As a generalization of BE-algebras, the pseudo BE-algebra was introduced by Borzooei et al., and the notions of pseudo subalgebras and pseudo filters in pseudo BE-algebras were defined, and some related properties were investigated. In order to further study pseudo subalgebras and pseudo filters in pseudo BE-algebras, concepts of pseudo atom, atomic pseudo BE-algebra, and atomic pseudo filter are introduced and related studies are conducted. The conditions under which pseudo-filters can be created using a nonempty set, and the conditions under which non-unit elements can be pseudo-atoms are explored. Characterization of atomic pseudo BE-algebra is discussed, and conditions are provided under which pseudo subalgebra can be pseudo filters. The relationship between a set of pseudo atoms and a pseudo subalgebra is considered, and the conditions under which a pseudo filter can be atomic are found.
Citation: Sun Shin Ahn, Young Joo Seo, Young Bae Jun. Pseudo subalgebras and pseudo filters in pseudo BE-algebras[J]. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(2): 4964-4972. doi: 10.3934/math.2023248
[1] | Yaoqiang Wu . On (fuzzy) pseudo-semi-normed linear spaces. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(1): 467-477. doi: 10.3934/math.2022030 |
[2] | Yasin Ünlütürk, Talat Körpınar, Muradiye Çimdiker . On k-type pseudo null slant helices due to the Bishop frame in Minkowski 3-space E13. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(1): 286-299. doi: 10.3934/math.2020019 |
[3] | Ayman Elsharkawy, Hoda Elsayied, Abdelrhman Tawfiq, Fatimah Alghamdi . Geometric analysis of the pseudo-projective curvature tensor in doubly and twisted warped product manifolds. AIMS Mathematics, 2025, 10(1): 56-71. doi: 10.3934/math.2025004 |
[4] | Tatjana Grbić, Slavica Medić, Nataša Duraković, Sandra Buhmiler, Slaviša Dumnić, Janja Jerebic . Liapounoff type inequality for pseudo-integral of interval-valued function. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(4): 5444-5462. doi: 10.3934/math.2022302 |
[5] | Mehmet Gülbahar . Qualar curvatures of pseudo Riemannian manifolds and pseudo Riemannian submanifolds. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(2): 1366-1376. doi: 10.3934/math.2021085 |
[6] | Mohd Bilal, Mohd Vasiulla, Abdul Haseeb, Abdullah Ali H. Ahmadini, Mohabbat Ali . A study of mixed generalized quasi-Einstein spacetimes with applications in general relativity. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(10): 24726-24739. doi: 10.3934/math.20231260 |
[7] | Hee Sik Kim, J. Neggers, Sun Shin Ahn . Construction of $ BCK $-neighborhood systems in a $ d $-algebra. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(9): 9422-9435. doi: 10.3934/math.2021547 |
[8] | Yanshou Dong, Junfang Zhao, Xu Miao, Ming Kang . Piecewise pseudo almost periodic solutions of interval general BAM neural networks with mixed time-varying delays and impulsive perturbations. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(9): 21828-21855. doi: 10.3934/math.20231113 |
[9] | Yaoqiang Wu . On partial fuzzy k-(pseudo-)metric spaces. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(11): 11642-11654. doi: 10.3934/math.2021677 |
[10] | S. O. Olatunji, Hemen Dutta . Coefficient inequalities for pseudo subclasses of analytical functions related to Petal type domains defined by error function. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(3): 2526-2538. doi: 10.3934/math.2020166 |
As a generalization of BE-algebras, the pseudo BE-algebra was introduced by Borzooei et al., and the notions of pseudo subalgebras and pseudo filters in pseudo BE-algebras were defined, and some related properties were investigated. In order to further study pseudo subalgebras and pseudo filters in pseudo BE-algebras, concepts of pseudo atom, atomic pseudo BE-algebra, and atomic pseudo filter are introduced and related studies are conducted. The conditions under which pseudo-filters can be created using a nonempty set, and the conditions under which non-unit elements can be pseudo-atoms are explored. Characterization of atomic pseudo BE-algebra is discussed, and conditions are provided under which pseudo subalgebra can be pseudo filters. The relationship between a set of pseudo atoms and a pseudo subalgebra is considered, and the conditions under which a pseudo filter can be atomic are found.
BCK-algebras and BCI-algebras were introduced by Iséki [8] as algebras induced by Meredith's implicational logics BCK and BCI. Kim et al. were defined BE-algebras in [10] as a generalization of BCK-algebras. Since then, they have been studied intensively by many authors (see [1,2,5,11,12,13,14,15,16]). Pseudo-BCI-algebras were introduced by Dudek and Jun [7] as a non-commutative generalization of BCI-algebras, and Jun et al. [9] studied pseudo-BCI ideals of pseudo-BCI algebras. The pseudo BE-algebra was introduced as a generalization of BE-algebras by Borzooei et al. [3], and has been intensively studied by several authors (see [4,6,17]). In particular, the notions of pseudo subalgebras and pseudo filters were defined, and investigated some related properties in [3].
The purpose of this paper is to further study pseudo subalgebras and pseudo filters in pseudo BE-algebras. To this end, we introduce the concepts of pseudo atom, atomic pseudo BE-algebra, and atomic pseudo filter to conduct related research. We note that every pseudo filter is a pseudo subalgebra, but the converse may not be true. So we provide a condition for a pseudo subalgebra to be apseudo filter. We explore the conditions under which we can make a pseudo filter using a nonempty set. We explore conditions for the non-unit element to be a pseudo atom. We discuss the characterization of atomic pseudo BE-algebras. We provide conditions for a pseudo subalgebra to be a pseudo filter. We consider the relationship between the set of pseudo atoms and pseudo subalgebras. We find conditions for a pseudo filter to be atomic.
Definition 2.1 ([10]). A BE-algebra, denoted by X:=(X;∗,1), is defined to be a set X together with a binary operation "∗" and the unit element "1" satisfying the conditions:
(BE1) (∀a∈X)(a∗a=1),
(BE2) (∀a∈X)(a∗1=1),
(BE3) (∀a∈X)(1∗a=a),
(BE4) (∀a,b,c∈X)(a∗(b∗c)=b∗(a∗c)).
Proposition 2.2 ([10]). Every BE-algebra X:=(X;∗,1) satisfies the following conditions
(∀a,b∈X)(a∗(b∗a)=1). | (2.1) |
(∀a,b∈X)(a∗((a∗b)∗b)=1). | (2.2) |
Proposition 2.3 ([10]). A subset F of a BE-algebra X:=(X;∗,1) is called
∙ a subalgebra of X:=(X;∗,1) if it satisfies:
(∀a,b∈F)(a∗b∈F), | (2.3) |
∙ a filter of X:=(X;∗,1) if it satisfies:
1∈F, | (2.4) |
(∀a,b∈X)(a∗b∈F,a∈F⇒b∈F). | (2.5) |
Definition 2.4 ([3]). An algebra (X;∗,÷,1) of type (2, 2, 0) is called a pseudo BE-algebra if it satisfies:
(pBE1) a∗a=1 and a÷a=1,
(pBE2) a∗1=1 and a÷1=1,
(pBE3) 1∗a=a and 1÷a=a,
(pBE4) a∗(b÷c)=b÷(a∗c),
(pBE5) a∗b=1⇔a÷b=1,
for all a,b,c∈X.
In a pseudo BE-algebra (X;∗,÷,1), a binary relation "≤" is defined as follows:
(∀a,b∈X)(a≤b⇔a∗b=1⇔a÷b=1). | (2.6) |
Proposition 2.5 ([3]). Every pseudo BE-algebra (X;∗,÷,1) satisfies:
(i)a∗(b÷a)=1 and a÷(b∗a)=1,
(ii)a∗((a÷b)∗b)=1 and a÷((a∗b)÷b)=1,
for all x,y,z∈X.
Definition 2.6 ([3]). A subset F of X is called
∙ a pseudo subalgebra of (X;∗,÷,1) if it satisfies:
(∀a,b∈X)(a,b∈F⇒a∗b∈F,a÷b∈F). | (2.7) |
∙ a pseudo filter of (X;∗,÷,1) if it satisfies:
1∈X, | (2.8) |
(∀a,b∈X)(a∈F,a∗b∈F⇒b∈F). | (2.9) |
Proposition 2.7 ([3]). A subset F of X is a pseudo filter of (X;∗,÷,1) if and only if it satisfies (2.8) and
(∀a,b∈X)(a∈F,a÷b∈F⇒b∈F). | (2.10) |
Proposition 2.8 ([3]). Every pseudo filter F of (X;∗,÷,1) satisfies:
(∀a,b∈X)(a≤b,a∈F⇒b∈F). | (2.11) |
Proposition 2.9 ([3]). Every pseudo filter F of (X;∗,÷,1) satisfies:
(∀x,y∈F)(∀z∈X)(x≤y∗z⇒z∈Fx≤y÷z⇒z∈F). | (2.12) |
In what follows, (X;∗,÷,1) stands for pseudo BE-algebra, unless otherwise stated.
Proposition 3.1. Every pseudo filter F of (X;∗,÷,1) satisfies:
(∀x,y∈X)(y∈F⇒(y∗x)÷x∈F,(y÷x)∗x∈F). | (3.1) |
(∀x∈F)(∀y∈X)(x∗(x÷y)∈F⇒y∈F). | (3.2) |
Proof. Let x∈X and y∈F. Then y∗((y∗x)÷x)=(y∗x)÷(y∗x)=1∈F and y÷((y÷x)∗x)=(y÷x)∗(y÷x)=1∈F by (pBE1) and (pBE4). It follows from (2.9) and (2.10) that (y∗x)÷x∈F and (y÷x)∗x∈F. The assertion (3.2) is straightforward.
The combination of (pBE4) and (3.2) induces the following corollary.
Corollary 3.2. Every pseudo filter F of (X;∗,÷,1) satisfies:
(∀x∈F)(∀y∈X)(x÷(x∗y)∈F⇒y∈F). | (3.3) |
Note that every pseudo filter is a pseudo subalgebra, but the converse may not be true (see [3]). We provide a condition for a pseudo subalgebra to be a pseudo filter.
Theorem 3.3. If a pseudo subalgebra F of (X;∗,÷,1) satisfies the condition (3.2), then it is a pseudo filter of (X;∗,÷,1).
Proof. Let F be a pseudo subalgebra of (X;∗,÷,1) that satisfies the condition (3.2). Clearly, 1∈F. Let x∈F and y∈X be such that x÷y∈F. Then x∗(x÷y)∈F since F is a pseudo subalgebra of (X;∗,÷,1), and so y∈F by (3.2). Hence F is a pseudo filter of (X;∗,÷,1) by Proposition 2.7.
We explore the conditions under which we can make a pseudo filter using a nonempty set.
Theorem 3.4. Given a nonempty set F of X, the following are equivalent.
(i)F is a pseudo filter of (X;∗,÷,1).
(ii) F satisfies (2.11) and
(∀a,b,x∈X)(a,b∈F⇒{(a∗(b÷x))∗x∈F(a÷(b∗x))÷x∈F). | (3.4) |
Proof. Assume that F is a pseudo filter of (X;∗,÷,1). Then F satisfies (2.11) (see Proposition 2.8). Let a,b∈F and x∈X. Using (pBE1) and (pBE4) leads to
a∗((a∗(b÷x))∗(b÷x))=(a∗(b÷x))∗(a∗(b÷x))=1∈F |
and
a÷((a÷(b∗x))÷(b∗x))=(a÷(b∗x))÷(a÷(b∗x))=1∈F. |
It follows from (pBE4), (2.9) and (2.10) that
b÷((a∗(b÷x))∗x)=(a∗(b÷x))∗(b÷x)∈F |
and
b∗((a÷(b∗x))÷x)=(a÷(b∗x))÷(b∗x)∈F. |
Hence (a∗(b÷x))∗x∈F and (a÷(b∗x))÷x∈F by (2.9) and (2.10).
Conversely, suppose that F satisfies (2.11) and (3.4). It is clear that 1∈F by (pBE2) and (2.11). Let x∈F and y∈X be such that x∗y∈F or x÷y∈F. Then y=1∗y=((x÷y)∗(x÷y))∗y∈F or y=1÷y=((x∗y)÷(x∗y))÷y∈F by (pBE1), (pBE3), and (3.4). Therefore F is a pseudo filter of (X;∗,÷,1).
Definition 3.5. A non-unit element b in (X;∗,÷,1) is called a pseudo atom in (X;∗,÷,1) if the following assertion is valid.
(∀x∈X)(b≤x⇒b=x or x=1). | (3.5) |
Example 3.6. (i) Let X={1,2,3,4} and define the operations "∗" and "÷" on X as follows:
∗123411234211113121441311÷123411234211113141441411 |
Then (X;∗,÷,1) is a pseudo BE-algebra (see [3]), and the element 3 is a pseudo atom in (X;∗,÷,1).
(ii) Let X={0,1,2,3,4} and define the operations "∗" and "÷" on X as follows:
∗01234011224101234201111301111401231÷01234011224101234201111301111411111 |
It is routine to verify that (X;∗,÷,1) is a pseudo BE-algebra and the element 0 is the only pseudo atom in (X;∗,÷,1).
We explore conditions for a non-unit element to be a pseudo atom. First, we have the following question.
Question 1. For every non-unit element b in (X;∗,÷,1), if {b,1} is a pseudo subalgebra of (X;∗,÷,1), then is b a pseudo atom in (X;∗,÷,1)?
The example below gives a negative answer to Question 1.
Example 3.7. Let X={1,2,3,4} and define the operations "∗" and "÷" on X as follows:
∗123411234211133121441111÷123411234211123121241111 |
Then (X;∗,÷,1) is a pseudo BE-algebra (see [3]). We can onserve that the set F:={1,2} is a pseudo subalgebra of (X;∗,÷,1). But 2 is not a pseudo atom because of 2≤3 and 2≠3≠1.
Theorem 3.8. For every non-unit element b in (X;∗,÷,1), if {b,1} is a pseudo filter of (X;∗,÷,1), then b is a pseudo atom in (X;∗,÷,1).
Proof. Assume that {b,1} is a pseudo filter of (X;∗,÷,1). Let x∈X be such that b≤x. Then b∗x=1∈{b,1} and b÷x=1∈{b,1}. It follows that x∈{b,1}. Hence b=x or x=1. Therefore b is a pseudo atom in (X;∗,÷,1).
The following example shows that the converse of Theorem 3.8 may not be true, that is, there exists a pseudo atom b in (X;∗,÷,1) for which {b,1} is not a pseudo filter of (X;∗,÷,1).
Example 3.9. Let X={0,1,2,3,4} and define the operations "∗" and "÷" on X as follows:
∗01234011111101234221104311111411121÷01234011114101234221104311114411111 |
It is routine to verify that (X;∗,÷,1) is a pseudo BE-algebra. We can observe that 2 is a pseudo atom. But {1,2} is not a pseudo filter of (X;∗,÷,1) since 2∈{1,2}, 2∗0=2∈{1,2} but 0∉{1,2}.
Definition 3.10. A pseudo BE-algebra (X;∗,÷,1) is said to be atomic if every non-unit element of X is a pseudo atom in (X;∗,÷,1).
Example 3.11. Consider a BE-algebra X={1,a,b,c} with the following Cayley table.
∗1abc11abca11bcb1a1cc1ab1 |
If we take ÷:=∗, then (X;∗,÷,1) is a pseudo BE-algebra. It is easily to check that 6, 7 and 8 are non-units and they are pseudo atoms in (X;∗,÷,1). Therefore (X;∗,÷,1) is an atomic pseudo BE-algebra.
Theorem 3.12. If (X;∗,÷,1) is a pseudo BE-algebra, then the following assertions are equivalent.
(i)(X;∗,÷,1) is atomic.
(ii)(X;∗,÷,1) satisfies:
(∀x,y∈X)(x≠y⇒x∗y=y=x÷y). | (3.6) |
(iii)(X;∗,÷,1) satisfies:
(∀x,y∈X)(x≠y⇒(x∗y)÷y=1=(x÷y)∗y). | (3.7) |
Proof. (i) ⇒ (ii). Assume that (X;∗,÷,1) is atomic. Let x,y∈X be such that x≠y. Note that y≤x÷y and y≤x∗y. Since y is a pseudo atom, we have y=x÷y or x÷y=1, and y=x∗y or x∗y=1. If x÷y=1, then x≤y and so x=y or y=1. This is a contradiction. Similarly, x∗y=1 induces a contradiction. Hence x∗y=y=x÷y.
(ii) ⇒ (iii). Straightforward.
(iii) ⇒ (i). Suppose that (X;∗,÷,1) satisfies (3.7). Let x be an arbitrary non-unit element of X such that x≤y for all non-unit element y∈X. Then x∗y=1 and x÷y=1. If x≠y, then 1=(x∗y)÷y=1÷y=y and 1=(x÷y)∗y=1∗y=y by (pBE3) and (3.7). This is a contradiction, and so x=y, which shows that x is a pseudo atom in (X;∗,÷,1). Consequently, (X;∗,÷,1) is atomic.
Theorem 3.13. If a pseudo BE-algebra (X;∗,÷,1) is atomic, then every pseudo subalgebra is a pseudo filter.
Proof. Let (X;∗,÷,1) be an atomic pseudo BE-algebra. Let F be a pseudo subalgebra of (X;∗,÷,1). Clearly, 1∈F. Let x,y∈X be such that x∈F, x∗y∈F and x÷y∈F. It is clear that if x=1 or y=1, then y∈F. So we may assume that x and y are non-unit. Note that y≤x÷y and y≤x∗y. Since y is a pseudo atom, we have y=x÷y∈F or x÷y=1, and y=x∗y∈F or x∗y=1. If x÷y=1 and x∗y=1, then x≤y. Since x is a pseudo atom, it follows that y=x∈F or y=1∈F. Therefore F is a pseudo filter of (X;∗,÷,1).
Given a subset F of X, we consider a set
A(F):={y∈F∣y is a pseudo atom in(X;∗,÷,1)}. | (3.8) |
Note that A(X) is the set of all pseudo atoms in (X;∗,÷,1). It is clear that 1∉A(F) and 1∉A(X).
Theorem 3.14. If F is a pseudo subalgebra of (X;∗,÷,1), then the set A(F)∪{1} is also a pseudo subalgebra of (X;∗,÷,1).
Proof. Assume that F is a pseudo subalgebra of (X;∗,÷,1). Let x,y∈A(F)∪{1}. It is clear that if x=1, y=1 or x=y, then x∗y,x÷y∈A(F)∪{1}. Assume that 1≠x≠y≠1. Since y≤x÷y and y≤x∗y, we have y=x÷y∈F or x÷y=1, and y=x∗y∈F or x∗y=1. If x÷y=1 or x∗y=1, then x≤y. Since x∈A(F), it follows that x=y, a contradiction. Hence x÷y≠1 and x∗y≠1, and so x÷y=y∈A(F)∪{1} and x∗y=y∈A(F)∪{1}. Therefore A(F)∪{1} is a pseudo subalgebra of (X;∗,÷,1).
Corollary 3.15. The set A(X)∪{1} is a pseudo subalgebra of (X;∗,÷,1).
The following example shows that the converse of Theorem 3.14 may not be true.
Example 3.16. Consider the pseudo BE-algebra (X;∗,÷,1) in Example 3.9. If we take F:={2,3}, then A(X)={2} and so A(F)∪{1}={1,2} is a pseudo subalgebra of (X;∗,÷,1). But F is not a pseudo subalgebra of (X;∗,÷,1) since 2∗3=0∉F or 3÷2=1∉F.
Question 2. If F is a pseudo filter of (X;∗,÷,1), then is the set A(X)∪{1} a pseudo filter of (X;∗,÷,1)?
The following example provides a negative answer to Question 2.
Example 3.17. Let X={0,1,2,3,4} and define the operations "∗" and "÷" on X as follows:
∗01234011034101234211134301211401231÷01234011034101234211134301214411031 |
It is routine to verify that (X;∗,÷,1) is a pseudo BE-algebra. We can observe that F={0,1,2} is a pseudo filter of (X;∗,÷,1). But A(F)∪{1}={0,1}, and it is not a pseudo filter of (X;∗,÷,1) since 0∈A(F)∪{1} and 0∗2=0÷2=0∈A(F)∪{1} but 2∉A(F)∪{1}.
Definition 3.18. A pseudo filter F of (X;∗,÷,1) is said to be atomic if F=A(F)∪{1}.
Example 3.19. Let X={0,1,2,3,4} and define the operations "∗" and "÷" on X as follows:
∗01234011234101234201134301114401131÷01234011234101234201134301111401131 |
It is routine to verify that (X;∗,÷,1) is a pseudo BE-algebra. Let F={0,1,2}. Then F is a pseudo filter of (X;∗,÷,1) and F=A(F)∪{1}. Hence F is an atomic pseudo filter of (X;∗,÷,1).
Theorem 3.20. In an atomic pseudo BE-algebra, every pseudo filter is atomic.
Proof. Let F be a pseudo filter of an atomic pseudo BE-algebra (X;∗,÷,1). It is clear that A(F)∪{1}⊆F. Let x be a non-unit element of F. Then x is a pseudo atom since (X;∗,÷,1) is atomic. Hence x∈A(F), and so F⊆A(F)∪{1}. Therefore F is atomic.
Theorem 3.21. Let F be a pseudo filter of (X;∗,÷,1). Then F is atomic if and only if it satisfies:
(∀x,y∈F)(x≠y⇒x∗y=y=x÷y). | (3.9) |
Proof. Assume that F is an atomic pseudo filter of (X;∗,÷,1). Let x,y∈F be such that x≠y. If x=1, then y≠1 and so 1∗y=y=1÷y by (pBE3). If y=1, then x≠1 and so x∗1=1=x÷1 by (pBE2). Suppose that 1≠x≠y≠1. Since y≤x÷y and y≤x∗y, we have y=x÷y or x÷y=1, and y=x∗y or x∗y=1. If x÷y=1 or x∗y=1, then x≤y. Since x∈A(F) and y≠1, it follows that x=y, a contradiction. Hence x÷y≠1 and x∗y≠1, and thus x∗y=y=x÷y.
Conversely, suppose that F satisfies the condition (3.9). It is clear that A(F)∪{1}⊆F. Let x be a non-unit element of F such that x≤y for all non-unit elements y∈X. Then y∈F. If x≠y, then 1=x∗y=y=x÷y=1 by (3.9). This is a contradiction, and so x=y. Thus x∈A(F), and hence F⊆A(F)∪{1}. Therefore F is an atomic pseudo filter of (X;∗,÷,1).
As a generalization of BE-algebras, the pseudo BE-algebra was introduced by Borzooei et al. and has been intensively studied by several authors. In particular, the notions of pseudo subalgebras and pseudo filters were defined, and investigated some related properties. For the further study of pseudo subalgebras and pseudo filters in pseudo BE-algebras, we have introduced the concepts of pseudo atom, atomic pseudo BE-algebra, and atomic pseudo filter, and have investigated the related properties We have provided a condition for a pseudo subalgebra to be apseudo filter, and have explored the conditions under which we can make a pseudo filter using a nonempty set. We have established conditions for the non-unit element to be a pseudo atom, and have discussed the characterization of atomic pseudo BE-algebras. We have provided conditions for a pseudo subalgebra to be a pseudo filter, and have considered the relationship between the set of pseudo atoms and pseudo subalgebras. We have found conditions for a pseudo filter to be atomic. Future research will focus on the study of fuzzy and soft set theory about the ideas and results of this paper.
All authors declare no conflicts of interest in this paper.
[1] |
S. S. Ahn, Y. H. Kim, J. M. Ko, Filters in commutative BE-algebras, Commun. Korean Math. Soc., 27 (2012), 233–242. https://doi.org/10.4134/CKMS.2012.27.2.233 doi: 10.4134/CKMS.2012.27.2.233
![]() |
[2] | S. S. Ahn, K. S. So, On ideals and upper sets in BE-algebras, Sci. Math. Jpn., 68 (2008), 279–285. |
[3] | R. A. Borzooei, A. Borumand Saeid, A. Rezaei, A. Radfar, R. Ameri, On pseudo BE-algebras, Discuss. Math., General Algebra Appl., 33 (2013), 95–108. https://doi.org/10.7151/dmgaa.1193 |
[4] |
R. A. Borzooei, A. Borumand Saeid, A. Rezaei, A. Radfar, R. Ameri, Distributive pseudo BE-algebras, Fasciculi Math., 54 (2015), 21–39. https://doi.org/10.1515/fascmath-2015-0002 doi: 10.1515/fascmath-2015-0002
![]() |
[5] |
Z. Ciloǧlu, Y. Ceven, Commutative and bounded BE-algebras, Algebra, 2013 (2013), 1–6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/473714 doi: 10.1155/2013/473714
![]() |
[6] | L. C. Ciungu, Commutative pseudo BE-algebras, Iran. J. Fuzzy Syst., 13 (2016), 131–144. |
[7] | W. A. Dudek, Y. B. Jun, Pseudo-BCI algebras, East Asian Math. J., 24 (2008), 187–190. |
[8] |
K. Iséki, An algebra related with a propositional calculus, Proc. Jpn Acad., 42 (1966), 26–29. https://doi.org/10.3792/pja/1195522171 doi: 10.3792/pja/1195522171
![]() |
[9] | Y. B. Jun, H. S. Kim, J. Neggers, On pseudo-BCI ideals of pseudo-BCI algebras, Mat. Vesnik, 58 (2006), 39–46. |
[10] | H. S. Kim, Y. H. Kim, On BE-algebras, Sci. Math. Jpn., 66 (2007), 113–116. https://doi.org/10.32219/isms.66.1_113 |
[11] | H. S. Kim, K. J. Lee, Extended upper sets in BE-algebras, Bull. Malays. Math. Sci. Soc., 34 (2011), 511–520. |
[12] | B. L. Meng, On filters in BE-algebras, Sci. Math. Jpn., 71 (2010), 201–207. |
[13] |
A. Rezaei, A. Borumand Saeid, On fuzzy subalgebras of BE-algebras, Afr. Mat., 22 (2011), 115–127. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13370-011-0011-4 doi: 10.1007/s13370-011-0011-4
![]() |
[14] | A. Rezaei, A. Borumand Saeid, Some results in BE-algebras, An. Univ. Oradea, Fasc. Mat., 19 (2012), 33–44. |
[15] |
A. Rezaei, A. Borumand Saeid, Commutative ideals in BE-algebras, Kyungpook Math. J., 52 (2012), 483–494. https://doi.org/10.5666/KMJ.2012.52.4.483 doi: 10.5666/KMJ.2012.52.4.483
![]() |
[16] | A. Rezaei, A. Borumand Saeid, R. A. Borzooei, Relation between Hilbert algebras and BE-algebras, Appl. Appl. Math., 8 (2013), 573–584. |
[17] | A. Rezaei, A. Borumand Saeid, A. Radfar, R. A. Borzooei, Congruence relations on pseudo BE-algebras, Ann. Univ. Craiova, Math. Comput. Sci. Ser., 41 (2014), 166–176. |
1. | Hao Guan, Behnam Zahednejad, Aysha Khan, Maryam Akhoundi, A Study on Hyperatomic Ordered Semihyperrings, 2023, 15, 2073-8994, 967, 10.3390/sym15050967 |