Ordinal Sums of Fuzzy Negations: Main Classes and Natural Negations

In the context of fuzzy logic, ordinal sums provide a method for constructing new functions from existing functions, which can be triangular norms, triangular conorms, fuzzy negations, copulas, overlaps, uninorms, fuzzy implications, among others. As our main contribution, we establish conditions for the ordinal sum of a family of fuzzy negations to be a fuzzy negation of a specific class, such as strong, strict, continuous, invertible and frontier. Also, we relate the natural negation of the ordinal sum on families of t-norms, t-conorms and fuzzy implications with the ordinal sum of the natural negations of the respective families of t-norms, t- conorms and fuzzy implications. This motivated us to introduces a new kind of ordinal sum for families of fuzzy implications.

Authors

• 1 publication
• 11 publications
• 1 publication
06/29/2021

(S,N,T)-Implications

In this paper we introduce a new class of fuzzy implications called (S,N...
01/13/2017

Fuzzy Clustering Data Given in the Ordinal Scale

A fuzzy clustering algorithm for multidimensional data is proposed in th...
10/10/2017

On some difficulties in the addition of trapezoidal ordered fuzzy numbers

At the first, we revise the Kosinski definition of the sum of ordered fu...
10/21/2010

New S-norm and T-norm Operators for Active Learning Method

Active Learning Method (ALM) is a soft computing method used for modelin...
10/25/2014

Parameterizing the semantics of fuzzy attribute implications by systems of isotone Galois connections

We study the semantics of fuzzy if-then rules called fuzzy attribute imp...
04/06/2021

An approach utilizing negation of extended-dimensional vector of disposing mass for ordinal evidences combination in a fuzzy environment

How to measure the degree of uncertainty of a given frame of discernment...
12/20/2019

A Model-Based Fuzzy Analysis of Questionnaires

In dealing with veracity of data analytics, fuzzy methods are more and m...
This week in AI

Get the week's most popular data science and artificial intelligence research sent straight to your inbox every Saturday.

1 Introduction

The concept of the fuzzy set was introduced by Zadeh (1965) and, since then, several mathematical concepts such as number, group, topology, differential equation, and so on, have been fuzzified. There are several ways to extend the propositional connectives for a set , but in general these extensions do not preserves all the properties of the classical logical connectives. Triangular norms (t-norms) and triangular conorms (t-conorms) were first studied by Menger [menger] and also by Schweizer and Sklar [sklar] in probabilistic metric spaces and they are used to represent the logical conjunction in fuzzy logic and the interception of fuzzy sets, whereas t-conorms are used to represent the logical disjunction in fuzzy logic and the union in fuzzy set theory.

In 1965, L. A. Zadeh introduced the notion of fuzzy negation in [Zadeh65], known as standard negation, in order to represent the logical negation and the complement of fuzzy sets. Since then, several important classes of fuzzy negations have been proposed with different motivations, as we can see in [est, FKL99, hig, lowen, ov, trillas]. Fuzzy negations have applications in several areas, such as decision making, stock investment, computing with words, mathematical morphology and associative memory, as the presented in [bedregal12, bent, FKL99, GMM16, VS08, zhao].

The ordinal sums construction was first introduced, in the context of semigroups, by Climescu in [Cli46] and Clifford in [Cli54]. In the context of fuzzy logic, the ordinal sums were first studied for triangular norms and triangular conorms in [SS63] in order to provide a method to construct new t-norms and t-conorms from other t-norms and t-conorms (for more details see [klement]). However, the ordinal sums of several others important fuzzy connectives also has been studied, such as, for example, the ordinal sums of copulas [Nel06], overlap functions [DB14], uninorms [MeZ16, MeZ17], fuzzy implications [DK16, Su15] and fuzzy negations [BSJIFS]. In particular, the ordinal sums of fuzzy negations proposed in [BSJIFS] were made in the context of Morgan’s triples and they were not deeply studied.

In this paper, we consider the notion of the ordinal sums of a family of fuzzy negations, as introduced in [BSJIFS], and prove some results involving these concepts. In particular, we establish conditions for the ordinal sum of a family of fuzzy negations resulting in a fuzzy negation belonging to a class of fuzzy negations, such as strict, strong, frontier, continuous and invertible.

This paper is organized as follows: Section 2 provides a review of concepts such as t-norms, t-conorms, fuzzy implications, fuzzy negations, natural fuzzy negations, ordinal sums of a family of t-norms, t-conorms and fuzzy implications. In Section 3, we prove that the ordinal sum of a family of fuzzy negations is a fuzzy negation and we prove results involving concepts of ordinal sums of a family of fuzzy negations and equilibrium point. In Section 4, we establish conditions for the ordinal sum of a family of fuzzy negations resulting in a fuzzy negation belonging to a class of fuzzy negations such as strict, strong, frontier, continuous and invertible. In Section 5, we define the left ordinal sum of a family of fuzzy implications and prove results involving ordinal sums of a family of t-norms, t-conorms and fuzzy implications. Also, we prove that the natural negation of the left ordinal sum of a family of fuzzy implications is the same to the ordinal sum of a family of fuzzy negations. Finally, Section 6 contains the final considerations and future works.

2 Preliminaries

In this section, we will briefly review some basic concepts which are necessary for the development of this paper. The definitions and additional results can be found in [alsina, atanassov99, bedregal10, bedregal12, bustince99, bustince03, FodorRoubens1994, klement].

2.1 t-norms, t-conorms, fuzzy implications and fuzzy negations

Definition 2.1

A function is a t-norm if, for all , the following axioms are satisfied:

1. Symmetry: ;

2. Associativity: ;

3. Monotonicity: If , then ;

4. One identity: .

A t-norm is called positive if it satifies the condition: iff or .

Example 2.1

Some examples of t-norms:

1. Gödel t-norm: ;

2. Product t-norm: ;

3. Łukasiewicz t-norm: ;

4. Drastic t-norm:

 TD(x,y)={0if (x,y)∈[0,1[2;min(x,y)otherwise.

Definition 2.2

A function is a t-conorm if, for all , the following axioms are satisfied:

1. Symmetry: ;

2. Associativity: ;

3. Monotonicity: If , then ;

4. Zero identity: .

A t-conorm is called positive if it satifies the condition: iff or .

Example 2.2

Some examples of t-conorms:

1. Gödel t-conorm: ;

2. Probabilistic sum: ;

3. Łukasiewicz t-conorm: ;

4. Drastic sum:

 SD(x,y)={1if (x,y)∈]0,1]2;max(x,y)otherwise.

Definition 2.3

[BJ08, Definition 1.1.1] A function is called a fuzzy implication if it is satisfies the following conditions:

J1: is non-increasing with respect to the first variable;

J2: is non-decreasing with respect to the second variable;

J3: ;

J4: ;

J5: .

Example 2.3

Some examples of fuzzy implications:
1. Gödel implication:

 JG(x,y)={1if x≤y;yotherwise.

2. Rescher implication:

 JRS(x,y)={1if x≤y;0otherwise.

3. Kleene-Dienes implication: .

A function is a fuzzy negation if

N1: and ;

N2: If , then , for all .

A fuzzy negations is strict if it is continuous and strictly decreasing, i.e., when . A fuzzy negation satisfying the condition N3 is called strong.

N3: for each .

A fuzzy negation is called crisp if it satisfies N4

N4: For all .

Example 2.4

Some examples of fuzzy negations:

1. Standard negation: ;

2. A strict non-strong negation: ;

3. A strong non-standard negation: .

Note that:

1. If is strong then it has an inverse which is also a strict fuzzy negation;

2. If is strong then is strict.

A fuzzy negation is said to be non-vanishing if iff and is said to be non-filling if iff . A fuzzy negation that is simultaneously non-vanishing and non-filling is called frontier [DB14b].

An equilibrium point of a fuzzy negation is a value such that .

Definition 2.4

[BJ08, Definition 2.3.1] Let be a t-norm. The function defined as

 NT(x)=sup{y∈[0,1]:T(x,y)=0}

for each , is called the natural fuzzy negation of or the negation induced by . In addition, let be a t-conorm. The function defined as

 NS(x)=inf{y∈[0,1]:S(x,y)=1}

for each , is called the natural fuzzy negation of or the negation induced by .

Remark 2.1

[BJ08, Remark 2.3.2 (i)] Clearly and are, in fact, fuzzy negations.

Definition 2.5

[BJ08, Definition 1.4.15] Let be a fuzzy implication. The function defined by

 NJ(x)=J(x,0) (1)

for all , is called the natural negation of or the negation induced by .

Remark 2.2

[BJ08, Lemma 1.4.14] Clearly is in fact a fuzzy implications.

Definition 2.6

[BSJIFS, Definition 2.5] Let be a t-norm, be a t-conorm and be a strict fuzzy negation. is the -dual of if, for all , . Similarly, is the -dual of if, for all , .

Proposition 2.1

[weber, Theorem 3.2] Let be a t-norm, be a t-conorm and be a strict fuzzy negation. Then, is a t-conorm and is a t-norm.

If the negation is standard, then is called dual t-conorm of and is called dual t-norm of .

2.2 Ordinal sums of t-norms, t-conorms and fuzzy implications

In this subsection, we will introduce the notion of ordinal sums of a family of t-norms and t-conorms, and some important results that will be used in the course of this work. For more information, see [BSJIFS, klement, weber].

Proposition 2.2

[klement] Let be a family of t-norms and be a family of nonempty, pairwise disjoint open subintervals of . Then the function defined by

 TI(x,y)=⎧⎪⎨⎪⎩ai+(bi−ai) Ti(x−aibi−ai,y−aibi−ai)% if (x,y)∈[ai,bi]2,min(x,y)otherwise. (2)

is a t-norm which is called the ordinal sum of the summands .

Proposition 2.3

[klement] Let be a family of t-conorms and be a family of nonempty, pairwise disjoint open subintervals of . Then the function defined by

 SI(x,y)=⎧⎪⎨⎪⎩ai+(bi−ai) Si(x−aibi−ai,y−aibi−ai)% if (x,y)∈[ai,bi]2,max(x,y)otherwise. (3)

is a t-conorm which is called the ordinal sum of the summands .

Nevertheless, for fuzzy implications there are several proposal of ordinal sums. For example,

Proposition 2.4

[DK161, Theorem 7] Let be a family of implications and be a family of nonempty pairwise disjoint open subintervals of such that for each . Then the function given by

 JI(x,y)=⎧⎪⎨⎪⎩ai+(bi−ai) Ji(x−aibi−ai,y−aibi−ai)% if x,y∈[ai,bi],JRS(x,y)otherwise. (4)

is an implication which is called the ordinal sum of the summands .

Other proposal of ordinal sums for fuzzy implications can be found, for example, in [B17, DK16, DK161, DK17, Su15].

3 Ordinal sums of fuzzy negations

In this section, we will use the definition of ordinal sums of fuzzy negations introduced in [BSJIFS], to show some results involving equilibrium point, relations between some classes of fuzzy negations and that ordinal sum of a fuzzy negation family is a fuzzy negation.

Definition 3.1

[BSJIFS, Definition 3.1] Let be a family of fuzzy negations and be a family of nonempty, pairwise disjoint open subintervals of . Then the function defined by

 NI(x)=⎧⎪⎨⎪⎩(1−bi)+(bi−ai) Ni(x−aibi−ai)if x∈[ai,bi],NS(x)otherwise. (5)

is called of the ordinal sum of the summands .

Lemma 3.1

[BSJIFS, Lemma 3.1] Let be a family of nonempty, pairwise disjoint open subintervals of , be a family of fuzzy negations and the ordinal sum of the summands . Then,

1) If for some , then ;

2) If , then .

Proposition 3.1

[BSJIFS, Proposition 3.1] Let be a family of nonempty, pairwise disjoint open subintervals of and be a family of fuzzy negations. Then the ordinal sum of the summands is a fuzzy negation.

If is a family of fuzzy negations such that is also a family of nonempty, pairwise disjoint open subintervals of , then the ordinal sum of and with respect to will be denoted by and , respectively.

Proposition 3.2

Let be a family of nonempty, pairwise disjoint open subintervals of , be a family of fuzzy negations and be the ordinal sum of the summands . If, for some , has an equilibrium point and , then is the equibibrium point of .

Proof: Suppose that , for all . Then, and therefore . Since, and , then

 NI(ai+(bi−ai)ei) = 1−bi+(bi−ai) Ni(ei) = 1−bi+(bi−ai)ei = ai+(bi−ai)ei

Therefore, is the equilibrium point of .

Proposition 3.3

Let be a family of nonempty, pairwise disjoint open subintervals of , be a family of fuzzy negations and be the ordinal sum of the summands . Then if and only if for all .

Proof: () Let and . Then . So,

 Ni(x) = Ni(xi−aibi−ai) = NI(xi)−(1−bi)bi−ai ≤ NS(xi)−(1−bi)bi−ai = bi−xibi−ai = 1−x=NS(x)

() Suppose that for all . Then

 NI(x) = ⎧⎪⎨⎪⎩(1−bi)+(bi−ai) Ni(x−aibi−ai)if x∈[ai,bi],NS(x)otherwise. ≤ ⎧⎪⎨⎪⎩(1−bi)+(bi−ai) NS(x−aibi−ai)if x∈[ai,bi],NS(x)otherwise. = NS(x).

Proposition 3.4

Let be a family of nonempty, pairwise disjoint open subintervals of , be a family of fuzzy negations and be the ordinal sum be the summands . Then, if and only if for all .

Proof: Analogous from Proposition 3.3.

4 Ordinal sums of fuzzy negations and classes of fuzzy negations

In this section, we will prove some propositions and theorems using definitions and results introduced in the previous sections. We will establish conditions for the ordinal sum of a family of fuzzy negations resulting in a fuzzy negation belonging to a class of fuzzy negations such as strict, strong, frontier, continuous and invertible.

Proposition 4.1

Let be a family of nonempty, pairwise disjoint open subintervals of and be a family of functions and the function obtained as in Eq. (8). All the ’s are (continuous, strictly decreasing) fuzzy negations if and only if then is a (continuous, strictly decreasing) fuzzy negation such that and for each .

Proof: () If all the ’s are fuzzy negations, then, by Proposition 3.1, is a fuzzy negation. In addition, for each , .

Now, suppose that for each , is continuous. Then, is clearly continuous. Since, is continuous then it is sufficient to prove that for each , and . In fact,

 limx↘aiNS(x) = limx↘ai1−x = 1−ai = (1−bi)+(bi−ai) Ni(ai−aibi−ai) = NI(ai).

Analogously, we prove that .

Now we will prove that is strictly decreasing when all are strictly decreasing. If then we have the following cases:

Case 1:

If for some , then and therefore . So, by Eq. (8), .

Case 2:

If and for some such that then . So, by Lemma 3.1, and . Thus, since , then .

Case 3:

If for some and , then and therefore . Since, by Lemma 3.1, and by Eq. (8) , then follows that .

Case 4:

If and for some , then and, by Eq. (8) . Therefore, by Lemma 3.1, .

Case 5:

If then by Eq. (8), .

Therefore, is strictly decreasing.

() If is a fuzzy negation such that and then, for each ,

 Ni(0) = Ni(ai−aibi−ai) = −(1−bi)+(1−bi)+(bi−ai)Ni(ai−aibi−ai)bi−ai = NI(ai)−(1−bi)bi−ai = 1−ai−(1−bi)bi−ai = 1.

Analogously,

 Ni(1) = Ni(bi−aibi−ai) = −(1−bi)+(1−bi)+(bi−ai)Ni(bi−aibi−ai)bi−ai = NI(bi)−(1−bi)bi−ai = 1−bi−(1−bi)bi−ai = 0.

Let , such that and and . Then, and therefore, . So, . Hence, . Therefore, is a fuzzy negation for each . In addition, from Eq. (8), clearly for each , if is continuous then also is continuous and if is strictly then also is strict.

Proposition 4.2

Let be a family of nonempty, pairwise disjoint open subintervals of and be a family of fuzzy negations such that is non-filling when and non-vanishing when . Then, the ordinal sum of the summands is frontier.

Proof: By Proposition 3.1, is a fuzzy negation. Let . If then, from Eq. (8), . Suppose that for some . If and then, by Lemma 3.1, , i.e. . If then . So, because is non-filling, . Analogously, if then . So, because is non-vanishing, . Therefore, for each , , i.e. is frontier.

Proposition 4.3

Let be a family of nonempty, pairwise disjoint open subintervals of and be a family of fuzzy negations. If the ordinal sum of the summands satisfies the following two properties

1. for some only when ; and

2. for some only when

then is frontier for each .

Proof: Suppose that for some , is not frontier. Then there exists such that or there exists such that . Let and therefore, . In the first case, we have that . So, by the second property, and therefore, which is a contradiction. The second case is analogous. Therefore, for each , the fuzzy negation is frontier.

Theorem 4.1

Let be a family of nonempty, pairwise disjoint open subintervals of and be a family of fuzzy negations. If all the ’s are strict fuzzy negations and, for each , there exists such that and , then the ordinal sum of the summands , is a strong fuzzy negation.

Proof: From Proposition 3.1, is a fuzzy negation. Besides this, for any if for some then for hypothesis there exists such that and by Eq. (8), . Therefore,

 NI(NI(x)) = (1−bj)+(bj−aj)Nj⎛⎜ ⎜ ⎜ ⎜⎝(1−bi)+(bi−ai)Ni(x−aibi−ai)−ajbj−aj⎞⎟ ⎟ ⎟ ⎟⎠ = ai+(bi−ai)N−1i⎛⎜ ⎜ ⎜ ⎜⎝(1−bi)+(bi−ai)Ni(x−aibi−ai)−(1−bi)bi−ai⎞⎟ ⎟ ⎟ ⎟⎠ = x.

If then and, by Lemma 3.1 and hypothesis, . So, .

Theorem 4.2

Let be a family of nonempty, pairwise disjoint open subintervals of and be a family of fuzzy negations. If the ordinal sum of the summands , is a strong fuzzy negation then all the ’s are strict fuzzy negations and, for each , there exists such that and . In addition, if for each ,