+ | F0 | F1 | F2 |
F0 | F0 | F1 | F2 |
F1 | F1 | F2 | F0 |
F2 | F2 | F0 | F1 |
A numerical approach is proposed for space fractional partial differential equations by the reproducing kernel approach. Some procedures are presented for improving the existing methods. The presented method is easy to accomplish. Approximate solutions and their partial derivatives are shown to converge to exact solutions, respectively. Experiments show that the presented technique is efficient, and that high-precision global approximate solutions can be obtained.
Citation: Boyu Liu, Wenyan Wang. An efficient numerical scheme in reproducing kernel space for space fractional partial differential equations[J]. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(11): 33286-33300. doi: 10.3934/math.20241588
[1] | Ruifang Yang, Shilin Yang . Representations of a non-pointed Hopf algebra. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(10): 10523-10539. doi: 10.3934/math.2021611 |
[2] | Haijun Cao, Fang Xiao . The category of affine algebraic regular monoids. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(2): 2666-2679. doi: 10.3934/math.2022150 |
[3] | Mingze Zhao, Huilan Li . A pair of dual Hopf algebras on permutations. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(5): 5106-5123. doi: 10.3934/math.2021302 |
[4] | Qining Li . Double Ore extensions of anti-angle type for Hopf algebras. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(7): 12566-12586. doi: 10.3934/math.2022696 |
[5] | Yaguo Guo, Shilin Yang . Projective class rings of a kind of category of Yetter-Drinfeld modules. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(5): 10997-11014. doi: 10.3934/math.2023557 |
[6] | Yang Zhang, Jizhu Nan . A note on the degree bounds of the invariant ring. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(5): 10869-10881. doi: 10.3934/math.2024530 |
[7] | Panpan Jia, Jizhu Nan, Yongsheng Ma . Separating invariants for certain representations of the elementary Abelian p-groups of rank two. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(9): 25603-25618. doi: 10.3934/math.20241250 |
[8] | Piyapat Dangpat, Teerapong Suksumran . Regularity of extended conjugate graphs of finite groups. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(4): 5480-5498. doi: 10.3934/math.2022304 |
[9] | Fengxia Gao, Jialei Chen . Conjugacy classes of left ideals of Sweedler's four-dimensional algebra H4. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(5): 7720-7727. doi: 10.3934/math.2022433 |
[10] | Hashem Bordbar, Sanja Jančič-Rašovič, Irina Cristea . Regular local hyperrings and hyperdomains. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(12): 20767-20780. doi: 10.3934/math.20221138 |
A numerical approach is proposed for space fractional partial differential equations by the reproducing kernel approach. Some procedures are presented for improving the existing methods. The presented method is easy to accomplish. Approximate solutions and their partial derivatives are shown to converge to exact solutions, respectively. Experiments show that the presented technique is efficient, and that high-precision global approximate solutions can be obtained.
Zadeh [1] introduced the notion of fuzzy sets (FSs) which has numerous applications in different branches of science and technology. A fuzzy subset F on a universe K is denoted as {α,μF(α):α∈K}, where μF is a function from K to [0,1] and is called membership function. Undoubtedly fuzzy set is a generalization of conventional set. In a conventional set A, the membership function is the characteristic function χA. The utilization of fuzzy set theory can be observed in almost every scientific field, particularly those involving set theory and mathematical logic. After the invention of fuzzy sets, many theories were put forward to deal with uncertainty and imprecision. Some of those are extensions of fuzzy sets, while others strive to deal with uncertainty in another suitable way. Later, it has been found that only the membership function is not sufficient to describe certain types of information. In this way, Atanassov [2] extended fuzzy sets to intuitionistic fuzzy sets (IFSs) to give a proper illustration of the information and allow a greater degree of freedom and flexibility in representing uncertainty. An IFS F of a conventional set K is an object {(α,μF(α),νF(α)):α∈K}, where μF:K→[0,1] and νF:K→[0,1] are membership and non-membership functions respectively under the condition μR(α)+νR(α)≤1 for all α∈K. As compared to FS, the IFS handles uncertainty and vagueness in the field of decision-making [3,4] more effectively but even then, there is room for improvement. There exist many cases where IFSs unable to perform. For example: If a decision maker proposes μF(α)=0.7 and νF(α)=0.4 for some α∈K. Then μR(α)+νR(α)>1, therefore, such problems are beyond the limitations of IFS theory. To cope with these situations, Yager [5] generalized the notion of intuitionistic fuzzy sets by defining the Pythagorean fuzzy sets (PFSs). In [6], Zhang and Xu led the foundation of this novel concept. The Pythagorean fuzzy subset F of K is denoted by {(α,μF(α),νF(α)):α∈K}, where μF:K→[0,1] and νF:K→[0,1] such that (μF(α))2+(νF(α))2≤1 for all α∈K. This idea is invented to transform vague and uncertain circumstances into mathematical form and to find an efficient solution [7,8].
The theory of rings [9] is one of the important branches of mathematics. The idea of the ring was originally conceived to prove Fermat's Last Theorem, starting with Dedekind in the 1880s. After commitments from different fields (mainly number theory), the notion of the ring was summarized and firmly established in the decade of 1920 to 1930 by Noether and Krull. Present-day ring theory–an exceptionally dynamic numerical control–ponders rings in their very own right. To investigate rings, mathematicians have concocted different ideas to break rings into littler, better-reasonable pieces, for example, ideals, quotient rings and basic rings. In addition to these abstract attributes, ring theorists also make different qualifications between the theory of commutative rings and noncommutative rings. The commutative rings have a place in algebraic geometry and algebraic number theory. Noncommutative ring theory started with endeavors to extend complex numbers. The origins of commutative and non-commutative ring theories can be traced back to the early 19th century, while their maturity was achieved in the third decade of the 20th century. Over the past decade, ring theory has been applied to various branches of science, especially computer science, coding theory, and cryptography [10,11,12].
In 1982, Liu [13] generalized the notion of the subring/ideal of a ring to the fuzzy subring/fuzzy ideal of a ring. In [14], different operations between fuzzy ideals of a ring have been defined. Mukherjee and Malik [15] published a fundamental paper on fuzzy ideals over Artinian rings. The author presented a characterization of Artinian rings with respect to fuzzy ideals. Hur et al. [16] defined the notion of intuitionistic fuzzy ideals of a ring. The notion of ω-fuzzy ideal of a ring is defined in [17]. Shabir et al. [18] investigated the approximation of bipolar fuzzy ideals of semirings. In [19], the notion of anti-fuzzy multi-ideals of the near ring is discussed. Madeline et al. [20] defined fuzzy multi-ideals of near rings and proved some fundamental theorems of this notion. A fuzzy version of Zorn's lemma is present in [21]. The author used it to demonstrate that every proper fuzzy ideal of a ring is contained in a maximal fuzzy ideal. Addis et al. [22] proved some important results regarding fuzzy homomorphism. The algebraic characteristics of (α,β)-Pythagorean fuzzy ideals of a ring are discussed in [23]. Hakim et al. presented a study [24] related to bipolar soft semiprime ideals over ordered semigroups. The concept of fuzzy ideals of LA rings is described in [25]. The authors presented a characterization of regular LA-rings with respect to fuzzy ideals.
The above literature review highlights some research achievements in classical and intuitionistic fuzzy ring theory. Additionally, although certain results about (α,β)-Pythagorean fuzzy subrings of a ring and bipolar Pythagorean fuzzy subring of a ring have been demonstrated but some open questions remain to be answered.
1) In classical ring theory, the interstation of two subrings/ideals of a ring K is a subring/ideal of K. Therefore, a question arises, whether the intersection of two Pythagorean fuzzy subrings/ideals is a Pythagorean fuzzy subring/ideal of K? Moreover, if S is a subring of a ring K and I is an ideal of K, then S∩I is an ideal of S. The analogous version of this theorem in the Pythagorean fuzzy framework needs to be studied.
2) The characterization of classical/intuitionistic fuzzy subrings/ideals with respect to classical/intuitionistic fuzzy level sub-rings/ideals is given in the existing literature. Since a Pythagorean fuzzy ring theory is a generalization of intuitionistic fuzzy ring theory, therefore, it is important to understand the characterization of Pythagorean fuzzy subrings/ideals in terms of Pythagorean fuzzy level fuzzy subrings/ideals.
3) In classical ring theory, cosets of subring/ideal of a ring K is an important notion because it gives rise to quotient rings. It is well known that the set of all cosets of an ideal of K forms ring under a certain binary operation. A natural question comes into mind, does the set of all Pythagorean fuzzy cosets of Pythagorean fuzzy ideal of K, forms a ring under certain binary operations?
4) The fundamental theorem of ring homomorphism is one of the finest results in classical ring theory. Therefore, it is necessary to discuss this remarkable theorem in the context of Pythagorean fuzzy rings.
5) In the literature, various algebraic properties of fuzzy semi-prime ideals have been discussed. Furthermore, the characterization of regular rings by virtue of fuzzy ideals is presented. In the context of Pythagorean fuzzy theory, these studies have yet to be examined from a broader perspective.
Answering the above-mentioned open problems and bridging the knowledge gap in the existing literature is the ultimate aim of this research.
The results proved in this paper are valid for Pythagorean fuzzy ideals. Since every IFS is a PFS, therefore, the same hold for intuitionistic fuzzy ideals as well. Moreover, every fuzzy set is an IFS, so the present study can also be applied to fuzzy ideals. However, we cannot apply these results directly to q-rung orthopair fuzzy ideals, picture fuzzy ideals, neutrosophic fuzzy ideals, fuzzy soft ideals and fuzzy hypersoft ideals. Therefore, separate studies are recommended for these generalized structures. This is the main limitation of our research.
The rest of the paper is set up in this way: Section 2 contains basic definitions and concepts that are required to demonstrate our main results. In Section 3, the internal description of the Pythagorean fuzzy ideal along with its fundamental properties are discussed. The notions of Pythagorean fuzzy cosets of a Pythagorean fuzzy ideal is defined in Section 4. We prove that the set of all Pythagorean fuzzy cosets of a Pythagorean fuzzy ideal forms a ring under certain binary operations. Moreover, the Pythagorean fuzzy version of the fundamental theorem of ring homomorphisms has been proved. In Section 5, the concept of the Pythagorean fuzzy semi-prime ideal is defined. We investigate some important algebraic features of this newly defined notion. Furthermore, the characterization of regular rings by virtue of PFI is presented. The conclusion of this paper is presented in Section 6.
This section contains some notions and concepts which are needed to prove our main theorems.
Definition 2.1. [13] A FS F={(α,μF(α)):α∈K} of a ring K is called a fuzzy subring (FSR) of K if for all α1,α2∈K, the following properties are satisfied:
ⅰ. μF(α1−α2)≥min{μF(α1),μF(α2)},
ⅱ. μF(α1α2)≥min{μF(α1),μF(α2)}.
The fuzzy ideal (FI) of K has the same definition with the only difference that in condition (ⅱ) "min" is replaced by "max".
Definition 2.2. [16] An IFS F={(α,μF(α),νF(α)):α∈K} of K is called an intuitionistic fuzzy subring (IFSR) of K if for all α1,α2∈K, the following requirements are fulfilled:
ⅰ. μF(α1−α2)≥min{μF(α1),μF(α2)} and νF(α1−α2)≤max{νF(α1),νF(α2)},
ⅱ. μF(α1α2)≥min{μF(α1),μF(α2)} and νF(α1α2)≤max{νF(α1),νF(α2)}.
By interchanging "min" and "max" by "max" and "min" respectively, in condition (ⅱ), we obtain the definition of intuitionistic fuzzy ideal (IFI) of K.
Next, we define Pythagorean fuzzy subrings (PFSRs) and Pythagorean fuzzy ideals (PFIs) of a ring K.
Definition 2.3 A PFS F={(α,μF(α),νF(α)):α∈K} of K is called a PFSR of K if for all α1,α2∈K, the following requirements are fulfilled:
ⅰ. (μF(α1−α2))2≥min{(μF(α1))2,(μF(α2))2} and (νF(α1−α2))2≤max{(νF(α1))2,(νF(α2))2},
ⅱ. (μF(α1α2))2≥min{(μF(α1))2,(μF(α2))2} and (νF(α1α2))2≤max{(νF(α1))2,(νF(α2))2}.
The PFS F is known to be PFI of K, if condition (ⅱ) is replaced with (μF(α1α2))2≥max{(μF(α1))2,(μF(α2))2} and (νF(α1α2))2≤min{(νF(α1))2,(νF(α2))2}.
It is evident from Definitions 2.2 and 2.3 that every IFR/IFI is a PFR/PFI. The following example demonstrates that the converse is not true.
Example 2.1. We know Z4={0,1,2,3} is a ring with respect to addition and multiplication modulo 4. It is easy to verify that F={(0,0.9,0.3),(3,0.7,0.5),(2,0.8,0.4),(4,0.7,0.5)} is a PFSR/PFI of Z4={0,1,2,3}. Since the sum of membership and non-membership values is not less than or equal to one for all elements in Z4, therefore, F is not an IFS and hence not an IFR/IFI.
Definition 2.4. Let F={(α,μF(α),νF(α):α∈K} be a PFS of K. Then the set F(σ,ρ)={α∈K:(μF(α))2≥σ,(νF(α))2≤ρ} is known as Pythagorean fuzzy level set (PFLS) of F.
Definition 2.5. Let F and A be two PFS of K. The product F∘A of F and A is defined by
F∘A={(α,μF∘A(α),νF∘A(α):α∈K}, |
where (μF∘A(α))2=max{min((μF(α1))2,(μA(α2))2):α1,α2∈K,α1α2=α} and (νF∘A(α))2=min{max((νF(α1))2,(νA(α2))2):α1,α2∈K,α1α2=α}.
This section contains some internal description of the Pythagorean fuzzy ideal and its fundamental properties.
Remark. 3.1. Every PFI of K is a PFSR of K.
In the following example, we see a PFSR of K which is not a PFI of K.
Example. 3.1. Consider S={1,2,3}, then 2S is the power set of S, that is,
2S={ϕ,S,{1},{2},{3},{1,2},{1,3},{2,3}} |
forms ring under symmetric difference Δ and intersection ∩. Now, it is just a matter of simple calculation to conclude that
F={(ϕ,0.90,0.20),(S,0.90,0.20),({1},0.60,0.70),({2},0.60,0.70),({3},0.90,0.20),({1,2},0.90,0.20),({1,3},0.60,0.70),({2,3},0.60,0.70)} |
is a PFSR of 2S. But
(μF({1,2}∩{1}))2=(μF({1}))2=(0.60)2 |
and
max{(μF({1,2}))2,(μF({1}))2}=(0.90)2 |
together imply that F is not a PFI of R.
Theorem 3.1. Let F be a PFI of a ring K, then,
ⅰ. (μF(0))2≥(μF(α))2 and (νF(0))2≤(νF(α))2 for all α∈K.
ⅱ. μF(α1)≠μF(α2) and νF(α1)≠νF(α2) for some α1,α2∈K inplies that (μF(α1−α2))2=min[(μF(α1))2,(μF(α2))2] and (νF(α1−α2))2=max[(νF(α1))2,(νF(α2))2].
Proof. ⅰ. Let α∈K, then (μF(0))2=(μF(α−α))2≥min{(μF(α))2,(μF(α))2}=(μF(α))2. Similarly, we can prove (νF(0))2≤(νF(α))2 for all α∈K.
ⅱ. Assume that α1, α2∈K such that μF(α1)>μF(α2), then obviously (μF(α1))2>(μF(α2))2.
Consider
(μF(α2))2=(μF(α1−(α1−α2)))2≥min[(μF(α1))2,(μF(α1−α2))2]. | (3.1) |
Since (μF(α1))2>(μF(α2))2, therefore, Eq (3.1) yields
(μF(α2))2≥(μF(α1−α2))2. | (3.2) |
Furthermore,
(μF(α1−α2))2≥min{(μF(α1))2,(μF(α2))2}=(μF(α2))2. | (3.3) |
The Eqs (3.2) and (3.3) together imply that
(μF(α1−α2))2=(μF(α2))2=min[(μF(α1))2,(μF(α2))2]. |
In the identical way, it can be shown that
(νF(α1−α2))2=max[(νF(α1))2,(νF(α2))2]. |
Theorem 3.2. The intersection of two PFIs of K is a PFI of K.
Proof. Suppose that F1={α,μF1(α),νF1(α)} and F2={α,μF2(α),νF2(α)} are PFIs of K. Then for all α1,α2∈K, we have
(μF1∩F2(α1−α2))2=min[(μF1(α1−α2))2,(μF2(α1−α2))2] |
≥min[min((μF1(α1))2,(μF1(α2))2),min((μF2(α1))2,(μF2(α2))2)] |
=min[min((μF1(α1))2,(μF2(α1))2),min((μF1(α2))2,(μF2(α2))2)] |
=min[(μF1∩F2(α1))2,(μF1∩F2(α2))2]. |
Therefore, (μF1∩F2(α1−α2))2≥min[(μF1∩F2(α1))2,(μF1∩F2(α2))2]. Similarly, (νF1∩F2(α1−α2))2≤max[(νF1∩F2(α1))2,(νF1∩F2(α2))2]. Next,
(μF1∩F2(α1α2))2=min[(μF1(α1α2))2,(μF2(α1α2))2] |
≥min[max((μF1(α1))2,(μF1(α2))2),max((μF2(α1))2,(μF2(α2))2)] |
≥max[min((μF1(α1))2,(μF2(α1))2),min((μF1(α2))2,(μF2(α2))2)] |
=max[(μF1∩F2(α1))2,(μF1∩F2(α2))2]. |
That is, (μF1∩F2(α1α2))2≥max[(μF1∩F2(α1))2,(μF1∩F2(α2))2]. The utilization of the same arguments gives (νF1∩F2(α1α2))2≤min[(νF1∩F2(α1))2,(νF1∩F2(α2))2]. Thus, F1∩F2 is a PFI of K.
Theorem 3.3. Let F={α,μF(α),νF(α)} be a PFI of K. Then,
ⅰ. F∗+={α∈K:(μF(α))2=(μF(0))2} is an ideal of K.
ⅱ. F∗−={α∈K:(νF(α))2=(νF(0))2} is an ideal of K.
ⅲ. F∗={α∈K:(μF(α))2=(μF(0))2and(νF(α))2=(νF(0))2} is an ideal of K.
Proof. ⅰ. By definition of F∗+, we have 0∈F∗+. Therefore, F∗+ is non-empty subset of K.
Let α1,α2∈F∗+, then (μF(α1))2=(μF(0))2=(μF(α2))2. Consider
(μF(α1−α2))2≥min[(μF(α1))2,(μF(α2))2]=min[(μF(α1))2,(μF(α2))2] |
=min[(μF(0))2,(μF(0))2]=(μF(0))2. |
Moreover, from Theorem 3.1, it can be obtained (μF(0))2≥(μF(α1−α2))2. Therefore, (μF(α1−α2))2=(μF(0))2 implying that α1−α2∈F∗+.
Now, suppose that α∈F∗+ and β∈K. Then,
(μF(αβ))2≥max[(μF(α))2,(μF(β))2]=(μF(0))2. |
In view of Theorem 3.1, (μF(0))2≥(μF(αβ))2. So, (μF(αβ))2=(μF(0))2⇒αβ∈F∗+.
Similarly, it can be proved that βα∈F∗+. Thus, F∗+ is an ideal of K.
ⅱ. The proof is similar to that of (ⅰ).
ⅲ. The proof is straightforward by using (ⅰ) and (ⅱ).
Theorem 3.4. The intersection of a PFSR F and a PFI A of a ring K is a PFI of F∗.
Proof. Let α1,α2∈F∗, then,
(μF∩A(α1−α2))2=min[(μF(α1−α2))2,(μA(α1−α2))2] |
≥min[min((μF(α1))2,(μF(α2))2),min((μA(α1))2,(μA(α2))2)] |
=min[min((μF(α1))2,(μA(α1))2),min((μF(α2))2,(μA(α2))2)] |
=min[(μF∩A(α1))2,(μF∩A(α2))2]. |
Therefore, (μF∩A(α1−α2))2≥min[(μF∩A(α1))2,(μF∩A(α2))2]. Similarly, (νF∩A(α1−α2))2≤max[(νF∩A(α1))2,(νF∩A(α2))2]. Next,
(μF∩A(α1α2))2=min[(μF(α1α2))2,(μA(α1α2))2] |
≥min[min((μF(α1))2,(μF(α2))2),max((μA(α1))2,(μA(α2))2)] |
=min[max((μF(α1))2,(μF(α2))2),max((μA(α1))2,(μA(α2))2)],as(μF(α1))2=0=(μF(α2))2 |
≥max[min((μF(α1))2,(μA(α1))2),min((μF(α2))2,(μA(α2))2)] |
=max[(μF∩A(α1))2,(μF∩A(α2))2]. |
That is, (μF∩A(α1α2))2≥max[(μF∩A(α1))2,(μF∩A(α2))2]. By using the same arguments, it can be obtainable that (νF∩A(α1α2))2≤min[(νF∩A(α1))2,(νF∩A(α2))2]. Thus, F∩A is a PFI of F∗.
We present the following example to explain Theorem 3.4.
Example 3.2. Consider a PFSR F={(a,μF(a)={0.80,ifa∈Z,0.70,otherwise,νF(a)={0.30,ifa∈Z,0.40,otherwise):a∈R} and a PFI A={(a,μA(a)={0.90,ifa=0,0.75,otherwise,νA(a)={0.25,ifa=0,0.50,otherwise):a∈R} of the ring of real numbers R. Then, F∗=Z and F∩A={(a,μF∩A(a)={0.80,ifa=0,0.75,ifa∈Z−{0}0.70,otherwise,νF∩A(a)={0.30,ifa=0,0.50,ifa∈Z−{0}0.50,otherwise):a∈R}. It can be easily validated that F∩A is a PFI of F∗=Z.
Theorem 3.5. A PFS F of a ring K is PFI of K if and only if F(σ,ρ) is an ideal of K for all σ∈[0,(μF(0))2] and ρ∈[(νF(0))2,1].
Proof. Suppose that F={(α,μF(α),νF(α):α∈K} is PFI of K. We want to prove that F(σ,ρ) is an ideal of K for all σ∈[0,(μF(0))2] and ρ∈[(νF(0))2,1].
For all such σ and ρ, clearly (μF(0))2≥σand(νF(0))2≤ρ. Therefore, 0∈F(σ,ρ) implying that F(σ,ρ) is a non-empty set.
Suppose α1,α2∈F(σ,ρ), which means that (μF(α1))2,(μF(α2))2≥σ and (νF(α1))2,(νF(α2))2≤ρ. Since F is PFI of K, therefore,
(μF(α1−α2))2≥min{(μF(α1))2,(μF(α2))2}≥min{σ,σ}=σ |
and
(νF(α1−α2))2≤max{(νF(α1))2,(νF(α2))2}≤max{ρ,ρ}=ρ |
together imply that α1−α2∈F(σ,ρ).
Again, assume that α∈F(σ,ρ) and β∈K, then (μF(α))2≥σ and (νF(α))2≤ρ. Since F is PFI of K, therefore,
(μF(αβ))2≥max{(μF(α))2,(μF(β))2}≥max{σ,(μF(β))2}≥σ |
and
(νF(αβ))2≤max{(νF(α))2,(νF(β))2}≤min{ρ,(νF(β))2}≤ρ |
together imply that αβ∈F(σ,ρ). In a similar way, we can prove that βα∈F(σ,ρ). Thus, F(σ,ρ) is an ideal of K.
Conversely, let F(σ,ρ) be an ideal of K for all σ∈[0,(μF(0))2] and ρ∈[(νF(0))2,1]. To show F is a PFI of K, firstly suppose that α1,α2∈K and let (μF(α1))2=σ1,(μF(α2))2=σ2,(νF(α1))2=ρ1 and (νF(α2))2=ρ2. Then,
ⅰ. α1,α2∈F(min(σ1,σ2),max(ρ1,ρ2)), since F(min(σ1,σ2),max(ρ1,ρ2)) is an ideal of K, therefore α1−α2∈F(min(σ1,σ2),max(ρ1,ρ2)), which yields (μF(α1−α2))2≥min(σ1,σ2)=min{(μF(α1))2,(μF(α2))2} and (νF(α1−α2))2≤max(ρ1,ρ2)=max{(νF(α1))2,(νF(α2))2}.
ⅱ. Either α1∈F(max(σ1,σ2),min(ρ1,ρ2)) or α2∈F(max(σ1,σ2),min(ρ1,ρ2)). In both the case, we yield α1α2∈F(max(σ1,σ2),min(ρ1,ρ2)), since F(max(σ1,σ2),min(ρ1,ρ2)) is an ideal of K, which further implies that (μF(α1α2))2≥max(σ1,σ2)=max{(μF(α1))2,(μF(α2))2} and (νF(α1α2))2≤min(ρ1,ρ2)=min{(νF(α1))2,(νF(α2))2}.
Thus, F is a PFSR of K.
Theorem 3.6. Suppose that K is a division ring. Then, a PFS F is a PFI of K if and only if (μF(α))2=(μF(1))2≤(μF(0))2 and (νF(α))2=(νF(1))2≥(νF(0))2 for all α∈R∖{0}.
Proof. Let F be a PFI of K. Then,
(μF(α))2=(μF(α.1))2≥max{(μF(α))2,(μF(1))2}≥(μF(1))2=(μF(αα−1))2 |
≥max{(μF(α))2,(μF(α−1))2}≥(μF(α))2, |
⇒(μF(α))2=(μF(1))2. Similarly, we can obtain that (νF(α))2=(νF(1))2. Finally, the application of Theorem 3.1 (ⅰ) gives the desired result.
Conversely, let (μF(α))2=(μF(1))2≤(μF(0))2 and (νF(α))2=(νF(1))2≥(νF(0))2 for all α∈R∖{0}:
(ⅰ) For all α1,α2∈K, if α1≠α2, then, (μF(α1−α2))2=(μF(1))2≥min{(μF(α1))2,(μF(α2))2} and (νF(α1−α2))2=(νF(1))2≤max{(νF(α1))2,(νF(α2))2}, and if α1=α2, then, (μF(α1−α2))2=(μF(0))2≥min{(μF(α1))2,(μF(α2))2} and (νF(α1−α2))2=(νF(0))2≤max{(νF(α1))2,(νF(α2))2}.
(ⅱ) For all α1,α2∈K, if α1=0 or α2=0, then (μF(α1α2))2≥max{(μF(α1))2,(μF(α2))2} and (νF(α1α2))2≤min{(νF(α1))2,(νF(α2))2} is obvious, and if α1≠0 and α2≠0, then (μF(α1α2))2=(μF(1))2=max{(μF(α1))2,(μF(α2))2} and (νF(α1α2))2=(μF(1))2=min{(νF(α1))2,(νF(α2))2}.
Thus, F is a PFI of K.
In this section, we define the notion of Pythagorean fuzzy cosets of a Pythagorean fuzzy ideal and prove that the set of all Pythagorean fuzzy cosets of a Pythagorean fuzzy ideal forms ring under certain binary operations. Furthermore, we prove Pythagorean fuzzy version of fundamental theorem of ring homomorphism.
We start this section with following theorem which provides basis to define Pythagorean fuzzy cosets (PFCs) of PFI in a ring K.
Theorem 4.1. Assume that F={(α,μF(α),νF(α)):α∈K} is a PFI of a ring K and μΓF:K╱F∗[0,1] and νΓF: K╱F∗[0,1] are defined by μΓF(α+F∗)=μF(α) and μΓF(α+F∗)=νF(α) respectively. Then ΓF={(α+F∗,μΓF(α+F∗),νΓF(α+F∗)):α+F∗∈K╱F∗} is a PFI of K╱F∗.
Proof. Since F is a PFI of K, therefore, F∗ is an ideal of K. Firstly, we show that μΓF and νΓF, used to define PFS ΓF, are well-defined. For this, let
α1+F∗=α2+F∗, where α1,α2∈K,
⇒α1−α2∈F∗⇒α1,α2∈F∗⇒(μF(α1))2=(μF(α2))2and(νF(α1))2=(νF(α2))2⇒(μΓF(α1+F∗))2=(μΓF(α2+F∗))2and(νΓF(α1+F∗))2=(νΓF(α2+F∗))2. |
Next, we prove that ΓF is a PFI of K╱F∗, so let α1+F∗,α2+F∗∈K╱F∗. Then,
(μΓF((α1+F∗)−(α2+F∗)))2 |
=(μΓF((α1−α2)+F∗))2=(μΓF(α1−α2))2 |
≥min{(μΓF(α1))2,(μΓF(α2))2} |
=min{(μΓF(α1+F∗))2,(μΓF(α2+F∗))2}. |
Similarly,
(νΓF((α1+F∗)−(α2+F∗)))2≤max{(νΓF(α1+F∗))2,(νΓF(α2+F∗))2}. |
Moreover,
(μΓF((α1+F∗)(α2+F∗)))2 |
=(μΓF(α1α2+F∗))2=(μF(α1α2))2 |
≥max{(μF(α1))2,(μF(α2))2} |
=max{(μΓF(α1+F∗))2,(μΓF(α2+F∗))2}. |
Similarly,
(νΓF((α1+F∗)(α2+F∗)))2≤min{(νΓF(α1+F∗))2,(νΓF(α2+F∗))2}. |
Thus, we conclude that ΓF is a PFI of K╱F∗.
The Example 4.1 describes the result proved in Theorem 4.1.
Example 4.1. Consider a PFI F of Z6, a ring of integers modulo 6, that is,
F={(0,0.95,0.15),(1,0.70,0.40),(2,0.95,0.15),(3,0.70,0.40),(4,0.95,0.15),(5,0.70,0.40)}. |
Then, we have F∗={0,2,4} and the quotient ring Z6╱F∗={{0,2,4},{1,3,5}}. Now, following the technique described in Theorem 4.1, we construct a PFS ΓF of Z6╱F∗ as follows:
ΓF={({0,2,4},0.95,0.15),({1,3,5},0.70,0.40)}. |
As can be seen, the constructed PFS ΓF is a PFI of Z6╱F∗.
Theorem 4.2. Suppose that I and O are ideal and PFI of a ring K and K╱I respectively. If μO(α+I)=μO(I) and νO(α+I)=νO(I)⟺α∈I, then there exists a PFI F of K such that F∗=I.
Proof. Let us define a PFS F of K in the following way:
μF(α)=μO(α+I) and νF(α)=νO(α+I), for all α∈K,
(μF(α1−α2))2=(μO((α1−α2)+I))2 |
=(μO((α1+I)−(α1+I)))2 |
≥min{(μO(α1+I))2,(μO(α2+I))2} |
=min{(μF(α1))2,(μF(α2))2}. |
Similarly,
(μF(α1−α2))2≤max{(νF(α1))2,(νF(α2))2}. |
Also,
(μF(α1α2))2=(μO(α1α2+I))2=(μO((α1+I)(α1+I)))2 |
≥max{(μO(α1+I))2,(μO(α2+I))2} |
=max{(μF(α1))2,(μF(α2))2}. |
Similarly,
(μF(α1α2))2≤min{(νF(α1))2,(νF(α2))2}. |
This implies that F is a PFI of K.
Next, α∈F∗⟺(μF(α))2=(μF(0))2 and (νF(α))2=(νF(0))2⟺(μO(α+I))2=(μF(μO(I)))2 and (νF(μO(α+I)))2=(νF(μO(I)))2⟺α∈I. Thus, F∗=I.
We verify the result proved in Theorem 4.2 in the following example.
Example 4.2. Consider an ideal 4Z of Z. Then, Z╱4Z={4Z,1+4Z,2+4Z,3+4Z}. Keeping in mind the condition given in Theorem 4.2, we design a PFI O of Z╱4Z as follows:
O={(4Z,0.90,0.20),(1+4Z,0.70,0.40),(2+4Z,0.80,0.35),(3+4Z,0.70,0.40)}. |
Again, we obtain a PFI F={n,μF(n)={0.90,ifn∈4Z,0.80,ifn∈2+4Z0.70,otherwise,,νF(n)={0.20,ifn∈4Z,0.35,ifn∈2+4Z,0.40,otherwise,} of Z by using the membership and non-membership functions defined in Theorem 4.2. It is easy to find F∗=4Z, which affirms Theorem 4.2.
Definition 4.1. Let F be a PFI of a ring K and β∈K. Then, the PFS Fβ={(α,μFβ(α),νFβ(α):α∈K} of K, where (μFβ(α))2=(μF(α−β))2 and (νFβ(α))2=(νF(α−β))2, is called Pythagorean fuzzy coset (PFC) of PFI F in a ring K associated with β.
The concept of PFC of a PFI F in a ring K is explained in the example below.
Example 4.3. Consider a PFI F of Z6 as follows:
F={(0,0.80,0.40),(1,0.70,0.50),(2,0.70,0.50),(3,0.80,0.40),(4,0.70,0.50),(5,0.70,0.50)}. |
Next, we find PFCs Fβ of F associated with all β∈Z6.
(ⅰ) The PFC of 𝐽 with respect to 0 is
F0={(0,μF(0−0),νF(0−0)),(1,μF(1−0),νF(1−0)),(2,μF(2−0),νF(2−0)),(3,μF(3−0),νF(3−0)),(4,μF(4−0),νF(4−0)),(5,μF(5−0),νF(5−0))} |
={(0,0.80,0.40),(1,0.70,0.50),(2,0.70,0.50),(3,0.80,0.40),(4,0.70,0.50),(5,0.70,0.50)}. |
(ⅱ) The PFC of 𝐽 with respect to 1 is
F1={(0,μF(0−1),νF(0−1)),(1,μF(1−1),νF(1−1)),(2,μF(2−1),νF(2−1)),(3,μF(3−1),νF(3−1)),(4,μF(4−1),νF(4−1)),(5,μF(5−1),νF(5−1))} |
={(0,μF(5),νF(5)),(1,μF(0),νF(0)),(2,μF(1),νF(1)),(3,μF(2),νF(2)),(4,μF(3),νF(3)),(5,μF(4),νF(4))} |
={(0,0.70,0.50),(1,0.80,0.40),(2,0.70,0.50),(3,0.70,0.50),(4,0.80,0.40),(5,0.70,0.50)}. |
(ⅲ) The PFC of 𝐽 with respect to 2 is
F2={(0,μF(0−2),νF(0−2)),(1,μF(1−2),νF(1−2)),(2,μF(2−2),νF(2−2)),(3,μF(3−2),νF(3−2)),(4,μF(4−2),νF(4−2)),(5,μF(5−2),νF(5−2))} |
={(0,μF(4),νF(4)),(1,μF(5),νF(5)),(2,μF(0),νF(0)),(3,μF(1),νF(1)),(4,μF(2),νF(2)),(5,μF(3),νF(3))} |
={(0,0.70,0.50),(1,0.70,0.50),(2,0.80,0.40),(3,0.70,0.50),(4,0.70,0.50),(5,0.80,0.40)}. |
(iv) The PFC of 𝐽 with respect to 3 is
F3={(0,μF(0−3),νF(0−3)),(1,μF(1−3),νF(1−3)),(2,μF(2−3),νF(2−3)),(3,μF(3−3),νF(3−3)),(4,μF(4−3),νF(4−3)),(5,μF(5−3),νF(5−3))} |
={(0,μF(3),νF(3)),(1,μF(4),νF(4)),(2,μF(5),νF(5)),(3,μF(0),νF(0)),(4,μF(1),νF(1)),(5,μF(2),νF(2))} |
={(0,0.80,0.40),(1,0.70,0.50),(2,0.70,0.50),(3,0.80,0.40),(4,0.70,0.50),(5,0.70,0.50)}. |
(v) The PFC of 𝐽 with respect to 4 is
F4={(0,μF(0−4),νF(0−4)),(1,μF(1−4),νF(1−4)),(2,μF(2−4),νF(2−4)),(3,μF(3−4),νF(3−4)),(4,μF(4−4),νF(4−4)),(5,μF(5−4),νF(5−4))} |
={(0,μF(2),νF(2)),(1,μF(3),νF(3)),(2,μF(4),νF(4)),(3,μF(5),νF(5)),(4,μF(0),νF(0)),(5,μF(1),νF(1))} |
={(0,0.70,0.50),(1,0.80,0.40),(2,0.70,0.50),(3,0.70,0.50),(4,0.80,0.40),(5,0.70,0.50)}. |
(vi) The PFC of 𝐽 with respect to 5 is
F5={(0,μF(0−5),νF(0−5)),(1,μF(1−5),νF(1−5)),(2,μF(2−5),νF(2−5)),(3,μF(3−5),νF(3−5)),(4,μF(4−5),νF(4−5)),(5,μF(5−5),νF(5−5))} |
={(0,μF(1),νF(1)),(1,μF(2),νF(2)),(2,μF(3),νF(3)),(3,μF(4),νF(4)),(4,μF(5),νF(5)),(5,μF(0),νF(0))} |
={(0,0.70,0.50),(1,0.70,0.50),(2,0.80,0.40),(3,0.70,0.50),(4,0.70,0.50),(5,0.80,0.40)}. |
Thus, there are three distinct PFCs of 𝐽 in terms of all elements of Z6, namely F0=F3, F1=F4 and F2=F5.
Theorem 4.3. Let F be a PFI of K. Then RF, the set of all PFCs of F in K, forms ring with the following binary operations:
Fβ+Fγ=Fβ+γandFβFγ=Fβγforallβ,γ∈K. |
Proof. Firstly, we will prove that both the binary operations defined on RF are well-defined.
Suppose that β,γ,ζ,η∈K and Fβ=Fγ and Fζ=Fη. Then for all α∈K,
μFβ(α)=μFγ(α)andνFβ(α)=νFγ(α), | (4.1) |
μFζ(α)=μFη(α)andνFζ(α)=νFη(α). | (4.2) |
So,
μF(α−β)=μF(α−γ)andνF(α−β)=νF(α−γ), | (4.3) |
μF(α−ζ)=μF(α−η)andνF(α−ζ)=νF(α−η). | (4.4) |
Putting α=β+ζ−η in (4.3), α=ζ in (4.4) and α=β in (4.3), we have
μF(ζ−η)=μF(β+ζ−η−γ)andνF(ζ−η)=νF(β+ζ−η−γ), | (4.5) |
μF(0)=μF(ζ−η)andνF(0)=νF(ζ−η), | (4.6) |
μF(0)=μF(β−γ)andνF(0)=νF(β−γ). | (4.7) |
Now,
(μFβ(α))2+(μFζ(α))2=(μFβ+ζ(α))2=(μF(α−β−ζ))2 |
=(μF((α−γ−η)−(β−γ+ζ−η)))2 |
≥min{(μF(α−(γ+η)))2,(μF(β−γ+ζ−η))2} |
≥min{(μF(α−(γ+η)))2,(μF(0))2}(byusing(4.6)and(4.7)) |
=(μF(α−(γ+η)))2=(μFγ+η(α))2=(μFγ(α))2+(μFη(α))2. |
So,
(μFβ(α))2+(μFζ(α))2≥(μFγ(α))2+(μFη(α))2. | (4.8) |
Similarly, we can prove that
(μFγ(α))2+(μFη(α))2≥(μFβ(α))2+(μFζ(α))2. | (4.9) |
The inequalities (4.8) and (4.9) yields
(μFβ(α))2+(μFζ(α))2=(μFγ(α))2+(μFη(α))2. | (4.10) |
By using (4.1) and (4.2), we obtain
μFβ(α)+μFζ(α)=μFγ(α)+μFη(α). | (4.11) |
The similar reasoning leads us to
νFβ(α)+νFζ(α)=νFγ(α)+νFη(α). | (4.12) |
Again, the utilization of the same method gives us
μFβ(α)μFζ(α)=μFγ(α)μFη(α), | (4.13) |
and
νFβ(α)νFζ(α)=νFγ(α)νFη(α). | (4.14) |
The Eqs (4.11)–(4.14) yield that
Fβ+Fζ=Fγ+FηandFβFζ=FγFη. |
Hence, both addition and multiplication defined on RF are well-defined. Next, it is easy to verify that F0=F serves as additive identity of RF, and for each Fβ∈RF there exists F−β∈RF such that Fβ+F−β=F0=F−β+Fβ. The remaining properties are routine computations.
The following example illustrates the fact mentioned in Theorem 4.3.
Example 4.4. In Example 4.3, we find that the set of all PFCs of F={(0,0.80,0.40),(1,0.70,0.50),(2,0.70,0.50),(3,0.80,0.40),(4,0.70,0.50),(5,0.70,0.50)} in Z6 is RF={F0,F1,F2}. Consider the Cayley's tables (see Tables 1 and 2) of RF obtained by employing the operations defined in Theorem 4.3 as follows:
+ | F0 | F1 | F2 |
F0 | F0 | F1 | F2 |
F1 | F1 | F2 | F0 |
F2 | F2 | F0 | F1 |
. | F0 | F1 | F2 |
F0 | F0 | F0 | F0 |
F1 | F0 | F1 | F2 |
F2 | F0 | F2 | F1 |
From Tables 1 and 2, we see that RF is a ring under defined binary operations.
Remark 4.1. If F={(α,μF(α),νF(α):α∈K} is a PFI of a ring K such that μF and νF are constant functions, then RF={F0}.
Definition 4.2. Let F be a PFI of a ring K, then the PFI F' of RF defined by μF'(Fβ)=μF(β) and νF'(Fβ)=νF(β), for all β∈K, is called Pythagorean fuzzy quotient ideal (PFQI) associated with F.
Theorem 4.4. If F={(α,μF(α),νF(α):α∈K} is a PFI of a ring K, then a mapping θ:K→RF defined by θ(β)=Fβ for β∈K is a ring homomorphism with kernel F∗.
Proof. Assume that β,γ∈K, then,
θ(β+γ)=Fβ+γ=Fβ+Fγ=θ(β)+θ(γ) |
and
θ(βγ)=Fβγ=FβFγ=θ(β)θ(γ). |
First, we prove that if (μF(β))2=(μF(0))2 and (νF(β))2=(νF(0))2 if and only if Fβ=F0.
Suppose that (μF(β))2=(μF(0))2 and (νF(β))2=(νF(0))2. Then for all α∈K, we have (μF(α))2≤(μF(β))2=(μF(0))2 and (νF(α))2≥(νF(β))2=(νF(0))2. If (μF(α))2<(μF(β))2⇒(μF(α−β))2=(μF(α))2 by Theorem 3.1 (ⅱ). On the other hand, if (μF(α))2=(μF(β))2, then,
α,β∈{γ∈K:(μF(γ))2=(μF(0))2}⇒(μF(α−β))2=(μF(α))2=(μF(0))2. |
So, in either case, we have
(μF(α−β))2=(μF(α))2forallα∈K. |
In a similar way, we can prove
(νF(α−β))2=(νF(α))2forallα∈K. |
Thus, Fβ=F0.
Conversely, suppose that Fβ=F0, so for all α∈K, (μF(α−β))2=(μF(α−0))2 and (νF(α−β))2=(νF(α−0))2. Then,
(μF(β))2=(μF(α−(α−β)))2≥min{(μF(α))2,(μF(α−β))2}=(μF(α))2. |
Thus, for all α∈K, we obtain (μF(β))2≥(μF(α))2, hence, (μF(β))2=(μF(0))2.
The similar reasoning yields that (νF(β))2=(νF(0))2. Now,
Kerθ={β∈K:θ(β)=F0}={β∈K:Fβ=F0}={β∈K:(μF(β))2=(μF(0))2and(νF(β))2=(νF(0))2}=F∗. |
The following example explains the fact given in Theorem 4.4.
Example 4.5. In Example 4.2, we computed RF={F0,F1,F2} for PFI F={(0,0.80,0.40),(1,0.70,0.50),(2,0.70,0.50),(3,0.80,0.40),(4,0.70,0.50),(5,0.70,0.50)} of Z6. By using the approach defined in Theorem 4.4, we define θ:Z6→RF as follows:
θ(0)=θ(3)=F0,θ(1)=θ(4)=F1andθ(2)=θ(5)=F2. |
Now, θ(1+2)=θ(3)=F0 and θ(1)+θ(2)=F1+F2=F3=F0 show that θ(1+2)=θ(1)+θ(2). Furthermore, θ((1)(2))=θ(2)=F2 and θ(1)θ(2)=F1F2=F2 together imply that θ((1)(2))=θ(1).θ(2). Similarly, it is easy to verify that θ(n+m)=θ(n)+θ(m) and ((n)(m))=θ(n).θ(m) for all n,m∈Z6. It means that θ is a ring homomorphism. Also, since F0 is zero of RF, therefore, Ker θ={0,3}=F∗ satisfying Theorem 4.4.
Next, we present an analogue of Fundamental theorem of homomorphism.
Theorem 4.5. Let F be a PFI of a ring K, then every PFI of RF corresponds in a natural way to a PFI of K.
Proof. Let F' be a PFI of RF. Define PFS P of K in the following way:
(μP(β))2=(μF'(Fβ))2and(νP(β))2=(νF'(Fβ))2. |
It is simple to verify that P is a PFI of K.
In this section, the concept of Pythagorean fuzzy semi-prime ideals is defined. We investigate some important algebraic features of this newly defined notion. Furthermore, the characterization of regular rings by virtue of PFI is presented.
Definition 5.1. A PFI F of a ring K is called Pythagorean fuzzy semi-prime ideal (PFSPI) of K if for any PFI P of K, Pn⊆F⇒P⊆F for all n∈N.
Theorem 5.1. A PFI F of a ring K is PFSPI if and only if F(σ,ρ) is a semi-prime ideal of K for all σ∈[0,(μF(0))2] and ρ∈[(νF(0))2,1].
Proof. Suppose that F is a PFSPI of K and β∈K such that βn∈F(σ,ρ). Let us define a PFI P of K in the following way:
(μP(γ))2={σ,ifγ∈⟨β⟩,0,otherwise,and(νP(γ))2={ρ,ifγ∈⟨β⟩,1,otherwise. |
Suppose that (μnP(γ))2≠0, then γ=γ1γ2,…,γn such that (μP(γi))2≠0, for all i=1,2,…,n, because otherwise, there exists γj in each representation γ1γ2,…,γn of γ such that (μP(γj))2=0, therefore,
(μnP(γ))2=(μPμn−1P(γjγ1γ2,…,γj−1γj+1,γj+2,…,γn))2=0, |
which is a contradiction.
Similarly, we can prove that (νnP(γ))2≠1 implies γ=γ1γ2,…,γn such that (νP(γi))2≠1, for all i=1,2,…,n. Thus,
(μP(γi))2=σ=(μnP(γ))2and(νP(γi))2=ρ=(νnP(γ))2⇒γi∈⟨β⟩,bydefinitionofP⇒γ=γ1,γ2,…,γn∈⟨βn⟩⊆F(σ,ρ),sinceβn∈F(σ,ρ)⇒γ∈F(σ,ρ)⇒(μF(γ))2≥σand(νF(γ))2≤ρ⇒(μF(γ))2≥(μnP(γ))2and(νF(γ))2≤(νnP(γ))2⇒Pn⊆F⇒P⊆F,sinceFisaPFSPIofK⇒(μF(β))2≥(μP(β))2=σand(νF(β))2≤(νP(β))2=ρ⇒β∈F(σ,ρ). |
Thus, F(σ,ρ) is a semi-prime ideal of K.
Conversely, suppose that F(σ,ρ) is a semi-prime ideal of K for all σ∈[0,(μF(0))2] and ρ∈[(νF(0))2,1]. Assume that F is not a PFSPI of K. It means that there exists a PFI P of K such that Pn⊆F but P⊈F. Therefore, for some β∈K, we have
(μP(β))2>(μF(β))2or(νP(β))2<(νF(β))2. | (5.1) |
Let (μF(β))2=σ and (νF(β))2=ρ, then β∈F(σ,ρ), so βn∈F(σ,ρ). Moreover β∉F(σ',ρ') for all σ'>σ and ρ'<ρ. Since F(σ',ρ') is a semi-prime ideal of K, therefore, βn∉F(σ',ρ'). Thus, (μF(βn))2=σ and (νF(βn))2=ρ. Therefore,
(μF(βn))2=(μF(β))2and(νF(βn))2=(νF(β))2. | (5.2) |
Next, it can be easily verified that
(μnP(β))2≥(μP(β))2and(νnP(β))2≤(νP(β))2. | (5.3) |
Then, (5.1)–(5.3) imply that, either (μnP(β))2>(μF(βn))2 or (νnP(β))2<(νF(βn))2. This means that Pn⊈F, thus we reach at a contradiction.
Example 5.1. Consider a PFI F={(0,0.90,0.35),(1,0.80,0.60),(2,0.80,0.60),(3,0.80,0.60),(4,0.90,0.35),(5,0.80,0.60),(6,0.80,0.60),(7,0.80,0.60),(8,0.90,0.35),(9,0.80,0.60),(10,0.80,0.60),(11,0.80,0.60)} of Z12. The Pythagorean fuzzy level ideal F(0.902,0.352)={0,4,8} is not a semi-prime ideal of Z12 since ({0,2,4,6,8,10})2={0,4,8}⊆F(0.902,0.352) but {0,2,4,6,8,10}⊈F(0.902,0.352).
Also, F is not a PFSPI ideal of Z12 because there exists a PFI P={(0,0.90,0.35),(1,0.80,0.60),(2,0.90,0.35),(3,0.80,0.60),(4,0.90,0.35),(5,0.80,0.60),(6,0.90,0.35),(7,0.80,0.60),(8,0.90,0.35),(9,0.80,0.60),(10,0.90,0.35),(11,0.80,0.60)} of Z12 such that P2=P∘P=F⊆F but P⊈F. This satisfies the conditional statement "if F is PFSPI of K, then F(σ,ρ) is a semi-prime ideal of K for all σ∈[0,(μF(0))2] and ρ∈[(νF(0))2,1]" expressed in Theorem 5.1.
Example 5.2. Consider a PFI F={(0,0.90,0.30),(1,0.60,0.50),(2,0.60,0.50),(3,0.60,0.50),(4,0.80,0.40),(5,0.60,0.50),(6,0.60,0.50),(7,0.60,0.50)} of Z8. It is not a PFSPI ideal of Z8 because there exists a PFI P={(0,0.90,0.30),(1,0.60,0.50),(2,0.80,0.40),(3,0.60,0.50),(4,0.80,0.40),(5,0.60,0.50),(6,0.80,0.40),(7,0.60,0.50)} of Z8 such that P2=P∘P=F⊆F but P⊈F.
Furthermore, for all σ∈[0,(μF(0))2] and ρ∈[(νF(0))2,1], we have the following three Pythagorean fuzzy level ideals F(σ,ρ):
ⅰ. F(σ,ρ)={0}=I1 where 0.80<σ≤0.90 and 0.30≤ρ<0.40,
ⅱ. F(σ,ρ)={0,4}=I2 where 0.60<σ≤0.80 and 0.40≤ρ<0.50,
ⅲ. F(σ,ρ)=Z8=I3 where 0≤σ≤0.60 and 0.50≤ρ≤1.
The Pythagorean fuzzy level ideal I2={0,4} is not a semi-prime ideal of Z8 as ({0,2,4,6})2={0,4}⊆I2 but {0,2,4,6}⊈I2. Thus, the conditional statement "if F(σ,ρ) is a semi-prime ideal of K for all σ∈[0,(μF(0))2] and ρ∈[(νF(0))2,1], then F is PFSPI of K" revealed in Theorem 5.1, is satisfied.
Theorem 5.2. If F is a PFSPI of K, then RF, the set of all PFCs of F in K, has no non-zero nilpotent elements.
Proof. Suppose that F is a PFSPI of a ring K, then by Theorem 5.1, it follows that F(σ,ρ) is a semi-prime ideal of K, where σ=(μF(0))2 and ρ=(νF(0))2. Moreover, in view of Theorem 4.3 it follows that RF≅K╱F(σ,ρ).
Let α+F(σ,ρ) be non-zero nilpotent element of K╱F(σ,ρ). Therefore,
(α+F(σ,ρ))n=F(σ,ρ) |
⇒αn+F(σ,ρ)=F(σ,ρ) |
⇒αn∈F(σ,ρ)⇒α∈F(σ,ρ) |
⇒α+F(σ,ρ)=F(σ,ρ). |
Thus, we have a contradiction, thus, K╱F(σ,ρ) has no non-zero nilpotent element. This together with RF≅K╱F(σ,ρ) leads to the desired result.
Example 5.3. Consider a PFI F of Z6 as follows:
F={(0,0.80,0.40),(1,0.70,0.50),(2,0.70,0.50),(3,0.80,0.40),(4,0.70,0.50),(5,0.70,0.50)}. |
Clearly, it has two non-empty Pythagorean fuzzy level subsets namely {0, 3} and Z6 which are semi-prime ideals of Z6. Therefore, by Theorem 5.1, F is PFSPI of Z6.
Also, the set of all PFCs of F in Z6 is RF={F0,F1,F2}. One can see that both non-zero elements F1 and F2 are not nilpotent. Thus, Theorem 5.2 is satisfied.
Definition 5.2. Let K be a ring and U⊆K. Suppose that χU:K→[0,1] and χUc:K→[0,1] are defined by
χU(α)={1,ifα∈U,0,ifα∉U,andχUc(α)={0,ifα∈U,1,ifα∉U. |
Then,
Ψ(U)={(α,χU(α),χUc(α)):α∈K} |
is a PFS of K.
Lemma 5.1. Ψ(U) is PFI of K if U is an ideal of K.
The proof involves simple computation.
Theorem 5.3. A ring K is regular if and only if F∘O=F∩O, where F and O are PFIs of K.
Proof. Suppose that K is a regular ring. We want to show that F∘O=F∩O. From routine computations, we get F∘O⊆F∩O. Let β∈K, the regularity of K ensures the existence of ζ and η in K such that β=ζη. Now,
(μF∘O(β))2=max{min((μF(ζ))2,(μO(η))2)}. |
Since β=βγβ for some γ∈K. Then,
(μF(β))2=(μF(βγβ))2≥max{(μF(βγ))2,(μF(β))2}≥(μF(βγ))2 |
≥max{(μF(β))2,(μF(γ))2}≥(μF(β))2. |
In short, (μF(β))2≥(μF(βγ))2≥(μF(β))2, therefore, (μF(βγ))2=(μF(β))2. Then,
(μF∘O(β))2=max{min((μF(ζ))2,(μO(η))2)}≥min((μF(βγ))2,(μO(β))2),takingζ=βγandη=β |
=min((μF(β))2,(μO(β))2)=(μF∩O(β))2. |
Similarly, we obtain (ηF∘O(β))2≤(ηF∩O(β))2, which gives F∩O⊆F∘O.
Conversely, suppose that F∘O=F∩O. Let Y and Z be two ideals of K. In view of Lemma 5.1, Ψ(Y)={(α,χY(α),χYc(α)):α∈K} and Ψ(Z)={(α,χZ(α),χZc(α)):α∈K} are PFIs of K. Assume that β∈Y∩Z, then (χY(β))2∩(χz(β))2=1 and (χYc(β))2∩(χZc(β))2=0. Since Ψ(Y)∩Ψ(Z)=Ψ(Z)∘Ψ(Z), therefore, (χY(β))2∩(χz(β))2=(χY(β))2∘(χz(β))2=1 and (χYc(β))2∩(χZc(β))2=(χYc(β))2∘(χZc(β))2=0, therefore,
max{min((χY(β1))2,(χz(β2))2):β1β2=β,β1,β2∈K}=1andmin{max((χYc(β1))2,(χZc(β2))2):β1β2=β,β1,β2∈K}=0. |
It means that there exists γ1,γ2∈K such that
(χY(γ1))2=1=(χZ(γ2))2and(χYc(γ1))2=0=(χZc(γ2))2, |
with β=γ1γ2. Thus, β=γ1γ2∈YZ, which gives Y∩Z⊆Y.Z. Furthermore, Y.Z⊆Y∩Z is obvious. So, Y∩Z=Y.Z, then the regularity of K is directly followed by using the theorem on page 184 of [26].
Theorem 5.4. A ring K is regular if and only if every PFI of K is idempotent.
Proof. Let K be a regular ring and F be a PFI of K. Then, in view of Theorem 5.3, it is straightforward to show that F2=F.
Conversely, let every PFI of K. Assume that F and O are PFIs of K. In view of Theorem 5.3, we require F∘O=F∩O to prove the regularity of K. For this, we proceed as follows: be idempotent
(μF∩O(β))2=(μF∩O2(β))2=max{min((μF∩O(ζ))2,(μF∩O(η))2):β=ζη} |
≤max{min((μF(ζ))2,(μO(η))2):β=ζη}=(μF∘O(β))2. |
The same reasoning leads us to (νF∩O(β))2≥(νF∘O(β))2. So, F∩O⊆F∘O. Furthermore F∘O⊆F∩O is obvious. Thus, F∘O=F∩O.
Lemma 5.2. (Ψ(⟨β⟩))2=Ψ(⟨β2⟩) for all β∈K.
The proof is simple.
Theorem 5.5. A commutative ring K is regular if and only if every PFI of K is PFSPI.
Proof. Suppose that K is a regular ring and F is a PFI of K. Let P be any PFI of K such that Pn⊆F. Since K is regular, therefore by Theorem 5.4, we obtain Pn=P. Thus, P⊆F. This shows that F is a PFSPI of K.
Conversely, suppose that every PFI of K is PFSPI. In view of Lemma 5.2, we have (Ψ(⟨β⟩))2=Ψ(⟨β2⟩) for all β∈K. Since Ψ(⟨β2⟩) is PFSPI of K, therefore, Ψ(⟨β⟩)⊆Ψ(⟨β2⟩). Also, Ψ(⟨β2⟩)⊆Ψ(⟨β⟩) is obvious. Hence, Ψ(⟨β⟩)⊆Ψ(⟨β2⟩). It means that β∈Ψ(⟨β2⟩), therefore, β=αβ2=βαβ for some α∈K. Thus, K is a regular ring.
Example 5.4. We know Z╱5Z is a regular ring. We design a PFI F of Z╱5Z as follows:
F={(0+5Z,0.80,0.40),(1+5Z,0.70,0.50),(2+5Z,0.70,0.50),(3+5Z,0.70,0.50),(4+5Z,0.70,0.50)}. |
It is easy to find that F has two non-empty Pythagorean fuzzy level subsets namely {0+5Z} and Z╱5Z. Both of them are semi-prime ideals of Z╱5Z. Therefore, by Theorem 5.1, F is PFSPI of Z╱5Z satisfying the conditional statement "if a commutative ring K is regular then every PFI of K is PFSPI" expressed in Theorem 5.5.
Example 5.5. Consider a PFI F={(0,0.90,0.35),(1,0.80,0.60),(2,0.80,0.60),(3,0.80,0.60),(4,0.90,0.35),(5,0.80,0.60),(6,0.80,0.60),(7,0.80,0.60),(8,0.90,0.35),(9,0.80,0.60),(10,0.80,0.60),(11,0.80,0.60)} of Z12. Since Z12 contains zero divisors, therefore it not a regular ring. Moreover, in Example 4.6, we see that F is not a PFSPI of Z12. Thus, the conditional statement "if every PFI of a commutative ring K is PFSPI then K is regular" revealed in Theorem 5.5 is verified.
The basic purpose of this paper is to study the notion of the ideal of a classical ring under Pythagorean fuzzy environment. For this purpose, several notions of ring theory like cosets of an ideal, quotient ideal and semiprime ideal are converted into Pythagorean fuzzy format. We have proved that the intersection of two PFIs of a ring K is a PFI. We also show that the intersection of a PFSR F and PFI A of K is PFI of F∗. We define the concept of Pythagorean fuzzy cosets of a Pythagorean fuzzy ideal and prove that the set of all Pythagorean fuzzy cosets of a Pythagorean fuzzy ideal forms a ring under certain binary operations. Furthermore, we present a Pythagorean fuzzy version of the fundamental theorem of ring homomorphism. Next, we give the definition and related properties of Pythagorean fuzzy semi-prime ideals. Lastly, the characterization of regular rings by virtue of Pythagorean fuzzy ideals is presented.
By using the outcomes of present study, our future intention is to investigate the algebraic properties of prime, maximal and irreducible ideals in Pythagorean fuzzy context. Moreover, in future work, we will extend the present concepts under different extensions of the fuzzy sets such as q-rung orthopair fuzzy sets, fuzzy soft sets and fuzzy hypersoft sets etc.
The authors would like to dedicate this study to one of the leading fuzzy algebraists Professor Naseem Ajmal, Department of Mathematics, University of New Delhi, India.
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
[1] |
T. Alodat, Q. T. L. Gia, I. H. Sloan, On approximation for time-fractional stochastic diffusion equations on the unit sphere, J. Comput. Appl. Math., 446 (2024), 115863. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cam.2024.115863 doi: 10.1016/j.cam.2024.115863
![]() |
[2] |
N. Ullah, M. I. Asjad, J. Awrejcewicz, T. Muhammad, D. Baleanu, On soliton solutions of fractional-order nonlinear model appears in physical sciences, AIMS Mathematics, 7 (2022), 7421–7440. https://doi.org/10.3934/math.2022415 doi: 10.3934/math.2022415
![]() |
[3] |
K. Manikandan, N. Serikbayev, D. Aravinthan, K. Hosseini, Solitary wave solutions of the conformable space-time fractional coupled diffusion equation, Partial Differential Equations in Applied Mathematics, 9 (2024), 100630. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.padiff.2024.100630 doi: 10.1016/j.padiff.2024.100630
![]() |
[4] |
Shyamsunder, S. Bhatter, K. Jangid, S. D. Purohit, Fractionalized mathematical models for drug diffusion, Chaos Soliton. Fract., 165 (2022), 112810. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2022.112810 doi: 10.1016/j.chaos.2022.112810
![]() |
[5] |
L. W. Sun, H. Qiu, C. H. Wu, J. Niu, B. X. Hu, A review of applications of fractional advection-dispersion equations for anomalous solute transport in surface and subsurface water, WIREs Water, 7 (2020), e1448. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1448 doi: 10.1002/wat2.1448
![]() |
[6] |
A. P. Jayaraj, K. N. Gounder, J. Rajagopal, Optimizing signal smoothing using HERS algorithm and time fractional diffusion equation, Expert Syst. Appl., 238 (2024), 122250. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2023.122250 doi: 10.1016/j.eswa.2023.122250
![]() |
[7] | W. D. Xue, F. Q. Zhao, Haze image enhancement based on space fractional-order partial differential equation, Ninth International Conference on Digital Image Processing (ICDIP 2017), Hong Kong, China, 2017, 104202N. https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2281752 |
[8] |
S. D. Oloniiju, S. P. Goqo, P. Sibanda, A pseudo-spectral method for time distributed order two-sided space fractional differential equations, Taiwanese J. Math., 25 (2021), 959–979. https://doi.org/10.11650/tjm/210501 doi: 10.11650/tjm/210501
![]() |
[9] |
Z. Q. Ding, A. G. Xiao, M. Li, Weighted finite difference methods for a class of space fractional partial differential equations with variable coefficients, J. Comput. Appl. Math., 233 (2010), 1905–1914. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cam.2009.09.027 doi: 10.1016/j.cam.2009.09.027
![]() |
[10] |
J. J. Liu, M. Yamamoto, A backward problem for the time-fractional diffusion equation, Appl. Anal., 89 (2010), 1769–1788. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036810903479731 doi: 10.1080/00036810903479731
![]() |
[11] |
X. Xu, J. Cheng, M. Yamamoto, Carleman estimate for a fractional diffusion equation with half order and application, Appl. Anal., 90 (2011), 1355–1371. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036811.2010.507199 doi: 10.1080/00036811.2010.507199
![]() |
[12] |
Y. Zhang, X. Xu, Inverse source problem for a fractional diffusion equation, Inverse Probl., 27 (2011), 035010. https://doi.org/10.1088/0266-5611/27/3/035010 doi: 10.1088/0266-5611/27/3/035010
![]() |
[13] |
H. G. Fan, J. H. Tang, K. B. Shi, Y. Zhao, Hybrid impulsive feedback control for drive–response synchronization of fractional-order multi-link memristive neural networks with multi-delays, Fractal Fract., 7 (2023), 495. https://doi.org/10.3390/fractalfract7070495 doi: 10.3390/fractalfract7070495
![]() |
[14] |
H. G. Fan, Y. Rao, K. B. Shi, H. Wen, Global synchronization of fractional-order multi-delay coupled neural networks with multi-link complicated structures via hybrid impulsive control, Mathematics, 11 (2023), 3051. https://doi.org/10.3390/math11143051 doi: 10.3390/math11143051
![]() |
[15] |
H. Y. Yuan, Q. X. Zhu, Some stabilities of stochastic differential equations with delay in the G-framework and Euler–Maruyama method, J. Comput. Appl. Math., 446 (2024), 115856. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cam.2024.115856 doi: 10.1016/j.cam.2024.115856
![]() |
[16] |
H. Y. Yuan, Q. X. Zhu, Practical stability of the analytical and numerical solutions of stochastic delay differential equations driven by G-Brownian motion via some novel techniques, Chaos Soliton. Fract., 183 (2024), 114920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2024.114920 doi: 10.1016/j.chaos.2024.114920
![]() |
[17] |
Y. Luchko, Some uniqueness and existence results for the initial-boundary-value problems for the generalized time-fractional diffusion equation, Comput. Math. Appl., 59 (2010), 1766–1772. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.camwa.2009.08.015 doi: 10.1016/j.camwa.2009.08.015
![]() |
[18] |
K. Sakamoto, M. Yamamoto, Initial value/boundary value problems for fractional diffusion-wave equations and applications to some inverse problems, J. Math. Anal. Appl., 382 (2011), 426–447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmaa.2011.04.058 doi: 10.1016/j.jmaa.2011.04.058
![]() |
[19] |
J. Cheng, J. Nakagawa, M. Yamamoto, T. Yamazaki, Uniqueness in an inverse problem for a one-dimensional fractional diffusion equation, Inverse Probl., 25 (2009), 115002. https://doi.org/10.1088/0266-5611/25/11/115002 doi: 10.1088/0266-5611/25/11/115002
![]() |
[20] |
G. D. Li, Y. Zhang, Y. J. Guan, W. J. Li, Stability analysis of multi-point boundary conditions for fractional differential equation with non-instantaneous integral impulse, Math. Biosci. Eng, 20 (2023), 7020–7041. https://doi.org/10.3934/mbe.2023303 doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023303
![]() |
[21] |
J. Wen, Y. P. Wang, Y. X. Wang, Y. Q. Wang, The quasi-reversibility regularization method for backward problem of the multi-term time-space fractional diffusion equation, Commun. Nonlinear Sci., 131 (2024), 107848. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cnsns.2024.107848 doi: 10.1016/j.cnsns.2024.107848
![]() |
[22] |
Y. B. Jiang, H. Chen, T. Sun, C. B. Huang, Efficient L1-ADI finite difference method for the two-dimensional nonlinear time-fractional diffusion equation, Appl. Math. Comput., 471 (2024), 128609. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2024.128609 doi: 10.1016/j.amc.2024.128609
![]() |
[23] |
S. Arshad, I. Saleem, A. Akgül, J. F. Huang, Y. F. Tang, S. M. Eldin, A novel numerical method for solving the Caputo-Fabrizio fractional differential equation, AIMS Mathematics, 8 (2023), 9535–9556. https://doi.org/10.3934/math.2023481 doi: 10.3934/math.2023481
![]() |
[24] |
I. Talib, M. N. Alam, D. Baleanu, D. Zaidi, A. Marriyam, A new integral operational matrix with applications to multi-order fractional differential equations, AIMS Mathematics, 6 (2021), 8742–8771. https://doi.org/10.3934/math.2021508 doi: 10.3934/math.2021508
![]() |
[25] |
M. H. Heydari, S. Zhagharian, M. Razzaghi, Jacobi polynomials for the numerical solution of multi-dimensional stochastic multi-order time fractional diffusion-wave equations, Comput. Math. Appl., 152 (2023), 91–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.camwa.2023.10.010 doi: 10.1016/j.camwa.2023.10.010
![]() |
[26] |
A. Qazza, R. Saadeh, E. Salah, Solving fractional partial differential equations via a new scheme, AIMS Mathematics, 8 (2023), 5318–5337. https://doi.org/10.3934/math.2023267 doi: 10.3934/math.2023267
![]() |
[27] |
M. S. Hashemi, M. Mirzazadeh, M. Bayram, S. M. E. Din, Numerical approximation of the Cauchy non-homogeneous time-fractional diffusion-wave equation with Caputo derivative using shifted Chebyshev polynomials, Alex. Eng. J., 81 (2023), 118–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2023.09.010 doi: 10.1016/j.aej.2023.09.010
![]() |
[28] |
N. Peykrayegan, M. Ghovatmand, M. H. N. Skandari, D. Baleanu, An approximate approach for fractional singular delay integro-differential equations, AIMS Mathematics, 7 (2022), 9156–9171. https://doi.org/10.3934/math.2022507 doi: 10.3934/math.2022507
![]() |
[29] |
M. Turkyilmazoglu, An efficient computational method for differential equations of fractional type, CMES-Comp. Model. Eng., 133 (2022), 47–65. https://doi.org/10.32604/cmes.2022.020781 doi: 10.32604/cmes.2022.020781
![]() |
[30] |
R. Shikrani, M. S. Hashmi, N. Khan, A. Ghaffar, K. S. Nisar, J. Singh, et al., An efficient numerical approach for space fractional partial differential equations, Alex. Eng. J., 59 (2020), 2911–2919. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2020.02.036 doi: 10.1016/j.aej.2020.02.036
![]() |
[31] |
W. Jiang, Y. Z. Lin, Approximate solution of the fractional advection–dispersion equation, Comput. Phys. Commun., 181 (2010), 557–561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpc.2009.11.004 doi: 10.1016/j.cpc.2009.11.004
![]() |
[32] |
B. Chen, S. Coppieters, Meshfree digital image correlation using reproducing kernel particle method and its degenerate derivations, Measurement, 226 (2024), 114112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2023.114112 doi: 10.1016/j.measurement.2023.114112
![]() |
[33] |
M. G. Cui, Z. Chen, The exact solution of nonlinear age-structured population model, Nonlinear Anal.-Real, 8 (2007), 1096–1112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nonrwa.2006.06.004 doi: 10.1016/j.nonrwa.2006.06.004
![]() |
[34] |
A. Akgül, Reproducing kernel Hilbert space method based on reproducing kernel functions for investigating boundary layer flow of a Powell-Eyring non-Newtonian fluid, J. Taibah Univ. Sci., 13 (2019), 858–863. https://doi.org/10.1080/16583655.2019.1651988 doi: 10.1080/16583655.2019.1651988
![]() |
[35] |
W. Themistoclakis, M. V. Barel, A new kernel method for the uniform approximation in reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces, Appl. Math. Lett., 153 (2024), 109052. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aml.2024.109052 doi: 10.1016/j.aml.2024.109052
![]() |
[36] |
J. Zhang, J. J. Hou, J. Niu, R. F. Xie, X. F. Dai, A high order approach for nonlinear Volterra-Hammerstein integral equations, AIMS Mathematics, 7 (2022), 1460–1469. https://doi.org/10.3934/math.2022086 doi: 10.3934/math.2022086
![]() |
[37] |
H. Du, G. L. Zhao, C. Y. Zhao, Reproducing kernel method for solving Fredholm integro-differential equations with weakly singularity, J. Comput. Appl. Math., 255 (2014), 122–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cam.2013.04.006 doi: 10.1016/j.cam.2013.04.006
![]() |
[38] |
A. Alvandi, M. Paripour, The combined reproducing kernel method and Taylor series for handling nonlinear Volterra integro-differential equations with derivative type kernel, Appl. Math. Comput., 355 (2019), 151–160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2019.02.023 doi: 10.1016/j.amc.2019.02.023
![]() |
[39] |
N. Attia, A. Akgül, D. Seba, A. Nour, M. B. Riaz, Reproducing kernel Hilbert space method for solving fractal fractional differential equations, Results Phys., 35 (2022), 105225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rinp.2022.105225 doi: 10.1016/j.rinp.2022.105225
![]() |
[40] |
Z. Y. Li, M. C. Wang, Y. L. Wang, Solving a class of variable order nonlinear fractional integral differential equations by using reproducing kernel function, AIMS Mathematics, 7 (2022), 12935–12951. https://doi.org/10.3934/math.2022716 doi: 10.3934/math.2022716
![]() |
[41] |
X. Y. Li, B. Y. Wu, Reproducing kernel functions-based meshless method for variable order fractional advection-diffusion-reaction equations, Alex. Eng. J., 59 (2020), 3181–3186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2020.07.034 doi: 10.1016/j.aej.2020.07.034
![]() |
[42] |
O. Saldlr, M. G. Sakar, F. Erdogan, Numerical solution of time-fractional Kawahara equation using reproducing kernel method with error estimate, Comp. Appl. Math., 38 (2019), 198. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40314-019-0979-1 doi: 10.1007/s40314-019-0979-1
![]() |
[43] |
W. Y. Wang, B. Han, M. Yamamoto, Inverse heat problem of determining time-dependent source parameter in reproducing kernel space, Nonlinear Anal.-Real, 14 (2013), 875–887. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nonrwa.2012.08.009 doi: 10.1016/j.nonrwa.2012.08.009
![]() |
[44] | M. G. Cui, Y. Z. Lin, Nonlinear numerical analysis in reproducing kernel space, New York: Nova Science Publishers, 2009. |
[45] |
M. G. Cui, F. Z. Geng, A computational method for solving one-dimensional variable-coeffificient Burgers equation, Appl. Math. Comput., 188 (2007), 1389–1401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2006.11.005 doi: 10.1016/j.amc.2006.11.005
![]() |
[46] |
W. Y. Wang, M. Yamamoto, B. Han, Two-dimensional parabolic inverse source problem with final overdetermination in reproducing kernel space, Chin. Ann. Math. Ser. B, 35 (2014), 469–482. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11401-014-0831-2 doi: 10.1007/s11401-014-0831-2
![]() |
[47] |
W. Y. Wang, M. G. Cui, B. Han, A new method for solving a class of singular two-point boundary value problems, Appl. Math. Comput., 206 (2008), 721–727. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2008.09.019 doi: 10.1016/j.amc.2008.09.019
![]() |
1. | K. Brown, J. Stafford, 2024, 801, 978-1-4704-7632-8, 51, 10.1090/conm/801/16036 | |
2. | Yiwei Zheng, On the structure of irreducible Yetter-Drinfeld modules over D, 2024, 9, 2473-6988, 21321, 10.3934/math.20241035 | |
3. | Nicolás Andruskiewitsch, Sonia Luján Natale, Blas Torrecillas, A class of finite-by-cocommutative Hopf algebras, 2024, 1, 73, 10.5802/art.5 |
+ | F0 | F1 | F2 |
F0 | F0 | F1 | F2 |
F1 | F1 | F2 | F0 |
F2 | F2 | F0 | F1 |
. | F0 | F1 | F2 |
F0 | F0 | F0 | F0 |
F1 | F0 | F1 | F2 |
F2 | F0 | F2 | F1 |