On the \(L\)-valued categories of \(L\)-\(E\)-ordered sets.

*(English)*Zbl 1251.03062There exists a well-known representation of a partially ordered set (poset) \((X,\leqslant)\) as a small category X whose objects are the elements of \(X\) and whose hom-sets \(\text{hom}(x_1,x_2)\) contain exactly one morphism provided that \(x_1\leqslant x_2\); an order-preserving map \(f:(X,\leqslant)\rightarrow(Y,\leqslant)\) is then precisely a functor \(F:\mathbf{X}\rightarrow \text\textbf{Y}\) [J. Adámek, H. Herrlich and G. E. Strecker, Repr. Theory Appl. Categ. 2006, No. 17, 1–507 (2006; Zbl 1113.18001)], thereby providing the category Pos of posets and order-preserving maps.

Motivated by the notions of lattice-valued partial order of [L. A. Zadeh, Inf. Sci. 3, 177–200 (1971; Zbl 0218.02058)], the lattice-valued equality of [U. Höhle and N. Blanchard, Inf. Sci. 35, 133–144 (1985; Zbl 0576.06004)] (see also [U. Höhle and T. Kubiak, Fuzzy Sets Syst. 166, No. 1, 1–43 (2011; Zbl 1226.06011)] for the recent developments of the theory) and the lattice-valued category of [A. Šostak, Tatra Mt. Math. Publ. 16, No. 1, 159–185 (1999; Zbl 0947.18001)], the author of the current paper introduces a similar representation for the category \(\mathbf{Pos}(L)\) of \(L\)-valued posets, where \(L\) is supposed to be a commutative \(cl\)-monoid [U. Höhle, Theory Decis. Libr., Ser. B. 32, 53–106 (1995; Zbl 0838.06012)] (a strictly two-sided commutative quantale in the terminology of [K. I. Rosenthal, Quantales and their applications. Harlow: Longman Scientific & Technical; New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (1990; Zbl 0703.06007)]). More precisely, given an \(L\)-valued poset \((X,P,E)\), where \(X\) is a set, and \(P\) (resp. \(E\)) is an \(L\)-valued partial order (resp. equality) on \(X\), the author constructs a category X as above in which the condition \(x_1\leqslant x_2\) is replaced with \(\bot_L<P(x_1,x_2)\). In such a way we arrive at a category \(L\)-Pos, which is claimed to be essentially the category \(\mathbf{Pos}(L)\) (Remark 3.3 on page 152). It is easy to see, however, that such a representation is somewhat deficient, in the sense that one looses the \(L\)-valued equality \(E\), which is a part of the objects of the category \(\mathbf{Pos}(L)\). A better categorical framework seems to be that of double categories of [C. Ehresmann, Catégories et structures. Département de mathématiques pures et appliquées. Coll. Travaux et recherches mathématiques. 10. Paris: Dunod (1965; Zbl 0192.09803)] (see also [R. Dawson and R. Paré, Cah. Topologie Géom. Différ. Catég. 34, No. 1, 57–79 (1993; Zbl 0778.18005)]), which additionally allows the second type of morphisms to represent the missing \(L\)-valued equality \(E\).

The author then proceeds with considering some special objects (initial, final, zero) and morphisms (epimorphisms, monomorphisms, bimorphisms and isomorphisms) in the category \(\mathbf{Pos}(L)\) as well as (co)products of its objects. Moreover, towards the end of the paper, we find three particular lattice-valued categories induced by \(\mathbf{Pos}(L)\) whose morphisms have a degree (an element of the \(cl\)-monoid \(L\)) attached to them, representing the extent to which their underlying maps are order-reflecting, order-preserving and order-isomorphisms, respectively. The author studies the above-mentioned categorical properties of the last two of these lattice-valued categories, and shows that the construction of generalized products of their objects has a convenient application in the theory of aggregation functions [M. Grabisch, J.-L. Marichal, R. Mesiar and E. Pap, Aggregation functions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (2009; Zbl 1196.00002)].

The paper is written a bit negligently (e.g., Example 4.16 on page 162 makes a referenca to a non-existing Proposition 3.15 in its proof, whereas the only sentence of Definition 4.13 on page 161 seems to lack one of its parts). Moreover, its English is slightly cumbersome. On the other hand, the paper is self-contained, easy to read, and offers a promising beginning in the development of the theory of lattice-valued categories of lattice-valued sets.

Motivated by the notions of lattice-valued partial order of [L. A. Zadeh, Inf. Sci. 3, 177–200 (1971; Zbl 0218.02058)], the lattice-valued equality of [U. Höhle and N. Blanchard, Inf. Sci. 35, 133–144 (1985; Zbl 0576.06004)] (see also [U. Höhle and T. Kubiak, Fuzzy Sets Syst. 166, No. 1, 1–43 (2011; Zbl 1226.06011)] for the recent developments of the theory) and the lattice-valued category of [A. Šostak, Tatra Mt. Math. Publ. 16, No. 1, 159–185 (1999; Zbl 0947.18001)], the author of the current paper introduces a similar representation for the category \(\mathbf{Pos}(L)\) of \(L\)-valued posets, where \(L\) is supposed to be a commutative \(cl\)-monoid [U. Höhle, Theory Decis. Libr., Ser. B. 32, 53–106 (1995; Zbl 0838.06012)] (a strictly two-sided commutative quantale in the terminology of [K. I. Rosenthal, Quantales and their applications. Harlow: Longman Scientific & Technical; New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (1990; Zbl 0703.06007)]). More precisely, given an \(L\)-valued poset \((X,P,E)\), where \(X\) is a set, and \(P\) (resp. \(E\)) is an \(L\)-valued partial order (resp. equality) on \(X\), the author constructs a category X as above in which the condition \(x_1\leqslant x_2\) is replaced with \(\bot_L<P(x_1,x_2)\). In such a way we arrive at a category \(L\)-Pos, which is claimed to be essentially the category \(\mathbf{Pos}(L)\) (Remark 3.3 on page 152). It is easy to see, however, that such a representation is somewhat deficient, in the sense that one looses the \(L\)-valued equality \(E\), which is a part of the objects of the category \(\mathbf{Pos}(L)\). A better categorical framework seems to be that of double categories of [C. Ehresmann, Catégories et structures. Département de mathématiques pures et appliquées. Coll. Travaux et recherches mathématiques. 10. Paris: Dunod (1965; Zbl 0192.09803)] (see also [R. Dawson and R. Paré, Cah. Topologie Géom. Différ. Catég. 34, No. 1, 57–79 (1993; Zbl 0778.18005)]), which additionally allows the second type of morphisms to represent the missing \(L\)-valued equality \(E\).

The author then proceeds with considering some special objects (initial, final, zero) and morphisms (epimorphisms, monomorphisms, bimorphisms and isomorphisms) in the category \(\mathbf{Pos}(L)\) as well as (co)products of its objects. Moreover, towards the end of the paper, we find three particular lattice-valued categories induced by \(\mathbf{Pos}(L)\) whose morphisms have a degree (an element of the \(cl\)-monoid \(L\)) attached to them, representing the extent to which their underlying maps are order-reflecting, order-preserving and order-isomorphisms, respectively. The author studies the above-mentioned categorical properties of the last two of these lattice-valued categories, and shows that the construction of generalized products of their objects has a convenient application in the theory of aggregation functions [M. Grabisch, J.-L. Marichal, R. Mesiar and E. Pap, Aggregation functions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (2009; Zbl 1196.00002)].

The paper is written a bit negligently (e.g., Example 4.16 on page 162 makes a referenca to a non-existing Proposition 3.15 in its proof, whereas the only sentence of Definition 4.13 on page 161 seems to lack one of its parts). Moreover, its English is slightly cumbersome. On the other hand, the paper is self-contained, easy to read, and offers a promising beginning in the development of the theory of lattice-valued categories of lattice-valued sets.

Reviewer: Sergejs Solovjovs (Brno)

##### MSC:

03E72 | Theory of fuzzy sets, etc. |

06F07 | Quantales |

18A05 | Definitions and generalizations in theory of categories |

18B35 | Preorders, orders, domains and lattices (viewed as categories) |

##### Keywords:

aggregation function; commutative \(cl\)-monoid; epimorphism; extensional map; lattice-valued category; lattice-valued equality; lattice-valued partial order; monomorphism; product of objects of a category; residuation; t-norm; fuzzy order relation; aggregation functions**OpenURL**

##### References:

[1] | J. Adamek, H. Herrlich, G. E. Strecker: Abstract and concrete categories: The joy of cats. Reprints in Theory and Applications of Categories, No. 17 2006. · Zbl 1113.18001 |

[2] | R. Bělohlávek: Fuzzy Relational Systems: Foundations and Principles. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Press, New York 2002. · Zbl 1067.03059 |

[3] | U. Bodenhofer: A similarity-based generalization of fuzzy orderings preserving the classical axioms. Internat. J. Uncertain. Fuzziness Knowledge-Based Systems 8(5) (2000), 593-610. · Zbl 1113.03333 |

[4] | U. Bodenhofer: Representations and constructions of similarity-based fuzzy orderings. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 137 (2003), 113-136. · Zbl 1052.91032 |

[5] | U. Bodenhofer, J. Küng: Fuzzy orderings in flexible query answering systems. Soft Computing 8 (2004), 7, 512-522. · Zbl 1063.68047 |

[6] | U. Bodenhofer, B. De Baets, J. Fodor: A compendium of fuzzy weak orders: representations and constructions. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 158 (2007), 593-610. · Zbl 1119.06001 |

[7] | M. Demirci: A theory of vague lattices based on many-valued equivalence relations - I: General representation results. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 151 (2005), 3, 437-472. · Zbl 1067.06006 |

[8] | J. Fodor, M. Roubens: Fuzzy Preference Modelling and Multicriteria Decision Support. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht 1994. · Zbl 0827.90002 |

[9] | J. A. Goguen: L-fuzzy sets. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 18 (1967), 338-353. · Zbl 0145.24404 |

[10] | O. Grigorenko: Categorical aspects of aggregation of fuzzy relations. Abstracts 10th Conference on Fuzzy Set Theory and Applications, 2010, p. 61. |

[11] | O. Grigorenko: Degree of monotonicity in aggregation process. Proc. 2010 IEEE International Conference on Fuzzy Systems, pp. 1080-1087. |

[12] | H. Herrlich, G. E. Strecker: Category Theory. Second edition. Heldermann Verlag, Berlin 1978. |

[13] | U. Höhle, N. Blanchard: Partial ordering in L-underdeterminate sets. Inform. Sci. 35 (1985), 133-144. · Zbl 0576.06004 |

[14] | U. Höhle: Quotients with respect to similarity relations. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 27 (1988), 31-44. · Zbl 0666.18002 |

[15] | U. Höhle: M-valued sets and sheaves over integral commutative cl-monoids. Applications of Category Theory to Fuzzy Subsets (S. E. Rodabaugh et al., Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Boston, London, pp. 33-72. · Zbl 0766.03037 |

[16] | E. P. Klement, R. Mesiar, E. Pap: Triangular Norms. Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands 2002. · Zbl 1012.03033 |

[17] | H. L. Lai, D. X. Zhang: Many-valued complete distributivity. arXiv:math.CT/0603590, 2006. |

[18] | F. W. Lawvere: Metric spaces, generalized logic, and closed categories. Rend. Sem. Mat. Fis. Milano 43 (1973), 135-166. Also Reprints in Theory and Applications of Categories 1 (2002). · Zbl 0335.18006 |

[19] | F. W. Lawvere: Taking categories seriously. Revisita Columbiana de Matemáticas XX (1986), 147-178. Also Reprints in Theory and Applications of Categories 8 (2005). · Zbl 0648.18001 |

[20] | O. Lebedeva (Grigorenko): Fuzzy order relation and fuzzy ordered set category. New Dimensions in fuzzy logic and related technologies. Proc. 5th EUSFLAT Conference, Ostrava 2007, pp. 403-407 |

[21] | S. Ovchinnikov: Similarity relations, fuzzy partitions, and fuzzy orderings. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 40 (1991), 1, 107-126. · Zbl 0725.04003 |

[22] | A. Sostak: Fuzzy categories versus categories of fuzzy structured sets: Elements of the theory of fuzzy categories. Mathematik-Arbeitspapiere, Universitat Bremen 48 (1997), 407-437. |

[23] | A. Sostak: \(L\)-valued categories: Generalities and examples related to algebra and topology. Categorical Structures and Their Applications (W. Gahler and G. Preuss, World Scientific 2004, pp. 291-312. · Zbl 1068.18001 |

[24] | L. A. Zadeh: Similarity relations and fuzzy orderings. Inform. Sci. 3 (1971), 177-200. · Zbl 0218.02058 |

[25] | L. A. Zadeh: Fuzzy sets. Inform. Control 8 (1965), 338-353. · Zbl 0139.24606 |

This reference list is based on information provided by the publisher or from digital mathematics libraries. Its items are heuristically matched to zbMATH identifiers and may contain data conversion errors. It attempts to reflect the references listed in the original paper as accurately as possible without claiming the completeness or perfect precision of the matching.