Abstract
In this paper, the notion of the interval valued neutrosophic soft set (ivn-soft sets) is defined which is a combination of an interval valued neutrosophic set [35] and a soft set [29]. Our ivn-soft sets generalizes the concept of the soft set, fuzzy soft set, interval valued fuzzy soft set, intuitionistic fuzzy soft set, interval valued intuitionistic fuzzy soft set and neutrosophic soft set. Then, we introduce some definitions and operations on ivn-soft sets sets. Some properties of ivn-soft sets which are connected to operations have been established. Also, the aim of this paper is to investigate the decision making based on ivn-soft sets by level soft sets. Therefore, we develop a decision making methods and then give a example to illustrate the developed approach.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
Many fields deal with the uncertain data may not be successfully modeled by the classical mathematics, since concept of uncertainty is too complicate and not clearly defined object. But they can be modeled a number of different approaches including the probability theory, fuzzy set theory [39], intuitionistic fuzzy set [3], rough set theory [32], neutrosophic set theory [33] and some other mathematical tools. These theories have been applied in many real applications to handle uncertainty. In 1999, Molodtsov [29] succesfully proposed a completely new theory so-called soft set theory by using classical sets because its been pointed out that soft sets are not appropriate to deal with uncertain and fuzzy parameters. The theory is a relatively new mathematical model for dealing with uncertainty from a parametrization point of view.
After Molodtsov, there has been a rapid growth of interest in soft sets and their various applications such as; algebraic structures (e.g. [1, 2, 5, 37, 41]), optimization (e.g. [21]), lattice (e.g. [19, 31, 33]), topology (e.g. [8,11, 28, 34]), perron integration, data analysis and operations research (e.g. [29, 30]), game theory (e.g. [14, 29]), clustering (e.g. [4, 27]), medical diagnosis (e.g. [38]), and decision making under uncertainty (e.g. [9, 10, 11, 13, 16, 20, 26]). In recent years, many interesting applications of soft set theory have been expanded by embedding the ideas of fuzzy sets (e.g. [9, 12, 16, 22]), rough sets (e.g. [15]) , intuitionistic fuzzy sets (e.g. [18, 23]), interval valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets (e.g. [17, 40]), neutrosophic sets (e.g. [24, 25]).
Intuitionistic fuzzy sets can only handle incomplete information because the sum of degree true, indeterminacy and false is one in intuitionistic fuzzy sets. But neutrosophic sets can handle the indeterminate information and inconsistent information which exists commonly in belief systems in neutrosophic set since indeterminacy is quantified explicitly and truth-membership, indeterminacy-membership and falsity-membership are independent. It is mentioned in [33, 35]. Therefore, Maji firstly proposed neutrosophic soft sets with operations, which is free of the difficulties mentioned above, in [25]. He also, applied to decision making problems in [24]. After Maji, the studies on the neutrosophic soft set theory have been studied increasingly (e.g. [6, 7]).
From academic point of view, the neutrosophic set and operators need to be specified because is hard to be applied to the real applications. So the concept of interval valued neutrosophic sets [35] which can represent uncertain, imprecise, incomplete and inconsistent information was proposed. In this paper, we first define interval valued neutrosophic soft sets (ivn-soft sets) which is generalizes the concept of the soft set, fuzzy soft set, interval valued fuzzy soft set, intuitionistic fuzzy soft set, interval valued intuitionistic fuzzy soft sets. Then, we introduce some definitions and operations of ivn-soft sets. Some properties of ivn-soft sets which are connected to operations have been established. Also, the aim of this paper is to investigate the decision making based on ivn-soft sets. By means of level soft sets, we develop an adjustable approach to ivn-soft sets based decision making and a examples are provided to illustrate the developed approach.
The relationship among ivn-soft set and other soft sets is illustrated as;
Therefore, interval valued neutrosophic soft set is a generalization other each the soft sets.
2 Preliminary
In this section, we present the basic definitions of neutrosophic set theory [33], interval valued neutrosophic set theory [35] and soft set theory [29] that are useful for subsequent discussions. More detailed explanations related to this subsection may be found in [6, 7, 12, 17, 24, 25, 33, 35, 36].
Definition 2.1
[33] A neutrosophic set A on the universe of discourse U is defined as
where \(T_A,I_A,F_A: U \rightarrow ]^-0,1^+[\) and \(^-0\le T_A(x)+I_A(x)+F_A(x) \le 3^+\). From philosophical point of view, the neutrosophic set takes the value from real standard or non-standard subsets of \(]^-0,1^+[\). But in real life application in scientific and engineering problems it is difficult to use neutrosophic set with value from real standard or non-standard subset of \(]^-0,1^+[\). Hence we consider the neutrosophic set which takes the value from the subset of [0, 1].
Here, 1\(^+\) = 1 + \(\varepsilon\), where 1 is its standard part and \(\varepsilon\) its non-standard part. Similarly, \(^-0\) = 0 − \(\varepsilon\), where 0 is its standard part and \(\varepsilon\) its non-standard part.
Definition 2.2
[36] Let U be a space of points (objects), with a generic element in U denoted by u. A single valued neutrosophic sets A in U is characterized by a truth-membership function \(T_A\), a indeterminacy-membership function \(I_A\) and a falsity-membership function \(F_A\). \(T_A(u)\); \(I_A(u)\) and \(F_A(u)\) are real standard or nonstandard subsets of [0, 1]. It can be written as
There is no restriction on the sum of \(T_A(u)\); \(I_A(u)\) and \(F_A(u)\), so \(0\le sup T_A(u) + sup I_A(u) + supF_A(u)\le 3\).
Definition 2.3
[35] Let U be a space of points (objects), with a generic element in U denoted by u. An interval value neutrosophic set (IVN-sets) A in U is characterized by truth-membership function \(T_A\), a indeterminacy-membership function \(I_A\) and a falsity-membership function \(F_A\). For each point \(u \in U\); \(T_A\), \(I_A\) and \(F_A \subseteq [0,1]\).
Thus, a IVN-sets over U can be represented by the set of
Here, \((T_A(u), I_A(u), F_A(u))\) is called interval value neutrosophic number for all \(u \in U\) and all interval value neutrosophic numbers over U will be denoted by IVN(U).
Example 2.4
Assume that the universe of discourse \(U=\{u_1, u_2\}\) where \(u_1\) and characterises the quality, \(u_2\) indicates the prices of the objects. It may be further assumed that the values of \(u_1\) and \(u_2\) are subset of [ 0, 1 ] and they are obtained from a expert person. The expert construct an interval value neutrosophic set the characteristics of the objects according to by truth-membership function \(T_A\), a indeterminacy-membership function \(I_A\) and a falsity-membership function \(F_A\) as follows;
Definition 2.5
[35] Let A a interval valued neutrosophic sets. Then, for all \(u \in U\),
-
1.
A is empty, denoted \(A=\widetilde{{ \emptyset }}\), is defined by
$$\widetilde{{ \emptyset }}= \{ \langle [ 0, 0],[ 1, 1],[ 1,1] \rangle/u:u\in U\}$$ -
2.
A is universal, denoted \(A=\widetilde{{E}}\), is defined by
$$\widetilde{{E}}= \{\langle[ 1, 1],[ 0, 0],[ 0,0] \rangle/u:u\in U\}$$ -
3.
The complement of A is denoted by \(\overline{A}\) and is defined by
$$\begin{aligned} \bar{A} & = \left\{ { \langle [infF_{A} (u),supF_{A} (u)],[1 - supI_{A} (u),{1 - \text{inf I\_A(u)],}}} \right. \\ & \quad \left. {[infT_{A} (u),supT_{A} (u)] \rangle /u:u \in U} \right\} \\ \end{aligned}$$
Definition 2.6
[35] An interval valued neutrosophic set A is contained in the other interval valued neutrosophic set B, \(A\widetilde{{ \subseteq }}B\), if and only if
for all \(u \in U\).
Note that an interval valued neutrosophic number \(X=(T_X,I_X,F_X)\) is larger than the other interval valued neutrosophic number \(Y=(T_Y,I_Y,F_Y)\), denoted \(X\widehat{ \le }Y\), if and only if
Definition 2.7
[35] Let A and B be two interval valued neutrosophic sets. Then, for all \(u \in U\), \(a \in R^+\),
-
1.
Intersection of A and B, denoted by \(A\widetilde{{ \cap }} B\), is defined by
$$\begin{aligned} A\widetilde{{ \cap }} B&= \{\langle[ min(inf T_A(u), i nf T_B(u)),min(sup T_A(u), sup T_B(u))],\\ & \quad [ max(inf I_A(u), inf I_B(u)), max(sup IA(x), sup I_B(u)) ],\\ & \quad [ max(inf F_A(u), inf F_B(u)), max(supF_A(u),sup F_B(u))] \rangle/u:u\in U\} \end{aligned}$$ -
2.
Union of A and B, denoted by \(A\widetilde{{ \cup }} B\), is defined by
$$\begin{aligned} A\widetilde{{ \cup }} B&= \{ \langle[ max(inf T_A(u), inf T_B(u)),max(sup T_A(u), sup T_B(u))],\\ & \quad [min(inf I_A(u), inf I_B(u)), min(sup I_A(u), sup I_B(u))],\\ & \quad [min(inf F_A(u), inf F_B(u)), min(supF_A(u), sup F_B(u))] \rangle/u:u\in U\} \end{aligned}$$ -
3.
Difference of A and B, denoted by \(A\widetilde{{ \setminus }} B\), is defined by
$$\begin{aligned} A\widetilde{{ \setminus }} B&= \{ \langle[ min(inf T_A(u), inf F_B(u)), min(sup T_A(u), sup F_B( x))],\\ & \quad [max(inf I_A(u), 1- sup I_B(u)),max(sup I_A(u), 1- inf I_B(u))],\\ & \quad [max(inf F_A(u), inf T_B(u)), max(supF_A(u), sup T_B(u))] \rangle/u:u\in U\} \end{aligned}$$ -
4.
Addition of A and B, denoted by \(A\widetilde{{ + }} B\), is defined by
$$\begin{aligned} A\widetilde{{ + }} B&= \{\langle[ min(inf T_A(u) + inf T_B(u), 1), min(sup T_A(u) + sup T_B(u), 1)],\\ & \quad [min(inf I_A(u) + inf I_B(u), 1), min(sup I_A(u) + sup I_B(u), 1)],\\ & \quad [min(inf F_A(u) + inf F_B(u), 1), min(supF_A(u) + supF_B(u), 1)] \rangle/u:u\in U\}\end{aligned}$$ -
5.
Scalar multiplication of A, denoted by \(A\widetilde{{ . }} a\), is defined by
$$\begin{aligned} A\widetilde{{ . }}a&=\{ \langle[ min(inf T_A(u).a, 1), min(sup T_A(u). a, 1)],\\ & \quad [min(infI_A(u).a, 1), min(sup I_A(u).a, 1)],\\ & \quad [min(inf F_A(u).a, 1),min(sup F_A(u) . a, 1)] \rangle/u:u\in U\} \end{aligned}$$ -
6.
Scalar division of A, denoted by \(A\widetilde{{ / }}a\), is defined by
$$\begin{aligned} A\widetilde{{ / }} a&= \{ \langle[ min(inf T_A(u)/a, 1), min(sup T_A(u)/ a, 1)],\\ & \quad [min(infI_A(u)/a, 1), min(sup I_A(u)/a, 1)],\\ & \quad [min(inf F_A(u)/a, 1),min(sup F_A(u) / a, 1)] \rangle/u:u\in U\}\end{aligned}$$ -
7.
Truth-Favorite of A, denoted by \(\widetilde{{ \triangle }} A\), is defined by
$$\begin{aligned} \widetilde{{ \triangle }} A&= \{ \langle[ min(inf T_A(u) + inf I_A(u), 1), min(sup T_A(u) + sup I_A(u), 1)],[0, 0],\\ & \quad [inf F_A(u) , supF_A(u)] \rangle/u:u\in U\} \end{aligned}$$ -
8.
False-Favorite of A, denoted by \(\widetilde{{ \nabla }} A\), is defined by
$$\begin{aligned} \widetilde{{ \nabla }} A &= \{ \langle[ inf T_A(u) ,sup T_A(u) ],[0, 0],\\ & \quad [min(inf F_A(u) + inf I_A(u), 1),min(supF_A(u) + sup I_A(u), 1)] \rangle/u:u\in U\} \end{aligned}$$
Definition 2.8
[29] Let U be an initial universe, P(U) be the power set of U, E be a set of all parameters and \(X\subseteq E\). Then a soft set \(F_X\) over U is a set defined by a function representing a mapping
Here, \(f_X\) is called approximate function of the soft set \(F_X\), and the value \(f_X(x)\) is a set called x-element of the soft set for all \(x \in E\). It is worth noting that the set is worth noting that the sets \(f_X(x)\) may be arbitrary. Some of them may be empty, some may have nonempty intersection. Thus, a soft set over U can be represented by the set of ordered pairs
Example 2.9
Suppose that \(U=\{u_1,u_2,u_3,u_4,u_5,u_6\}\) is the universe contains six house under consideration in a real agent and \(E=\{x_1=cheap, x_2=beatiful, x_3=green surroundings, x_4=costly, x_5= large\}\).
If a customer to select a house from the real agent then, he/she can construct a soft set \(F_X\) that describes the characteristic of houses according to own requests. Assume that \(f_X(x_1)= \{u_1,u_2\}\), \(f_X(x_2)= \{u_1 \}\), \(f_X(x_3)= \emptyset\), \(f_X(x_4)= U\), \(\{u_1,u_2,u_3,u_4,u_5\}\) then the soft-set \(F_X\) is written by
The tabular representation of the soft set \(F_X\) is as follow (Table 1):
Definition 2.10
[26] Let \(U=\{u_1,u_2,\ldots,u_k\}\) be an initial universe of objects, \(E=\{x_1, x_2,\ldots ,x_m\}\) be a set of parameters and \(F_X\) be a soft set over U. For any \(x_j \in E\), \(f_X(x_j)\) is a subset of U. Then, the choice value of an object \(u_i\in U\) is \(c_i\), given by \(c_i = \sum _j u_{ij}\), where \(u_{ij}\) are the entries in the table of the reduct-soft-set. That is,
Example 2.11
Consider the above Example 2.9. Clearly,
.
Definition 2.12
[13] Let \(F_X\) and \(F_Y\) be two soft sets. Then,
-
1.
Complement of \(F_X\) is denoted by \(F_X^{\tilde{c}}\). Its approximate function \(f_{X^c}(x)= U\setminus f_X(x)\quad \mathrm{for}\,\mathrm{all }\, x \in E\)
-
2.
Union of \(F_X\) and \(F_Y\) is denoted by \(F_X \tilde{\cup } F_Y\). Its approximate function \(f_{X\tilde{\cup } F_Y}\) is defined by
$$f_{X \tilde{\cup } Y}(x)= f_X(x)\cup f_Y(x)\quad \mathrm{for}\,\mathrm{all }\, x \in E.$$ -
3.
Intersection of \(F_X\) and \(F_Y\) is denoted by \(F_X\tilde{\cap }F_Y\). Its approximate function \(f_{X \widetilde{{ \cap }} Y}\) is defined by
$$f_{X \tilde{\cap } Y}(x)= f_X(x)\cap f_Y(x)\quad \mathrm{for}\,\mathrm{all }\, x \in E.$$
3 Interval-valued neutrosophic soft sets
In this section, we give interval valued neutrosophic soft sets (ivn-soft sets) which is a combination of an interval valued neutrosophic sets [35] and a soft sets [29]. Then, we introduce some definitions and operations of ivn-soft sets sets. Some properties of ivn-soft sets which are connected to operations have been established. Some of it is quoted from [6, 7, 12, 13, 17, 18, 24, 25, 35].
Definition 3.1
Let U be an initial universe set, IVN( U ) denotes the set of all interval valued neutrosophic sets of U and E be a set of parameters that are describe the elements of U. An interval valued neutrosophic soft sets(ivn-soft sets) over U is a set defined by a set valued function \(\Upsilon _K\) representing a mapping
It can be written a set of ordered pairs
Here, \(\upsilon _K\), which is interval valued neutrosophic sets, is called approximate function of the ivn-soft sets \(\Upsilon _K\) and \(\upsilon _K(x)\) is called x-approximate value of \(x \in E\). The subscript K in the \(\upsilon _K\) indicates that \(\upsilon _K\) is the approximate function of \(\Upsilon _K\).
Generally, \(\upsilon _K\), \(\upsilon _L\), \(\upsilon _M\),… will be used as an approximate functions of \(\Upsilon _K\), \(\Upsilon _L\), \(\Upsilon _M\),…, respectively.
Note that the sets of all ivn-soft sets over U will be denoted by IVNS(U) .
Now let us give the following example for ivn-soft sets.
Example 3.2
Let \(U=\{u_1,u_2\}\) be set of houses under consideration and E is a set of parameters which is a neutrosophic word. Consider \(E=\{x_1=cheap, x_2=beatiful, x_3=green surroundings, x_4=costly, x_5= large\}\). In this case, we give an (ivn-soft sets) \(\Upsilon _K\) over U as;
The tabular representation of the ivn-soft set \(\Upsilon _K\) is as follow (Table 2):
Definition 3.3
Let \(\Upsilon _K \in IVNS(U)\). If \(\upsilon _K(x)=\widetilde{{ \emptyset }}\) for all \(x\in E\), then \(\Upsilon _K\) is called an empty ivn-soft set, denoted by \(\Upsilon _{{\widehat{{ \emptyset }}}}\).
Definition 3.4
Let \(\Upsilon _K \in IVNS(U)\). If \(\upsilon _K(x)=\widetilde{{E}}\) for all \(x\in E\), then \(\Upsilon _K\) is called a universal ivn-soft set, denoted by \(\Upsilon _{{\hat{E}}}\).
Example 3.5
Assume that \(U=\{u_1, u_2\}\) is a universal set and \(E=\{x_1, x_2, x_3,\) \(x_4,x_5\}\) is a set of all parameters. Consider the tabular representation of the \(\Upsilon _{{\widehat{{ \emptyset }}}}\) is as follows (Table 3);
The tabular representation of the \(\Upsilon _{\hat{E}}\) is as follows (Table 4);
Definition 3.6
Let \(\Upsilon _K, \Upsilon _L\in IVNS(U)\). Then, \(\Upsilon _K\) is an ivn-soft subset of \(\Upsilon _L\), denoted by \(\Upsilon _K \widehat{{ \subseteq }} \Upsilon _L\), if \(\upsilon _K(x)\widetilde{{ \subseteq }} \upsilon _L(x)\) for all \(x \in E\).
Example 3.7
Assume that \(U=\{u_1, u_2\}\) is a universal set and \(E=\{x_1, x_2, x_3,\) \(x_4,x_5\}\) is a set of all parameters. Consider the tabular representation of the \(\Upsilon _K\) is as follows (Table 5);
The tabular representation of the \(\Upsilon _L\) is as follows (Table 6);
Clearly, by Definition 3.6, we have \(\Upsilon _K \widehat{{ \subseteq }} \Upsilon _L\).
Remark 3.8
\(\Upsilon _K \widehat{{ \subseteq }} \Upsilon _L\) does not imply that every element of \(\Upsilon _K\) is an element of \(\Upsilon _L\) as in the definition of the classical subset.
Proposition 3.9
Let \(\Upsilon _K, \Upsilon _L,\Upsilon _M \in IVNS(U)\). Then,
-
1.
\(\Upsilon _{K} \widehat{{ \subseteq }}\Upsilon _{{\hat{E}}}\)
-
2.
\(\Upsilon _{{\widehat{{ \emptyset }}}} \widehat{{ \subseteq }}\Upsilon _{K}\)
-
3.
\(\Upsilon _{K} \widehat{{ \subseteq }}\Upsilon _{K}\)
-
4.
\(\Upsilon _{K} \widehat{{ \subseteq }}\Upsilon _{L}\) and \(\Upsilon _{L} \widehat{{ \subseteq }}\Upsilon _{M} \Rightarrow \Upsilon _{K} \widehat{{ \subseteq }}\Upsilon _{M}\)
Proof
They can be proved easily by using the approximate function of the ivn-soft sets. \(\square\)
Definition 3.10
Let \(\Upsilon _K, \Upsilon _L \in IVNS(U)\). Then, \(\Upsilon _K\) and \(\Upsilon _L\) are ivn-soft equal, written as \(\Upsilon _K = \Upsilon _L\), if and only if \(\upsilon _K(x)= \upsilon _L(x)\) for all \(x \in E\).
Proposition 3.11
Let \(\Upsilon _K, \Upsilon _L,\Upsilon _M \in IVNS(U)\). Then,
-
1.
\(\Upsilon _K = \Upsilon _L\) and \(\Upsilon _L =\Upsilon _M \Leftrightarrow \Upsilon _K=\Upsilon _M\)
-
2.
\(\Upsilon _K \widehat{{ \subseteq }} \Upsilon _L\) and \(\Upsilon _L \widehat{{ \subseteq }} \Upsilon _K \Leftrightarrow \Upsilon _K =\Upsilon _L\)
Proof
The proofs are trivial. \(\square\)
Definition 3.12
Let \(\Upsilon _K \in IVNS(U)\). Then, the complement \(\Upsilon _K^{\hat{{c}}}\) of \(\Upsilon _K\) is an ivn-soft set such that
Example 3.13
Consider the above Example 3.7, the complement \(\Upsilon _L^{\hat{{c}}}\) of \(\Upsilon _L\) can be represented into the following table (Table 7);
Proposition 3.14
Let \(\Upsilon _K \in IVNS(U)\). Then,
-
1.
\((\Upsilon _K^{\hat{{c}}})^{\hat{{c}}}= \Upsilon _K\)
-
2.
\(\Upsilon _{\widehat{{ \emptyset }}} ^{\hat{{c}}} = \Upsilon _{\hat{E}}\)
-
3.
\(\Upsilon _{\hat{E}} ^{\hat{{c}}} = \Upsilon _{\widehat{{ \emptyset }}}\)
Proof
By using the fuzzy approximate functions of the ivn-soft set, the proofs can be straightforward. \(\square\)
Theorem 3.15
Let \(\Upsilon _K \in IVNS(U)\). Then, \(\Upsilon _K\widehat{{ \subseteq }}\Upsilon _L \Leftrightarrow \Upsilon _L^{\hat{{c}}}\widehat{{ \subseteq }}\Upsilon _K^{\hat{{c}}}\)
Proof
By using the fuzzy approximate functions of the ivn-soft set, the proofs can be straightforward. \(\square\)
Definition 3.16
Let \(\Upsilon _K, \Upsilon _L \in IVNS(U)\). Then, union of \(\Upsilon _K\) and \(\Upsilon _L\), denoted \(\Upsilon _K \widehat{{ \cup }} \Upsilon _L\), is defined by
Example 3.17
Consider the above Example 3.7, the union of \(\Upsilon _K\) and \(\Upsilon _L\), denoted \(\Upsilon _K \widehat{{ \cup }} \Upsilon _L\), can be represented into the following table (Table 8);
Theorem 3.18
Let \(\Upsilon _K, \Upsilon _L \in IVNS(U)\). Then, \(\Upsilon _K \widehat{{ \cup }} \Upsilon _L\) is the smallest ivn-soft set containing both \(\Upsilon _K\) and \(\Upsilon _L\).
Proof
The proofs can be easily obtained from Definition 3.16. \(\square\)
Proposition 3.19
Let \(\Upsilon _K, \Upsilon _L,\Upsilon _M \in IVNS(U)\). Then,
-
1.
\(\Upsilon _K\widehat{{ \cup }} \Upsilon _K = \Upsilon _K\)
-
2.
\(\Upsilon _K \widehat{{ \cup }} \Upsilon _{\widehat{{ \emptyset }}} = \Upsilon _K\)
-
3.
\(\Upsilon _K \widehat{{ \cup }} {\Upsilon _{\hat{E}}} = {\Upsilon _{\hat{E}}}\)
-
4.
\(\Upsilon _K \widehat{{ \cup }} \Upsilon _L= \Upsilon _L\widehat{{ \cup }} \Upsilon _K\)
-
5.
\((\Upsilon _K \widehat{{ \cup }} \Upsilon _L)\widehat{{ \cup }} \Upsilon _M= \Upsilon _K \widehat{{ \cup }} (\Upsilon _L\widehat{{ \cup }} \Upsilon _M)\)
Proof
The proofs can be easily obtained from Definition 3.16. \(\square\)
Definition 3.20
Let \(\Upsilon _K, \Upsilon _L \in IVNS(U)\). Then, intersection of \(\Upsilon _K\) and \(\Upsilon _L\), denoted \(\Upsilon _K \widehat{{ \cap }} \Upsilon _L\), is defined by
Example 3.21
Consider the above Example 3.7, the intersection of \(\Upsilon _K\) and \(\Upsilon _L\), denoted \(\Upsilon _K \widehat{{ \cap }} \Upsilon _L\), can be represented into the following table (Table 9);
Proposition 3.22
Let \(\Upsilon _K, \Upsilon _L \in IVNS(U)\). Then, \(\Upsilon _K \widehat{{ \cap }} \Upsilon _L\) is the largest ivn-soft set containing both \(\Upsilon _K\) and \(\Upsilon _L\).
Proof
The proofs can be easily obtained from Definition 3.20. \(\square\)
Proposition 3.23
Let \(\Upsilon _K, \Upsilon _L,\Upsilon _M \in IVNS(U)\). Then,
-
1.
\(\Upsilon _K \widehat{{ \cap }} \Upsilon _K = \Upsilon _K\)
-
2.
\(\Upsilon _K \widehat{{ \cap }} \Upsilon _{\widehat{{ \emptyset }}} = \Upsilon _{\widehat{{ \emptyset }}}\)
-
3.
\(\Upsilon _K \widehat{{ \cap }} {\Upsilon _{\hat{E}}} = \Upsilon _K\)
-
4.
\(\Upsilon _K \widehat{{ \cap }} \Upsilon _L= \Upsilon _L\widehat{{ \cap }}\Upsilon _K\)
-
5.
\((\Upsilon _K \widehat{{ \cap }} \Upsilon _L)\widehat{{ \cap }} \Upsilon _M=\Upsilon _K \widehat{{ \cap }} (\Upsilon _L\widehat{{ \cap }} \Upsilon _M)\)
Proof
The proof of the Propositions 1- 5 are obvious. \(\square\)
Remark 3.24
Let \(\Upsilon _K \in IVNS(U)\). If \(\Upsilon _K \ne \Upsilon _{\widehat{{ \emptyset }}}\) or \(\Upsilon _K \ne \Upsilon _{\hat{E}}\), then \(\Upsilon _K \widehat{{ \cup }} \Upsilon _K^{\hat{c}}\ne \Upsilon _{\hat{E}}\) and \(\Upsilon _K \widehat{{ \cap }}\Upsilon _K^{\hat{c}}\ne \Upsilon _{\widehat{{ \emptyset }}}\).
Proposition 3.25
Let \(\Upsilon _K, \Upsilon _L \in IVNS(U)\). Then, De Morgan’s laws are valid
-
1.
\((\Upsilon _K\, \widehat{{ \cup }} \,\Upsilon _L)^{\hat{c}}= \Upsilon _K^{\hat{c}}\, \widehat{{ \cap }} \,\Upsilon _L^{\hat{c}}\)
-
2.
\((\Upsilon _K \, \widehat{{ \cap }} \, \Upsilon _L)^{\hat{c}} = \Upsilon _K^{\hat{c}} \, \widehat{{ \cup }} \, \Upsilon _L^{\hat{c}}.\)
Proof
The proofs can be easily obtained from Definition 3.12, Definition 3.16 and Definition 3.20. \(\square\)
Proposition 3.26
Let \(\Upsilon _K, \Upsilon _L,\Upsilon _M \in IVNS(U)\). Then,
-
1.
\(\Upsilon _K \widehat{{ \cup }} (\Upsilon _L \widehat{{ \cap }} \Upsilon _M)= (\Upsilon _K \widehat{{ \cup }} \Upsilon _L) \widehat{{ \cap }} (\Upsilon _K \widehat{{ \cup }} \Upsilon _M)\)
-
2.
\(\Upsilon _K \widehat{{ \cap }} (\Upsilon _L \widehat{{ \cup }}\Upsilon _M)= (\Upsilon _K\widehat{{ \cap }} \Upsilon _L)\widehat{{ \cup }} (\Upsilon _K \widehat{{ \cap }} \Upsilon _M)\)
-
3.
\(\Upsilon _K \widehat{{ \cup }} (\Upsilon _K \widehat{{ \cap }} \Upsilon _L)= \Upsilon _K\)
-
4.
\(\Upsilon _K \widehat{{ \cap }} (\Upsilon _K \widehat{{ \cup }}\Upsilon _L)= \Upsilon _K\)
Proof
The proofs can be easily obtained from Definition 3.16 and Definition 3.20. \(\square\)
Definition 3.27
Let \(\Upsilon _K, \Upsilon _L \in IVNS(U)\). Then, OR operator of \(\Upsilon _K\) and \(\Upsilon _L\), denoted \(\Upsilon _K \widehat{{ \bigvee }} \Upsilon _L\), is defined by a set valued function \(\Upsilon _O\) representing a mapping
where
Definition 3.28
Let \(\Upsilon _K, \Upsilon _L \in IVNS(U)\). Then, AND operator of \(\Upsilon _K\) and \(\Upsilon _L\), denoted \(\Upsilon _K \widehat{{ \bigwedge }} \Upsilon _L\), is defined by a set valued function \(\Upsilon _A\) representing a mapping
where
Proposition 3.29
Let \(\Upsilon _K, \Upsilon _L,\Upsilon _M \in IVNS(U)\). Then,
-
1.
\((\Upsilon _K \widehat{{ \bigvee }} \Upsilon _L)^{\hat{c}}= \Upsilon _K^{\hat{c}} \widehat{{ \bigwedge }} \Upsilon _L^{\hat{c}}\)
-
2.
\((\Upsilon _K \widehat{{ \bigwedge }} \Upsilon _L)^{\hat{c}} = \Upsilon _K^{\hat{c}} \widehat{{ \bigvee }} \Upsilon _L^{\hat{c}}.\)
-
3.
\((\Upsilon _K \widehat{{ \bigvee }} \Upsilon _L)\widehat{{ \bigvee }} \Upsilon _M=\Upsilon _K \widehat{{ \bigvee }} (\Upsilon _L\widehat{{ \bigvee }} \Upsilon _M)\)
-
4.
\((\Upsilon _K \widehat{{ \bigwedge }} \Upsilon _L)\widehat{{ \bigwedge }} \Upsilon _M=\Upsilon _K \widehat{{ \bigwedge }} (\Upsilon _L\widehat{{ \bigwedge }} \Upsilon _M)\)
Proof
The proof of the Propositions 1–4 are obvious. \(\square\)
Definition 3.30
Let \(\Upsilon _K, \Upsilon _L \in IVNS(U)\). Then, difference of \(\Upsilon _K\) and \(\Upsilon _L\), denoted \(\Upsilon _K \widehat{{ \setminus }} \Upsilon _L\), is defined by
Definition 3.31
Let \(\Upsilon _K, \Upsilon _L \in IVNS(U)\). Then, addition of \(\Upsilon _K\) and \(\Upsilon _L\), denoted \(\Upsilon _K \widehat{{ +}} \Upsilon _L\), is defined by
Proposition 3.32
Let \(\Upsilon _K, \Upsilon _L , \Upsilon _M \in IVNS(U)\). Then,
-
1.
\(\Upsilon _{K}(x)\widehat{{ + }}\Upsilon _{L}(x)\widehat=\Upsilon _{L}(x)\widehat{{ +}}\Upsilon _{K}(x)\)
-
2.
\((\Upsilon _{K}(x)\widehat{{ + }}\Upsilon _{L}(x))\widehat{{ + }}\Upsilon _{M}(x)=\Upsilon _{K}(x)\widehat{{ + }}(\Upsilon _{L}(x)\widehat{{ + }}\Upsilon _{M}(x))\)
Proof
The proofs can be easily obtained from Definition 3.31. \(\square\)
Definition 3.33
Let \(\Upsilon _K \in IVNS(U)\). Then, scalar multiplication of \(\Upsilon _K\), denoted \(a\widehat{{ \times }}\Upsilon _K\), is defined by
Proposition 3.34
Let \(\Upsilon _K, \Upsilon _L , \Upsilon _M \in IVNS(U)\). Then,
-
1.
\(\Upsilon _{K}(x)\widehat{{ \times }}\Upsilon _{L}(x)=\Upsilon _{L}(x)\widehat{{ \times }}\Upsilon _{K}(x)\)
-
2.
\((\Upsilon _{K}(x)\widehat{{ \times }}\Upsilon _{L}(x))\widehat{{ \times }}\Upsilon _{M}(x)=\Upsilon _{K}(x)\widehat{{ \times }}(\Upsilon _{L}(x)\widehat{{ \times }}\Upsilon _{M}(x))\)
Proof
The proofs can be easily obtained from Definition 3.33. \(\square\)
Definition 3.35
Let \(\Upsilon _K \in IVNS(U)\). Then, scalar division of \(\Upsilon _K\), denoted \(\Upsilon _K\hat{/}a\), is defined by
Example 3.36
Consider the above Example 3.7, for \(a=5\), the scalar division of \(\Upsilon _K\), denoted \(\Upsilon _K\hat{/}5\), can be represented into the following table (Table 10);
Definition 3.37
Let \(\Upsilon _K \in IVNS(U)\). Then, truth-Favorite of \(\Upsilon _K\), denoted \(\widehat{{ \bigtriangleup }} \Upsilon _K\), is defined by
Example 3.38
Consider the above Example 3.7, the truth-Favorite of \(\Upsilon _K\), denoted \(\widehat{{ \bigtriangleup }} \Upsilon _K\), can be represented into the following table (Table 11);
Proposition 3.39
Let \(\Upsilon _K, \Upsilon _L \in IVNS(U)\). Then,
-
1.
\(\widehat{{ \bigtriangleup }}\widehat{{ \bigtriangleup }} \Upsilon _K =\widehat{{ \bigtriangleup }}\Upsilon _K\)
-
2.
\(\widehat{{ \bigtriangleup }} (\Upsilon _K \widehat{{ \cup }} \Upsilon _K)\widehat{{ \subseteq }} \widehat{{ \bigtriangleup }} \Upsilon _K \widehat{{ \cup }} \widehat{{ \bigtriangleup }}\Upsilon _K\)
-
3.
\(\widehat{{ \bigtriangleup }} (\Upsilon _K \widehat{{ \cap }} \Upsilon _K)\widehat{{ \subseteq }} \widehat{{ \bigtriangleup }} \Upsilon _K \widehat{{ \cap }} \widehat{{ \bigtriangleup }}\Upsilon _K\)
-
4.
\(\widehat{{ \bigtriangleup }} (\Upsilon _K \widehat{{ + }} \Upsilon _K)=\widehat{{ \bigtriangleup }} \Upsilon _K \widehat{{ + }} \widehat{{ \bigtriangleup }}\Upsilon _K\)
Proof
The proofs can be easily obtained from Definition 3.16, Definition 3.20 and Definition 3.37. \(\square\)
Definition 3.40
Let \(\Upsilon _K \in IVNS(U)\). Then, False-Favorite of \(\Upsilon _K\), denoted \(\widehat{{ \bigtriangledown }} \Upsilon _K\), is defined by
Example 3.41
Consider the above Example 3.7, the False-Favorite of \(\Upsilon _K\), denoted \(\widehat{{ \bigtriangledown }} \Upsilon _K\), can be represented into the following table (Table 12);
Proposition 3.42
Let \(\Upsilon _K, \Upsilon _L \in IVNS(U)\). Then,
-
1.
\(\widehat{{ \bigtriangledown }}\widehat{{ \bigtriangledown }} \Upsilon _K \widehat=\widehat{{ \bigtriangledown }}\Upsilon _K\)
-
2.
\(\widehat{{ \bigtriangledown }} (\Upsilon _K \widehat{{ \cup }} \Upsilon _K)\widehat{{ \subseteq }} \widehat{{ \bigtriangledown }} \Upsilon _K \widehat{{ \cup }} \widehat{{ \bigtriangledown }}\Upsilon _K\)
-
3.
\(\widehat{{ \bigtriangledown }} (\Upsilon _K \widehat{{ \cap }} \Upsilon _K)\widehat{{ \subseteq }} \widehat{{ \bigtriangledown }} \Upsilon _K \widehat{{ \cap }} \widehat{{ \bigtriangledown }}\Upsilon _K\)
-
4.
\(\widehat{{ \bigtriangledown }} (\Upsilon _K \widehat{{ + }} \Upsilon _K)=\widehat{{ \bigtriangledown }} \Upsilon _K \widehat{{ + }} \widehat{{ \bigtriangledown }}\Upsilon _K\)
Proof
The proof can be easily obtained from Definition 3.16, Definition 3.20 and Definition 3.40. \(\square\)
Theorem 3.43
Let P be the power set of all ivn-soft sets defined in the universe U. Then \((P, \widehat{{ \cap }}, \widehat{{ \cup }})\) is a distributive lattice.
Proof
The proof can be easily obtained by showing properties; idempotency, commutativity, associativity and distributivity. \(\square\)
4 ivn-soft set based decision making
In this section, we present an adjustable approach to ivn-soft set based decision making problems by extending the approach to interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy soft set based decision making [40]. Some of it is quoted from [18, 26, 35, 40].
Definition 4.1
Let \(\Upsilon _K \in IVNS(U)\). Then a relation form of \(\Upsilon _K\) is defined by
where \(r_{\Upsilon _K}:E\times U \rightarrow IVN(U)\,\,and\,\,r_{\Upsilon _K}(x,u)=\upsilon _{K(x)}(u)\) for all \(x\in E\) and \(u\in U\).
That is, \(r_{\Upsilon _K}(x,u)=\upsilon _{K(x)}(u)\) is characterized by truth-membership function \(T_K\), a indeterminacy-membership function \(I_K\) and a falsity-membership function \(F_K\). For each point \(x\in E\) and \(u\in U\); \(T_K\), \(I_K\) and \(F_K \subseteq [0,1]\).
Example 4.2
Consider the above Example 3.7, then, \(r_{\Upsilon _K}(x,u)=\upsilon _{K(x)}(u)\) can be given as follows
-
\(\upsilon _{K(x_1)}(u_1)= \langle [0.6,0.8], [0.8,0.9], [0.1,0.5]\rangle\),
-
\(\upsilon _{K(x_1)}(u_2)= \langle [0.5,0.8], [0.2,0.9], [0.1,0.7] \rangle\),
-
\(\upsilon _{K(x_2)}(u_1)= \langle [0.1,0.4], [0.5,0.8], [0.3,0.7] \rangle\),
-
\(\upsilon _{K(x_2)}(u_1)= \langle [0.1,0.9], [0.6,0.9], [0.2,0.3] \rangle\),
-
\(\upsilon _{K(x_3)}(u_1)= \langle [0.2,0.9], [0.1,0.5], [0.7,0.8] \rangle\),
-
\(\upsilon _{K(x_3)}(u_2)= \langle [0.4,0.9], [0.1,0.6], [0.5,0.7] \rangle\),
-
\(\upsilon _{K(x_4)}(u_1)= \langle [0.6,0.9], [0.6,0.9], [0.6,0.9] \rangle\),
-
\(\upsilon _{K(x_4)}(u_2)= \langle [0.5,0.9], [0.6,0.8], [0.1,0.8] \rangle\),
-
\(\upsilon _{K(x_5)}(u_1)= \langle [0.0,0.9], [1.0,1.0], [1.0,1.0]\rangle\),
-
\(\upsilon _{K(x_5)}(u_2)= \langle [0.0,0.9], [0.8,1.0], [0.2,0.5] \rangle\).
Zhang et al.[40] introduced level-soft set and different thresholds on different parameters in interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy soft sets. Taking inspiration these definitions we give level-soft set and different thresholds on different parameters in ivn-soft sets.
Definition 4.3
Let \(\Upsilon _K \in IVNS(U)\). For \(\alpha , \beta , \gamma \subseteq [0,1]\), the \((\alpha , \beta , \gamma )\)-level soft set of \(\Upsilon _K\) is a crisp soft set, denoted \((\Upsilon _{K};{\langle\alpha , \beta , \gamma \rangle })\), defined by
where,
for all \(u_j\in U\).
Obviously, the definition is an extension of level soft sets of interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy soft sets [40].
Remark 4.4
In Definition 4.3, \(\alpha =(\alpha _1,\alpha _2) \subseteq [0,1]\) can be viewed as a given least threshold on degrees of truth-membership, \(\beta =( \beta _1, \beta _2) \subseteq [0,1]\) can be viewed as a given greatest threshold on degrees of indeterminacy-membership and \(\gamma =( \gamma _1, \gamma _2) \subseteq [0,1]\) can be viewed as a given greatest threshold on degrees of falsity-membership. If \((\alpha , \beta , \gamma ) \widehat{{ \le }}\upsilon _{K(x_i)}(u)\), it shows that the degree of the truth-membership of u with respect to the parameter \(x_i\) is not less than \(\alpha\), the degree of the indeterminacy-membership of u with respect to the parameter \(x_i\) is not more than \(\gamma\) and the degree of the falsity-membership of u with respect to the parameter \(x_i\) is not more than \(\beta\). In practical applications of inv-soft sets, the thresholds \(\alpha\), \(\beta\), \(\gamma\) are pre-established by decision makers and reflect decision makers’ requirements on “truth-membership levels”, “indeterminacy-membership levels” and “falsity-membership levels”, respectively.
Example 4.5
Consider the above Example 3.7.
Clearly the ( [0.3, 0.4], [0.3, 0.5], [0.1, 0.2])-level soft set of \(\Upsilon _K\) as follows
Note 4.6
In some practical applications the thresholds \(\alpha , \beta , \gamma\) decision makers need to impose different thresholds on different parameters. To cope with such problems, we replace a constant value the thresholds by a function as the thresholds on truth-membership values, indeterminacy-membership values and falsity-membership values, respectively.
Theorem 4.7
Let \(\Upsilon _K,\Upsilon _L \in IVNS(U)\). Then,
-
1.
\((\Upsilon _{K};\langle\alpha _1, \beta _1, \gamma _1\rangle)\) and \((\Upsilon _{K};\langle\alpha _2, \beta _2, \gamma _2\rangle)\) are \(\langle\alpha _1, \beta _1, \gamma _1\rangle\)-level soft set and \(\langle\alpha _2, \beta _2, \gamma _2\rangle\)-level soft set of \(\Upsilon _K\), respectively. If \(\langle\alpha _2, \beta _2, \gamma _2\rangle\widehat{{ \le }} \langle\alpha _1, \beta _1, \gamma _1\rangle\), then we have \((\Upsilon _{K};\langle\alpha _1, \beta _1, \gamma _1\rangle)\tilde{\subseteq } (\Upsilon _{K};\langle\alpha _2, \beta _2, \gamma _2\rangle)\).
-
2.
\((\Upsilon _{K};\langle\alpha , \beta , \gamma \rangle)\) and \((\Upsilon _{L};\langle\alpha , \beta , \gamma \rangle)\) are \(\langle\alpha , \beta , \gamma\)-level soft set \(\Upsilon _K\) and \(\Upsilon _L\), respectively. If \(\Upsilon _K\widehat{{ \subseteq }} \Upsilon _L\), then we have \((\Upsilon _{K};\langle\alpha , \beta , \gamma \rangle)\tilde{\subseteq } (\Upsilon _{L};\langle\alpha , \beta , \gamma \rangle)\).
Proof
The proof of the theorems are obvious. \(\square\)
Definition 4.8
Let \(\Upsilon _K \in IVNS(U)\). Let an interval-valued neutrosophic set \(\langle\alpha , \beta , \gamma \rangle_{{\Upsilon _K}}:E \rightarrow IVN(U)\) in U which is called a threshold interval-valued neutrosophic set. The level soft set of \(\Upsilon _K\) with respect to \(\langle\alpha , \beta , \gamma \rangle_{{\Upsilon _K}}\) is a crisp soft set, denoted by \((\Upsilon _{K};\langle\alpha , \beta , \gamma \rangle_{{\Upsilon _K}})\), defined by;
where,
for all \(u_j\in U\).
Obviously, the definition is an extension of level soft sets of interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy soft sets [40].
Remark 4.9
In Definition 4.8, \(\alpha =(\alpha _1,\alpha _2) \subseteq [0,1]\) can be viewed as a given least threshold on degrees of truth-membership, \(\beta =( \beta _1, \beta _2) \subseteq [0,1]\) can be viewed as a given greatest threshold on degrees of indeterminacy-membership and \(\gamma =( \gamma _1, \gamma _2) \subseteq [0,1]\) can be viewed as a given greatest threshold on degrees of falsity-membership of u with respect to the parameter x.
If \({\langle\alpha , \beta , \gamma \rangle }_{{\Upsilon _K}}(x_i) \widehat{{ \le }}\upsilon _{K(x_i)}(u)\) it shows that the degree of the truth-membership of u with respect to the parameter \(x_i\) is not less than \(\alpha\), the degree of the indeterminacy-membership of u with respect to the parameter \(x_i\) is not more than \(\gamma\) and the degree of the falsity-membership of u with respect to the parameter \(x_i\) is not more than \(\beta\).
Definition 4.10
Let \(\Upsilon _K \in IVNS(U)\). Based on \(\Upsilon _K\), we can define an interval-valued neutrosophic set \(\langle\alpha , \beta , \gamma \rangle^{avg}_{{\Upsilon _K}}:E \rightarrow IVN(U)\) by
for all \(x\in E\).
The interval-valued neutrosophic set \(\langle\alpha , \beta , \gamma \rangle^{avg}_{{\Upsilon _K}}\) is called the avg-threshold of the ivn-soft set \({\Upsilon _K}\). In the following discussions, the avg-level decision rule will mean using the avg-threshold and considering the avg-level soft set in ivn-soft sets based decision making.
Let us reconsider the ivn-soft set \({\Upsilon _K}\) in Example 3.7. The avg-threshold \(\langle\alpha , \beta , \gamma \rangle^{avg}_{{\Upsilon _K}}\) of \({\Upsilon _K}\) is an interval-valued neutrosophic set and can be calculated as follows:
Therefore, we have
Example 4.11
Consider the above Example 3.7. Clearly;
Definition 4.12
Let \(\Upsilon _K \in IVNS(U)\). Based on \(\Upsilon _K\), we can define an interval-valued neutrosophic set \(\langle\alpha , \beta , \gamma \rangle^{Mmm}_{\Upsilon _K}:A \rightarrow IVN(U)\) by
The interval-valued neutrosophic set \(\langle\alpha , \beta , \gamma \rangle^{Mmm}_{\Upsilon _K}\) is called the max-min-min-threshold of the ivn-soft set \(\Upsilon _K\). In what follows the Mmm-level decision rule will mean using the max-min-min-threshold and considering the Mmm-level soft set in ivn-soft sets based decision making.
Definition 4.13
Let \(\Upsilon _K \in IVNS(U)\). Based on \(\Upsilon _K\), we can define an interval-valued neutrosophic set \(\langle\alpha , \beta , \gamma \rangle^{mmm}_{\Upsilon _K}:E \rightarrow IVN(U)\) by
The interval-valued neutrosophic set \(\langle\alpha , \beta , \gamma \rangle^{mmm}_{\Upsilon _K}\) is called the min-min-min-threshold of the ivn-soft set \(\Upsilon _K\). In what follows the mmm-level decision rule will mean using the min-min-min-threshold and considering the mmm-level soft set in ivn-soft sets based decision making.
Theorem 4.14
Let \(\Upsilon _K \in IVNS(U)\). Then, \((\Upsilon _{K};\langle\alpha , \beta , \gamma \rangle^{avg}_{{\Upsilon _K}})\), \((\Upsilon _{K};\langle\alpha , \beta , \gamma \rangle^{Mmm}_{{\Upsilon _K}}), (\Upsilon _{K};\langle\alpha , \beta , \gamma \rangle^{mmm}_{{\Upsilon _K}}))\) are the avg-level soft set, Mmm-level soft set, mmm-level soft set of \(\Upsilon _K \in IVNS(U)\), respectively. Then,
-
1.
\((\Upsilon _{K};\langle\alpha , \beta , \gamma \rangle^{Mmm}_{{\Upsilon _K}})\tilde{\subseteq } (\Upsilon _{K};\langle\alpha , \beta , \gamma \rangle^{avg}_{{\Upsilon _K}})\)
-
2.
\((\Upsilon _{K};\langle\alpha , \beta , \gamma \rangle^{Mmm}_{{\Upsilon _K}})\tilde{\subseteq } (\Upsilon _{K};\langle\alpha , \beta , \gamma \rangle^{mmm}_{{\Upsilon _K}})\)
Proof
The proof of the theorems are obvious. \(\square\)
Theorem 4.15
Let \(\Upsilon _K,\Upsilon _L \in IVNS(U)\). Then,
-
1.
Let \(\langle\alpha _1, \beta _1, \gamma _1\rangle^i_{\Upsilon _K}\) and \(\langle\alpha _2, \beta _2, \gamma _2\rangle^i_{\Upsilon _K}\) for \(i\in \{{avg},{Mmm},{mmm}\}\) be two threshold interval-valued neutrosophic sets. Then, \((\Upsilon _{K};\langle\alpha _1, \beta _1, \gamma _1\rangle_{\Upsilon _K})\) and \((\Upsilon _{K};\langle\alpha _2, \beta _2, \gamma _2\rangle_{\Upsilon _K})\) are \(\langle\alpha _1, \beta _1, \gamma _1\rangle_{\Upsilon _K}\)-level soft set and \(\langle\alpha _2, \beta _2, \gamma _2\rangle_{\Upsilon _K}\)-level soft set of \(\Upsilon _K\), respectively. If \(\langle\alpha _2, \beta _2, \gamma _2\rangle_{\Upsilon _K} \widehat{{ \le }} \langle\alpha _1, \beta _1, \gamma _1\rangle_{\Upsilon _K}\), then we have \((\Upsilon _{K};\langle\alpha _1, \beta _1, \gamma _1\rangle_{\Upsilon _K})\tilde{\subseteq } (\Upsilon _{K};\langle\alpha _2, \beta _2, \gamma _2\rangle_{\Upsilon _K})\).
-
2.
Let \(\langle\alpha , \beta , \gamma \rangle_{\Upsilon _K}\) be a threshold interval-valued neutrosophic sets. Then, \((\Upsilon _{K};\langle\alpha , \beta , \gamma \rangle_{\Upsilon _K})\) and \((\Upsilon _{L};\langle\alpha , \beta , \gamma \rangle_{\Upsilon _K})\) are \(\langle\alpha , \beta , \gamma\)-level soft set \(\Upsilon _K\) and \(\Upsilon _L\), respectively. If \(\Upsilon _K\widehat{{ \subseteq }} \Upsilon _L\), then we have \((\Upsilon _{K};\langle\alpha , \beta , \gamma \rangle_{\Upsilon _K})\tilde{\subseteq } (\Upsilon _{L};\langle\alpha , \beta , \gamma \rangle_{\Upsilon _K})\).
Proof
The proof of the theorems are obvious. \(\square\)
Now, we construct an ivn-soft set decision making method by the following algorithm;
Algorithm:
-
1.
Input the ivn-soft set \(\Upsilon _K\),
-
2.
Input a threshold interval-valued neutrosophic set \(\langle\alpha , \beta , \gamma \rangle^{avg}_{\Upsilon _K}\) (or \(\langle\alpha , \beta , \gamma \rangle^{Mmm}_{\Upsilon _K}, \langle\alpha , \beta , \gamma \rangle^{mmm}_{\Upsilon _K}\)) by using avg-level decision rule (or Mmm-level decision rule, mmm-level decision rule) for decision making.
-
3.
Compute avg-level soft set \((\Upsilon _{K};\langle\alpha , \beta , \gamma \rangle^{avg}_{{\Upsilon _K}})\) (or Mmm-level soft set (\((\Upsilon _{K};\langle\alpha , \beta , \gamma \rangle^{Mmm}_{{\Upsilon _K}})\), mmm-level soft set \((\Upsilon _{K};\langle\alpha , \beta , \gamma \rangle^{mmm}_{{\Upsilon _K}})))\)
-
4.
Present the level soft set \((\Upsilon _{K};\langle\alpha , \beta , \gamma \rangle^{avg}_{{\Upsilon _K}})\) (or the level soft set(\((\Upsilon _{K};\langle\alpha , \beta , \gamma \rangle^{Mmm}_{{\Upsilon _K}}\), the level soft set \((\Upsilon _{K};\langle\alpha , \beta , \gamma \rangle^{mmm}_{{\Upsilon _K}})))\) in tabular form.
-
5.
Compute the choice value \(c_i\) of \(u_i\) for any \(u_i\in U\),
-
6.
The optimal decision is to select \(u_k\) if \(c_k=max_{u_i \in U}c_i.\)
Remark 4.16
If k has more than one value then any one of \(u_k\) may be chosen.
If there are too many optimal choices in Step 6, we may go back to the second step and change the threshold (or decision rule) such that only one optimal choice remains in the end.
Remark 4.17
The aim of designing the Algorithm is to solve ivn-soft sets based decision making problem by using level soft sets. Level soft sets construct bridges between ivn-soft sets and crisp soft sets. By using level soft sets, we need not treat ivn-soft sets directly but only cope with crisp soft sets derived from them after choosing certain thresholds or decision strategies such as the mid-level or the top?bottom-level decision rules. By the Algorithm, the choice value of an object in a level soft set is in fact the number of fair attributes which belong to that object on the premise that the degree of the truth-membership of u with respect to the parameter x is not less than “truth-membership levels”, the degree of the indeterminacy-membership of u with respect to the parameter x is not more than “indeterminacy-membership levels” and the degree of the falsity-membership of u with respect to the parameter x is not more than “falsity-membership levels”.
Example 4.18
Suppose that a customer to select a house from the real agent. He can construct a ivn-soft set \(\Upsilon _K\) that describes the characteristic of houses according to own requests. Assume that \(U=\{u_1,u_2,u_3,u_4,u_5,u_6\}\) is the universe contains six house under consideration in an real agent and \(E=\{x_1=cheap, x_2=beatiful, x_3=green surroundings, x_4=costly, x_5= large\}\).
Now, we can apply the method as follows:
-
1.
Input the ivn-soft set \(\Upsilon _K\) as,
-
2.
Input a threshold interval-valued neutrosophic set \(\langle\alpha , \beta , \gamma \rangle^{avg}_{\Upsilon _K}\) by using avg-level decision rule for decision making as;
$$\begin{aligned} \langle \alpha ,\beta ,\gamma \rangle _{{\Upsilon _{K} }}^{{avg}} & = \left\{ {\langle [0.41,0.76],[0.56,0.9],[0.18,0.63]\rangle /x_{1} ,\langle [0.31,0.7],[0.46,0.66],} \right. \\ & \quad [0.31,0.58]\rangle /x_{2} ,\langle [0.41,0.8],[0.21,0.53],[0.61,0.76]\rangle /x_{3} ,\langle [0.45,0.81], \\ & \quad \left. {[0.61,0.86],[0.45,0.86]\rangle /x_{4} ,\langle [0.25,0.65],[0.7,0.9],[0.61,0.76]\rangle /x_{5} {\text{ }}} \right\} \\ \end{aligned}$$ -
3.
Compute avg-level soft set \((\Upsilon _{K};\langle\alpha , \beta , \gamma \rangle^{avg}_{{\Upsilon _K}})\) as;
$$(\Upsilon _{K};\langle\alpha , \beta , \gamma \rangle^{avg}_{{\Upsilon _K}})=\{(x_2, \{u_3\}), (x_3,\{u_4\}), (x_4,\{u_6\}, (x_5,\{u_3\})\}$$ -
4.
Present the level soft set \((\Upsilon _{K};\langle\alpha , \beta , \gamma \rangle^{avg}_{{\Upsilon _K}})\) in tabular form as (Table 14);
-
5.
Compute the choice value \(c_i\) of \(u_i\) for any \(u_i\in U\) as;
$$c_1=c_2=c_5= \sum _{j=1}^5 u_{1j}= \sum _{j=1}^6 u_{2j}= \sum _{j=1}^5 h_{5j}=0,$$$$c_4= c_6= \sum _{j=1}^5 u_{4j}= \sum _{j=1}^6 h_{6j}=1$$$$c_3= \sum _{j=1}^5 u_{3j}=2$$ -
6.
The optimal decision is to select \(u_3\) since \(c_3=max_{u_i \in U}c_i.\)
Note that this decision making method can be applied for group decision making easily with help of the Definition 3.27 and Definition 3.28.
5 Conclusion
In this paper, the notion of the interval valued neutrosophic soft sets (ivn-soft sets) is defined which is a combination of an interval valued neutrosophic sets[35] and a soft sets[29]. Then, we introduce some definitions and operations of ivn-soft sets sets. Some properties of ivn-soft sets which are connected to operations have been established. Finally, we propose an adjustable approach by using level soft sets and illustrate this method with some concrete examples. This novel proposal proves to be feasible for some decision making problems involving ivn-soft sets. It can be applied to problems of many fields that contain uncertainty such as computer science, game theory, and so on.
References
Acar U, Koyuncu F, Tanay B (2010) Soft sets and soft rings. Comput Math Appl 59:3458–3463
Aktaş H, Çağman N (2007) Soft sets and soft groups. Inf Sci 177:2726–2735
Atanassov K (1986) Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets Syst 20:87–96
Awang MI, Rose ANM, Herawan T, Deris MM (2010) Soft set approach for selecting decision attribute in data clustering. In: Advanced data mining and applications lecture notes in computer science, vol 6441, pp 87–98
Aygünoglu A, Aygün H (2009) Introduction to fuzzy soft groups. Comput Math Appl 58:1279–1286
Broumi S (2013) Generalized neutrosophic soft set. Int J Comput Sci Eng Inf Technol (IJCSEIT) 3/2. doi:10.5121/ijcseit.2013.3202
Broumi S, Smarandache F (2013) Intuitionistic neutrosophic soft set. J Inf Comput Sci 8(2):130–140
Çağman, Karataş S, Enginoğlu S (2011) Soft topology. Comput Math Appl 62:351–358
Çağman N, Erdoğan F, Enginoğlu S (2011) FP-soft set theory and its applications. Ann Fuzzy Math Inf 2(2):219–226
Çağman N, Enginoğlu S (2010) Soft set theory and uni–int decision making. Eur J Oper Res 207:848–855
Çağman N, Deli I (2012) Means of FP-soft sets and its applications. Hacet J Math Stat 41(5):615–625
Çağman N, Erdoğan F, Enginoğlu S (2011) FP-soft set theory and its applications. Ann Fuzzy Math Inf 2(2):219–226
Çağman N, Enginoğlu S (2010) Soft set theory and uni–int decision making. Eur J Oper Res 207:848–855
Çağman N, Deli II (2013) Soft games. http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.4568
Feng F, Li C, Davvaz B, Irfan Ali M (2010) Soft sets combined with fuzzy sets and rough sets: a tentative approach. Soft Comput 14:899–911
Feng F, Jun YB, Liu X, Li L (2010) An adjustable approach to fuzzy soft sets based decision making. J Comput Appl Math 234:10–20
Jiang Y, Tang Y, Chen Q, Liu H, Tang J (2010) Interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy soft sets and their properties. Comput Math Appl 60:906–918
Jiang Y, Tang Y, Chen Q (2011) An adjustable approach to intuitionistic fuzzy soft sets based decision making. Appl Math Model 35:824–836
Karaaslan F, Çağman N, Enginoğlu S (2012) Soft lattices. J New Results Sci 1:5–17
Kharal A (2010) Distance and similarity measures for soft sets. New Math Nat Comput 06:321. doi:10.1142/S1793005710001724
Kovkov DV, Kolbanov VM, Molodtsov DA (2007) Soft sets theory-based optimization. J Comput Syst Sci Int 46(6):872–880
Maji PK, Biswas R, Roy AR (2001) Fuzzy soft sets. J Fuzzy Math 9(3):589–602
Maji PK, Roy AR, Biswas R (2004) On intuitionistic fuzzy soft sets. J Fuzzy Math 12(3):669–683
Maji PK (2012) A neutrosophic soft set approach to a decision making problem. Ann Fuzzy Math Inf 3(2):313–319
Maji PK (2013) Neutrosophic soft set. Comput Math Appl 45:555–562
Maji PK, Roy AR (2002) An application of soft sets in a decision making problem. Comput Math Appl 44:1077–1083
Mamat R, Herawan T, Deris MM (2013) MAR: maximum attribute relative of soft set for clustering attribute selection. Knowl Based Syst 52:11–20
Min WK (2011) A note on soft topological spaces. Comput Math Appl 62:3524–3528
Molodtsov DA (1999) Soft set theory-first results. Comput Math Appl 37:19–31
Molodtsov DA (2004) The theory of soft sets (in Russian). URSS Publishers, Moscow
Nagarajan EKR, Meenambigai G (2011) An application of soft sets to lattices. Kragujev J Math 35(1):75–87
Pawlak Z (1982) Rough sets. Int J Inf Comput Sci 11:341–356
Smarandache F (2005) Neutrosophic set, a generalisation of the intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Int J Pure Appl Math 24:287–297
Shabir M, Naz M (2011) On soft topological spaces. Comput Math Appl 61:1786–1799
Wang H, Smarandache F, Zhang YQ, Sunderraman R (2005) Interval Neutrosophic Sets and Logic: Theory and Applications in Computing. In: Neutrosophic book series, vol 5. Hexis, Arizona
Wang H, Smarandache F, Zhang YQ, Sunderraman R (2010) Single valued neutrosophic sets. Multispace Multistructure 4:410–413
Şerife Yılmaz, Kazancı O (2013) Soft lattices(ideals, filters) related to fuzzy point. In: U.P.B. Scientific Bulletin, Series A, 75/ 3, pp 75–90
Yüksel S, Dizman T, Yildizdan G, Sert U (2013) Application of soft sets to diagnose the prostate cancer risk. J Inequal Appl. doi:10.1186/1029-242X-2013-229
Zadeh LA (1965) Fuzzy sets. Inf Control 8:338–353
Zhang Z, Wang C, Tian D, Li K (2014) A novel approach to interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy soft set based decision making. Appl Math Model 38:1255–1270
Zhan J, Jun YB (2010) Soft BL-algebras based on fuzzy sets. Comput Math Appl 59:2037–2046
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Deli, I. Interval-valued neutrosophic soft sets and its decision making. Int. J. Mach. Learn. & Cyber. 8, 665–676 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13042-015-0461-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13042-015-0461-3