Rough Algebraic Structures Corresponding to Ring Theory

  • Bijan DavvazEmail author
Part of the Trends in Mathematics book series (TM)


The concept of rough set was originally proposed by Pawlak in 1982. Since then the subject has been investigated in many papers. Some authors studied algebraic properties of rough sets. The lattice theoretical approach has been suggested by Iwinski. Pomykala and Pomykala showed that the set of rough sets forms a Stone algebra. Comer presented an interesting discussion of rough sets and various algebras related to the study of algebraic logic, such as Stone algebras and relation algebras. It is a natural question to ask what does happen if we substitute an algebraic structure instead of the universe set. Biswas and Nanda introduced the notion of rough subgroups. Kuroki introduced the notion of a rough ideal in a semigroup. Kuroki and Wang gave some properties of the lower and upper approximations with respect to the normal subgroups. Also, Kuroki and Mordeson studied the structure of rough sets and rough groups. Jun applied the rough set theory to BCK-algebras. The present author applied the concept of approximation spaces in ring theory, module theory and algebraic hyperstructures. A key notion in Pawlak rough set model is an equivalence relation. The equivalence classes are the building blocks for the construction of the lower and upper approximations. An equivalence relation is sometimes difficult to be obtained in real-world problems due to the vagueness and incompleteness of human knowledge. From this point of view, the author introduced the concept of lower inverse and upper inverse of a set under a set-valued map, which is a generalization of the lower and upper approximations. Using this the concept of a set-valued homomorphism for groups, rings, modules and lattices was introduced. The concept of uniform set-valued homomorphism was introduced and it was shown by the present author that every set-valued homomorphism is uniform. The overall aim of this chapter is to present an introduction to some of these results, methods and ideas about rough algebraic structures. Most of the focus will be on rough rings and their generalizations.

2010 AMS Mathematics Subject Classification

16Y99 03E72 


  1. 1.
    Biswas, R., Nanda, S.: Rough groups and rough subgroups. Bull. Polish Acad. Sci. Math. 42, 251–254 (1994)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Comer, S.D.: On connections between information systems, rough sets and algebraic logic. In: Algebraic Methods in Logic and Computer Science, vol. 28, pp. 117–124. Banach Center Publications, Warsaw (1993)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Davvaz, B.: Roughness in rings. Inf. Sci. 164, 147–163 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Davvaz, B.: Roughness based on fuzzy ideals. Inf. Sci. 176, 2417–2437 (2006)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Davvaz, B.: A short note on algebraic T-rough sets. Inf. Sci. 178(16), 3247–3252 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Davvaz, B.: Approximations in a semigroup by using a neighborhood system. Int. J. Comput. Math. 88(4), 709–713 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Davvaz, B.: A short note on approximations in a ring by using a neighborhood system as a generalization of Pawlak’s approximations. UPB Sci. Bull. Ser. A Appl. Math. Phys. 76(4), 77–84 (2014)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Davvaz, B., Cristea, I.: Fuzzy Algebraic Hyperstructures- An introduction. Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing, vol. 321. Springer, Cham (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dubois, D., Prade, H.: Rough fuzzy sets and fuzzy rough sets. Int. J. Gen. Syst. 17(2–3), 191–209 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Freni, D.: A new characterization of the derived hypergroup via strongly regular equivalences. Commun. Algebra 30, 3977–3989 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gratzer, G.: Lattice Theory. First Concepts and Distributive Lattices. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco (1971)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Iwinski, T.: Algebraic approach to rough sets. Bull. Polish Acad. Sci. Math. 35, 673–683 (1987)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jun, Y.B.: Roughness of ideals in BCK-algebras. Sci. Math. Jpn. 57(1), 165–169 (2003)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kazanci, O., Davvaz, B.: On the structure of rough prime (primary) ideals and rough fuzzy prime (primary) ideals in commutative rings. Inf. Sci. 178(5), 1343–1354 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kuroki, N.: Rough ideals in semigroups. Inf. Sci. 100, 139–163 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kuroki, N., Mordeson, J.N.: Structure of rough sets and rough groups. J. Fuzzy Math. 5(1), 183–191 (1997)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kuroki, N., Wang, P.P.: The lower and upper approximations in a fuzzy group. Inf. Sci. 90, 203–220 (1996)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lin, T.Y., Liu, Q., Huang, K.J., Chen, W.: Rough sets, neighborhood systems and approximation. In: Ras, Z.W., Zemankova, M., Emrichm, M.L. (eds.) Methodologies for Intelligent Systems, Knoxville, 25–27 October 1990, pp. 130–141. North-Holland, New York (1990)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Liu, W.J.: Fuzzy invariant subgroups and fuzzy ideals. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 8, 133–139 (1982)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mordeson, J.N., Malik, M.S.: Fuzzy Commutative Algebra. World Scientific, River Edge (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nanda, S., Majumdar, S.: Fuzzy rough sets. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 45, 157–160 (1992)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Novotny, M., Pawlak, Z.: On rough equalities. Bull. Pol. Acad. Sci. Math. 33(1–2), 99–104 (1985)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Novotny, M., Pawlak, Z.: Characterization of rough top equalities and rough bottom equalities. Bull. Pol. Acad. Sci. Math. 33(1–2), 91–97 (1985)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Pawlak, Z.: Rough sets. Int. J. Inf. Comput. Sci. 11, 341–356 (1982)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pawlak, Z.: Rough Sets - Theoretical Aspects of Reasoning About Data. Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht (1991)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pomykala, J., Pomykala, J.A.: The stone algebra of rough sets. Bull. Pol. Acad. Sci. Math. 36, 495–508 (1988)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rosenfeld, A.: Fuzzy groups. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 35, 512–517 (1971)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wu, W.-Z., Zhang, W.-X.: Neighborhood operator systems and approximations. Inf. Sci. 144, 201–217 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Yamak, S., Kazanci, O., Davvaz, B.: Generalized lower and upper approximations in a ring. Inf. Sci. 180, 1759–1768 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zadeh, L.A.: Fuzzy sets. Inf. Control 8, 338–353 (1965)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zadeh, L.A.: The concept of linguistic variable and its applications to approximate reasoning, Part I. Inf. Sci. 8, 199–249 (1975); Part II. Inf. Sci. 8, 301–357 (1975); Part III. Inf. Sci. 9, 43–80 (1976)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Zhan, J., Davvaz, B.: Notes on “Roughness in rings”. Inf. Sci. 346–347, 488–490 (2016)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of MathematicsYazd UniversityYazdIran

Personalised recommendations