Startseite Generalized state maps and states on pseudo equality algebras
Artikel Open Access

Generalized state maps and states on pseudo equality algebras

  • Xiao Yun Cheng , Xiao Long Xin EMAIL logo und Peng Fei He
Veröffentlicht/Copyright: 2. März 2018

Abstract

In this paper, we attempt to cope with states in a universal algebraic setting, that is, introduce a notion of generalized state map from a pseudo equality algebra X to an arbitrary pseudo equality algebra Y. We give two types of special generalized state maps, namely, generalized states and generalized internal states. Also, we study two types of states, namely, Bosbach states and Riečan states. Finally, we discuss the relations among generalized state maps, states and internal states (or state operators) on pseudo equality algebras. We verify the results that generalized internal states are the generalization of internal states, and generalized states are the generalization of state-morphisms on pseudo equality algebras. Furthermore, we obtain that generalized states are the generalization of Bosbach states and Riečan states on linearly ordered and involutive pseudo equality algebras, respectively. Hence we can come to the conclusion that, in a sense, generalized state maps can be viewed as a possible united framework of the states and the internal states, the state-morphisms and the internal state-morphisms on pseudo equality algebras.

MSC 2010: 03G25; 06F99

1 Introduction

Logical algebras are the corresponding algebraic semantics with all sorts of propositional calculus, which are the algebraic foundations of reasoning mechanism of many fields such as computer sciences, information sciences, cybernetics, artificial intelligence and so on. EQ-algebra is a new class of logical algebra which was proposed by Novák in [1], which generalizes the residuated lattice. One of the motivations is to introduce a special algebra as the correspondence of truth values for high-order fuzzy type theory (FTT). Another motivation is from the equational style of proof in logic. It has three connectives: meet ∧, product ⊗ and fuzzy equality ∼. The product in EQ-algebras is quite loose which can be replaced by any other smaller binary operation, but still obtains an EQ-algebra. Based on the above reasons, Jenei [2] introduced equality algebras in 2012 similar to EQ-algebras but without a product, and the author proved the term equivalence of equivalential equality algebras to BCK-meet-semilattice. Then in 2014, Jenei introduced pseudo equality algebras in [3] in order to find a connection with pseudo BCK-algebras. About BCK/pseudo-BCK algebras and their application, one can see [4,5,6,7]. Recently, Dvurečenskij found the fact that every pseudo equality algebra in the Jenei’s version is an equality algebra and so presents the new revision of pseudo equality algebras in [8]. It generalizes equality algebras and seems to be more reasonable as a candidate for a possible algebraic semantics of fuzzy type theory than the Jenei’s version.

The notion of states on MV-algebras was introduced by Mundici [9] in 1995 with the intent of capturing the notion of average degree of truth of a proposition in Łukasiewicz logic, and so the states have been used as a semantical interpretation of the probability of fuzzy events a. That is, if s is a state and a is a fuzzy event, then s(a) is presented as the average of the appearance of the event a. Different approaches to the generalization mainly gave rise to two different notions, namely, Bosbach states and Riečan states. Hence it is meaningful to extend the notion of states to other algebraic structures and their noncommutative cases [4,10,11,12,13,14]. For example, Liu Lianzhen studied the existence of Bosbach states and Riečan states on finite monoidal t-norm based algebras (MTL-algebra for short) in [11]. Some examples show that there exist MTL-algebras having no Bosbach states and Riečan states. It is well known that in many cases the evaluation of truth degree of sentences is made in an abstract structure, and not in the standard algebra [0, 1] (see [15]). For this reason it is interesting to define a probability with values in an abstract algebra. In this case, Flaminio and Montagna [16] were the first to present a unified approach to states and probabilistic many-valued logic in a logical and algebraic setting. They added a unary operation, called internal state (or state operator) to the language of MV-algebras which preserves the usual properties of states. Correspondingly, the pair (M, σ) is called a state MV-algebra. From the viewpoint of probability, if a is a fuzzy event, then the internal state Pr(a) is presented as truth value of appearing a. A more powerful type of logic can be given by algebraic structures with internal states, and they also constitute the varieties of universal algebras. Consequently, the internal states have been extended and intensively studied in other algebraic structures [17,18,19], etc. Recently, the notions of internal states have been applied to algebraic structures of higher order fuzzy logic, for example, equality algebras [20] and pseudo equality algebra [21] where one of the main results is about the relevance with the corresponding state BCK/pseudo-BCK meet-semilatices. Also we observe that there exist some interesting fields of states on pseudo equality algebras, which can be investigated including state-morphisms and Riečan states, etc. Based on the above research results, indeed, it is meaningful using internal states to extend the concepts of states of algebraic structures, instead of the real unit interval [0, 1], to a more universal algebraic setting. This is our motivation to introduce and study generalized state maps and revelent states on pseudo equality algebras in this paper.

This paper is organized as follows: In Section 2, we recalls some basic notions and results which will be used later in the paper. In Section 3, we introduce the notion of generalized state maps (or simply, GS-map) including two special classes, namely, G-states and GI-states on pseudo equality algebras. Moreover, we give some examples and investigate basic properties of them. In Section 4, we mainly study the Bosbach states, Riečan states and state-morphisms on pseudo equality algebras and discuss relations between them. In Section 5, we emphasis on the relevances between generalized state maps, states and internal states on pseudo equality algebras and get some important results.

2 Preliminaries

In this section, we recollect some definitions and results which will be used in the following.

Definition 2.1

([2]). An equality algebra is an algebra (E; ∼, ∧, 1) of type (2, 2, 0) such that for all x, y, zX:

  1. (E, ∧, 1) is a meet-semilattice with top element 1;

  2. xy = yx;

  3. xx = 1;

  4. x ∼ 1 = x;

  5. xyz implies xzyz and xzxy;

  6. xy ≤ (xz) ∼ (yz);

  7. xy ≤ (xz) ∼ (yz).

In any equality algebra (E; ∼, ∧, 1), defines the operation → by xy := (xy) ∼ x for all x, yE.

Definition 2.2

([20]). Let (X; ∼, ∧, 1) be an equality algebra. A subset D containing 1 ofX is called a deductive system of X if for all x, yX:

  1. xD and xy imply yD;

  2. xD and yxD imply yD.

Definition 2.3

([8]). A pseudo equality algebra is an algebra (X; ∼, ∽, ∧, 1) of type (2, 2, 2, 0) such that for allx, y, z, tX:

  1. (X; ∧, 1) is a meet-semilattice with top element 1;

  2. xx = 1 = xx;

  3. x ∼ 1 = x = 1 ∽ x;

  4. xyz implies xzyz, xzxy, zxzy and zxyx;

  5. xy ≤ (xz) ∼ (yz) and xy ≤ (xz) ∽ (yz);

  6. xy ≤ (zx) ∽ (zy) and xy ≤ (xz) ∼ (yz);

  7. xy ≤ (xz) ∼ (yz) and xy ≤ (zx) ∽ (zy).

In any pseudo equality algebra (X; ∼, ∽, ∧, 1), define two derived binary operations → and ⤳ by xy := (xy) ∼ x and xy := x ∽ (xy) for all x, yX, respectively. Note that when ∼=∽ a pseudo equality algebra is an equality algebra.

Proposition 2.4

([8]). In any pseudo equality algebra (X; ∼, ∽, ∧, 1), the following properties hold for all x, y, zX:

  1. zx implies xyzy and xyzy;

  2. x ≤ ((yx) ∽ y) ∧ (y ∼ (xy));

  3. xy iff xy = 1 iff xy = 1;

  4. x ⤳ 1 = xx = xx = x → 1 = 1, 1 ⤳ x = x and 1 → x = x;

  5. x ≤ (yx) ∧ (yx);

  6. x ≤ ((xy) ⤳ y) ∧ ((xy) → y);

  7. xy ≤ (yz) ⤳ (xz) andxy ≤ (yz) → (xz);

  8. x → (yz) = y ⤳ (xz);

  9. xy = x → (xy) andxy = x ⤳ (xy);

  10. xy implies yx = xy and yx = yx.

Lemma 2.5

([21]). Let (X; ∼, ∽, ∧, 1) be a pseudo equality algebra. Then the following hold for all x, y, zX:

  1. y ∼ (((xy) ∼ x) ∽ y = xyx;

  2. (y ∼ (xxy)) ∽ y = xxy0.

A pseudo equality algebra (X; ∼, ∽, ∧, 1) is called bounded if it has bottom element 0. In this case, we define two negations and by x := x → 0 and x := x ⤳ 0 for all xX. Clearly, x = 0 ∼ x and x = x ∽ 0.

Proposition 2.6

([21]). In any bounded pseudo equality algebra (X; ∼, ∽, ∧, 0, 1), the following properties hold for allx, y, zX:

  1. 1 = 0 = 1and 0 = 1 = 0;

  2. 1−∼ = 1 = 1∼−and 0−∼ = 1 = 0∼−;

  3. xx−∼andxx∼−;

  4. x−∼− = xand x∼−∼ = x;

  5. xy impliesyxandyx;

  6. xy = yxandxy = yx;

  7. xy−∼ = yx∼−;

  8. xy−∼ = yxand xy∼− = yx;

  9. xy = y∼−xand xy = y−∼x.

Definition 2.7

([8]). Let (X; ∼, ∽, ∧, 1) be a pseudo equality algebra. A subset D containing 1 of X is called a (→, ⤳) deductive system of X if for all x, yX, xD and xyD imply yD.

Note that in any pseudo equality algebra (X; ∼, ∽, ∧, 1), (∼, ∽) deductive systems and (→, ⤳) deductive systems are equivalent, so we call them deductive systems.

Remark 2.8

Assume that ([0, 1], ⊕, , 0) is a standard MV-algebra. Then ([0, 1], →R, 0, 1) is a bounded commutative BCK-algebra, whereRis the Łukasiewicz implication defined by xRy = xy = min{1, 1 – x + y}. Furthermore, ([0, 1], →R, ∧R, 0, 1) is a BCK-meet-semilattice. According to Theorem 2.3 of [2], ([0, 1]; ∼R, ∧R, 1) is an equality algebra, where xRy = (xRy) ∧R (yRx) = 1 – | xy|.

The following are some notions and results about pseudo-hoops.

Definition 2.9

([22]). A pseudo-hoop is an algebra (H; ⊙, →, ⤳, 1) of type (2, 2, 2, 0) such that for all x, y, zH:

  1. x ⊙ 1 = x = 1 ⊙ x;

  2. xx = 1 = xx;

  3. (xy) → z = x → (yz);

  4. (xy) ⤳ z = x ⤳ (yz);

  5. (xy) ⊙ x = (yx) ⊙ y = x ⊙ (xy) = y ⊙ (yx).

Lemma 2.10

([22]). Let (H; ⊙, →, ⤳, 1) be a pseudo-hoop. Then for all x, y, zH:

  1. (X; ≤) is a meet-semilattice with xy = (xy) ⊙ x = x ⊙ (xy);

  2. xyx and xyx;

  3. xyz = (xy) ∧ (xz) andxyz = (xy) ∧ (xz);

  4. xy implies (xy) ⤳ y = y and (xy) → y = y.

Lemma 2.11

Let (H; ⊙, →, ⤳, 1) be a pseudo-hoop. Then for all x, yH, xyx = xy and xyx = xy.

Proof

By replacing z by X in Lemma 2.10 (3).  □

Definition 2.12

([22]). A state pseudo-hoop is a structure (H, σ) = (H; ∼, ∽, ∧, σ, 0, 1), where (H; ∼, ∽, ∧, 0, 1) is a bounded pseudo-hoop and σ : HH is a unary operator on H, called state operator (or internal state), satisfying the following conditions for all x, yH:

  1. σ(0) = 0;

  2. σ(xy) = σ(x) → σ(xy) andσ(xy) = σ(x) ⤳ σ (xy);

  3. σ(xy) = σ(x) ⊙ σ(xxy) = σ(yxy) ⊙ σ(y);

  4. σ(σ(x) ⊙ σ(y)) = σ(x) ⊙ σ(y);

  5. σ(μ(x) → σ(y)) = σ(x) → σ(y) andσ(σ(x) ⤳ σ(y)) = σ(x) ⤳ σ(y).

Note that it follows that xy implies σ(x) ≤ σ(y) for all x, yH in any state pseudo-hoop (H, σ).

3 Generalized state maps on pseudo equality algebras

In this section, we introduce a new notion of generalized state map by extending the domain X of a state operator to a more universal setting Y. Moreover, according to the structure of Y, we give two special types of generalized state maps, that is, generalized states and generalized internal states.

Definition 3.1

Let (X; ∼1, ∽1, ∧1, 11) and (Y; ∼2, ∽2, ∧2, 12) be two pseudo equality algebras. A mapμ: xyis called a generalized state map from X to Y (or briefly, GS-map) if it satisfies the following conditions for all x, yX:

  1. μ(x) ≤2μ(y), whenever x1y;

  2. μ((x1y) ∼1x) = μ(y) ∼2μ(((x1y) ∼1x) ∽1y) andμ(x1 (x1y)) = μ(y1 (x1(x1y))) ∽2μ(y);

  3. μ(x) ∼2μ(y) ∈ μ(x) andμ(x) ∽2μ(y) ∈ μ(x);

  4. μ(x) ∧2μ(y) ∈ μ(x).

Moreover, we give two special types of generalized state maps from X to Y.

  1. If Y = ([0, 1]; ∼R, ∽R, ∧R, 1), then μ is called a generalized state (or briefly, G-state) from X to [0, 1];

  2. If Y = X, then μ is called a generalized internal state (or briefly, GI-state) from X to X.

Example 3.2

Let (X; ∼1, ∽1, ∧1, 11) and (Y; ∼2, ∽2, ∧2, 12) be two pseudo equality algebras. Define a map μ: xybyμ(x) = 12for all xX, thenμis a GS-map from X to Y, in this case, μis called trivial.

Example 3.3

Let X = {01, a1, b1, c1, 11} and Y = {02, a2, b2, 12} in which the order of elements in X and Y are as the following Hasse diagrams, respectively:

And the operations1, ∽1on X and2, ∽2on Y may be given as follows, respectively.

101a1b1c1110111b101b101a11111c1b1a1b1111111b1b1c11111c111c1111111111111101a1b1c111011111111111a1c111111111b1c1c111c111c101b1b111111101a1b1c111202a2b2120212b2a202a2b212b2a2b2a2b212b21202a2b212202a2b2120212b212b2a2b212b2a2b2b2b212b21202a2b212

Then (X; ∼1, ∽1, ∧1, 11) and (Y; ∼2, ∽2, ∧2, 12) are two pseudo equality algebras. Let the map μ : xy be a GS-map from X to Y. Taking x = a, y = 0 in (GSX2), we get that μ(b1) = μ(01) ∼2μ(b1) and μ(b1) = 12. This shows that there doesn’t exists any nontrivial GS-map from X to Y.

Example 3.4

Let X = {01, a1, b1, 11} with 01< a1 < b1 < 11and Y = {02, a2, b2, 12} be given by Example 3.3. Define the operations1, ∽1on X as follows:

101a1b1110111a1a101a11111a1a1b1111111b11111111111101a1b1110111111111a1b1111111b101a111111101a1b111

Then (X; ∼1, ∽1, ∧1, 11) is a pseudo equality algebra. We define a map μ : xyby μ(01) = μ(a1) = a2, μ(b1) = μ(11) = 12. One can check that μ is a GS-map from X to Y.

Example 3.5

Let X = {01, a1, b1, c1, 11} with 01 < a1 < b1 < c1 < 11and Y = {02, a2, b2, 12} be given by Example 3.3. Define the operations1, ∽1as follows:

101a1b1c111011101010101a11111b1b1a1b1111111b1b1c111111111c1111111111111101a1b1c111011111111111a10111111111b101c1111111c101a1b111111101a1b1c111

Then (X; ∼1, ∽1, ∧1, 11) is a pseudo equality algebra. One can check that the mapμ : xydefined by μ(01) = 02, μ(a1) = μ(b1) = μ(c1) = μ(11) = 12is a GS-map from X to Y.

Example 3.6

Let (X; ∼1, ∽1, ∧1, 11) be a pseudo equality given in Example 3.4. Define a map μ : X → [0, 1] by μ(01) = 0,μ(a1) = μ(b1) = 0.5,μ(11) = 1. Then one can check that μ is a G-state from (X; ∼1, ∽1, ∧1, 11) to ([0, 1]; ∼R, ∧R, 1).

Example 3.7

Let X = {0, a, b, 1} in which the Hasse diagram and the operations ∼, ∽ on X are as follows:

0ab101ba0a11aab1b1b111110ab101111ab1a1baa1110ab1

Then (X; ∼, ∽, ∧, 1) is a pseudo equality algebra. Define a map μ : xxbyμ(0) = μ(a) = b, μ(b) = μ(1) = 1. One can check that μ is a GI-state from X to X.

Proposition 3.8

Let (X; ∼1, ∽1, ∧1, 11) and (Y; ∼2, ∽2, ∧2, 12) be two pseudo equality algebras, and μ be a GS-map from X to Y. Then for all x, yX, the following axioms hold:

  1. μ(11) = 12;

  2. μ(x) →2μ(y) ∈ μ(x) andμ(x) ⤳2μ(y) ∈ μ(x);

  3. μ(x) is a subalgebra of Y;

  4. μ(x1y) ≤2μ(x) ∧2μ(y);

  5. y1x impliesμ(y) ∼2μ(x) = μ(x) →2μ(y), μ(x) ∽2μ(y) = μ(x) ⤳2μ(y);

  6. y1x impliesμ(y1x) ≤2μ(y) ∼2μ(x) andμ(x1y) ≤2μ(x) ∽2μ(y);

  7. x, y comparable implies μ(x1y) ≤2μ(x) →2μ(y) and μ(x1y) ≤2μ(x) ⤳2μ(y);

  8. Ker(μ) : = {xX : μ(x) = 12} is a deductive system of X.

Proof

  1. By taking x = y = 11 in (GSX2).

  2. Evident by (GSX3) and (GSX4).

  3. By (GSX1) and x1y1x, y.

  4. Let y1x. Then μ(y) ≤2μ(x). Hence by Proposition 2.4, we have μ(y) ∼2μ(x) = μ(x) →2μ(y) and μ(x) ∽2μ(y) = μ(x) ⤳2μ(y).

  5. Let yx. Then by (GSX2), we have μ(y1x) = μ(y) ∼2μ((y1x) ∽1y) and μ(x1y) = μ(y1 (x1y)) ∽2μ(y). On the other hand, according to 2.4 (2), we get y1x1(y1x) ∽1y and y1x1y1(x1y). Hence μ(y) ≤2μ(x) ≤2μ((y1x) ∽1y) and μ(y) ≤2μ(x) ≤2μ(y(x1y)). It follows from (X4) that μ(y) ∼2μ((y1x) ∽1y) ≤2μ(y) ∼2μ(x) and μ(y1(x1y)) ∽2μ(y) ≤2μ(x) ∽2μ(y). Therefore μ(y1x) ≤2μ(y) ∼2μ(x) and μ(x1y) ≤2μ(x) ∽2μ(y).

  6. Let yx. Then by Proposition 2.4 and (G5), (G6), we get that μ(x1y) = μ(y1x) ≤2μ(y) ∼2μ(x) = μ(x) →2μ(y) and μ(x1y) = μ(x1y) ≤2μ(x) ∽2μ(y) ≤2μ(x) ⤳2μ(y).

  7. Clearly, 11Ker(μ) by (G1). Let x, yx such that x, x1yKer(μ). Then μ(x) = μ(x1y) = 12. Since y1x1y and x1(x1y) ⤳1y, it follows from (G7) that 1 = μ(x) ≤2μ((x1y) ⤳1y) ≤2μ(x1y) ⤳1μ(y) = 1 ⤳2μ(y) = μ(y). Hence μ(y) = 12 and so yKer(μ). Therefore Ker(μ) is a deductive system of X.  □

4 States on pseudo equality algebras

In this section, we introduce the notions of Riečan states and state-morphisms on pseudo equality algebras. We mainly study some of their properties and investigate the relations between Riečan states, state-morphisms and Bosbach states.

Definition 4.1

([21]). Let (X; ∼, ∽, ∧, 0, 1) be a bounded pseudo equality algebra. A function s : X → [0, 1] is said to be a Bosbach state on X, if the following hold:

  1. s(0) = 0 ands(1) = 1;

  2. s(x) + s(xy) = s(y) + s(yx);

  3. s(x) + s(xy) = s(y) + s(yx),

for all x, yx.

Example 4.2

Let (Y; ∼2, ∽2, ∧2, 02, 12) be a bounded pseudo equality algebra given by Example 3.5. Define a function s : y → [0, 1] by s(02) = 0, s(a2) = s(b2) = 0.5, s(12) = 1. Then one can check that s is a unique Bosbach state on Y.

Example 4.3

Let (X; ∼1, ∽1, ∧1, 01, 11) be a pseudo equality algebra defined by Example 3.5. Then one can check that the function s: X → [0, 1] defined by s(01) = 0, s(a1) = s(b1) = s(c1) = s(11) = 1 is a unique Bosbach state on X.

The following example shows that not every pseudo equality algebra has a Bosbach state.

Example 4.4

Let (X; ∼1, ∽1, ∧1, 01, 11) be a bounded pseudo equality algebra given by Example 3.3, and the function s : X → [0, 1] defined by s(01) = 0, s(a1) = α, s(b1) = β, s(c1) = γ, s(11) = 1, be a Bosbach state on X. In (BS2), (BS3), taking x = 01, y = b1, we obtainβ = 1 andβ + γ = 1, irespectively. Henceγ = 0. On the other hand, taking x = 01, y = a1, we getα + β = 1 andα + γ = 1, respectively. According toβ = 1, it impliesα = 0 and soγ = 1, which is a contraction. This shows thatX admits no Bosbach state.

Proposition 4.5

([21]). Let (X; ∼, ∽, ∧, 0, 1) be a bounded pseudo equality algebra and s be a Bosbach state on X. Then for all x, yx, the following hold:

  1. If xy, then s(x) ≤ s(y);

  2. If xy, then s(yx) = 1 – s(y) + s(x) = s(yx);

  3. s(xy) = 1 – s(x) + s(xy) = s(xy);

  4. s(x) = 1 – s(x) = s(x);

  5. s(x−∼) = s(x) = s(x∼−).

Proposition 4.6

Let (X; ∼, ∽, ∧, 0, 1) be a bounded pseudo equality algebra and s : X → [0, 1] be a function such that s(0) = 0. Then the following conditions are equivalent:

  1. s is a Bosbach state;

  2. If xy, then s(yx) = 1 + s(x) – s(y) = s(yx);

  3. s(xy) = 1 – s(x) + s(xy) = s(xy).

Proof

(1) ⇒ (2) By Proposition 4.5 (2).

(2) ⇒ (3) By this proof of Proposition 4.5 (3).

(3) ⇒ (1) Assume (3) holds and x, yx. Then s(1) = s(x → 1) = 1 – s(x) + s(x ∧ 1) = 1 – s(x) + s(x) = 1. Also, s(x) + s(xy) = s(x) + 1 – s(x) + s(xy) = 1 + s(xy) = s(y) + 1 – s(y) + s(xy) = s(y) + s(yx). Similarly, we can prove (BS3). Thus s is a Bosbach state on X.

Let (X; ∼, ∧, 0, 1) be a bounded pseudo equality algebra and s : X → [0, 1] be a Bosbach state on X, we define the kernel of s by Ker(s) := {xX : s(x) = 1}.  □

Proposition 4.7

Let (X; ∼, ∽, ∧, 0, 1) be a bounded pseudo equality algebra and s be a Bosbach state on X. Then Ker(s) is a deductive system of X.

Proof

Assume that s is a Bosbach state on X. Then for any x, yx, it follows from s(1) = 1 that 1 ∈ Ker(s). Let x, xyKer(s). Then s(x) = s(xy) = 1. Since xyx, then 1 = s(x) ≤ s(yx). This implies that s(yx) = 1. Again applying (BS2), we obtain s(y) = 1 and thus yKer(s). Therefore, Ker(s) is a deductive system of X.

Let (X; ∼, ∧, 0, 1) be a bounded equality algebra and s be a Bosbach state on X. Then by Proposition 4.7 and [20] Proposition 3.9, the relation θ : xθy iff xyKer(s) is a congruence relation on X. In this case, we denote the quotient algebra X/θ by X/Ker(s) and the congruence class of xx by x/Ker(s), where x/Ker(s) ∧ y/Ker(s) = (xy)/Ker(s), x/Ker(s) ∼ y/Ker(s) = (xy)/Ker(s), x/Ker(s) ≤ y/Ker(s) iff x/Ker(s) ∧ y/Ker(s) = x/Ker(s).  □

Definition 4.8

A pseudo equality algebra (X; ∼, ∽, ∧, 1) is said to be

  • good provided that x−∼ = x∼−for all xx;

  • involutive provided that x−∼ = x = x∼−for all xx.

Example 4.9

  1. In Example 3.5 it is evident that (X; ∼1, ∽1, ∧1, 11) is an involutive pseudo equality algebra.

  2. Let X = {0, a, b, c, 1} with 0 < a < b < c < 1 and the operations ∼,∽ be given as follows:

0abc101bb00a11caab111bbc1111c1111110abc1011111ab1111bbb111c0bb1110abc1

One can check that (X; ∼, ∽, ∧, 1) is a good pseudo equality algebra, but it is not involutive, since a−∼ = a∼− = ba.

Theorem 4.10

Let (X; ∼, ∧, 0, 1) be a bounded equality algebra andsbe a Bosbach state onX. Then (X/Ker(s); ∼,∧, 0/Ker(s), 1/Ker(s)) is an involutive equality algebra.

Proof

Assume s is a Bosbach state on X. First, it follows that (X/Ker(s); ∼, ∧, 0/Ker(s), 1/Ker(s)) is a bounded equality algebra. In the following, we prove that X/Ker(s) is involutive. By (S2), we have s(X)+s(Xx––) = s(X––) + s(X––x). Since s(X) = s(X––) by Proposition 4.5 (3), then s(Xx––) = s(X––x). Again, xx–– by Proposition 2.6 (3), we get s(Xx––) = s(1) = 1. This implies s(X––x) = 1 and so x––x ∈ Ker(s). Notice that xx––, we obtain x––x = x––x ∈ Ker(s). Hence x––θx. This shows x––/Ker(s) = X/Ker(s). Therefore, (X/Ker(s))–– = x––/Ker(s) = X/Ker(s) and this proof is complete.  □

Definition 4.11

Let (X; ∼, ∽, ∧, 0, 1) be a bounded pseudo equality algebra. A state-morphism onXis a functionm : X → [0,1] such that

  1. m(0) = 0;

  2. m(Xy) = m(X) →Rm(y) = m(Xy) for allx, yx.

Proposition 4.12

A state-morphism m is a Bosbach state on a bounded pseudo equality algebraX.

Proof

Let m be a state-morphism on X. For any x, yX, m(1) = m(Xx) = min{1, 1 – m(X) + m(X)} = 1, and m(X) + m(Xy) = m(X) + min{1, 1 – m(X) + m(y)} = min{1 + m(X), 1 + m(y)} = m(y) + min{1, 1 – m(y) + m(X)} = m(y) + m(yx). Similarly, we can prove (BS3). This shows m is a Bosbach state on X. □

Proposition 4.13

Let (X; ∼, ∽, ∧, 0, 1) be a bounded pseudo equality algebra andsbe a Bosbach state onX. Thensis a state-morphism onXif and only ifs(Xy) = min{s(X), s(y)} for allx, yx.

Proof

Let s be a state-morphism on X. Then by Proposition 4.6, s(Xy) = s(X) + s(Xy) – 1 = s(X) + min{1, 1 – s(X) + s(y)} – 1 = min{s(X), s(y)} for all x, yx. Conversely, let s(Xy) = min{s(X),s(y)} for all x, yx. Taking x = y = 0, then s(0) = 0. Again by Proposition 4.6, we obtain s(Xy) = s(Xy) = 1 – s(X) + s(Xy) = 1 – m(X) + min{s(X), s(y)} = min{1, 1 – m(X) + m(y)} = m(X) →Rm(y). Thus s is a state-morphism on X.  □

Example 4.14

Let (Y;∼2, ∽2, ∧2, 02, 12) be a bounded pseudo equality algebra given by Example 3.3. Define a function s : Y → [0, 1] bys(02) = 0, s(a2) = s(b2) = 0.5, s(12) = 1. Then one can check thatsis a Bosbach state onY, but it is not a state-morphism onY since s(a2b2) = s(02) = 0 ≠ 0.5 = min{s(a2), s(b2)}.

Example 4.15

LetX = {0, a, b, 1} in which the Hasse diagram and the operationonXis below:

0ab101ba0ab10aba01b10ab10ab101111ab1b1baa1110ab1

Then (X; ∼, ∧,1) is an equality algebra [20], where the derived operationas the above. The function s : X → [0, 1] is given bys(0) = s(a) = 0, s(b) = s(1) = 1. Thensis a Bosbach state onX. Furthermore, sis a state-morphism onX, sinces(ab) = s(0) = 0 = min{s(a), s(b)}.

Corollary 4.16

In any linearly ordered bounded pseudo equality algebra (X; ∼, ∽, ∧, 0, 1), the Bosbach states coincide with the state-morphisms.

Proposition 4.17

Let (X; ∼, ∽, ∧, 0, 1) be a bounded involutive pseudo equality algebra andsbe a Bosbach state on X. Then the following are equivalent:

  1. sis a state-morphism onX;

  2. s(Xy–∼) = min{1,s(X) + s(y)};

  3. s(yx∼–) = min{1, s(X) + s(y)},

for allx, yx.

Proof

(1) ⇒ (2) Let s be a state-morphism on X. Then by (M2) and Proposition 4.5, we get s(Xy–∼) = min{1, 1 – s(X) + s(y–∼)} = min{1, 1 – 1 + s(X) + s(y)} = min{1, s(X) + s(y)}, for all x, yx.

(2) ⇒ (3) Assume that (2) holds. By Proposition 2.6 (7), xy–∼ = yx∼–. Hence s(yx∼–) = s(Xy–∼) = min{1, s(X) + s(y)}.

(3) ⇒ (1) Assume that (3) holds. Since X is involutive, then s(Xy) = s(X∼–y∼–) = min{1, s(y) + s(X)} = min{1, 1 – s(X) + s(y)}. Again since s is a Bosbach state, we have s(0) = 0. Hence s is a state-morphism on X.  □

Definition 4.18

Let (X; ∼, ∽, ∧, 0, 1) be a bounded pseudo equality algebra. Two elementsx, yXare said to be orthogonal, ifx–∼y, we write byxy. Ifx, yXare orthogonal, we define a binary operation + onXbyx + y := yx–∼.

Proposition 4.19

In any bounded pseudo equality algebra (X; ∼, ∽, ∧, 0, 1), the following properties hold for allx, yX:

  1. xyiffy∼–x;

  2. xy iff xyandxyiffyx;

  3. xyimpliesx + y = xy∼–;

  4. xxandx + x = 1;

  5. xxandx + x = 1;

  6. 0 ⊥ xand 0 + x = x∼–;

  7. x ⊥ 0 andx + 0 = x–∼;

  8. xyimpliesxyandx + y = y–∼x–∼;

  9. xyimpliesyxandy + x = yx∼–.

Proof

  1. Let xy, x, yx. Then x–∼y. By Proposition 2.6 (3) and (4), y∼–x∼– = x. Conversely, let y∼–x. Using Proposition 2.6 (3) and (4) again, we get x–∼y∼–∼ = y.

  2. Let xy. Then by (2) and Proposition 2.6 (3), xx–∼y and yy∼–x.

  3. Let xy. Since xy∼– = ∼ → x–∼ by Proposition 2.6 (7), we have x + y = xy∼–.

  4. Since x–∼x–∼, then xx and x + x = x–∼x–∼ = 1.

  5. Since x∼–x∼–, then xx and x + x = x∼–x∼– = 1.

  6. By Proposition 2.6 (2), 0–∼ = 0 ≤ x. Hence 0 ⊥ x, and 0 + x = x → 0–∼ = x → 0 = x∼–.

  7. By Proposition 2.6 (1), x–∼ ≤ 1 = 0. Hence x ⊥ 0. Again by Proposition 2.6 (10), we get that x + 0 = 0x–∼ = 1 → x–∼ = x–∼.

  8. Let xy. Then by Proposition 2.6 (5), x–∼y–∼. Hence xy and x + y = y–∼x–∼.

  9. Let xy. Then by Proposition 2.6 (4) and (5), we have yx and so y∼–∼ = yx. Hence yx and y + x = xy∼–∼ = xy = yx∼– by Proposition 2.6 (8).  □

Definition 4.20

Let (X; ∼, ∽, ∧, 0, 1) be a good bounded pseudo equality algebra. A Riečan state onXis a functions : X → [0, 1] such that

  1. s(1) = 1;

  2. s(X + y) = s(X) + s(y) wheneverxyfor allx, yx.

Example 4.21

Consider the good bounded pseudo equality algebra (X; ∼, ∽, ∧, 0, 1) given by Example 3.7. Define the functions : X → [0, 1] bys(0) = 0,s(a) = s(b) = 0.5,s(1) = 1, then one can check thatsis a Riečan state onX.

Proposition 4.22

Letsbe a Riečan state on a good bounded pseudo equality algebra (X; ∼, ∽, ∧, 0, 1). Then for allx, yX, the following hold:

  1. s(X) = 1 – s(X) = s(X);

  2. s(0) = 0;

  3. s(X–∼) = s(X) = s(X∼–);

  4. xyimpliess(X) ≤ s(y) ands(y–∼x–∼) = 1 + s(X) – s(y) = s(yx∼–);

  5. s(X–∼ → (Xy)–∼) = 1 – s(X)+s(Xy) = s(X ⤳(Xy)∼–).

Proof

  1. By Proposition 4.19 (4), we have s(X + x) = s(X) + s(X) = s(1) = 1. Hence s(X) = 1 – s(X). Similarly, by Proposition 4.19 (5), s(X) = 1 – s(X).

  2. By (1) and Proposition 2.6 (1), s(0) = s(1) = 1 – s(1) = 1 – 1 = 0.

  3. By (2) and Proposition 4.19 (6), s(X∼–) = s(0 + x) = s(0) + s(X) = 0 + s(X) = s(X). Similarly, by Proposition 4.19 (7), s(X–∼) = s(X).

  4. Let xy. Then by Proposition 4.19 (9), yx and y + x = yx∼–. Hence s(yx∼–) = s(y + x) = 1 + s(X) – s(y), and so s(X) – s(y) = s(y + x) – 1 ≤ 0. Hence s(X) ≤ s(y). It is similar that s(y–∼x–∼) = 1 + s(X) – s(y) by Proposition 4.19 (8).

  5. It follows from xyx and (4)  □.

Theorem 4.23

In any good bounded pseudo equality algebra (X; ∼, ∽, ∧, 0, 1), each Bosbach state onXis a Riečan state.

Proof

Assume that s is a Bosbach state on X. Then s(1) = 1. Let xy for x, yx. Then x–∼y. By (2),(4) and (5) of Proposition 4.5, we have s(X+y) = s(yx–∼) = 1 – s(y) + s(X–∼) = 1 – (1 – s(y)) + s(X) = s(X) + s(y). Therefore s is a Riečan state on X  □.

Note that the converse of the above theorem is not true in general. Let us see the following example.

Example 4.24

Let (X; ∼, ∽, ∧, 0, 1) be the good pseudo equality algebra given by 4.9 (2). Define a maps : X → [0, 1] bys(0) = 0, s(a) = s(b) = s(c) = 0.5,s(1) = 1. Thensis a Riečan state onX, butsis not a Bosbach state onX. Takingx = a, y = bin (BS2), we can obtain that 0.5 + 1 = 0.5 + s(c) and sos(c) = 1, which is a contradiction.

Theorem 4.25

In any bounded involutive pseudo equality algebra (X; ∼, ∽, ∧, 0, 1), the Bosbach states and the Riečan states coincide onX.

Proof

Assume that s is a Riečan state on X. Then s(1) = 1 and s(0) = 0 by Proposition 4.22 (2). Let xy, then by Proposition 4.22 (4), s(y–∼x–∼) = 1 – s(X) + s(y) = s(yx∼–). Since X is involutive, we obtain s(yx) = s(y–∼x–∼) = 1 – s(X) + s(y) = s(yx∼–) = s(yx). Hence by Proposition 4.6, it follows that s is a Bosbach state on X  □.

5 The relations between generalized state maps, states and internal states on pseudo equality algebras

In this section, we focus on discussing the relations between generalized state maps, states and internal states on pseudo equality algebras. First, we recall some related notions and results of internal states on pseudo equality algebras based on [20, 21].

Definition 5.1

([21]). A state pseudo equality algebra is a structure (X, μ) = (X; ∼, ∽, ∧,μ, 1), where (X; ∼, ∽, ∧, 1) be a pseudo equality algebra andμ : XXis a unary operator onX, called an internal state (or state operator), satisfying the following conditions for allx, yX:

  1. μ(X) ≤ μ(y), wheneverxy;

  2. μ((Xy)∼ x) = μ(y) ∼ μ(((Xy) ∼ x) ∽ y), μ(X∽(Xy)) = μ(y ∼ (X ∽ (Xy))) ∽ μ(y);

  3. μ(μ(X) ∼ μ(y)) = μ(X) ∼ μ(y), μ(μ(X) ∽ μ(y)) = μ(X) ∽ μ(y);

  4. μ(μ(X) ∧ μ(y)) = μ(X) ∧ μ(y).

It is clear that a state equality algebra (see [20]) is a state pseudo equality algebra, a pseudo equality algebra can be seen as a state pseudo equality algebra.

Proposition 5.2

Let (X, μ) be a state pseudo equality algebra. Then for allx, yX, we have:

  1. μ(μ(X)) = μ(X);

  2. μ(μ(X) → μ(y)) = μ(X) → μ(y) andμ(μ(X) ⤳ μ(y)) = μ(X) ⤳ μ(y).

Proof

(2) is evident and (1) is similar to the proof of Proposition 5.6 in [20].  □

Definition 5.3

Let (X; ∼, ∽, ∧, 1) be a pseudo equality algebra. A strong internal stateμonXis an internal state onXsatisfying:

  1. μ(Xy) = μ(X) → μ(Xy), μ(Xy) = μ(X) ⤳ μ(Xy) for allx, yx.

Accordingly, the pair (X, μ) is said to a strong state pseudo equality algebra.

Example 5.4

Let (X; ∼, ∽, ∧, 1) be a pseudo equality algebra given in Example 4.9. Define a mapμ : XXbyμ(0) = 0, μ(a) = μ(b) = b, μ(c) = μ(1) = 1. Then we can calculate that (X, μ) is a strong state pseudo equality algebra.

Proposition 5.5

Let (H, σ) be a state pseudo-hoop. Then (H, σ) is a strong state pseudo equality algebra, where xy = x ⊙(Xy), xy = yxandxy = xy.

Proof

Let (H, σ) be a state pseudo-hoop. Then according to Example 2.6 of [3], (H; ∼, ∽, ∧, 0, 1) is a bounded pseudo equality algebra. In the following, we will show that σ is a strong internal state on H. Clearly, (SX0), (SX1) and (SX5) hold. (SX3) and (SX4) follow from (SH3) and (SH4). Next we prove (SX2). By Lemma 2.11 and (SH2), we have σ(Xyx) = σ(Xxy) = σ(Xy), and σ(y) ∼ σ((Xyx) ∽ y) = σ((Xxy) ⤳ y) → σ(y) = σ((Xy) ⤳ y) → σ(y) = σ(Xy) ⤳((Xy) ∧ y)) → σ(y) = (σ(Xy) ⤳ σ(y)) → σ(y). Since yxy by Lemma 2.10 (2), then σ(y) ≤ σ(Xy). Hence by Lemma 2.10 (4), we obtain that σ(Xy) = (σ(Xy) ⤳ σ(y)) → σ(y). This shows that σ(Xyx) = σ(y) ∼ σ((Xyx) ∽ y). In a similar way, we can prove σ(Xxy) = σ(y ∼ (Xxy)) ∽ σ(y).

Remark 5.6

  1. In any pseudo equality algebra, a strong internal state is an internal state, but the converse is not true in general. For example, let X = {0, a, b, c, 1} with 0 < a < b < c < 1 and the operations ∼, ∽ be given as follows:

    0abc101bbb0a11bbab111bbc1111c1111110abc1011111ac1111bcc111c0ab1110abc1

    Then one can check thatμis an internal state onX, butμis not a strong internal state, becauseμ(ba) = μ(bab) = μ(b) = 0 ≠ 1 = μ(b) → μ(a).

  2. In any bounded pseudo equality algebra, a strong internal stateμdoes not necessarily satisfy the conditionμ(0) = 0. For example, let (Y; ∼2, ∽2, ∧2, 12) be a pseudo equality algebra given by Example 3.3. Define a mapμ : YYbyμ(02) = μ(b2) = b2, μ(a2) = μ(12) = 12. Then one can check that (Y, μ) is a strong state pseudo equality algebra.

Proposition 5.7

Let (X, μ) be a strong state bounded pseudo equality algebra withμ(0) = 0. Then for allx, yX:

  1. μ(X) = μ(X)andμ(X) = μ(X);

  2. xyimpliesμ(X) ⊥ μ(y) andμ(X+y) = μ(X) + μ(y), μ(μ(X) + μ(y)) = μ(X) + μ(y);

  3. μ(Xy) ≤ μ(X) → μ(y) andμ(Xy) ≤ μ(X) ⤳ μ(y). If x,y are comparable, we haveμ(Xy) = μ(X) → μ(y) andμ(Xy) = μ(X) ⤳ μ(y).

Proof

  1. By (SX0) and (SX5), μ(X) = μ(X → 0) = μ(X) → μ(0) = μ(X) → 0 = μ(X). In a similar way, we can get that μ(X) = μ(X).

  2. Let xy. Then x–∼y. By (SX1) and (1), we have μ(X)–∼μ(y) and μ(X + y) = μ(yx–∼) = μ(y) →μ(X–∼) = μ(y)μ(X)–∼ = μ(X) + μ(y). By Proposition 5.2 (2), μ(μ(X) + μ(y)) = μ(μ(X)μ(y)–∼) = μ(X)μ(y)–∼ = μ(X) + μ(y).

  3. Since xyy, then μ(Xy) ≤ μ(y). Hence by (SX2) and Proposition 2.4 (3), we have μ(Xy) = μ(X) → μ(Xy) ≤ μ(X) → μ(y). Similarly, μ(Xy) ≤ μ(X) ⤳ μ(y). If xy, then μ(Xy) = μ(1) = 1 ≤ μ(X) → μ(y). Hence μ(Xy) = μ(X) ⤳ μ(y). If yx, then by (SX2), we have μ(Xy) = μ(X) → μ(Xy) = μ(X) → μ(y). The other part is similar.  □

Definition 5.8

([21]) Let (X; ∼, ∽, ∧, 1) be a pseudo equality algebra. A homomorphismμ : Xxis called an internal state-morphism (or state-morphism operator) ifμ2 = μ, that is μ(μ(X)) = μ(X) for allxX, and the pair (X, μ) is called a state-morphism pseudo equality algebra.

According to the definition of an internal state-morphism μ on a pseudo equality algebra, it follows that μ is isotone and μ preserves the operations → and ⤳. Note that in any pseudo equality algebra (X; ∼, ∽, ∧, 1), the identity map IdX on X is an internal state-morphism.

By Lemma 2.5 we can get the following theorem.

Theorem 5.9

Let (X; ∼, ∽, ∧, 1) be a pseudo equality algebra, andμ : Xxbe an internal state-morphism onX. Thenμis a strong internal state onX. Of course, μis also an internal state onX.

Note that the converse of Theorem 5.9 is not true in general.

Example 5.10

In Example 5.4, the mapμis a strong internal state onX, but it is not an internal state-morphism onX, becauseμ(ba) = μ(b) = b ≠ 1 = bb = μ(b) ∽ μ(a).

In the following, we discuss the relations between generalized state maps, states and internal states on pseudo equality algebras. First, we give the relations between states and (strong) internal states on pseudo equality algebras.

Theorem 5.11

Assume that (X; ∼, ∽, ∧, 0, 1) is a good bounded pseudo equality algebra, andμis a strong internal state withμ(0) = 0 onX. Ifsis a Riečan state onμ(X), then the function sμ : X → [0, 1] defined by sμ(X) = s(μ(X)) is a Riečan state onX  □.

Proof

Clearly, sμ(1) = s(μ(1)) = s(1) = 1. Let x, yX such that xy. Then by Proposition 5.7 (2), μ(X) ⊥ μ(y) and μ(X + y) = μ(X) + μ(y). Hence sμ(X + y) = s(μ(X + y)) = s(μ(X) + μ(y)) = s(μ(X)) + s(μ(y)) = sμ(X) + sμ(y). This implies that sμ is a Riečan state on X  □.

Example 5.12

Let (X; ∼, ∽, ∧, 0, 1) be a good bounded pseudo equality algebra given in 3.7. Define a mapμ : Xxbyμ(0) = μ(a) = 0, μ(b) = μ(1) = 1. Then one can check thatμis a strong internal state onX, whereμ(X) = {0, 1}. Moreover, the function s : μ(X) → [0, 1] onμ(X) defined bys(0) = 0, s(1) = 1 is a Riečan state onμ(X). It can be calculated that the functionsμ : X → [0, 1] defined by

sμ(x)=s(μ(x))=0ifx=0,a1ifx=b,1

is a Riečan state onX.

Theorem 5.13

Assume (X, μ) is a state bounded pseudo equality algebra withμ(0) = 0. Ifsis a Bosbach state onμ(X) andμpreservesand ⤳, then the functionsμ : X → [0, 1] defined bysμ(X) = s(μ(X)) is a Bosbach state onX.  □

Proof

Clearly, sμ(0) = s(μ(0)) = s(0) = 0 and sμ(1) = s(μ(1)) = s(1) = 1. If μ preserves →, then sμ(X) + sμ(Xy) = s(μ(X)) + s(μ(Xy)) = s(μ(X)) + s(μ(X) → μ(y)) = s(μ(y)) + s(μ(y) → μ(X)) = s(μ(y)) + s(μ(yx)) = sμ(y) + sμ(yx). This shows that sμ is a Bosbach state on X. In a similar way, since μ preserves ⤳, we can show that sμ(X) + sμ(Xy) = sμ(y) + sμ(yx). It follows that sμ(X) is a Bosbach state on X.  □

Example 5.14

Let (X; ∼, ∽, ∧, 0, 1) be a bounded pseudo equality algebra given in Example 3.7. Define a mapμ : Xxbyμ(0) = μ(b) = 0, μ(a) = μ(1) = 1. Then one can check thatμis an internal state onXandμpreservesand ⤳, whereμ(X) = {0, 1}. Moreover, the function s : μ(X) → [0, 1] onμ(X) defined bys(0) = 0, s(1) = 1 is a Bosbach state onμ(X). It can be calculated that the functionsμ : X → [0, 1] defined by

sμ(x)=s(μ(x))=0ifx=0,b1ifx=a,1

is a Bosbach state onX.

Corollary 5.15

Let (X, μ) be a state-morphism bounded pseudo equality algebra andsbe a Bosbach state onμ(X). Then the functionsμ : X → [0, 1] defined bysμ(X) = s(μ(X)) is a Bosbach state onX.

By Proposition 5.7 (3) and the above corollary, we can get the following corollary immediately.

Corollary 5.16

Let (X, μ) be a strong state linearly ordered bounded pseudo equality algebra andsbe a Bosbach state onμ(X). Then the functionsμ : X → [0, 1] defined bysμ(X) = s(μ(X)) is a Bosbach state onX.

The above results indicate that by using (strong) internal state (or internal state-morphism) μ, one can extend any state of the image space μ(X) into the state of the entire space X.

Next, we discuss the relationship between the generalized states (namely, G-states) and the states on pseudo equality algebras.

Theorem 5.17

Assume that (X; ∼, ∽, ∧, 0, 1) is a bounded pseudo equality algebra, andm : X → [0, 1] is a state-morphism onX. Thenmis a G-state from (X; ∼, ∽, ∧, 0, 1) to ([0, 1]; ∼R, ∧R, 1).

Proof

Suppose m is a state-morphism on X. (GSX1) holds as m is a Bosbach state by Proposition 4.12. Let x, yx. Then m(X) ∧Rm(y) = min{m(X), m(y)} ∈ m(X). Let m(X) ≤ m(y). Then m(X)∼Rm(y) = m(y) →Rm(X) = m(yx) ∈ m(X). Hence (GSX3) and (GSX4) hold. Next, we prove (GSX2). It is obvious that Lemma 2.5 results in (GSX2) and therefore the proof is finished.  □

The following example indicates that the converse of Theorem 5.17 is not true in general.

Example 5.18

In Example 3.6, the mapμ : X → [0, 1] is a G-state, butμis not a state-morphism onXsinceμ(ba) = μ(a) = 0.5 ≠ 1 = μ(b) → Rμ(a).

According to Theorem 5.17, Corollary 4.16 and Theorem 4.25, we can obtain the following corollary.

Corollary 5.19

Assume (X; ∼, ∽, ∧, 0, 1) is a bounded pseudo equality algebra ands : X → [0, 1] is a function fromXto [0, 1].

  1. IfXis linearly ordered andsis a Bosbach state onX, thensis a G-state from (X; ∼, ∽, ∧, 0, 1) to ([0, 1]; ∼R, ∧R, 1);

  2. IfXis involutive andsis a Riečan state, thensis a G-state from (X; ∼, ∽, ∧, 0, 1) to ([0, 1]; ∼R, ∧R, 1).

Finally we discuss the relations between generalized internal states (namely, GI-states) and internal states, internal state-morphisms on pseudo equality algebras.

Theorem 5.20

Let (X; ∼, ∽, ∧, 1) be a pseudo equality algebra. Then

  1. an internal stateμonXis a GI-state fromXtoX;

  2. a GI-stateμfromX to Xis an internal state onXif and only ifμ2 = μ.

Proof

  1. From Proposition 5.2 (2) μ(X) is a subalgebra of X, which implies (GSX3) and (GSX4) hold. Thus μ is a GI-state from X to X.

  2. Assume that μ is an internal state on X. Then μ2 = μ by Proposition 5.2 (1). Conversely, let μ be a G-state from X to X and μ2 = μ. Then it follows from (GSX4) that there exists aX such that μ(X) ∧ μ(y) = μ(a) for any x, yx. Hence we have μ(μ(X) ∧ μ(y)) = μ(μ(a)) = μ(a) = μ(X) ∧ μ(y) and so (SX4) holds. Similarly, we can prove (SX3).  □

Example 5.21

In Example 3.7, μis a GI-state fromXtoX, butμis not an internal state onXsinceμ(μ(a)) = μ(b) = 1 ≠ b = μ(a).

Theorem 5.22

Let (X; ∼, ∽, ∧, 1) be a pseudo equality algebra andμbe an internal state-morphism onX. Thenμis a GI-state fromXtoX.

Proof

Similar to the proof of Theorem 5.17.  □

Note that the converse of the above theorem is not true in general according to the following example.

Example 5.23

In Example 3.7, μis a GI-state fromX to X, butμis not an internal state-morphism onXsinceμ(μ(a)) = μ(b) = 1 ≠ b = μ(a).

6 Conclusions

In this paper, we introduce a new notion of generalized state map (or simply, GS-map) by extending the domain X of a state operator to a more universal setting Y. Moreover, we define two types of special generalized state maps, namely, generalized states from X to ([0, 1];∼R, ∽R, ∧R, 1) (or simply, G-states), and generalized internal states from X to X (or simply, GI-states). Also we introduce and investigate Bosbach states and Riečan states. We give the relations between generalized state map, states and internal states. We come to the conclusions that one can extend any state of the image space μ(X) into the state of the entire space X by using an internal state μ (or an internal state-morphism μ). In addition, another important result is that, in a sense, generalized state maps can be viewed as a possible united framework of the states and the internal states, the state-morphisms and the internal state-morphisms on pseudo equality algebras.

Acknowledgement

The authors are extremely grateful to the editors and the anonymous referees for their valuable comments and suggestions in improving this paper. This research is supported by a grant of National Natural Science Foundation of China (11571281).

References

[1] Novák V., Baets B.D., EQ-algebras, Fuzzy Sets Syst., 2009, 160, 2956-2978.10.1016/j.fss.2009.04.010Suche in Google Scholar

[2] Jenei S., Equality algebras, Studia Logica, 2012, 100, 1201-1209.10.1007/s11225-012-9457-0Suche in Google Scholar

[3] Jenei S., Korodi L., Pseudo equality algebras, Arch. Math. Logic, 2013, 52, 469-481.10.1007/s00153-013-0325-zSuche in Google Scholar

[4] Kühr J., Pseudo-BCK-algebras and related structures, Habilitation Thesis, Univerzita of Olomouci, 2007.Suche in Google Scholar

[5] Meng J., Jun Y.B., BCK-algebras, Kyungmoon Sa, Seoul, 1994.Suche in Google Scholar

[6] Jun Y.B., Lee K.J., Ahn S.S., Positive Implicative Pseudo-Valuations on BCK-Algebras, App. Math. Sci., 2011, 14, 651-662.Suche in Google Scholar

[7] Y.B. Jun, S.Z. Song, Codes based on BCK-Algebras, Inform. Sci., 2011, 181, 5102-5109.10.1016/j.ins.2011.07.006Suche in Google Scholar

[8] Dvurečenskij A., Zahiri O., Pseudo Equality Algebras-Revision, arXiv:1405.5807vl [math.AC] 22 May 2014, page: 1-7.10.1007/s00500-015-1888-xSuche in Google Scholar

[9] Mundici D., Averaging the truth-value in ffjukasiewicz logic, Studia Logica, 1995, 55, 113-127.10.1007/BF01053035Suche in Google Scholar

[10] Liu L.Z., States on finite monoidal t-norm based algebras, Inform. Sci., 2011, 181, 1369-1383.10.1016/j.ins.2010.11.020Suche in Google Scholar

[11] Liu L.Z., On the existence of states on MTL-algebras, Inform. Sci., 2013, 220, 559-567.10.1016/j.ins.2012.07.046Suche in Google Scholar

[12] Liu L.Z., Zhang X.Y., States on R0 algebras, Soft Comput., 2008, 12, 1099-1104.10.1007/s00500-008-0276-1Suche in Google Scholar

[13] Turunen E., Mertanen J., States on semi-divisible residuated lattices, Soft Comput., 2008,12, 353-357.10.1007/s00500-007-0182-ySuche in Google Scholar

[14] Xin X.L., Wang P., States and measures on hyper BCK-algebras, J. Appl. Math., 2014, 2014, 1-7.10.1155/2014/397265Suche in Google Scholar

[15] Hájek P., Metamathematics of fuzzy logic, Kluwer Academic Publ, Dordrecht, 1998.10.1007/978-94-011-5300-3Suche in Google Scholar

[16] Flaminio T., Montagna F., MV-algebras with internal states and probabilistic fuzzy logics, Inter. J. Approx. Reasoning, 2009, 50, 138-152.10.1016/j.ijar.2008.07.006Suche in Google Scholar

[17] Borzooei R.A., Dvurečenskij A., Zahiri O., State BCK-algebras and State-morphism BCK-algebras, Fuzzy Sets Syst., 2014, 24, 86-105.10.1016/j.fss.2013.12.007Suche in Google Scholar

[18] He P.F., Xin X.L., Yang Y.W., On state residuated lattices, Soft Comput., 2015, 19, 2083-2094.10.1007/s00500-015-1620-xSuche in Google Scholar

[19] Xin X.L., Davvaz B., State operators and state-morphism operators on hyper BCK-algebras, J. Intell. Fuzzy Systems, 2015, 29, 1869-1880.10.3233/IFS-151665Suche in Google Scholar

[20] Ciungu L.C., Internal states on equality algebras, Soft Comput., 2015, 19, 939-953.10.1007/s00500-014-1494-3Suche in Google Scholar

[21] Ciungu L.C., State pseudo equality algebras, arXiv:1602.07828v1 [math.LO]25 Feb 2016, page: 1-25.Suche in Google Scholar

[22] Ciungu L.C., Bounded pseudo-hoops with internal states, Math Slovaca., 2013, 63, 903-934.10.2478/s12175-013-0144-zSuche in Google Scholar

Received: 2017-01-19
Accepted: 2018-01-05
Published Online: 2018-03-02

© 2018 Cheng et al., published by De Gruyter

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Artikel in diesem Heft

  1. Regular Articles
  2. Algebraic proofs for shallow water bi–Hamiltonian systems for three cocycle of the semi-direct product of Kac–Moody and Virasoro Lie algebras
  3. On a viscous two-fluid channel flow including evaporation
  4. Generation of pseudo-random numbers with the use of inverse chaotic transformation
  5. Singular Cauchy problem for the general Euler-Poisson-Darboux equation
  6. Ternary and n-ary f-distributive structures
  7. On the fine Simpson moduli spaces of 1-dimensional sheaves supported on plane quartics
  8. Evaluation of integrals with hypergeometric and logarithmic functions
  9. Bounded solutions of self-adjoint second order linear difference equations with periodic coeffients
  10. Oscillation of first order linear differential equations with several non-monotone delays
  11. Existence and regularity of mild solutions in some interpolation spaces for functional partial differential equations with nonlocal initial conditions
  12. The log-concavity of the q-derangement numbers of type B
  13. Generalized state maps and states on pseudo equality algebras
  14. Monotone subsequence via ultrapower
  15. Note on group irregularity strength of disconnected graphs
  16. On the security of the Courtois-Finiasz-Sendrier signature
  17. A further study on ordered regular equivalence relations in ordered semihypergroups
  18. On the structure vector field of a real hypersurface in complex quadric
  19. Rank relations between a {0, 1}-matrix and its complement
  20. Lie n superderivations and generalized Lie n superderivations of superalgebras
  21. Time parallelization scheme with an adaptive time step size for solving stiff initial value problems
  22. Stability problems and numerical integration on the Lie group SO(3) × R3 × R3
  23. On some fixed point results for (s, p, α)-contractive mappings in b-metric-like spaces and applications to integral equations
  24. On algebraic characterization of SSC of the Jahangir’s graph 𝓙n,m
  25. A greedy algorithm for interval greedoids
  26. On nonlinear evolution equation of second order in Banach spaces
  27. A primal-dual approach of weak vector equilibrium problems
  28. On new strong versions of Browder type theorems
  29. A Geršgorin-type eigenvalue localization set with n parameters for stochastic matrices
  30. Restriction conditions on PL(7, 2) codes (3 ≤ |𝓖i| ≤ 7)
  31. Singular integrals with variable kernel and fractional differentiation in homogeneous Morrey-Herz-type Hardy spaces with variable exponents
  32. Introduction to disoriented knot theory
  33. Restricted triangulation on circulant graphs
  34. Boundedness control sets for linear systems on Lie groups
  35. Chen’s inequalities for submanifolds in (κ, μ)-contact space form with a semi-symmetric metric connection
  36. Disjointed sum of products by a novel technique of orthogonalizing ORing
  37. A parametric linearizing approach for quadratically inequality constrained quadratic programs
  38. Generalizations of Steffensen’s inequality via the extension of Montgomery identity
  39. Vector fields satisfying the barycenter property
  40. On the freeness of hypersurface arrangements consisting of hyperplanes and spheres
  41. Biderivations of the higher rank Witt algebra without anti-symmetric condition
  42. Some remarks on spectra of nuclear operators
  43. Recursive interpolating sequences
  44. Involutory biquandles and singular knots and links
  45. Constacyclic codes over 𝔽pm[u1, u2,⋯,uk]/〈 ui2 = ui, uiuj = ujui
  46. Topological entropy for positively weak measure expansive shadowable maps
  47. Oscillation and non-oscillation of half-linear differential equations with coeffcients determined by functions having mean values
  48. On 𝓠-regular semigroups
  49. One kind power mean of the hybrid Gauss sums
  50. A reduced space branch and bound algorithm for a class of sum of ratios problems
  51. Some recurrence formulas for the Hermite polynomials and their squares
  52. A relaxed block splitting preconditioner for complex symmetric indefinite linear systems
  53. On f - prime radical in ordered semigroups
  54. Positive solutions of semipositone singular fractional differential systems with a parameter and integral boundary conditions
  55. Disjoint hypercyclicity equals disjoint supercyclicity for families of Taylor-type operators
  56. A stochastic differential game of low carbon technology sharing in collaborative innovation system of superior enterprises and inferior enterprises under uncertain environment
  57. Dynamic behavior analysis of a prey-predator model with ratio-dependent Monod-Haldane functional response
  58. The points and diameters of quantales
  59. Directed colimits of some flatness properties and purity of epimorphisms in S-posets
  60. Super (a, d)-H-antimagic labeling of subdivided graphs
  61. On the power sum problem of Lucas polynomials and its divisible property
  62. Existence of solutions for a shear thickening fluid-particle system with non-Newtonian potential
  63. On generalized P-reducible Finsler manifolds
  64. On Banach and Kuratowski Theorem, K-Lusin sets and strong sequences
  65. On the boundedness of square function generated by the Bessel differential operator in weighted Lebesque Lp,α spaces
  66. On the different kinds of separability of the space of Borel functions
  67. Curves in the Lorentz-Minkowski plane: elasticae, catenaries and grim-reapers
  68. Functional analysis method for the M/G/1 queueing model with single working vacation
  69. Existence of asymptotically periodic solutions for semilinear evolution equations with nonlocal initial conditions
  70. The existence of solutions to certain type of nonlinear difference-differential equations
  71. Domination in 4-regular Knödel graphs
  72. Stepanov-like pseudo almost periodic functions on time scales and applications to dynamic equations with delay
  73. Algebras of right ample semigroups
  74. Random attractors for stochastic retarded reaction-diffusion equations with multiplicative white noise on unbounded domains
  75. Nontrivial periodic solutions to delay difference equations via Morse theory
  76. A note on the three-way generalization of the Jordan canonical form
  77. On some varieties of ai-semirings satisfying xp+1x
  78. Abstract-valued Orlicz spaces of range-varying type
  79. On the recursive properties of one kind hybrid power mean involving two-term exponential sums and Gauss sums
  80. Arithmetic of generalized Dedekind sums and their modularity
  81. Multipreconditioned GMRES for simulating stochastic automata networks
  82. Regularization and error estimates for an inverse heat problem under the conformable derivative
  83. Transitivity of the εm-relation on (m-idempotent) hyperrings
  84. Learning Bayesian networks based on bi-velocity discrete particle swarm optimization with mutation operator
  85. Simultaneous prediction in the generalized linear model
  86. Two asymptotic expansions for gamma function developed by Windschitl’s formula
  87. State maps on semihoops
  88. 𝓜𝓝-convergence and lim-inf𝓜-convergence in partially ordered sets
  89. Stability and convergence of a local discontinuous Galerkin finite element method for the general Lax equation
  90. New topology in residuated lattices
  91. Optimality and duality in set-valued optimization utilizing limit sets
  92. An improved Schwarz Lemma at the boundary
  93. Initial layer problem of the Boussinesq system for Rayleigh-Bénard convection with infinite Prandtl number limit
  94. Toeplitz matrices whose elements are coefficients of Bazilevič functions
  95. Epi-mild normality
  96. Nonlinear elastic beam problems with the parameter near resonance
  97. Orlicz difference bodies
  98. The Picard group of Brauer-Severi varieties
  99. Galoisian and qualitative approaches to linear Polyanin-Zaitsev vector fields
  100. Weak group inverse
  101. Infinite growth of solutions of second order complex differential equation
  102. Semi-Hurewicz-Type properties in ditopological texture spaces
  103. Chaos and bifurcation in the controlled chaotic system
  104. Translatability and translatable semigroups
  105. Sharp bounds for partition dimension of generalized Möbius ladders
  106. Uniqueness theorems for L-functions in the extended Selberg class
  107. An effective algorithm for globally solving quadratic programs using parametric linearization technique
  108. Bounds of Strong EMT Strength for certain Subdivision of Star and Bistar
  109. On categorical aspects of S -quantales
  110. On the algebraicity of coefficients of half-integral weight mock modular forms
  111. Dunkl analogue of Szász-mirakjan operators of blending type
  112. Majorization, “useful” Csiszár divergence and “useful” Zipf-Mandelbrot law
  113. Global stability of a distributed delayed viral model with general incidence rate
  114. Analyzing a generalized pest-natural enemy model with nonlinear impulsive control
  115. Boundary value problems of a discrete generalized beam equation via variational methods
  116. Common fixed point theorem of six self-mappings in Menger spaces using (CLRST) property
  117. Periodic and subharmonic solutions for a 2nth-order p-Laplacian difference equation containing both advances and retardations
  118. Spectrum of free-form Sudoku graphs
  119. Regularity of fuzzy convergence spaces
  120. The well-posedness of solution to a compressible non-Newtonian fluid with self-gravitational potential
  121. On further refinements for Young inequalities
  122. Pretty good state transfer on 1-sum of star graphs
  123. On a conjecture about generalized Q-recurrence
  124. Univariate approximating schemes and their non-tensor product generalization
  125. Multi-term fractional differential equations with nonlocal boundary conditions
  126. Homoclinic and heteroclinic solutions to a hepatitis C evolution model
  127. Regularity of one-sided multilinear fractional maximal functions
  128. Galois connections between sets of paths and closure operators in simple graphs
  129. KGSA: A Gravitational Search Algorithm for Multimodal Optimization based on K-Means Niching Technique and a Novel Elitism Strategy
  130. θ-type Calderón-Zygmund Operators and Commutators in Variable Exponents Herz space
  131. An integral that counts the zeros of a function
  132. On rough sets induced by fuzzy relations approach in semigroups
  133. Computational uncertainty quantification for random non-autonomous second order linear differential equations via adapted gPC: a comparative case study with random Fröbenius method and Monte Carlo simulation
  134. The fourth order strongly noncanonical operators
  135. Topical Issue on Cyber-security Mathematics
  136. Review of Cryptographic Schemes applied to Remote Electronic Voting systems: remaining challenges and the upcoming post-quantum paradigm
  137. Linearity in decimation-based generators: an improved cryptanalysis on the shrinking generator
  138. On dynamic network security: A random decentering algorithm on graphs
Heruntergeladen am 13.10.2025 von https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/math-2018-0014/html?lang=de
Button zum nach oben scrollen