Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Next Article in Journal
A Local Spatial STIRPAT Model for Outdoor NOx Concentrations in the Community of Madrid, Spain
Next Article in Special Issue
InterCriteria Analysis: Application for ECG Data Analysis
Previous Article in Journal
Mathematical Analysis of Oxygen Uptake Rate in Continuous Process under Caputo Derivative
Previous Article in Special Issue
Third Zadeh’s Intuitionistic Fuzzy Implication
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

On an Intuitionistic Fuzzy Form of the Goguen’s Implication

by
Krassimir Atanassov
1,*,
Nora Angelova
2 and
Vassia Atanassova
1
1
Department of Bioinformatics and Mathematical Modelling, Institute of Biophysics and Biomedical Engineering, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Acad. G. Bonchev Str., Bl. 105, 1113 Sofia, Bulgaria
2
Faculty of Mathematics and Informatics, Sofia University, 5 James Bourchier Blvd., 1164 Sofia, Bulgaria
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Mathematics 2021, 9(6), 676; https://doi.org/10.3390/math9060676
Submission received: 15 February 2021 / Revised: 8 March 2021 / Accepted: 18 March 2021 / Published: 22 March 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets and Applications)

Abstract

:
In the present paper we construct a new intuitionistic fuzzy implication, giving intuitionistic fuzzy form to Goguen’s implication. Some of its basic properties are studied and illustrated with examples. Geometrical interpretations of the different forms of the new implication are given. Other forms of the Goguen’s implication are discussed.

1. Introduction

Joseph Amadee Goguen (28 June 1941–3 July 2006) is the first PhD student of Lotfi Zadeh, working in the area of fuzzy sets. Its name is related to the following fuzzy implication (see, e.g., [1]):
a b = 1 , i f   a b , b a , otherwise .
In the present paper, for the first time, an intuitionistic fuzzy form of the Goguen’s implication will be introduced.
Some years after the introduction of the concept of intuitionistic fuzziness, intuitionistic fuzzy logics (propositional, predicate, modal and temporal) were developed (see [2]). In the frames of the propositional intuitionistic fuzzy logic now there have been defined more than 190 different intuitionistic fuzzy implications. Except for the authors, intuitionistic fuzzy implications have been researched in details also by L. Atanassova, who in [3,4,5,6] introduced 11 implications ( 139 , , 149 ), and by P. Dworniczak [7,8,9] (who generalized these to implications 150 , , 152 ). In [10,11], L. Atanassova modified Dworniczak’s implications to 154 , , 165 .
The aim of this whole direction of research over the intuitionistic fuzziness is to define a large set of possible implications and determined among them such a subset of implications that have the most suitable form and properties allowing for real use in different decision making applications.
In some definitions we shall use functions s g and s g ¯ :
s g ( x ) = 1 i f   x > 0 0 i f   x 0 , s g ¯ ( x ) = 0 i f   x > 0 1 i f   x 0 .
Let everywhere intuitionistic fuzzy truth values of variables x and y be: x = a , b , y = c , d .
The geometrical interpretation of an element x E with degrees μ A ( x ) and ν A ( x ) are shown on Figure 1 (see [2]).
In [12], these pairs are called Intuitionistic Fuzzy Pairs (IFPs). The IFP a , b is:
  • A tautology if and only if (iff) a = 1 and b = 0 ;
  • An intuitionistic fuzzy tautology (IFT) iff a c & b d .
For the two IFPs x and y, let x y iff a c and b d .

2. Main Results

Let us suppose everywhere below that for each p > 0 ,
s g ( 0 ) p 0 = 0 .
Let us define for the IFPs x and y:
a , b c , d = s g ¯ ( a c ) + s g ( a c ) c 1 b , s g ( a c ) a c 1 b
First, we shall show that the definition of the new implication is correct.
Let a , b , c , d [ 0 , 1 ] such that a + b 1 and c + d 1 . Then, obviously:
0 s g ¯ ( a c ) + s g ( a c ) c 1 b , 0 s g ( a c ) a c 1 b .
On the other hand, let
X s g ¯ ( a c ) + s g ( a c ) c 1 b , Y s g ( a c ) a c 1 b .
If a c , then
X = 1 + 0 = 1 , Y = 0
and if a > c , then
X = 0 + c 1 b c a < 1 , Y = a c 1 b a c a < 1 .
Finally, let
X s g ¯ ( a c ) + s g ( a c ) c 1 b + s g ( a c ) a c 1 b .
If a > c , then b < 1 , s g ( a c ) = 1 and s g ¯ ( a c ) = 0 , i.e.,
X = 0 + c 1 b + a c 1 b = a 1 b 1 .
If a c , then, s g ( a c ) = 0 and s g ¯ ( a c ) = 1 , i.e.,
X = 1 + 0 + 0 = 1 .
Therefore, the definition of the new implication is correct.
Now, we see that
a , b c , d = 1 , 0 , i f   a c c 1 b , a c 1 b , i f   a > c
When we have fuzzy but not intuitionistic fuzzy variables, i.e., b = 1 a , d = 1 c , then
a , 1 a c , 1 c = s g ¯ ( a c ) + s g ( a c ) c a , s g ( a c ) a c a = 1 , 0 , i f   a c c a , 1 c a , i f   a > c
Therefore, we obtain the standard Goguen’s implication.
In Figure 2, Figure 3, Figure 4 and Figure 5, we illustrate the proposed here intuitionistic fuzzy Goguen’s implication for the four basic possible scenarios for the mutual placement of the elements x and y, with particular numerical values.
The new implication generates the following negation.
¬ a , b = a , b 0 , 1 = s g ¯ ( a ) + s g ( a ) 0 1 b , s g ( a ) a 1 b = s g ¯ ( a ) , s g ( a ) a 1 b = 1 , 0 , i f   a = 0 0 , a 1 b , i f   a > 0
Now, we check directly the following equalities:
0 , 1 0 , 1 = 1 , 0 , 0 , 1 0 , 0 = 1 , 0 , 0 , 1 1 , 0 = 1 , 0 , 0 , 0 0 , 1 = 1 , 0 , 0 , 0 0 , 0 = 1 , 0 , 0 , 0 1 , 0 = 1 , 0 , 1 , 0 0 , 1 = 0 , 1 , 1 , 0 0 , 0 = 0 , 1 , 1 , 0 1 , 0 = 1 , 0 .
Theorem 1.
The new implication
(a)
satisfies x x as a tautology;
(b)
satisfies x ¬ ¬ x as a tautology;
(c)
does not satisfy ¬ ¬ x x even as an IFT.
Proof. 
First, we see that for each real number p:
s g ¯ ( s g ¯ ( p ) ) = 0 , i f   p 0 1 , i f   p > 0 = s g ( p ) , s g ¯ ( s g ( p ) ) = 1 , i f   p 0 0 , i f   p > 0 = s g ¯ ( p ) , s g ( s g ¯ ( p ) ) = 1 , i f   p 0 0 , i f   p > 0 = s g ¯ ( p ) , s g ( s g ( p ) ) = 0 , i f   p 0 1 , i f   p > 0 = s g ( p ) ,
and
¬ ¬ a , b = ¬ s g ¯ ( a ) , s g ( a ) a 1 b = s g ¯ ( s g ¯ ( a ) ) , s g ( s g ¯ ( a ) ) s g ¯ ( a ) 1 s g ( a ) a 1 b = s g ( a ) , ( 1 s g ¯ ( a ) ) s g ¯ ( a ) 1 s g ( a ) a 1 b = 0 , i f   a = 0 1 , i f   a > 0 .
For (a) we see that
x x = a , b a , b = s g ¯ ( a a ) + s g ( a a ) c 1 b , s g ( a a ) a a 1 b = 1 , 0 .
Therefore, x x is a tautology.
For (b) we obtain:
x ¬ ¬ x = a , b ¬ ¬ a , b = a , b s g ( a ) , ( 1 s g ¯ ( a ) ) s g ¯ ( a ) 1 s g ( a ) a 1 b = s g ¯ ( a s g ( a ) ) + s g ( a s g ( a ) ) s g ( a ) 1 b , s g ( a s g ( a ) ) a s g ( a ) 1 b .
If a = 0 , then x ¬ ¬ x = 1 + 0 , 0 = 1 , 0 .
If a > 0 , then x ¬ ¬ x = s g ¯ ( a 1 ) + s g ( a 1 ) 1 1 b , s g ( a 1 ) a 1 1 b = 1 , 0 .
Therefore, x ¬ ¬ x is a tautology.
For (c) we see directly that
¬ ¬ x x = ¬ ¬ a , b a , b = s g ( a ) , ( 1 s g ¯ ( a ) ) s g ¯ ( a ) 1 s g ( a ) a 1 b a , b = s g ¯ ( s g ( a ) a ) + s g ( s g ( a ) a ) a 1 ( 1 s g ¯ ( a ) ) s g ¯ ( a ) 1 s g ( a ) a 1 b , s g ( s g ( a ) a ) s g ( a ) a 1 ( 1 s g ¯ ( a ) ) s g ¯ ( a ) 1 s g ( a ) a 1 b .
If a = 0 , then ¬ ¬ x x = 1 , 0 . If a > 0 , then
¬ ¬ x x = s g ¯ ( 1 a ) + s g ( 1 a ) a 1 0 1 s g ( a ) a 1 b , s g ( 1 a ) 1 a 1 0 1 s g ( a ) a 1 b = s g ¯ ( 1 a ) + s g ( 1 a ) a , s g ( 1 a ) ( 1 a ) .
If a < 1 , then ¬ ¬ x x = a , 1 a .
Obviously, if a < 0.5 , then ¬ ¬ x x is not an IFT.
Finally, if a = 1 , then ¬ ¬ x x = 1 , 0 .
Therefore, ¬ ¬ x x , it is not an IFT and hence, it is not a tautology either. □
Theorem 2.
The new implication
(a)
satisfies Modus Ponens in the sense of a (classical) tautology,
(b)
does not satisfy Modus Ponens in the sense of an intuitionistic fuzzy tautology.
Proof. 
(a) Let a , b be a tautology, i.e., a = 1 and b = 0 and let a , b c , d be a tautology, i.e., s g ¯ ( a c ) + s g ( a c ) c 1 b = 1 and s g ( a c ) a c 1 b = 0 . Then
1 = s g ¯ ( a c ) + s g ( a c ) c 1 b = s g ¯ ( 1 c ) + s g ( 1 c ) c .
If c = 1 and hence d = 0 , the equality is valid, while if c < 1 , then the right-hand side of the equality is equal to c < 1 , that is a contradiction. Therefore, c , d is a tautology.
(b) Let a , b = 0 , 0 , i.e., an IFT. Then,
s g ¯ ( a c ) + s g ( a c ) c 1 b , s g ( a c ) a c 1 b = 1 , 0
will be an IFT, e.g., for c , d = 0.1 , 0.2 , but the latest pair is not an IFT, i.e., the Modus Ponens is not valid. □
Some variants of fuzzy implications are described in the book of Klir and Yuan [1] and the following nine axioms are discussed, where I ( x , y ) denotes x y for any of the possible forms of the operation implication, N is the operation negation related with operation →:
  • Axiom A 1 ( x , y ) ( x y ( z ) ( I ( x , z ) I ( y , z ) ) ) ,
  • Axiom A 2 ( x , y ) ( x y ( z ) ( I ( z , x ) I ( z , y ) ) ) ,
  • Axiom A 3 ( y ) ( I ( 0 , y ) = 1 ) ,
  • Axiom A 4 ( y ) ( I ( 1 , y ) = y ) ,
  • Axiom A 5 ( x ) ( I ( x , x ) = 1 ) ,
  • Axiom A 6 ( x , y , z ) ( I ( x , I ( y , z ) ) = I ( y , I ( x , z ) ) ) ,
  • Axiom A 7 ( x , y ) ( I ( x , y ) = 1 iff x y ) ,
  • Axiom A 8 ( x , y ) ( I ( x , y ) = I ( N ( y ) , N ( x ) ) ) ,
  • Axiom A 9 I is a continuous function.
For the purposes of our research, having in mind the specific forms of the intuitionistic fuzzy implication → and following [2], we modify three of these axioms, as follows.
  • Axiom A 4 * ( y ) ( I ( 1 , y ) y ) ,
  • Axiom A 7 * ( x , y ) ( if x y , then, I ( x , y ) is an IFT),
  • Axiom A 8 * ( x , y ) ( I ( I ( x , y ) , I ( N ( y ) , N ( x ) ) ) ) is a tautology.
In this way, the so modified axioms hold, but in weaker conditions, i.e., if the axioms A 4 , A 7 , A 8 hold, then the weaker axioms A 4 * , A 7 * , A 8 * also hold, but this is not always true in the other direction.
Theorem 3.
The new intuitionistic fuzzy implication satisfies axioms A 2 , A 3 , A 4 * , A 5 , A 7 * and A 8 * and it does not satisfy axioms A 1 , A 4 , A 6 , A 7 , A 8 and A 9 .
Proof. 
For the validity of A 1 we obtain the following.
Let a c and b d . Then
I ( x , z ) = s g ¯ ( a e ) + s g ( a e ) e 1 b , s g ( a e ) a e 1 b
I ( y , z ) = s g ¯ ( c e ) + s g ( c e ) e 1 b , s g ( c e ) c e 1 d
Now, we study the expressions
X s g ¯ ( a e ) + s g ( a e ) e 1 b s g ¯ ( c e ) s g ( c e ) e 1 d
and
Y s g ( a e ) a e 1 b s g ( c e ) c e 1 d .
For X we obtain the following.
Let a e . Then
X 1 s g ¯ ( c e ) s g ( c e ) e 1 d .
If c < e , then X = 1 1 0 = 0 .
If c e , then, due to 1 d c e , X 1 e 1 d 0 .
Let a > e . Then c a > e and
X = e 1 b s g ¯ ( c e ) s g ( c e ) e 1 d .
= e 1 b s g ( c e ) e 1 d .
If c = a = e , then
X = e 1 b 0 .
If c > e , then from b d it follows that
X = e 1 b e 1 d = e 1 1 b 1 1 d 0 .
Therefore, in all cases X 0 .
For Y we obtain the following.
Let a e . Then obviously Y = s g ( c e ) c e 1 d .
When c > e , then Y < 0 and therefore the axiom is not true.
For the validity of A 2 we obtain the following.
Let a c and b d . Then
I ( z , x ) = s g ¯ ( e a ) + s g ( e a ) a 1 f , s g ( e a ) e a 1 f ,
I ( z , y ) = s g ¯ ( e c ) + s g ( e c ) c 1 f , s g ( e c ) e c 1 f .
Now, we study the expressions
X s g ¯ ( e c ) + s g ( e c ) c 1 f s g ¯ ( e a ) s g ( e a ) a 1 f
and
Y s g ( e a ) e a 1 f s g ( e c ) e c 1 f .
For X we obtain the following.
Let e c . Then X = 1 s g ¯ ( e a ) s g ( e a ) a 1 f .
If e a , then X = 1 1 = 0 .
If e > a , then X = 1 a 1 f 1 a e > 0 .
Let e > c . Then e > c a and X = 1 a 1 f 1 a e > 0 .
Therefore, in all cases X 0 .
For Y we obtain the following.
Let a < e . Then Y = e a 1 f s g ( e c ) e c 1 f .
If c < e , then Y = e a 1 f e c 1 f = c a 1 f 0 .
If c e , then Y = e a 1 f 0 .
Therefore, in all cases Y 0 and hence A 2 is valid.
The check of A 3 is trivial:
0 , 1 a , b = s g ¯ ( a ) + s g ( a ) 0 0 , s g ( a ) a 0 = 1 , 0 .
For axioms A 4 and A 4 * we obtain the following.
X 1 , 0 a , b = s g ¯ ( 1 a ) + s g ( 1 a ) a 1 , s g ( 1 a ) 1 a 1 = s g ¯ ( 1 a ) + s g ( 1 a ) a , s g ( 1 a ) ( 1 a ) .
If a = 1 , then X = 1 , 0 , while if a < 1 , then X = a , 1 a a , b .
Therefore, axiom A 4 is not valid, but axiom A 4 * is true.
The check of axiom A 5 is trivial:
a , b a , b = s g ¯ ( a a ) + s g ( a a ) a 1 b , s g ( a a ) a a 1 b = 1 , 0 ,
while the checks that axioms A 6 , A 7 and A 8 are similar to the check of the non-validity of axiom A 1 . For example, for x = 0.2 , 0.0 and y = 0.3 , 0.7 , x y = 1 , 0 , but x y .
Finally, we will check the validity of A 8 * .
I ( I ( x , y ) , I ( N ( y ) , N ( x ) ) ) = ( a , b c , d ) ( ¬ c , d ¬ a , b ) = ( a , b c , d ) s g ¯ ( c ) , s g ( c ) c 1 d s g ¯ ( a ) , s g ( a ) a 1 b = s g ¯ ( a c ) + s g ( a c ) c 1 b , s g ( a c ) a c 1 b s g ¯ ( s g ¯ ( c ) s g ¯ ( a ) ) + s g ( s g ¯ ( c ) s g ¯ ( a ) ) s g ¯ ( a ) 1 s g ( c ) c 1 d , s g ( s g ¯ ( c ) s g ¯ ( a ) ) s g ¯ ( c ) s g ¯ ( a ) 1 s g ( c ) c 1 d = s g ¯ ( a c ) + s g ( a c ) c 1 b , s g ( a c ) a c 1 b s g ¯ ( s g ¯ ( c ) s g ¯ ( a ) ) + s g ( s g ¯ ( c ) s g ¯ ( a ) ) s g ¯ ( a ) ( 1 d ) 1 d s g ( c ) c , s g ( s g ¯ ( c ) s g ¯ ( a ) ) ( s g ¯ ( c ) s g ¯ ( a ) ) ( 1 d ) 1 d s g ( c ) c = s g ¯ ( a c ) + s g ( a c ) c 1 b , s g ( a c ) a c 1 b s g ¯ ( s g ¯ ( c ) s g ¯ ( a ) ) + s g ( s g ¯ ( c ) s g ¯ ( a ) ) s g ¯ ( a ) ( 1 d ) 1 c d , s g ( s g ¯ ( c ) s g ¯ ( a ) ) ( s g ¯ ( c ) s g ¯ ( a ) ) ( 1 d ) 1 c d = s g ¯ ( s g ¯ ( a c ) + s g ( a c ) c 1 b s g ¯ ( s g ¯ ( c ) s g ¯ ( a ) ) s g ( s g ¯ ( c ) s g ¯ ( a ) ) s g ¯ ( a ) ( 1 d ) 1 c d ) + s g ( s g ¯ ( a c ) + s g ( a c ) c 1 b s g ¯ ( s g ¯ ( c ) s g ¯ ( a ) ) s g ( s g ¯ ( c ) s g ¯ ( a ) ) s g ¯ ( a ) ( 1 d ) 1 c d ) s g ¯ ( s g ¯ ( c ) s g ¯ ( a ) ) + s g ( s g ¯ ( c ) s g ¯ ( a ) ) s g ¯ ( a ) ( 1 d ) 1 c d 1 s g ( a c ) a c 1 b , s g ( s g ¯ ( a c ) + s g ( a c ) c 1 b s g ¯ ( s g ¯ ( c ) s g ¯ ( a ) ) s g ( s g ¯ ( c ) s g ¯ ( a ) ) s g ¯ ( a ) ( 1 d ) 1 c d ) s g ¯ ( a c ) + s g ( a c ) c 1 b s g ¯ ( s g ¯ ( c ) s g ¯ ( a ) ) s g ( s g ¯ ( c ) s g ¯ ( a ) ) s g ¯ ( a ) ( 1 d ) 1 c d 1 s g ( a c ) a c 1 b .
Let
X s g ¯ ( s g ¯ ( a c ) + s g ( a c ) c 1 b s g ¯ ( s g ¯ ( c ) s g ¯ ( a ) ) s g ( s g ¯ ( c ) s g ¯ ( a ) ) s g ¯ ( a ) ( 1 d ) 1 c d ) + s g s g ¯ ( a c ) + s g ( a c ) c 1 b s g ¯ ( s g ¯ ( c ) s g ¯ ( a ) ) s g ( s g ¯ ( c ) s g ¯ ( a ) ) s g ¯ ( a ) ( 1 d ) 1 c d . s g ¯ ( s g ¯ ( c ) s g ¯ ( a ) ) + s g ( s g ¯ ( c ) s g ¯ ( a ) ) s g ¯ ( a ) ( 1 d ) 1 c d 1 s g ( a c ) a c 1 b .
If a c , then s g ¯ ( c ) s g ¯ ( a ) , i.e., s g ¯ ( s g ¯ ( c ) s g ¯ ( a ) ) = 1 , s g ( s g ¯ ( c ) s g ¯ ( a ) = 0 and
X = s g ¯ ( 1 1 0 . s g ¯ ( a ) ( 1 d ) 1 c d ) + 0 . s g 1 + 0 . c 1 b 1 0 . s g ¯ ( a ) ( 1 d ) 1 c d . 1 + 0 s g ¯ ( a ) ( 1 d ) 1 c d 1 0 . a c 1 b = s g ¯ ( 0 ) = 1 .
If a > c , then s g ( a ) = 1 , s g ¯ ( a ) = 0 , s g ¯ ( a c ) = 0 , s g ( a c ) = 1 , s g ¯ ( c ) s g ¯ ( a ) , i.e., s g ( s g ¯ ( c ) s g ¯ ( a ) ) = 1 , s g ( s g ¯ ( c ) s g ¯ ( a ) = 0 and
X = s g ¯ ( 0 + c 1 b s g ¯ ( s g ¯ ( c ) ) s g ( s g ¯ ( c ) ) . 0 ) + s g 0 + c 1 b s g ¯ ( s g ¯ ( c ) ) s g ( s g ¯ ( c ) ) . 0 . s g ¯ ( s g ¯ ( c ) ) + s g ( s g ¯ ( c ) ) . 0 1 a c 1 b = s g ¯ ( c 1 b s g ¯ ( s g ¯ ( c ) ) ) + s g c 1 b s g ¯ ( s g ¯ ( c ) ) s g ¯ ( s g ¯ ( c ) ) 1 a c 1 b .
If c = 0 , then
X = s g ¯ ( 0 s g ¯ ( 1 ) ) + s g ( 0 s g ¯ ( 1 ) ) s g ¯ ( 0 ) 1 a 1 b = s g ¯ ( 0 ) + s g ( 0 ) 1 1 a 1 b = 1 + 0 = 1 .
If c > 0 , then
X = s g ¯ ( c 1 b s g ¯ ( 0 ) ) + s g c 1 b s g ¯ ( 0 ) s g ¯ ( 0 ) 1 a c 1 b = s g ¯ ( c 1 b 1 ) + s g c 1 b 1 1 1 a c 1 b
and since from c 1 b 1 it follows that s g ( c 1 b 1 ) = 0 and s g ¯ ( c 1 b 1 ) = 1 , then
X = 1 .
Therefore, A 8 * is valid as a tautology. □

3. Conclusions

In this paper, we have introduced a new intuitionistic fuzzy implication that has intuitionistic but not classical behaviour.
In a future leg of the present research, new properties of the new implication will be studied. We will check which axioms of Brower’s intuitionistic logic and which Kolmogorov’s axioms are valid. We will study the relations between the newly proposed implication and the existing ones.
The intuitionistic fuzzy Goguen’s implication will be modified similarly to the the modification of the other implications, discussed in [2].
In future, three new intuitionistic fuzzy conjunctions and disjunctions will be defined in the sense of [13,14,15].

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.A.; methodology, K.A.; software, N.A.; validation, K.A.; formal analysis, K.A.; investigation, K.A., N.A., V.A.; writing—original draft preparation, K.A.; writing—review and editing, V.A.; visualization, V.A.; supervision, K.A.; project administration, K.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The research is supported by the National Science Fund of Bulgaria under Grant Ref. No. DN-02-10/2016.

Acknowledgments

The authors are thankful to the anonymous reviewers for their valuable remarks that improved the readability of the paper.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Klir, G.; Yuan, B. Fuzzy Sets and Fuzzy Logic; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
  2. Atanassov, K. Intuitionistic Fuzzy Logics; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  3. Atanassova, L. A new intuitionistic fuzzy implication. Cybern. Inf. Technol. 2009, 9, 21–25. [Google Scholar]
  4. Atanassova, L. On some properties of intuitionistic fuzzy negation ¬@. Notes Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets 2009, 15, 32–35. [Google Scholar]
  5. Atanassova, L. On two modifications of the intuitionistic fuzzy implication →@. Notes Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets 2012, 18, 26–30. [Google Scholar]
  6. Atanassova, L. On the modal form of the intuitionistic fuzzy implications @ and @ . Issues Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets Gen. Nets 2013, 10, 5–11. [Google Scholar]
  7. Dworniczak, P. Some remarks about the L. Atanassova’s paper “A new intuitionistic fuzzy implication”. Cybern. Inf. Technol. 2010, 10, 3–9. [Google Scholar]
  8. Dworniczak, P. On one class of intuitionistic fuzzy implications. Cybern. Inf. Technol. 2010, 10, 13–21. [Google Scholar]
  9. Dworniczak, P. On some two-parametric intuitionistic fuzzy implications. Notes Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets 2011, 17, 8–16. [Google Scholar]
  10. Atanassova, L. Remark on Dworniczak’s intuitionistic fuzzy implications. Part 1. Notes Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets 2015, 21, 18–23. [Google Scholar]
  11. Atanassova, L. Remark on Dworniczak’s intuitionistic fuzzy implications. Part 2. Issues Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets Gen. Nets 2016, 12, 61–67. [Google Scholar]
  12. Atanassov, K.; Szmidt, E.; Kacprzyk, J. On intuitionistic fuzzy pairs. Notes Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets 2013, 19, 1–13. [Google Scholar]
  13. Angelova, N.; Stoenchev, M. Intuitionistic fuzzy conjunctions and disjunctions from first type. Annu. Inform. Sect. Union Sci. Bulg. 2016, 8, 1–17. [Google Scholar]
  14. Angelova, N.; Stoenchev, M.; Todorov, V. Intuitionistic fuzzy conjunctions and disjunctions from second type. Issues Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets Gen. Nets 2017, 13, 143–170. [Google Scholar]
  15. Angelova, N.; Stoenchev, M. Intuitionistic fuzzy conjunctions and disjunctions from third type. Notes Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets 2017, 23, 29–41. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. The geometrical interpretations of elements x E .
Figure 1. The geometrical interpretations of elements x E .
Mathematics 09 00676 g001
Figure 2. The geometrical interpretations of elements x, y and x y : first scenario.
Figure 2. The geometrical interpretations of elements x, y and x y : first scenario.
Mathematics 09 00676 g002
Figure 3. The geometrical interpretations of elements x, y and x y : second scenario.
Figure 3. The geometrical interpretations of elements x, y and x y : second scenario.
Mathematics 09 00676 g003
Figure 4. The geometrical interpretations of elements x, y and x y : third scenario.
Figure 4. The geometrical interpretations of elements x, y and x y : third scenario.
Mathematics 09 00676 g004
Figure 5. The geometrical interpretations of elements x, y and x y : fourth scenario.
Figure 5. The geometrical interpretations of elements x, y and x y : fourth scenario.
Mathematics 09 00676 g005
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Atanassov, K.; Angelova, N.; Atanassova, V. On an Intuitionistic Fuzzy Form of the Goguen’s Implication. Mathematics 2021, 9, 676. https://doi.org/10.3390/math9060676

AMA Style

Atanassov K, Angelova N, Atanassova V. On an Intuitionistic Fuzzy Form of the Goguen’s Implication. Mathematics. 2021; 9(6):676. https://doi.org/10.3390/math9060676

Chicago/Turabian Style

Atanassov, Krassimir, Nora Angelova, and Vassia Atanassova. 2021. "On an Intuitionistic Fuzzy Form of the Goguen’s Implication" Mathematics 9, no. 6: 676. https://doi.org/10.3390/math9060676

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop