Research Article  Open Access
Generalized Lower and Upper Approximations in Quantales
Abstract
We introduce the concepts of setvalued homomorphism and strong setvalued homomorphism of a quantale which are the extended notions of congruence and complete congruence, respectively. The properties of generalized lower and upper approximations, constructed by a setvalued mapping, are discussed.
1. Introduction
The concept of Rough set was introduced by Pawlak [1] as a mathematical tool for dealing with vagueness or uncertainty. In Pawlakās rough sets, the equivalence classes are the building blocks for the construction of the lower and upper approximations. It soon invoked a natural question concerning a possible connection between rough sets and algebraic systems. Biswas and Nanda [2] introduced the notion of rough subgroups. Kuroki [3] and Qimei [4] introduced the notions of a rough ideal and a rough prime ideal in a semigroup, respectively. Davvaz in [5] introduced the notion of rough subring with respect to an ideal of a ring. Rough modules have been investigated by Davvaz and Mahdavipour [6]. Rasouli and Davvaz studied the roughness in MValgebra [7]. In [8ā12], the roughness of various hyperstructures are discussed. Further, some authors consider the rough set in a fuzzy algebraic system, see [13ā16]. The concept of quantale was introduced by Mulvey [17] in 1986 with the purpose of studying the spectrum of C*algebra, as well as constructive foundations for quantum mechanics. There are abundant contents in the structure of quantales, because quantale can be regarded as the generalization of frame. Since quantale theory provides a powerful tool in studying noncommutative structures, it has wide applications, especially in studying noncommutative C*algebra theory, the ideal theory of commutative ring, linear logic, and so on. The quantale theory has aroused great interests of many researchers, and a great deal of new ideas and applications of quantale have been proposed in twenty years [18ā24].
The majority of studies on rough sets for algebraic structures such as semigroups, groups, rings, and modules have been concentrated on a congruence relation. An equivalence relation is sometimes difficult to be obtained in realworld problems due to the vagueness and incompleteness of human knowledge. From this point of view, Davvaz [25] introduced the concept of setvalued homomorphism for groups. And then, Yamak et al. [26, 27] introduced the concepts of setvalued homomorphism and strong setvalued homomorphism of a ring and a module. In this paper, the concepts of setvalued homomorphism and strong setvalued homomorphism in quantales are introduced. We discuss the properties of generalized lower and upper approximations in quantales.
2. Preliminaries
In this section, we give some basic notions and results about quantales and rough set theory (see [19, 22, 25, 28]), which will be necessary in the next sections.
Definition 2.1. A quantale is a complete lattice with an associative binary operation satisfying
for all .
An element is called a left (right) unit if and only if (), is called a unit if it is both a right and left unit.
A quantale is called a commutative quantale if for all .
A quantale is called an idempotent quantale if for all .
A subset of is called a subquantale of if it is closed under and arbitrary sups.
In a quantale , we denote the top element of by 1 and the bottom by 0. For , we write to denote the set , to denote and .
Definition 2.2. Let be a quantale, a subset is called a left (right) ideal of if(1) implies ,(2) and imply for all,(3) and imply ().
A subset is called an ideal if it is both a left and a right ideal.
Let be a subset of , we write for some , is a lower set if and only if . It is obvious that an ideal is a directed lower set. For every (left, right) ideal of , it is easy to see that .
An ideal of is called a prime ideal if implies or for all .
An ideal of is called a semiprime ideal if implies for all .
An ideal of () is called a primary ideal if for all , and imply for some . ().
Definition 2.3. A nonempty subset is called an system of , if for all , .
A nonempty subset is called a multiplicative set of , if for all .
Every ideal of is both an system and a multiplicative set.
Definition 2.4. Let be a quantale, an equivalence relation on is called a congruence on if for all , we have(1),(2).It is obvious that , for all .
Definition 2.5. Let be a quantale, a congruence on is called a complete congruence, if(1) for all ,(2) for all .
Definition 2.6. Let and be two quantales. A map is said to be a homomorphism if(1) for all ;(2) for all .
Definition 2.7. Let and be two nonempty universes. Let be a setvalued mapping given by , where denotes the set of all subsets of . Then the triple is referred to as a generalized approximation space. For any set , the generalized lower and upper approximations, and , are defined by
The pair is referred to as a generalized rough set.
From the definition, the following theorems can be easily derived.
Theorem 2.8. Let be nonempty universes and be a setvalued mapping, where denotes the set of all nonempty subsets of . If , then .
If and is an equivalence relation on , then the pair is the Pawlak approximation space. Therefore, a generalized rough set is an extended notion of Pawlakās rough set.
Theorem 2.9. Let be a generalized approximation space, its lower and upper approximation operators satisfy the following properties. For all , (1), ,(2), ,(3), ,(4), ,(5), ,where is the complement of the set .
3. Generalized Rough Subsets in Quantales
In this paper, and are two quantales.
Theorem 3.1. Let be a setvalued mapping and . Then(1), if ,(2), if ,(3),(4), if is an idempotent quantale,(5), if ,(6), if .
Proof. (1) Suppose that , we have for . So . Similarly, . So . By Theorem 2.9, we have .
(2) Suppose that , we have for . So . Similarly, . So . By Theorem 2.9, we have .
(3) It is obvious that . By Theorem 2.9, we have .
(4) Since is an idempotent quantale, we have . By Theorem 2.9, we have .
(5) and (6) The proofs are similar to (1) and (2), respectively.
Definition 3.2. A setvalued mapping is called a setvalued homomorphism if(1) for all ,(2) for all .
is called a strong setvalued homomorphism if the equalities in (1), (2) hold.
Example 3.3. (1) Let be a congruence on . Then the setvalued mapping defined by is a setvalued homomorphism but not necessarily a strong setvalued homomorphism. If is complete, then is a strong setvalued homomorphism.
(2) Let be a quantale homomorphism from to . Then the setvalued mapping defined by is a strong setvalued homomorphism.
Theorem 3.4. Let be a setvalued homomorphism and . Then(1),(2),(3),(4), if is an idempotent quantale.
Proof. (1) Suppose that , there exist such that . So there exist and . Hence and . Since is a setvalued homomorphism, we have . Therefore, which implies that .
(2) The proof is similar to (1).
(3) Suppose that , there exist and . Since is a setvalued homomorphism, we have . So which implies that .
(4) Suppose that , there exist and . Since is a setvalued homomorphism and is idempotent, we have . So which implies that .
Theorem 3.5. Let be a strong setvalued homomorphism and . Then(1),(2).
Proof. (1) Suppose that , there exist such that . Hence and . Since is a strong setvalued homomorphism, we have which implies that .
(2) The proof is similar to (1).
4. Generalized Rough Ideals in Quantales
Theorem 4.1. Let be a setvalued mapping. If and are, respectively, a right and a left ideal of , then(1),(2),(3),(4),(5),(6).
If is an idempotent quantale and is a setvalued homomorphism, then the equalities in (1)ā(3) hold.
Proof. Since and are, respectively, a right and a left ideal of , we have , and . By Theorem 2.9, we get the conclusion (1)ā(4). By Theorem 3.1, we get (5) and (6).
If is idempotent, we first show that . Suppose that , there exist such that . So, and . Since T is a setvalued homomorphism and is idempotent, we have . Therefore, . So the equality in (1) holds. Since is idempotent, we have . So . By Theorem 2.9, we get . Since the equality in (1) holds, we have .
Lemma 4.2. Let be a setvalued homomorphism. If is a lower set of , then is a lower set of .
Proof. Suppose , then . Let , we have . Since is a lower set, we have . Therefore, which implies that .
Lemma 4.3. Let be a strong setvalued homomorphism. If is a lower set of , then is a lower set of .
Proof. Suppose that , there exists . Since is a strong setvalued homomorphism, we have . So there exist such that . Since is a lower set, we have . Thus which follows that .
Lemma 4.4. Let be a setvalued homomorphism and a nonempty subset of . If is closed under arbitrary (resp., finite) sups, then is closed under arbitrary (resp., finite) sups.
Proof. Let . For each , we have , then there exist . Since is a setvalued homomorphism, we have . And we have for A is closed under arbitrary sups. So which implies that .
Lemma 4.5. Let be a strong setvalued homomorphism and a nonempty subset of . If is closed under arbitrary (resp., finite) sups, then is closed under arbitrary (resp., finite) sups.
Proof. Let . For each , we have . Since is a strong setvalued homomorphism, we have . Suppose , there exist () such that . Since is closed under arbitrary sups, we have . So which implies that .
Theorem 4.6. Let be a setvalued homomorphism. If is a subquantale of , then is a subquantale of .
Proof. Since is a setvalued homomorphism and is a subquantale, by Theorems 3.4 and 2.9, we have . So, is closed under .
Since is closed under arbitrary sups, by Lemma 4.4, we get is closed under arbitrary sups.
Theorem 4.7. Let be a strong setvalued homomorphism. If is a subquantale of , then is a subquantale of .
Proof. The proof is similar to Theorem 4.6.
Theorem 4.8. Let be a strong setvalued homomorphism and a right (left) ideal of . Then is, if it is nonempty, a right (left) ideal of .
Proof. Suppose that . Since is closed under finite sups, by Lemma 4.4, we have is closed under finite sups. So .
Since is a lower set, by Lemma 4.3, we have is a lower set.
Suppose , there exists . Since is a right ideal of , we have for each . So . Therefore, which implies that .
Theorem 4.9. Let be a strong setvalued homomorphism and a right (left) ideal of . Then is, if it is nonempty, a right (left) ideal of .
Proof. Suppose . Since is closed under finite sups, by Lemma 4.5, we have is closed under finite sups. So, .
Since is a lower set, by Lemma 4.2, we have is a lower set.
Suppose , we have . Let . Since is a strong setvalued homomorphism, we have , then there exist , such that . Since is a right ideal, we have . Therefore, which implies that .
Definition 4.10. A subset is called a generalized rough ideal (subquantale) of if and are ideals (subquantales) of .
The following corollary follows from Theorems 4.6ā4.9.
Corollary 4.11. Let be a strong setvalued homomorphism and an ideal (a subquantale) of . If and are nonempty, then is a generalized rough ideal (subquantale) of .
From the above, we know that an ideal is a generalized rough ideal with respect to a strong setvalued homomorphism. The following example shows that the converse does not hold in general.
Example 4.12. Let and be quantales shown in Figures 1 and 2 and Tables 1 and 2.
Let be a strong setvalued homomorphism as defined by . Let , , then and . It is obvious that is a generalized rough ideal of but is not an ideal of and is a generalized rough subquantale of but is not a subquantale of .


Theorem 4.13. Let be a strong setvalued homomorphism and a prime ideal of . Then is, if it is nonempty, a prime ideal of .
Proof. By Theorem 4.8, we get is an ideal of .
Let , there exists . Since is a strong setvalued homomorphism, we have , then there exist such that . Since is a prime ideal of , we have or . So or which implies that or .
Theorem 4.14. Let be a strong setvalued homomorphism and a prime ideal of . Then is, if it is nonempty, a prime ideal of .
Proof. By Theorem 4.9, we get is an ideal of .
Let , we have . Since is a strong setvalued homomorphism, we have . We assume that , then , there exists but . If , then . Since is a prime ideal of , we have . Therefore, which implies that .
We call is a generalized rough prime ideal of if and are ideals of .
Theorem 4.15. Let be a strong setvalued homomorphism and a semiprime ideal of . Then is, if it is nonempty, a semiprime ideal of .
Proof. By Theorem 4.9, we get is an ideal of .
Suppose that , we have . Let , we have . Since is a semiprime ideal, we have . So which implies that .
Theorem 4.16. Let be a strong setvalued homomorphism and a primary ideal of . Then is, if and , a primary ideal of .
Proof. By Theorem 4.8, we get is an ideal of .
Suppose that and , there exists . Since is a strong setvalued homomorphism, we have , there exist , such that . Since , we get . Since is a primary ideal, we have for some Since is a strong setvalued homomorphism, we have . So which implies that .
Theorem 4.17. Let be a strong setvalued homomorphism and a primary ideal of . Let be a commutative quantale and a finite set for each . Then is, if and , a primary ideal of .
Proof. By Theorem 4.9, we get is an ideal of .
Suppose and , then and . So there exists with . We assume that , then . Since is a primary ideal, there exists for some . Let . Since is an ideal, we have . Let . Since is commutative, there exists such that with , where . Assume that , then . It contradicts with . Therefore, there is such that , we have . Since is an ideal, we get . Hence which implies that .
Theorem 4.18. Let be a setvalued homomorphism. If is a multiplicative set of , then is, if it is nonempty, a multiplicative of . If is a strong setvalued homomorphism, then is, if it is nonempty, a multiplicative of .
Proof. Suppose that , there exist , . Hence . Since is a multiplicative set, we have . Therefore, which implies that .
Suppose , then . Let . Since is a strong setvalued homomorphism, we have . There exist such that . Since is a multiplicative set, we have . So which implies that .
We call a generalized rough multiplicative set (system) of , if are multiplicative sets (systems) of .
Theorem 4.19. Let be a setvalued homomorphism. If is commutative and with , then the following statements are equivalent:(1) is a generalized rough prime ideal of ,(2) is a generalized rough ideal and is a generalized rough multiplicative set of ,(3) is a generalized rough ideal and is a generalized rough system of .
Proof. (1)ā(2): Since is a generalized rough prime ideal of , we get is a generalized rough ideal of and , are prime ideals of . Now we show that is a multiplicative set. Let , . By Theorem 2.9(1), we have . Since is a prime ideal, we have which implies that . So is a multiplicative set. Similarly, is a multiplicative set.
(2)ā(3): Let , . Since and , we have . Since is a multiplicative set, we have . So . Therefore, is an system. Similarly, we have is a system.
(3)ā(1): Let . Suppose and , then , . Since is an system, we have . Thus . Since is an ideal and is commutative, we have and . It contradicts with . So, or . Therefore, is a prime ideal. Similarly, we have as a prime ideal.
5. Conclusion
The Pawlak rough sets on the algebraic sets such as semigroups, groups, rings, modules, and lattices were mainly studied by a congruence relation. However, the generalized Pawlak rough set was defined for two universes and proposed on generalized binary relations. Can we extended congruence relations to two universes for algebraic sets? Therefore, Davvaz [25] introduced the concept of setvalued homomorphism for groups which is a generalization of the concept of congruence. In this paper, the concepts of setvalued homomorphism and strong setvalued homomorphism of quantales are introduced. We construct generalized lower and upper approximations by means of a setvalued mapping and discuss the properties of them. We obtain that the concept of generalized rough ideal (subquantale) is the extended notion of ideal (subquantale). Many results in [29] are the special case of the results in this paper. It is an interesting research topic of rough set, we will further study it in the future.
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to the reviewers for their valuable suggestions to improve the paper. This work was supported by the National Science Foundation of China (no. 11071061).
References
 Z. Pawlak, āRough sets,ā International Journal of Computer and Information Sciences, vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 341ā356, 1982. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar  Zentralblatt MATH
 R. Biswas and S. Nanda, āRough groups and rough subgroups,ā Bulletin of the Polish Academy of Sciences Mathmatics, vol. 42, no. 3, pp. 251ā254, 1994. View at: Google Scholar  Zentralblatt MATH
 N. Kuroki, āRough ideals in semigroups,ā Information Sciences, vol. 100, no. 1ā4, pp. 139ā163, 1997. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar  Zentralblatt MATH
 X. Qimei and Z. Zhenliang, āRough prime ideals and rough fuzzy prime ideals in semigroups,ā Information Sciences, vol. 176, no. 6, pp. 725ā733, 2006. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar  Zentralblatt MATH
 B. Davvaz, āRoughness in rings,ā Information Sciences, vol. 164, no. 1ā4, pp. 147ā163, 2004. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar  Zentralblatt MATH
 B. Davvaz and M. Mahdavipour, āRoughness in modules,ā Information Sciences, vol. 176, no. 24, pp. 3658ā3674, 2006. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar  Zentralblatt MATH
 S. Rasouli and B. Davvaz, āRoughness in MValgebras,ā Information Sciences, vol. 180, no. 5, pp. 737ā747, 2010. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar  Zentralblatt MATH
 B. Davvaz, āA new view of approximations in Hvgroups,ā Soft Computing, vol. 10, no. 11, pp. 1043ā1046, 2006. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 B. Davvaz, āApproximations in hyperrings,ā Journal of MultipleValued Logic and Soft Computing, vol. 15, no. 56, pp. 471ā488, 2009. View at: Google Scholar
 O. KazancÄ±, S. Yamak, and B. Davvaz, āThe lower and upper approximations in a quotient hypermodule with respect to fuzzy sets,ā Information Sciences, vol. 178, no. 10, pp. 2349ā2359, 2008. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar  Zentralblatt MATH
 V. LeoreanuFotea and B. Davvaz, āRoughness in nary hypergroups,ā Information Sciences, vol. 178, no. 21, pp. 4114ā4124, 2008. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 V. L. Fotea, āThe lower and upper approximations in a hypergroup,ā Information Sciences, vol. 178, no. 18, pp. 3605ā3615, 2008. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar  Zentralblatt MATH
 B. Davvaz, āRoughness based on fuzzy ideals,ā Information Sciences, vol. 176, no. 16, pp. 2417ā2437, 2006. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar  Zentralblatt MATH
 O. KazancÄ± and B. Davvaz, āOn the structure of rough prime (primary) ideals and rough fuzzy prime (primary) ideals in commutative rings,ā Information Sciences, vol. 178, no. 5, pp. 1343ā1354, 2008. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar  Zentralblatt MATH
 N. Kuroki and P. P. Wang, āThe lower and upper approximations in a fuzzy group,ā Information Sciences, vol. 90, no. 1ā4, pp. 203ā220, 1996. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar  Zentralblatt MATH
 J. N. Mordeson, āRough set theory applied to (fuzzy) ideal theory,ā Fuzzy Sets and Systems, vol. 121, no. 2, pp. 315ā324, 2001. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar  Zentralblatt MATH
 C. J. Mulvey, ā&,ā Rendiconti del Circolo Matematico di Palermo II, supplement 12, pp. 99ā104, 1986. View at: Google Scholar  Zentralblatt MATH
 J. Picado, āThe quantale of Galois connections,ā Algebra Universalis, vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 527ā540, 2004. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar  Zentralblatt MATH
 K. I. Rosenthal, Quantales and Their Applications, vol. 234 of Pitman Research Notes in Mathematics Series, Longman Scientific & Technical, Harlow, UK, 1990.
 J. RosickĆ½, āCharacterizing spatial quantales,ā Algebra Universalis, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 175ā178, 1995. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar  Zentralblatt MATH
 H. Shengwei and Z. Bin, āThe quantic conuclei on quantales,ā Algebra Universalis, vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 97ā114, 2009. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar  Zentralblatt MATH
 W. Shunqin and Z. Bin, āIdeals of quantales,ā Journal of Shaanxi Normal University, vol. 31, no. 4, pp. 7ā10, 2003. View at: Google Scholar  Zentralblatt MATH
 W. Shunqin and Z. Bin, āPrime ideals and weakly prime ideals of quantales,ā Fuzzy Systems and Mathematics, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 78ā81, 2005. View at: Google Scholar
 D. N. Yetter, āQuantales and (noncommutative) linear logic,ā The Journal of Symbolic Logic, vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 41ā64, 1990. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar  Zentralblatt MATH
 B. Davvaz, āA short note on algebraic Trough sets,ā Information Sciences, vol. 178, no. 16, pp. 3247ā3252, 2008. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 S. Yamak, O. KazancÄ±, and B. Davvaz, āGeneralized lower and upper approximations in a ring,ā Information Sciences, vol. 180, no. 9, pp. 1759ā1768, 2010. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar  Zentralblatt MATH
 S. Yamak, O. KazancÄ±, and B. Davvaz, āApproximations in a module by using setvalued homomorphism,ā International Journal of Computer Mathematics, vol. 88, pp. 2901ā2914, 2011. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 Z. Wenxiu and W. Weizhi, Theory and Method of Roughness, Science Press, Beijing, China, 2001.
 Y. Lingyun, Algebraic and Topological Study on Formal Concept Analysis and Rough Set Theory [D], Yangzhou University, 2010.
Copyright
Copyright Ā© 2012 Qimei Xiao and Qingguo Li. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.