 2

[4,13] Let (L,≤,)|SQuant|. A quantic nucleus (resp., conucleus) on L is a closure (resp., coclosure) operator g:LL such that g(a)g(b)≤g(ab)) for all a, bL.

Definition 3

[20] Let L be a quantale. A non-empty subset IL is called a left (resp., right) ideal of L if it satisfies the following three conditions:

  • abI for all a, bI,

  • For all a, bL, if aI and ba, then bI;

  • For all aL and xI, axI (resp., xaI).

  • A subset I is an ideal if it is both a left ideal and a right ideal.

Definition 4

[7] Let (L,≤,), (M,≤,)|SQuant|.

  • An M-fuzzy semi-quantale on L is a map μ:LM satisfying the following conditions: For all a, bL and {aj|jJ}L,

    • μ(a)μ(b)≤μ(ab),

    • \(\bigwedge _{j\in J}\mu (a_{j})\leq \mu \left (\bigvee _{j\in J}a_{j}\right)\).

  • An M-fuzzy semi-quantale μ is called strong if μ(L)=M.

  • In case where (L,≤,) is a unital semi-quantale with the unit eL, an M-fuzzy semi-quantale μ is called unital if μ(eL)=M.

Definition 5

[7] Let (L,≤,), (M,≤,)|SQuant|, and X be a non-empty set.

  • A map τ:LXM is called an (L, M)-quasi-fuzzy topology on X iff τ is an M-fuzzy semi-quantale on LX, i.e., the next conditions are satisfied for all A, BLX and {Aj|jJ}LX:

    • τ(A)τ(B)≤τ(AB),

    • \(\bigwedge _{j\in J}\tau (A_{j})\leq \tau (\bigvee _{j\in J}A_{j})\).

  • An (L, M)-quasi-fuzzy topology is strong iff \(\tau (\underline {\top })=\top _{M}\).

  • Let L be a unital semi-quantale with unit e. An (L, M)-quasi-fuzzy topology is then called an (L, M)-fuzzy topology iff \(\tau (\underline {e}) = \top _{M}\).

  • The ordered pair (X,τ) is called an (L, M)-quasi-fuzzy (resp., strong (L, M)-quasi-fuzzy, (L, M)-fuzzy) topological space if τ is an (L, M)-quasi-fuzzy (resp., strong (L, M)-quasi-fuzzy, (L, M)-fuzzy) topology on X.

The (direct) product of two quantales

It is known that the (direct) product of two ordered sets (P,≤) and (Q,≤) is the ordered set (P×Q,≤) [21], where the order relation on the product P×Q is defined as follows:

$$ (a,b)\leq(c,d)\,\,in\,\,P\times Q\Leftrightarrow a\leq c\,\,in\,\,P\,\,and\,\, b \leq d\,\,in\,\,Q. $$
(2)

Also, the (direct) product of two semigroups (G,) and (H,) is a semigroup (G×H,) [22], where the binary operation on G×H is defined as follows:

$$ (a,b)\ast(c,d)=(a\otimes c,b\odot d). $$
(3)

Furthermore, the direct product of two complete lattices is a complete lattice [23]. So, we can conclude that the direct product of any two semi-quantales is again a semi-quantale with the tensor product denoted by Eq. (3).

Lemma 1

The direct product of any two quantales is a quantale.

Proof

Since the direct product of any two semi-quantales is a semi-quantale, then we only prove the distributively of \(\bigvee \) over the product .

Let \(Q=\left (Q,\leq,\bigvee,\ast \right)=Q_{1}\times Q_{2}\) where \(Q_{1}=\left (Q_{1},\leq,\bigvee,\otimes \right)\) and \(Q_{2}=\left (Q_{2},\leq,\bigvee,\odot \right)\) are quantales.

For all \(a,\bigvee _{i}a_{i}\in Q_{1}\), \(b,\bigvee _{i}b_{i}\in Q_{2}\), we have

$$\begin{aligned} (a,b)\ast\bigvee_{i}\left(a_{i},b_{i}\right)=(a,b)\ast\left(\bigvee_{i}a_{i},\bigvee_{i}b_{i}\right)&=\left(a\otimes \bigvee_{i}a_{i},b\odot \bigvee_{i}b_{i}\right),\\ &=\left(\bigvee_{i}\left(a\otimes a_{i}\right),\bigvee_{i}\left(b\odot b_{i}\right) \right),\\ &=\bigvee_{i}\left(\left(a\otimes a_{i}\right),\left(b\odot b_{i}\right)\right). \end{aligned} $$

Similarly, we can prove that \(\bigvee _{i}(a_{i},b_{i})\ast (a,b)=\bigvee _{i}((a_{i}\otimes a),(b_{i}\odot b))\). □

Lemma 2

For \((Q_{1},\leq,\bigvee,\otimes)\), \((Q_{2},\leq,\bigvee,\odot)\in |\mathbf {Quant}|\), let a1,b1Q1 and a2,b2Q2. Then

  • (a1,a2)(b1,b2)=(a1b1,a2b2),

  • (b1,b2)(a1,a2)=(b1a1,b2a2).

Proof

$$ \begin{aligned} (a_{1}\searrow b_{1},a_{2}\searrow b_{2})&=(\bigvee\{c_{1}:a_{1}\otimes c_{1}\leq b_{1}\},\bigvee\{c_{2}:a_{2}\odot c_{2}\leq b_{2}\}),\\ &=\bigvee\{(c_{1},c_{2}):a_{1}\otimes c_{1}\leq b_{1},a_{2}\odot c_{2}\leq b_{2}\},\\ &=\bigvee\{(c_{1},c_{2}):(a_{1}\otimes c_{1},a_{2}\odot c_{2})\leq (b_{1},b_{2})\},\\ &=\bigvee\{(c_{1},c_{2}):(a_{1},a_{2})\ast (c_{1}, c_{2})\leq (b_{1},b_{2})\},\\ &=(a_{1},a_{2})\searrow (b_{1},b_{2}). \end{aligned} $$

The item (2) can be proved similarly. □

Proposition 2

Let \((Q_{1},\leq,\bigvee,\otimes)\), \((Q_{2},\leq,\bigvee,\odot)\in |\mathbf {Quant}|\), a, b,cQ1 and a1,b1,c1Q2. Then

  • (a, a1)((a, a1)(b, b1))≤(b, b1),

  • ((b, b1)(a, a1))(a, a1)≤(b, b1),

  • (b, b1)((a, a1)(c, c1))=((a, a1)(b, b1))(c, c1),

  • ((c, c1)(b, b1))(a, a1)=(c, c1)((a, a1)(b, b1)),

  • (a, a1)((c, c1)(b, b1))=((a, a1)(c, c1))(b, b1).

Proof

  • $$\begin{aligned} (a, a_{1})\ast((a, a_{1})\searrow &(b, b_{1}))=(a, a_{1})\ast(a\searrow b,a_{1}\searrow b_{1})\\ &=(a\otimes(a\searrow b),a_{1}\odot(a_{1}\searrow b_{1})) (\text{by Proposition~1(1)})\\ &\leq (b, b_{1}). \end{aligned} $$
  • $$\begin{aligned} ((b, b_{1})\swarrow(a, a_{1})) \ast (a, a_{1})&=(b\swarrow a, b_{1}\swarrow a_{1})\ast(a, a_{1})\\ &=((b\swarrow a)\otimes a,(b_{1}\swarrow a_{1})\odot a_{1}) (\text{by Proposition~1(1)})\\ &\leq (b, b_{1}). \end{aligned} $$
  • $$\begin{aligned} (b, b_{1})\searrow ((a, a_{1})\searrow (c, c_{1})) &= (b, b_{1})\searrow (a\searrow c,a_{1}\searrow c_{1})\\ &=(b\searrow (a\searrow c),b_{1}\searrow (a_{1}\searrow c_{1}))\\ &=((a\otimes b)\searrow c,(a_{1}\odot b_{1})\searrow c_{1}) (\text{by Proposition (2)})\\ &=(a\otimes b,a_{1}\odot b_{1})\searrow (c,c_{1}) (\text{by Lemma 2})\\ &=((a, a_{1})\ast (b, b_{1}))\searrow (c, c_{1}). \end{aligned} $$
  • $$\begin{aligned} ((c, c_{1})\swarrow (b, b_{1}))\swarrow(a, a_{1})&=(c\swarrow b,c_{1}\swarrow b_{1})\swarrow(a, a_{1})\\ &=((c\swarrow b)\swarrow a,(c_{1}\swarrow b_{1})\swarrow a_{1})\\ &=(c\swarrow(a\otimes b),c_{1}\swarrow(a_{1}\odot b_{1})) (\text{by Proposition 1(2)})\\ &=(c,c_{1})\swarrow(a\otimes b,a_{1}\odot b_{1}) (\text{by Lemma 2})\\ &=(c,c_{1})\swarrow((a, a_{1})\ast (b, b_{1})). \end{aligned} $$
  • $$\begin{aligned} (a, a_{1})\searrow ((c, c_{1})\swarrow(b, b_{1})) &=(a, a_{1})\searrow(c\swarrow b,c_{1}\swarrow b_{1})\\ &=(a\searrow (c\swarrow b),a_{1}\searrow (c_{1}\swarrow b_{1}))\\ &=((a\searrow c)\swarrow b,(a_{1}\searrow c_{1})\swarrow b_{1}) (\text{by Proposition~1(3)})\\ &=(a\searrow c,a_{1}\searrow c_{1})\swarrow(b, b_{1}) (\text{by Lemma 2})\\ &=((a, a_{1})\searrow (c, c_{1}))\swarrow(b, b_{1}). \end{aligned} $$

M-fuzzy quantic nuclei

In this section, we will introduce the concept of an M-fuzzy quantic nuclei as a fuzzy version of the well-known quantic nuclei. Some properties of such M-fuzzy quantic nuclei will be studied, and the relationship between it and the notion of M-fuzzy semi-quantales will be discussed.

Before we go further into this section, let us begin with introducing a fuzzy version of the known closure operator on a partially ordered set.

Definition 6

For a complete lattice (M,≤) and an ordered set (L,≤), a mapping C:L×ML is called an M-fuzzy closure operator on L if it satisfies the following conditions: for all a, bL and α,βM,

  • C(a,α)≥a;

  • C(a,α)≤C(b,β), if ab and αβ;

  • C(a,α)=C(C(a,α),α).

Proposition 3

Let (L,≤,), (M,≤,)|SQuant| and μ:LM be an M-fuzzy semi-quantale. A mapping Cμ:L×ML defined by the equality.

\({C}_{\mu }(a, \alpha)= \bigwedge \{ x\in L: x\geq a, \mu (x) \geq \alpha \} \forall a \in L, \alpha \in M \),

is an M-fuzzy closure operator on L.

Proof

Let μ:LM be an M-fuzzy semi-quantale. To prove that the map Cμ:L×ML defined by

\( {C}_{\mu }(a, \alpha)= \bigwedge \{ x \in L: x \geq a, \mu (x) \geq \alpha \} \forall a \in L, \alpha \in M \),

is an M-fuzzy closure operator on L, we will prove that the conditions (C1C3) of the above definition hold.

  • By definition of Cμ, we have \( {C}_{\mu }(a, \alpha) = \bigwedge \{ x \in L: x \geq a, \mu (x) \geq \alpha \} \geq a \).

  • So, Cμ(a,α)≥a.

  • If ab and αβ, then

  • \( {C}_{\mu }(b, \beta) = \bigwedge \{x \in L: x \geq b, \mu (x) \geq \beta \}\),

    \(\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\geq \bigwedge \{x \in L: x\geq b\geq a, \mu (x)\geq \beta \geq \alpha \},\)

    =Cμ(a,α).

  • Hence, Cμ(a,α)≤Cμ(b,β).

  • Since Cμ(a,α)L and

    \( {C}_{\mu }( {C}_{\mu }(a, \alpha), \alpha)=\bigwedge \{ x \in L: x \geq {C}_{\mu }(a, \alpha), \mu (x) \geq \alpha \}\),

    we have that μ(x)≥μ(Cμ(a,α))≥α.

    Then, putting x=Cμ(a,α), we have

    \(C_{\mu }(C_{\mu }(a, \alpha), \alpha)=\bigwedge C_{\mu }(a, \alpha)\) and this implies

    Cμ(a,α)≥Cμ(Cμ(a,α),α).

    Also, from (C1), we have that

    Cμ(Cμ(a,α),α)≥Cμ(a,α).

    Then, the equality holds.

Definition 7

Let (L,≤,), (M,≤,)|SQuant|. A mapping C:L×ML is called an M-fuzzy quantic nucleus operator on L if it is an M-fuzzy closure operator on L and satisfies the following condition: for all a, bL and α,βM,

  • C(a,α)C(b,β)≤C(ab,αβ).

Proposition 4

Let (L,≤,)|CoQuant|,(M,≤,)|SQuant| and μ:LM be an M-fuzzy semi-quantale. The mapping Cμ:L×ML defined by the equality.

\( {C}_{\mu }(a, \alpha)= \bigwedge \{u \in L: u \geq a, \mu (u) \geq \alpha \}\), aL,αM

is an M-fuzzy quantic nucleus on L.

Proof

We only prove the condition C4. For a, bL and α,βM, we have: \( {C}_{\mu }(a, \alpha) \otimes {C}_{\mu }(b, \beta)= \bigwedge \{u: u \in L, u \geq a, \alpha \leq \mu (u) \} \otimes \bigwedge \{v: v \in L, v \geq b, \beta \leq \mu (v) \}\),

\(\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,= \bigwedge \{u \otimes v: u, v \in L, u \geq a,v \geq b, \alpha \leq \mu (u), \beta \leq \mu (v) \},\)

\(\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,= \bigwedge \{u \otimes v: u, v \in L, u \geq a,v \geq b, \alpha \odot \beta \leq \mu (u)\odot \mu (v) \},\)

\(\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\leq \bigwedge \{u \otimes v: u, v \in L, a\otimes b\leq u\otimes v, \alpha \odot \beta \leq \mu (u\otimes v) \},\)

\(\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\leq \bigwedge \{w: w \in L, w \geq a \otimes b, \alpha \odot \beta \leq \mu (w) \} = {C}_{\mu }(a \otimes b, \alpha \odot \beta)\).

Then Cμ(a,α)Cμ(b,β)≤Cμ(ab,αβ). □

Proposition 5

Let (L,≤,), (M,≤,)|Quant| and C:L×ML be an M-fuzzy quantic nucleus on a quantale L, then

  • C(a,α)C(b,β)≤aC(b,β) (resp., C(b,β)C(a,α)≤C(b,β)a).

Proof

Since C(a,α)≥a, then by Proposition 1 (4), we have

C(a,α)C(b,β)≤aC(b,β).

The argument for the residuum proceeds similarly. □

Corollary 1

For (L,≤,), (M,≤,)|Quant|. If C:L×ML be an M-fuzzy quantic nucleus on a quantale L, then

  • C(ba,βα)≤C(b,β)a,

  • C(ab,αβ)≤aC(b,β),

  • C(ba,βα)≤C(b,β)C(a,α),

  • C(ab,αβ)≤C(a,α)C(b,β),

for all a, bL, α,βM.

Proof

  • Since C(ba,βα)C(a,α)≤C((ba)a,(βα))α)≤C(b,β) and C:L×ML is an M-fuzzy quantic nucleus on L, then from Proposition 5, we have that

    C(ba,βα)≤C(b,β)a.

  • Similarly, we can prove (2).

  • Since C(a,α)C(ba,βα)=C(a,α)C[(b,β)(a,α)]

    C[(a,α)(b,β)(a,α)]≤C(b,β). Thus

    C(ba,βα)≤C(b,β)C(a,α).

  • Similarly, we can prove (4).

Lemma 3

Let L be a unital quantale. For all a, bL, α,βM, a mapping C:L×ML with C(a,α)C(b,β)≤aC(b,β) and C(b,β)C(a,α)≤C(b,β)a is an M-fuzzy quantic nucleus on L.

Proof

For all a, bL, α,βM, suppose that

C(a,α)C(b,β)≤aC(b,β) and C(b,β)C(a,α)≤C(b,β)a.

By the unital assumption eL, we have that:

  • eLC(a,α)≤C(a,α)eLC(a,α)C(a,α)≤C(a,α)a

    eLaC(a,α)

    aC(a,α).

  • If ab and αβ, then

    eLabC(b,β)eLC(b,β)a

    eLC(b,β)C(a,α)

    eLC(a,α)≤C(b,β)

    C(a,α)≤C(b,β).

  • Since aC(a,α), from (2), we have C(a,α)≤C(C(a,α),α).

    On the other hand, eLC(a,α)≤C(a,α)eLC(a,α)C(a,α)

    eLC(a,α)C(C(a,α),α)

    eLC(C(a,α),α)≤C(a,α)

    C(C(a,α),α)≤C(a,α),

    C(C(a,α),α)=C(a,α).

  • From the items (1)–(2), we have, for all a, bL,α,βM

    abC(ab,αβ)aC(ab,αβ)b

    aC(ab,αβ)C(b,β)

    aC(b,β)≤C(ab,αβ)

    C(b,β)≤aC(ab,αβ)

    C(b,β)≤C(a,α)C(ab,αβ)

    C(a,α)C(b,β)≤C(ab,αβ).

    Thus, C is a an M-fuzzy quantic nucleus. The right unital case follows similarly.

M-fuzzy quantic conuclei

In this section, we will introduce and study the concept of an M-fuzzy quantic conuclei on a quantale L=(L,≤,). A relationship between M-fuzzy quantic conuclei and M-fuzzy semi-quantales will be discussed. Also, we characterize and study the notion of (L, M)-quasi-fuzzy interior operator, as an application of M-fuzzy quantic conuclei on quantales, and discuss the relationship between such an (L, M)-quasi-fuzzy interior operator and an (L, M)-quasi-fuzzy topology on a non-empty set X.

Definition 8

Let (L,≤) and (M,≤) be posets. A mapping κ:L×ML is called an M-fuzzy coclosure operator on L if, for all a, bL and α,βM, it satisfies the following conditions:

  • κ(a,α)≤κ(b,β) whenever ab, βα.

  • κ(a,α)≤a.

  • κ(a,α)=κ(κ(a,α),α).

Definition 9

An M-fuzzy coclosure operator κ:L×ML is said to be:

  • Strong if κ(L,α)=L.

  • Unital if (L,≤,) is unital and κ(eL,α)=L.

Proposition 6

Let (L,≤,),(M,≤,)|SQuant| and μ:LM be an M-fuzzy (resp., a strong M-fuzzy) semi-quantale. The mapping κμ:L×ML defined by the equality.

\(\kappa _{\mu }(a, \alpha)= \bigvee \{x \in L: x \leq a, \mu (x) \geq \alpha \} \forall a \in L\) and αM;

is an M-fuzzy (resp., a strong M-fuzzy) coclosure operator on L.

Proof

Let μ:LM be an M-fuzzy semi-quantale. To prove that the map κμ:L×ML defined by

\(\kappa _{\mu }(a, \alpha)= \bigvee \{x \in L: x \leq a \), μ(x)≥α}aL and αM

is an M-fuzzy coclosure operator on L, we will prove the conditions (κ1κ3) of the above definition.

  • For a, bL and α,βM with ab,βα, we have

  • \(\kappa _{\mu }(a, \alpha)= \bigvee \{x \in L: x \leq a, \mu (x) \geq \alpha \}\),

    \(\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\leq \bigvee \{x \in L: x \leq b, \mu (x) \geq \beta \}\),

    =κμ(b,β).

  • So, κμ(a,α)≤κμ(b,β).

  • By definition of κμ, we have

  • \(\kappa _{\mu }(a, \alpha) = \bigvee \{x \in L: x \leq a, \mu (x) \geq \alpha \} \leq a \).

  • Then, κμ(a,α)≤a.

  • Since κμ(a,α)L and \(\kappa _{\mu }(\kappa _{\mu }(a, \alpha), \alpha)=\bigvee \{x\in L: x\leq \kappa _{\mu }(a,\alpha),\mu (x) \geq \alpha \}\), we have that μ(κμ(a,α))≥μ(x)≥α.

    Then, putting x=κμ(a,α), we have \(\kappa _{\mu }(\kappa _{\mu }(a, \alpha), \alpha)=\bigvee \kappa _{\mu }(a, \alpha)\) and this implies

    κμ(a,α)≤κμ(κμ(a,α),α).

    Also, from (κ2), we have that

    κμ(κμ(a,α),α)≤κμ(a,α).

    Then, the equality holds.

If μ:LM be a strong M-fuzzy semi-quantale, then it is clear that

\(\kappa _{\mu }(\top _{L}, \alpha)=\bigvee \{x \in L, x= \top _{L}, \mu (x) \geq \alpha \}=\top _{L} \),

which means that κμ is a strong M-fuzzy coclosure operator on L. □

Definition 10

Let (L,≤,),(M,≤,)|SQuant|. A mapping κ:L×ML is called an M-fuzzy quantic conucleus on L if it is an M-fuzzy coclosure operator on L and satisfies the following conditions: for all a, bL and α,βM,

  • κ(a,α)κ(b,β)≤κ(ab,αβ).

Proposition 7

Let (L,≤,)|Quant|, (M,≤,)|SQuant| and μ:LM be an M-fuzzy semi-quantale on L. The mapping κμ:L×ML defined by the equality.

\(\kappa _{\mu }(a, \alpha)= \bigvee \{x \in L: x \leq a, \mu (x) \geq \alpha \} \forall a \in L, \alpha \in M \),

is an M-fuzzy quantic conucleus on L.

Proof

We only prove the condition κ4:

\(\kappa _{\mu }(a,\alpha)\otimes \kappa _{\mu }(b, \beta)=\bigvee \{x: x\in L, x\leq a, \alpha \leq \mu (x)\}\otimes \bigvee \{y: y\in L, y\leq b, \beta \leq \mu (y)\}\)

\(\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\, = \bigvee \{x \otimes y: x, y \in L, x \leq a,y \leq b, \alpha \leq \mu (x), \beta \leq \mu (y) \},\)

\(\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\leq \bigvee \{z: z \in L, z \leq a \otimes b, \alpha \odot \beta \leq \mu (z) \} = \kappa _{\mu }(a \otimes b, \alpha \odot \beta)\). Then, κμ(a,α)κμ(b,β)≤κμ(ab,αβ). □

Remark 1

If L|UnSQuant| and \(\kappa _{\mu }(e_{L}, \alpha)=\bigvee \{x \in L, x= e_{L}, \mu (x) \geq \alpha \}=\top _{L}\), then κμ is a unital M-fuzzy quantic conucleus on L.

Proposition 8

For (L,≤,),(M,≤,)|Quant| and given an M-fuzzy (resp., a strong M-fuzzy) quantic conucleus κ:L×ML, then an M-fuzzy set μκ:LM, which defined by

\(\mu _{\kappa }(a)=\bigvee \{\alpha \in M:\kappa (a, \alpha) \geq a, a \in L \}\),

is an M-fuzzy (resp., a strong M-fuzzy) semi-quantale on L.

Proof

Let κ:L×ML be an M-fuzzy quantic conucleus on L. We need to show that μκ is an M-fuzzy semi-quantale. To this end

  • For a family of {ai:iI}L, we have

    \(\mu _{\kappa }(\bigvee _{i} a_{i})=\bigvee \{\alpha \in M:\kappa (\bigvee _{i\in I} a_{i}, \alpha) \geq \bigvee _{i\in I} a_{i} \}\),

    \(\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,=\bigvee \{\alpha \in M:\bigvee _{i\in I}\kappa (a_{i}, \alpha) \geq \bigvee _{i\in I} a_{i} \}\),

    \(\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\geq \bigwedge _{i\in I}\bigvee \{\alpha \in M:\kappa (a_{i}, \alpha) \geq a_{i} \}=\bigwedge _{i\in I}\mu _{\kappa }(a_{i})\).

  • Then, \(\mu _{\kappa }(\bigvee _{i} a_{i}) \geq \bigwedge _{i\in I}\mu _{\kappa }(a_{i})\).

  • For a, bL and α,βM.

    \(\mu _{\kappa }(a)\odot \mu _{\kappa }(b)=\bigvee \{\alpha \in M:\kappa (a, \alpha) \geq a \} \odot \bigvee \{\beta \in M:\kappa (b, \beta) \geq b \}\),

    \(\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,=\bigvee \{\alpha \odot \beta : \kappa (a, \alpha) \geq a, \kappa (b, \beta) \geq b \}\),

    \(\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,=\bigvee \{\alpha \odot \beta :\kappa (a,\alpha)\otimes \kappa (b,\beta) \geq a\otimes b \}\),

    \(\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,=\bigvee \{\alpha \odot \beta : \kappa (a\otimes b,\alpha \odot \beta)\geq \kappa (a,\alpha)\otimes \kappa (b,\beta) \geq a\otimes b \}\),

    \(\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\leq \bigvee \{\gamma : \kappa (a \otimes b, \gamma) \geq a \otimes b \}\),

    =μκ(ab).

  • Then, μκ(a)μκ(b)≤μκ(ab).

In the case of a strong M-fuzzy quantic conucleus, i.e., κ(L,α)=L, we have that μκ(L)=M and this completes the proof. □

The following proposition lists some of the basic properties of the residuals and on an M-fuzzy quantic conucleus κ:L×ML.

Proposition 9

For (L,≤,),(M,≤,)|Quant|, let κ:L×ML be an M-fuzzy quantic conucleus on L. Then for all a, b,cL,α,βM, the following hold:

  • κ(a,α)κ(ab,αβ)≤κ(b,β),

  • κ(ba,βα)κ(a,α)≤κ(b,β).

Proof

  • By Proposition 1 (1), we have

    κ(a,α)κ(ab,αβ)=κ(a,α)κ[(a,α)(b,β)]

    κ[(a,α)(a,α)(b,β)] (by Proposition 2(1))

    κ(b,β).

  • By Proposition 1 (1), we have

    κ(ba,βα)κ(a,α)=κ[(b,β)(a,α)]κ(a,α)

    κ[(b,β)(a,α)(a,α)] (by Proposition 2(2));

    κ(b,β).

We conclude this section by given the notion of (L, M)-quasi-fuzzy interior operator as an example of an M-fuzzy quantic conucleus on the power set quantale LX and as a generalized form of an L-interior operator of [9]. Also, we study the relationship between (L, M)-quasi-fuzzy interior operator and (L, M)-quasi-fuzzy topology on a non-empty set X.

Definition 11

For (L,≤,),(M,≤,)|SQuant| and a non-empty set X, the mapping \(\mathcal {I}: L^{X}\times M\longrightarrow L^{X}\) is called:

  • An (L, M)-quasi-fuzzy interior operator on X iff \(\mathcal {I}\) satisfies the following conditions: For all A, BLX,α,βM;

    • \(\mathcal {I}(A,\alpha) \leq \mathcal {I}(B,\beta)\) whenever AB, βα.

    • \(\mathcal {I}(A,\alpha) \leq A\).

    • \(\mathcal {I}(A,\alpha)\leq \mathcal {I}(\mathcal {I}(A,\alpha),\alpha)\).

    • \(\mathcal {I}(A, \alpha) \otimes \mathcal {I}(B, \beta) \leq \mathcal {I}(A\otimes B, \alpha \odot \beta)\).

  • A strong (L, M)-quasi-fuzzy interior operator if it satisfies the following condition:

    • \(\mathcal {I}(\underline {\top },\alpha)=\underline {\top }\).

  • An (L, M)-fuzzy interior operator if L|UnSQuant| with unit e and the following condition is satisfied:

  • \(\mathcal {I}(\underline {e}, \alpha)=\underline {\top }\).

Proposition 10

For (L,≤,),(M,≤,)|Quant|, a non-empty set X, and an (L, M)-quasi-fuzzy topology τ:LXM, the mapping \(\mathcal {I}_{\tau }: L^{X}\times M \longrightarrow L^{X}\) defined by the equality.

\(\mathcal {I}_{\tau }(A, \alpha)= \bigvee \{u \in L^{X}: u \leq A, \tau (u) \geq \alpha \}, \forall A \in L^{X}, \alpha \in M,\)

is an (L, M)-quasi-fuzzy interior operator on X.

Proof

Let τ:LXM be an (L, M)-quasi-fuzzy topology on X. To prove that the map \(\mathcal {I}_{\tau }: L^{X}\times M\longrightarrow L^{X}\) defined by

\(\mathcal {I}_{\tau }(A, \alpha)= \bigvee \{u \in L^{X}: u \leq A, \tau (u) \geq \alpha \}, \forall A \in L^{X}, \alpha \in M,\)

is an (L, M)-quasi-fuzzy interior operator on X, we will prove that the conditions \((\mathcal {I}_{1}-\mathcal {I}_{4})\) of the above definition hold.

  • For A, BLX and α,βM with AB,βα, we have

  • \(\mathcal {I}_{\tau }(A, \alpha)= \bigvee \{u \in L^{X}: u\leq A, \tau (u) \geq \alpha \}\),

    \(\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\leq \bigvee \{u \in L^{X}: u \leq B, \tau (u) \geq \beta \}\),

    \(\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\, = \mathcal {I}_{\tau }(B, \beta)\).

  • By definition of \(\mathcal {I}_{\tau }\), we have \(\mathcal {I}_{\tau }(A, \alpha) = \bigvee \{u \in L^{X}: u \leq A, \tau (u) \geq \alpha \} \leq A \).

  • Since \(\mathcal {I}_{\tau }(A, \alpha)\in L^{X}\) and \(\mathcal {I}_{\tau }(\mathcal {I}_{\tau }(A, \alpha), \alpha)=\bigvee \{u\in L^{X}: u\leq \mathcal {I}_{\tau }(A, \alpha),\tau (u) \geq \alpha \}\), then we have that \(\tau (\mathcal {I}_{\tau }(A, \alpha)) \geq \tau (u)\geq \alpha \).

    Putting \(u=\mathcal {I}_{\tau }(A, \alpha)\), we have \(\mathcal {I}_{\tau }(\mathcal {I}_{\tau }(A, \alpha), \alpha)=\bigvee \mathcal {I}_{\tau }(A, \alpha)\) and this implies

    \(\mathcal {I}_{\tau }(A, \alpha)\leq \mathcal {I}_{\tau }(\mathcal {I}_{\tau }(A, \alpha), \alpha)\).

    Also, from (2), we have that

    \(\mathcal {I}_{\tau }(\mathcal {I}_{\tau }(A, \alpha), \alpha)\leq \mathcal {I}_{\tau }(A, \alpha)\).

    Then, the equality holds.

  • \(\mathcal {I}_{\tau }(A, \alpha) \otimes \mathcal {I}_{\tau }(B, \beta)= \bigvee \{u: u \in L^{X}, u \leq A, \alpha \leq \tau (u) \} \otimes \bigvee \{v: v \in L^{X}, v \leq B, \beta \leq \tau (v) \}\),

    \(\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\, = \bigvee \{u \otimes v: u, v \in L^{X}, u \leq A,v \leq B, \alpha \leq \tau (u), \beta \leq \tau (v) \}\)

    \(\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\leq \bigvee \{w: w \in L^{X}, w \leq A \otimes B, \alpha \odot \beta \leq \tau (w) \} = \mathcal {I}_{\tau }(A \otimes B, \alpha \odot \beta)\).

    That is, \(\mathcal {I}_{\tau }(A, \alpha) \otimes \mathcal {I}_{\tau }(B, \beta)\leq \mathcal {I}_{\tau }(A \otimes B, \alpha \odot \beta)\).

As consequences of the above proposition, we have the following result:

Corollary 2

Let (L,≤,),(M,≤,)|Quant| and X be a non-empty set.

  • For a strong (L, M)-quasi-fuzzy topology τ:LXM, the mapping \(\mathcal {I}_{\tau }: L^{X}\times M\longrightarrow L^{X}\) is a strong (L, M)-quasi-fuzzy interior operator on X.

  • For L|UnQuant| and an (L, M)-fuzzy topology τ:LXM, the mapping \(\mathcal {I}_{\tau }: L^{X}\times M\longrightarrow L^{X}\) is an (L, M)-fuzzy interior operator on X.

Proposition 11

For (L,≤,),(M,≤,)|Quant| and an (L, M)-quasi-fuzzy (resp., strong (L, M)-quasi-fuzzy, (L, M)-fuzzy) interior operator \(\mathcal {I}: L^{X}\times M\longrightarrow L^{X}\), the mapping \(\tau _{_{\mathcal {I}}}:L^{X}\longrightarrow M\) defined by

\(\tau _{_{\mathcal {I}}}(A)=\bigvee \{\alpha \in M:\mathcal {I}(A, \alpha) \geq A\}\), ALX,

is an (L, M)-quasi-fuzzy (resp., strong (L, M)-quasi-fuzzy, (L, M)-fuzzy) topology on X.

Proof

We prove only the case of (L, M)-quasi-fuzzy interior operator, and the other cases can be proved similarly. Let \(\mathcal {I}: L^{X}\times M\longrightarrow L^{X}\) be an (L, M)-quasi-fuzzy interior operator on X. Define the mapping \(\tau _{_{\mathcal {I}}}: L^{X}\longrightarrow M\) by

\(\tau _{_{\mathcal {I}}}(A)=\bigvee \{\alpha \in M:\mathcal {I}(A, \alpha) \geq A\}\), ALX.

We need to show that \(\tau _{_{\mathcal {I}}}\) is an (L, M)-quasi-fuzzy topology on X. To this end

  • For a family of {Ai:iI}LX, we have

    \(\tau _{_{\mathcal {I}}}(\bigvee _{i} A_{i})=\bigvee \{\alpha \in M:\mathcal {I}(\bigvee _{i\in I} A_{i}, \alpha) \geq \bigvee _{i\in I} A_{i} \}\),

    \(\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,=\bigvee \{\alpha \in M:\bigvee _{i\in I}\mathcal {I}(A_{i}, \alpha) \geq \bigvee _{i\in I} A_{i} \}\),

    \(\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\geq \bigwedge _{i\in I}\bigvee \{\alpha \in M:\mathcal {I}(A_{i}, \alpha) \geq A_{i} \}=\bigwedge _{i\in I}\tau _{_{\mathcal {I}}}(A_{i})\).

  • Then, \(\tau _{_{\mathcal {I}}}(\bigvee _{i} A_{i}) \geq \bigwedge _{i\in I}\tau _{_{\mathcal {I}}}(A_{i})\).

  • For A, BLX and α,βM,

    \(\tau _{_{\mathcal {I}}}(A)\odot \tau _{_{\mathcal {I}}}(B)=\bigvee \{\alpha \in M:\mathcal {I}(A, \alpha) \geq A \} \odot \bigvee \{\beta \in M:\mathcal {I}(B, \beta) \geq B \}\),

    \(\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,=\bigvee \{\alpha \odot \beta : \mathcal {I}(A, \alpha) \geq A, \mathcal {I}(B, \beta) \geq B \}\),

    \(\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,=\bigvee \{\alpha \odot \beta : \mathcal {I}(A \otimes B, \alpha \odot \beta) \geq A \otimes B \}\),

    \(\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\leq \bigvee \{\gamma : \mathcal {I}(A \otimes B, \gamma) \geq A \otimes B \}\),

    \(\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,=\tau _{_{\mathcal {I}}}(A \otimes B)\).

  • Then, \(\tau _{_{\mathcal {I}}}(A)\odot \tau _{_{\mathcal {I}}}(B)\leq \tau _{_{\mathcal {I}}}(A \otimes B)\).

Remark 2

The correspondences \(\tau \longmapsto \mathcal {I}_{\tau }\) and \(\mathcal {I} \longmapsto \tau _{_{\mathcal {I}}}\) obtained in Propositions 10 and 11 are the generalizations of the correspondences between L-fuzzy interior operators and L-fuzzy topological spaces in [9].

M-fuzzy ideal conuclei on quantales

In this section, we define M-fuzzy left (resp., right) ideals of quantales and discuss some of their properties. Also, the concept of an M-fuzzy left (resp., right) ideal conucleus is introduced and the relationship with the concept of M-fuzzy left (resp., right) ideals on a quantale is introduced.

Definition 12

Let (L,≤,),(M,≤,)|SQuant|. An M-fuzzy left (resp, right) ideal on a quantale L is a map μ:LM satisfying the following conditions: for all a, bX

  • If ab, then μ(a)≥μ(b).

  • μ(ab)≥μ(a)μ(b).

  • μ(ab)≥μ(b)(resp.,μ(a)).

A map μ:LM, which is both M-fuzzy left and right ideal, is called an M-fuzzy ideal.

Example 1

Let L={,a, b,c, d,} be a set ordered by cb,da, and db and equipped with associative binary operations:

Then, we can easily see that (L,≤,) is a quantale. A mapping μ:L→{0,1} defined by

$$ \mu(x)=\left\{ \begin{array} [c]{c} 1\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\, x\leq b\\ 0\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,otherwise \end{array} \right. $$

is an M- fuzzy left(resp., right) ideal of the quantale (L,≤,).

Proposition 12

Let {μj}jJ be a family of M-fuzzy left (resp., right) ideals of a quantale L. Then, \(\bigwedge _{j\in J}\mu _{j}\) is also an M-fuzzy left (resp., right) ideal of L.

Proof

Suppose that {μj}jJ be a family of M-fuzzy left (resp., right) ideals of L. Statement (I1) is clear. To prove (I2) notice that since every μj is an M-fuzzy left (resp., right) ideal of L, we have

\((\bigwedge _{j\in J}\mu _{j})(a\vee b)=\bigwedge _{j\in J}\mu _{j}(a\vee b)\),

\(\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\, \,\,\,\,\,\geq \bigwedge _{j\in J}(\mu _{j}(a)\wedge \mu _{j}(b))\),

\(\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\, \,\,\,\,\,\geq \bigwedge _{j\in J}(\mu _{j}(a))\wedge \bigwedge _{j\in J}(\mu _{j}(b))\),

\(\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\, \,\,\,\,\,=(\bigwedge _{j\in J}\mu _{j})(a)\wedge (\bigwedge _{j\in J}\mu _{j})(b)\).

We prove property (I3) as follows:

\((\bigwedge _{j\in J}\mu _{j})(a\otimes b)= \bigwedge _{j\in J}\mu _{j} (a\otimes b)\)

\(\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\geq \bigwedge _{j\in J}(\mu _{j}(b)) (resp., \bigwedge _{j\in J}(\mu _{j}(a)))\)

\(\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\geq (\bigwedge _{j\in J}\mu _{j})(b)(resp., (\bigwedge _{j\in J}\mu _{j})(a))\).

Therefore, \(\bigwedge _{j\in J}\mu _{j}\) is an M-fuzzy left (resp., right) ideal of L. □

Proposition 13

An onto quantale homomorphic preimage of an M-fuzzy left (resp., right) ideal is an M-fuzzy left (resp., right) ideal.

Proof

Let f:L1L2 be an onto homomorphism. Let ρ be an M-fuzzy left ideal and let μ be the preimage of ρ under f, i.e., \(\mu =f^{\leftarrow }_{M}(\rho)\). Property (I1) is clear. For any a, bL1,

μ(ab)=ρ(f(ab)),

=ρ(f(a)f(b)),

ρ(f(a))ρ(f(b)),

=μ(a)μ(b).

and μ(ab)=ρ(f(ab)),

=ρ(f(a)f(b)),

ρ(f(b))=μ(b).

This shows that μ is an M-fuzzy left ideal of L1. The other case is similar. □

Now, we are in a position to introduce and study the notion of M-fuzzy left (resp., right) ideal conucleus on quantales, and study the relationship with M-fuzzy left (resp., right) ideals.

Definition 13

For (L,≤,),(M,≤,)|Quant| and all a, bL,α,βM, an M-fuzzy coclosure operator κ:L×ML is said to be :

  • An M-fuzzy left ideal conucleus if aκ(b,β)≤κ(ab,β),

  • An M-fuzzy right ideal conucleus if κ(a,α)bκ(ab,α).

Proposition 14

Let (L,≤,),(M,≤,)|Quant|. If μ:LM is an M-fuzzy left (resp., right) ideal on L, the mapping κμ:L×ML defined by the equality

\(\kappa _{\mu }(a, \alpha)=\bigvee \{x \in L: x \leq a, \mu (x) \geq \alpha \}, \forall a \in L, \alpha \in M,\)

is an M-fuzzy left (resp., right) ideal conucleus on L.

Proof

Let μ:LM be an M-fuzzy left ideal of L and let κμ:L×ML be a mapping defined by

\(\kappa _{\mu }(a, \alpha)=\bigvee \{x \in L: x \leq a, \mu (x) \geq \alpha \} \forall a \in L, \alpha \in M.\)

We need to show that the operator κμ is an M-fuzzy left conucleus.

By Proposition 6, we have that the mapping κμ:L×ML is an M-fuzzy coclosure on L. Now, we prove only the condition (Lκ4). To this end, for a, bL, βM and since μML is an M-fuzzy left ideal, then μ(ax)≥μ(x), and therefore,

\(a \otimes \kappa _{\mu }(b, \beta)= a \otimes \bigvee \{x \in L: x \leq b, \mu (x) \geq \beta \}\),

\(\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,=\bigvee \{a \otimes x \in L: a \leq b, x \leq b, \mu (x) \geq \beta \}\),

\(\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,=\bigvee \{a \otimes x \in L: a \otimes x \leq a \otimes b, \mu (a \otimes x) \geq \beta \}\),

\(\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\leq \bigvee \{y \in L: y \leq a \otimes b, \mu (y) \geq \beta \}\),

=κμ(ab,β).

Then, aκμ(b,β)≤κμ(ab,β). The right case follows similarly. □

Corollary 3

For (L,≤,),(M,≤,)|Quant| and an M-fuzzy ideal μML on L, the mapping κμ:L×ML defined by the equality,

\(\kappa _{\mu } (a, \alpha)=\bigvee \{ x \in L: x \leq a, \mu (x) \geq \alpha \} \forall a \in L, \alpha \in M\),

is an M-fuzzy ideal conucleus on L.

Remark 3

For a, bL and α,βM, we have a, bab and αβα,β, so for an M-fuzzy coclosure κ:L×ML, we have that κ(ab,αβ)≥κ(a,α),κ(b,β), which implies that κ(ab,αβ)≥κ(a,α)κ(b,β).

Proposition 15

For (L,≤,),(M,≤,)|Quant| and an M-fuzzy left (resp., right) ideal conucleus κ:L×ML, the mapping μκ:LM defined by \(\mu _{\kappa }(a)=\bigvee \{\alpha \in M, \kappa (a, \alpha) \geq a, a \in L \}\) is an M-fuzzy left (resp., right) ideal of L.

Proof

Let κ:L×ML be an M-fuzzy left (resp., right) ideal conucleus on L. For a, bL and α,βM with ab and αβ, we have

  • \(\mu _{\kappa }(a)= \bigvee \{\alpha \in M:\kappa (a, \alpha) \geq a \}\),

    \(\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\geq \bigvee \{\beta \in M:\kappa (b, \beta) \geq b \}\),

    =μκ(b).

  • \(\mu _{\kappa }(a)\wedge \mu _{\kappa }(b)= \bigvee \{\alpha \in M:\kappa (a, \alpha) \geq a \}\wedge \bigvee \{\beta \in M:\kappa (b, \beta) \geq b \}\),

    \(\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,=\bigvee \{\alpha \wedge \beta :\kappa (a, \alpha) \geq a\) and κ(b,β)≥b},

    \(\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,=\bigvee \{\alpha \wedge \beta : \kappa (a, \alpha)\vee \kappa (b, \beta)\geq a\vee b\}\),

    \(\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,=\bigvee \{\alpha \wedge \beta : \kappa (a\vee b,\alpha \wedge \beta)\geq \kappa (a,\alpha)\vee \kappa (b,\beta)\geq a\vee b\}\),

    \(\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\leq \bigvee \{\alpha \wedge \beta : \kappa (a\vee b,\alpha \wedge \beta) \geq a\vee b\}\),

    =μκ(ab).

  • \(\mu _{\kappa }(a \otimes b)=\bigvee \{\beta \in M: \kappa (a \otimes b, \beta) \geq a \otimes b \}\),

    \(\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,=\bigvee \{\beta \in M: a \otimes \kappa (b, \beta) \geq a \otimes b \}\),

    \(\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\,\geq \bigvee \{\beta \in M: \kappa (b, \beta) \geq b \}\),

    =μκ(b).

    Similarly, μκ(ab)≥μκ(a).

Corollary 4

For (L,≤,),(M,≤,)|Quant| and an M-fuzzy ideal conucleus κ:L×ML, the mapping μκ:LM defined by

\(\mu _{\kappa }(a)=\bigvee \{\alpha \in M, \kappa (a, \alpha) \geq a, a \in L \}\) is an M-fuzzy ideal of L.

The following lemma provides an important description of M-fuzzy left (resp., right) ideal conuclei for a unital quantale in terms of the residuum (resp., ).

Lemma 4

Let (L,≤,),(M,≤,)|Quant| and κ:L×ML be an M-fuzzy left (resp., right) ideal conucleus on a quantale L. Then,

κ(a,α)κ(b,β)=κ(a,α)b (resp., κ(b,β)κ(a,α)=bκ(a,α)),

for all a, bL, α,βM.

Proof

By (Proposition 1(4)), abcacb,

bcac.

If κ is an M-fuzzy left ideal conucleus on L, then since κ(b,β)≤b, we have

κ(a,α)κ(b,β)≤κ(a,α)b, and bκ(a,α)≤κ(b,β)κ(a,α).

Thus producing

$$\kappa(a,\alpha)\searrow \kappa(b,\beta) = \kappa(a,\alpha)\searrow b.$$

The argument for proceeds similarly. □

Lemma 5

Let L be a unital quantale. A mapping κ:L×ML is an M-fuzzy left (resp., right) ideal conucleus on L if

κ(a,α)κ(b,β)=κ(a,α)b (resp., κ(b,β)κ(a,α)=bκ(a,α)),

for all a, bL, α,βM.

Proof

Suppose that κ(b,β)κ(a,α)=bκ(a,α) for all a, bL, α,βM, and eL be unit of L.

  • eLκ(a,α)≤κ(a,α)eLκ(a,α)κ(a,α)=aκ(a,α)

    eLκ(a,α)≤a

    κ(a,α)≤a.

  • If ab, and βα, then

    eLκ(a,α)≤abeLbκ(a,α)=κ(b,β)κ(a,α)

    eLκ(a,α)≤κ(b,β)

    κ(a,α)≤κ(b,β).

    That is, κ is order preserving.

  • Since κ(a,α)κ(a,α)≤κ(κ(a,α),α)κ(a,α), then

    eLκ(a,α)≤κ(a,α)eLκ(κ(a,α),α)κ(a,α),

    eLκ(a,α)≤κ(κ(a,α),α),

    κ(a,α)≤κ(κ(a,α),α).

    κ(a,α)=κ(κ(a,α),α).

    That is, κ is idempotent.

    By (i), (ii), and (iii), we have that κ is an M-fuzzy coclosure, and therefore, we have

    $$\begin{aligned} a \otimes \kappa(b, \beta)\leq \kappa(a \otimes \kappa(b, \beta))&\Rightarrow a \leq\kappa(a\otimes\kappa(b, \beta))\swarrow\kappa(b,\beta)\\ &\Rightarrow a \leq\kappa(a\otimes b, \beta)\swarrow\kappa(b, \beta)\\ &\Rightarrow a \otimes \kappa(b, \beta)\leq\vspace*{2pt} \kappa(a\otimes b, \beta). \end{aligned} $$

    Thus, aκ(b,β)≤κ(ab,β). So κ is an M-fuzzy left ideal conucleus. The right case follows similarly.

As a consequence of the above lemmas, we have the following proposition:

Proposition 16

Let L be a unital quantale. A map κ:L×ML is an M-fuzzy ideal conucleus if and only if

κ(a,α)κ(b,β)=κ(a,α)b and κ(b,β)κ(a,α)=bκ(a,α),

for all a, bL, α,βM.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

References

  1. 1

    Mulvey, C. J.: &. Suppl. Rend. Circ. Mat. Palermo Ser. 12, 99–104 (1986).

  2. 2

    Rodabaugh, S. E.: Relationship of algebraic theories to powerset theories and fuzzy topological theories for lattice-valued mathematics. Int. J. Math. Math. Sci. 71, 2007 (2007). Article ID 43645, http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2007/43645.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. 3

    Höhle, U.: Prime elements of non-integral quantales and their applications. Order. 32, 329–346 (2015).

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4

    El-Saady, K.: Topological representation and quantic separation axioms of semi-quantales. J. Egypt. Math. Soc. 24, 568–573 (2016).

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5

    El-Saady, K.: A non-commutative approach to uniform structures. J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst. 31, 217–225 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6

    Zhang, D.: Sobriety of quantale-valued cotopological spaces. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 350, 1–19 (2018).

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7

    Demirci, M.: Fuzzy semi-quantales, (L, M)-quasi-fuzzy topological spaces and their duality. In: 7th International Joint Conference on Computational Intelligence (IJCCI), pp. 105–111. IEEE press, Lisbon (2015). https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7533270.

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8

    Kubiak, A. T., S̆ostak, A. P.: Foundations of the theory of (L, M)-fuzzy topological spaces. In: Bodenhofer, U., DeBaets, B., Klement, E. P., Saminger-Platz, S. (eds.)Abstracts of the 30th Linz Seminar on Fuzzy Set Theory, pp. 70–73. Johannes Kepler Universität, Linz (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9

    Höhle, U., S̆ostak, A. P.: Mathematics of Fuzzy Sets:Logic, Topology and Measure Theory. In: Höhle, U., Rodabaugh, S. E. (eds.), pp. 123–272. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston (1999).

  10. 10

    Rodabaugh, S. E.: Functorial comparisons of bitopology with topology and the case for redundancy of bitopology in lattice-valued mathematics. Appl. Gen. Topol. 9, 77–108 (2008).

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11

    Bělohlávek, R.: Fuzzy Relational Systems. Kluwer Academic Publishers, NewYork (2002).

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12

    Hájek, P.: Metamathematics of Fuzzy Logics. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1998).

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13

    Rosenthal, K. I.: Quantales and Their Applications. Longman Scientific and Technical, New York (1990).

    Google Scholar 

  14. 14

    Rodabaugh, S. E.: Topological and Algebraic Structures in Fuzzy Sets, The Handbook of Recent Developments in the Mathematics of Fuzzy Sets,Trends in Logic. In: Klement, E. P., Rodabaugh, S. E. (eds.), pp. 199–234. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston/Dordrecht/London (2003).

  15. 15

    Rodabaugh, S. E.: A categorical accommodation of various notions of fuzzy topology. Fuzzy Sets and Systems. 9, 241–265 (1983).

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16

    Denniston, J. T., Melton, A., Rodabaugh, S. E.: Formal concept analysis and lattice-valued chu systems. Fuzzy Sets and Systems. 216, 52–90 (2013).

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17

    Gierz, G., Hofmann, K. H., Keimel, K., et al.: Continuous Lattices and Domains. Cambridge University Press, UK (2003).

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18

    Erné, M., Koslowski, J., A., M., Strecker, G. E.: A primer on galois connections. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 704, 103–125 (1993).

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19

    Solovyov, S.: Lattice-valued topological systems as a framework for lattice-valued formal concept analysis. J. Math. 2013(Article ID 506275), 33 (2013). Article ID 506275, http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/506275.

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. 20

    Wang, S. Q., Zhao, B.: Ideals of quantales. J. Shaanxi Norm. Univ. Nat. Sci. Ed. 31(4), 7–10 (2003). (in Chinese).

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. 21

    Ganter, B., Wille, R.: Formal Concept Analysis: Mathematical Foundations. Springer, New York (1996).

    Google Scholar 

  22. 22

    Tamura, T.: Examples of direct products of semigroups or groupoids. Am. Math. Soc. 31, 419–422 (1962).

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. 23

    Petrich, M.: Categories of Algebraic Systems. Springer, New York (1976).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the anonymous referees and the editors for their valuable comments and suggestions on the improvement of this paper.

Funding

Not applicable.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

All authors jointly worked on the results, and they read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kamal El-Saady.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

El-Saady, K., Sharqawy, S. & Temraz, A.A. Fuzzy quantic nuclei and conuclei with applications to fuzzy semi-quantales and (L, M)-quasi-fuzzy topologies. J Egypt Math Soc 27, 28 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s42787-019-0031-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Quantale
  • Semi-quantale
  • Fuzzy semi-quantale
  • Quantic nucleus and conucleus

AMS subject classification

  • 06A06
  • 54A10
  • 54A40