JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 3, ISSUE 1, JANUARY 2011, ISSN 2151-9617

HTTPS://SITES.GOOGLE.COM/SITE/JOURNALOFCOMPUTING/
WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG 21

Neutrosophic Logic – Generalization of Vague Relation

a b c
Ashit Kumar Dutta *, Ranjit Biswas , Nasser Saad AL-Arifi
a
Department of Computer Science and Information System
Faculty of Information Technology
SHAQRA University ,Shaqra , Saudi Arabia

b
Department of Computer Science and Information Technology
ITM University, Gurgaon ,Haryana ,India

c
Department of Geophysics, College of Science
King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

ABSTRACT
In this paper, we present a generalization of the Neutrosophic logic [2] over Vague Relation[1]. Our objective is
capable of manipulating incomplete as well as inconsistent information. Fuzzy relation or vague relation can only
handle incomplete information. Each relation is Associated with two membership functions one is called truth-
membership function T which keeps track of the “evidence for you” to which we believe the tuple is in the relation,
another is called falsity-membership function F which keeps track of the “evidence against you” to which we believe
the tuple is not in the relation. A neutrosophic logic is inconsistent if there exists one tuple _ such that T(α) + F(α) > 1 .
In order to handle inconsistent situation, we define the neutrosophic relational model using algebraic operators that are
generalizations of the usual operators such as intersection, union, differentiation, complement on vague relations. Our
data model can underlie any database and knowledge-base management system that deals with incomplete and
inconsistent information.

KEYWORDS:
Vague Relation, Neutrosophic Relation , Vague Set , Neutrosophic Set, Neutrosophic Logic

1. INTRODUCTION neutrosophic set theory which is an extension

Relational data model was proposed by Ted
Codd’s pioneering paper [2]. Since then,
relational database systems have been
extensively studied and a lot of commercial
relational database systems are currently
available [3, 4]. This data model usually takes
care of only well-defined and unambiguous
data. However, when we talk about the
imprecise data or imperfect information ,It will
fail to answer. But our Lay users may or may
not be aware of imprecision . In order to
represent and manipulate various forms of
incomplete information in relational databases,
several extensions of the classical relational
model have been proposed [6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11].
The vague set and vague logic proposed by
Gau and Behurer provide a requisite
mathematical framework for dealing with
incomplete and imprecise information. The
Vague sets consider both truthmembership T
and falsity-membership F with and
T(a),F(a)[0,1] and T(a)+F(a)1.Because of
the restriction it cannot handle inconsistent
data .In this paper, we present a new relational
data model neutrosophic relational data model
(NRDM). Our model is based on the
of Vague set theory and is capable of
manipulating incomplete as well as
inconsistent
information. We use both truth-membership
function grade α and falsity-membership
function grade β to denote the status of a tuple
of a certain relation with ,[0,1]
,2. NRDM is the generalization of
Vague relational data model (VRDM). That is ,
when α + β = 1, neutroshophic relation is the
ordinary Vague relation. We define algebraic
operators over i-v neutrosophic logic that
extend the standard operators such as selection,
join, union over fuzzy relations.
2. VAGUE RELATION AND THEIR
PROPERTIES
Fuzzy relations [16] have a wide range of
applications in different areas in Computer
Science, in Management Science, in Banking
and Finance, in Social Sciences etc.
Our work in this paper is based on the theory
of relations, specially vague relations. In this
section we recollect the recent literature
[14,15] on the notion of vague relations and
JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 3, ISSUE 1, JANUARY 2011, ISSN 2151-9617
HTTPS://SITES.GOOGLE.COM/SITE/JOURNALOFCOMPUTING/
WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG
their properties. First of all we mention the
following notations on interval arithmetic
which will be used in our work here
subsequently.
Notations
Let I[0,1] denotes the family of all closed
subintervals of [0,1]. If I1 = [a1,b1] and I2 =
[a2,b2] be two elements of I[0,1], we call I1 ≥ I2
if a1 ≥ a 2 and b1≥ b 2 . Similarly we understand
the relations I1 ≤ I2 and I1 = I2 . Clearly the
relation I1≥I2 does not necessarily imply that I1
I2 and conversely. Also for any two unequal
intervals I1 and I2, there is no necessity that
either I1≥ I2 or I1 ≤ I2 will be true. The term
‘imax’ means the maximum of two intervals as
imax(I1,I2) = [max(a1,a2), max(b1,b2)].
Similarly defined is ‘imin’. The concept of
‘imax’ and ‘imin’ could be extended to define
‘isup’ and ‘iinf’ of infinite number of elements
of I[0,1].
It is obvious that L = { I[0,1], isup, iinf,≤ } is a
lattice with universal bounds [0,0] and [1,1].
2.1 Vague Relation (VR)
Let X and Y be two universes. A vague
relation (VR) denoted by R(X→Y) of the
universe X with the universe Y is a VS of the
Cartesian product X×Y.
The true membership value tR(x,y) estimates
the strength of the existence of the relation of
R-type of the object x with the object y,
whereas the false membership value fR(x,y)
estimates the strength of the non-existence of
the relation of R-type of the object x with the
object y. The relation R(X→Y) could be in
short denoted by the notation R, if there is no
confusion.
Example :
Consider two universes X = {a,b} and Y =
{p,q,r}. Let R be a VR of the universe X with
the universe Y proposed by an intelligent agent
as shown by the following table :-
VR R(X→Y)
R(X→Y) P q r (i) (Rc)c = R
X (. 6, . 3) (. 3, . 5) ( . 8,. 2)
Y (. 2 , . 4) (. 7, . 3) ( . 4 , . 4)
The proposed VR reveals the strength of vague
relation of every pair of X×Y; For example, it
reveals that the object y of the universe X has
22
R-relation with the element p of Y with the
following estimation :-
strength of existence of the relation = .6
strength of non-existence of the relation = .3
A relation E(X→Y) is called a Complete
Relation from the universe X to the universe Y
if VE(x,y) = [1,1] (x,y) X×Y. A relation
(X→Y) is called a Null Relation from the
universe X to the universe Y if V(x,y) =
[0,0] (x,y) X×Y.
2.2 Various Operations on VRs
For suitable applications of vague relations, we
must be aware of the different operations on
them. In this section we define some
operations on VRs.
Definition 2.2.1 Complement of a VR
Let R(X→Y) be a VR describing some relation
R. Its complement denoted by Rc(X→Y) is the
VR given by VRc(x,y) = [ fR(x,y), 1–tR(x,y) ]
Definition 2.2.2 Union of two VRs
Let R(X→Y) and S(X→Y) be two VRs each
from the universe X to the universe Y. The
union of R and S is denoted by RS which is
also a VR from X to Y, and is given by VRS
(x,y) = imax { VR(x,y), VS(x,y) }.
Definition 2.2.3 Intersection of two VRs
Let R(X→Y) and S(X→Y) be two VRs each
from the universe X to the universe Y. The
intersection of R and S is denoted by RS
which is also a VR from X to Y, and is given
by
VRS (x,y) = imin { VR(x,y), VS(x,y) }.
The following proposition is straightforward.
Proposition 2.2.1
Let R(X→Y), S(X→Y) and T(X→Y) be three
VRs each relating the universe X with the
universe Y. Then
(ii) RS = SR
(iii) RS = SR
(iv) R(S T) = (RS) T
(v) R(S T ) = (RS) T
(vi) R(S T) = (RS) (R T)
(vii) R(S T ) = (RS) (R T )
(viii) RRc ≠ E and RRc≠ 

JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 3, ISSUE 1, JANUARY 2011, ISSN 2151-9617
HTTPS://SITES.GOOGLE.COM/SITE/JOURNALOFCOMPUTING/
WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG
De Morgans Laws hold good in the operations
with VRs.
Proposition 2.2.2
Let R(X→Y) and S(X→Y) be two VRs each
relating the universe X with the universe Y.
Then the following results are true:-
(i) (RS)c = RcSc
(ii) (RS)c = RcSc
3. THEORY OF NEUTROSOPHIC SETS
In this section, we present the basic operations
of
Neutrosophic sets which include complement,
containment, equal, union, intersection, and so
on.
Let S1 and S2 be two (unidimensional) real
standard or non-standard subsets, then one
defines:
3.1 Addition of Sets:
S1S2 = {x|x=s1+s2, where s1S1 and
s2S2} with inf S1S2 = inf S1 + inf S2, sup
S1S2 = sup S1 + sup S2;
and, as some particular cases, we have {a}S2
= {x|x=a+s2, where s2S2} with inf {a}S2
= a + inf S2, sup {a}S2 = a + sup S2.
3.2 Subtraction of Sets:
S1ӨS2 = {x|x=s1-s2, where s1S1 and
s2S2}.
For real positive subsets (most of the cases will
fall in this range) one gets inf S1ӨS2 = inf S1 -
sup S2, sup S1ӨS2 = sup S1 – inf S2;
and, as some particular cases, we have
{a}ӨS2 = {x|x=a-s2, where s2S2}, with inf
{a}ӨS2 = a - sup S2, sup {a}ӨS2 = a - inf
S2;
3.3 Multiplication of Sets:
S1S2 = {x|x=s1.s2, where s1S1 and
s2S2}.
For real positive subsets (most of the cases will
fall in this range) one gets inf S1S2 = inf S1
. inf S2, sup S1S2 = sup S1sup S2;
and, as some particular cases, we have
{a}S2 = {x|x=as2, where s2S2}, with inf
{a}S2 = a * inf S2, sup {a}S2 = asup
S2;
3.4 Division of a Set by a Number:
Let k R* then S1/k = {x|x=s1/k, where
s1S1}.
23
4. Neutrosophic Logic Connectors
One uses the definitions of neutrosophic
probability and neutrosophic set operations.
Similarly, there are many ways to construct
such connectives according to each particular
problem to Solve; here we present the easiest
ones:
One notes the neutrosophic logic values of the
propositions A1 and A2 by NL(A1) = ( T1, I1,
F1 ) and NL(A2) = ( T2, I2, F2 ) respectively.
For all neutrosophic logic values below: if,
after
calculations, one obtains numbers < 0 or 1>,
one
replaces them
-
0 or 1+ respectively.
4.1. Negation:
NL(A1) = ( {1+}ӨT1, {1+}ӨI1, {1+}ӨF1 )
4.2. Conjunction:
NL(A1 A2) = ( T1T2, I1I2, F1F2 ).
(And, in a similar way, generalized for n
propositions.)
4.3 Implication:
NL(A1 A2) = ( {1+}ӨT1T1T2,
{1+}ӨI1I1I2, {1+}ӨF1F1F2 )
5. NEUTROSOPHIC LOGIC
In this section, we generalize vague relations
in such a manner that we are now able to
assign a measure of truth ness and a measure
of falseness to each tuple. We shall refer to
these generalized vague relations as
neutrosophic logic. So, a tuple in a
neutrosophic logic is assigned a measure. will
be referred to as the truth factor and will be
referred to as the false factor.
The interpretation of this measure is that we
believe with confidence and doubt with
confidence that the tuple is in the relation. The
truth and false confidence factors for a tuple
need not add to exactly 1. This allows for
incompleteness and inconsistency to be
represented. If the truth and false factors add
up to less than 1, we have incomplete
information regarding the tuple’s status in the
relation and if the truth and false factors add up
to more than 1, we have inconsistent
information regarding
the tuple’s status in the relation.
In contrast to vague relations where the grade
of membership of a tuple is fixed, neutrosophic
logic bound the grade of membership of a
tuple to a subinterval [,1]for the
case,1.. The operators on fuzzy
relations can also be generalized for
neutrosophic logic. However, any such
JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 3, ISSUE 1, JANUARY 2011, ISSN 2151-9617
HTTPS://SITES.GOOGLE.COM/SITE/JOURNALOFCOMPUTING/
WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG
generalization of operators should maintain the
belief system intuition behind neutrosophic s.
Definition 5.1 A neutrosophic relation on
scheme R on ∑ is any subset of (∑)×[0,1]
×[0,1], Where (∑) denotes the set
of all tuples on any scheme ∑ .
For any t (∑) ,we shall denote an element
of R as 〈 t,R(t)+,R(t)-〉 ,where , R(t)+ is the
truth factor assigned to t by R and R(t)- is the
false factor assigned to t by R.Let V(∑ ) be the
set of all neutrosophic relation on ∑ .
Definition 5.2 A neutrosophic relation on
scheme R on ∑ is consistent if R(t)++R(t)- 1,
for all t (∑) .Let C(∑ )be the set of all
consistent neutrosophic logic on∑ .R is said to
be complete if R(t)++R(t)- 1, for all t (∑)
. If R is both consistent and complete, i.e.
R(t)++R(t)- = 1, for all t (∑) . then it is a
total
neutrosophic relation, and let T(∑ ) be the set
of total neutrosophic relation on ∑ .
5.1 Operator Generalizations
It is easily seen that neutrosophic logic are a
generalization of vague relations, in that for
each
vague relation there is a neutrosophic relation
with the same information content, but not vice
versa. It is thus natural to think of generalizing
the operations on vague relations such as
union, join, and projection etc. to neutrosophic
logic.
However, any such generalization should be
intuitive with respect to the belief system
model of neutrosophic logic. We now
construct a
framework for operators on both kinds of
relations and introduce two different notions of
the generalization relationship among their
operators. An n-ary operator on fuzzy relations
with signature
〈∑ 1,………, ∑ n+1〉 is a function:F(∑ 1)
×…×F(∑ n)→∑ n+1,where ∑ 1,…., ∑ n+1 are any
schemes. Similarly An n-ary operator on
neutrosophic logic with signature〈∑ 1,………,
∑ n+1〉 is a function :V(∑ 1)
×…×V(∑ n)→V(∑ n+1).
Definition 5.3
An operator on neutrosophic logic with
signature 〈∑ 1,………, ∑ n+1 〉 is totality
preserving if for any total neutrosophic logic
24
R1,….Rn on schemes ∑ 1,…., ∑ n+1, respectively.
(R1,….Rn) is also total.
Definition 5.4
A totality preserving operator  on
neutrosophic logic with signature〈∑ 1,………,
∑ n+1 〉 is a weak generalization of an
operator on fuzzy relations with the same
signature, if for any total neutrosophic logic
R1,….Rn on schemes ∑ 1,….,∑ n, respectively
,we have
∑ n+1(R1,….Rn))= ∑
( 1(R1),…..,
∑ n(Rn)).
The above definition essentially requires  to
coincide with on total neutrosophic realtions
(which are in One-one correspondence with
the vague relations). In general, there may be
many operators on neutrosophic logic that are
weak generalizations of a given operator on
fuzzy relations. The behavior of the weak
generalizations of on even just the
consistent neutrosophic logic may in general
vary. We require a stronger notion of operator
generalization under which, at least when
restricted to consistent neutrosophic logic, the
behavior of all the generalized operators is the
same. Before we can develop such a notion,
we need that of ‘representation’ of a
neutrosophic relation.
We associate with a consistent neutrosophic
relation R the set of all (vague relations
corresponding to) total neutrosophic logic
obtainable from R by filling the gaps between
the truth and false factors for each tuple.
Let the map be reps ∑ :C(∑ )→2F( ∑ ).is given
by , reps ∑ (R)={QF(∑ )| (R(ti)+ Q(ti)
1-R(ti)- )}.
ti(∑ )
The set reps ∑ (R) contains all fuzzy relations
that are ‘completions’ of the consistent
neutrosophic relation R .Observe that reps∑ is
defined only for consistent neutrosophic logic
and produces sets of fuzzy relations. Then we
have following observation.
Proposition 5.1 For any consistent
neutrosophic
relation R on scheme ∑ , reps ∑ (R) is the
singleton

{ ∑ ( R)}, iff R is total.
Proposition 5.2 If is a strong generalization
of , then  is also a weak generalization of 
JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 3, ISSUE 1, JANUARY 2011, ISSN 2151-9617
HTTPS://SITES.GOOGLE.COM/SITE/JOURNALOFCOMPUTING/
WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG
6. APPLICATION
In the real world there are vaguely specified
data values in many applications, such as
sensor
information,Robotics etc. A Vague Set (VS),
as well as an Intuitionistic Fuzzy Set (IFS), is a
further generalization of an FS. Now take an
example, when we ask the opinion of an expert
about certain statement, he or she may say that
the possibility that the statement is true is
between 0.5 and 0.7, and the statement is false
is between 0.2 and 0.4, and the degree that he
or she is not sure is between 0.1 and 0.3. Here
is another example, suppose there are 10 voters
during a voting process. In time t1, three vote
“yes”, two vote “no” and five are undecided,
using neutrosophic notation, it can be
expressed as x(0.3,0.5,0.2); in time t2, three
vote “yes”, two vote “no”, two give up and
three are undecided, it then can be expressed as
x(0.3,0.3,0.2). That is beyond the scope of the
intuitionistic fuzzy set.
So, the notion of neutrosophic set is more
general and overcomes the aforementioned
issues. In neutrosophic set, indeterminacy is
quantified explicitly and truth membership,
indeterminacy-membership and falsity
membership are independent. This assumption
is very
important in many applications such as
information fusion in which we try to combine
the data from different sensors. Neutrosophy
was introduced by Smarandache[28] .
Neutrosophic set is a powerful general formal
framework which generalizes the concept of
the classic set, fuzzy set , Vague set etc.A
neutrosophic set A defined on universe U. x =
x(T,I,F) ε A with T,I and F being the real
standard or non-standard
subsets of ]0-,1+[, T is the degree of truth-
membership of A, I is the degree of
indeterminacy membership of A and F is the
degree of falsity-membership of A.
7. CONCLUSION
We have presented a generalization of Vague
relations, called neutrosophic logic, in which
we allow the representation of three factors
Truth, False, Indeterminacy with each tuple.
The algebra on vague relations is appropriately
generalized to manipulate
neutrosophic logic. We developed two notions
of generalizing operators on Vague relations
for neutrosophic logic. Of these, the stronger
notion guarantees that any generalized operator
is “wellbehaved” for neutrosophic relation
operands that contain consistent information.
For some well-known operators on vague
25
relations, such as union, intersection,
complement, differentiation, we introduced
generalized operators on neutrosophic logic.
These generalized operators maintain the belief
system intuition behind neutrosophic logic,
and are shown to be “well-behaved” in the
sense
mentioned above. Our data model can be used
to
represent relational information that may be
incomplete and inconsistent. As usual, the
algebraic operators can be used to construct
queries to any database systems for retrieving
vague information.
REFERENCES
[1] Haibin Wang, Praveen Madiraju, Yang-
Qing Zhang, and Rajshekhar Sunderraman,
Interval Neutrosophic Sets, International
Journal of Applied Mathematics & Statistics,
vol. 3, no. M05, pp. 1-18, March 2005.
[2] F. Smarandache (2002a), A Unifying Field
in Logics: Neutrosophic Logic, in Multiple-
Valued Logic / An International Journal, Vol.
8, No.3,385-438,2002,
[3] E.F. Codd, A Relational Model for Large
Shared Data Banks, Communications of the
ACM, 13(6):377- 387, June 1970.
[4] Elmasri and Navathe, Fundamentals of
DatabaseSystems, Addison-Wesley,New York,
third edition, 2000.
[5] A. Silberschatz, H. F. Korth, and S.
Sudarshan, Database System Concepts,
MCGraw-Hill, Boston, third edition, 1996.
[6] S. Parsons, Current Approaches to Handing
Imperfect Information in Data and Knowledge
Bases, IEEE Trans, Knowledge and Data
Engineering, 3:353- 372, 1996.
[7] J. Biskup, A Foundation of Codd’s
Relational
Maybe-operations, ACM Trans. Database
Systems, 8, 4:608-636, Dec. 1983.
[8] M. L. Brodie, J. Mylopoulous, and J. W.
Schmidt, On the Development of Data Models,
On Conceptual Modeling, 19-47, 1984.
[9] E. F. Codd, Extending the Database
Relational Model to Capture More Meaning,
ACM Trans. Database Systems, 4(4):397-434,
Dec. 1979.
[10] W. Lipski, On Semantic Issues Connected
with Incomplete Information Databases, ACM
Trans. Database Systems, 4, 3:262-296, Sept.
1979.
[11] W. Lipski, On Databases with Incomplete
Information, Journal of the Association for
Computing Machinery, 28:41-70, 1981.
[12] D. Maier, The Theory of Relational
Databases, Computer Science Press,
Rockville, Maryland, 1983.
[13] K. C. Liu and R. Sunderraman, Indefinite
and Maybe Information in Relational
JOURNAL OF COMPUTING, VOLUME 3, ISSUE 1, JANUARY 2011, ISSN 2151-9617
HTTPS://SITES.GOOGLE.COM/SITE/JOURNALOFCOMPUTING/
WWW.JOURNALOFCOMPUTING.ORG 26

Databases, ACM Trans. Database Systems, databases”, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 92, pp.1-
15(1):1-39, 1990. 10.
[14] K. C. Liu and R. Sunderraman, A
Generalized Relational Model for Indefinite
and Maybe Information, IEEE Transaction on
Knowledge and Data Engineering, 3(1):65-77,
1991.
[15] L. A. Zadeh, Fuzzy Sets, Inf. Control,
8:338-353, 1965.
[16] I. Turksen, Interval Valued Fuzzy Sets
Based on Normal Forms, Fuzzy Sets and
Systems, 20:191-210, 1986. 24
[17] K. Atanassov, Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets,
Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 20:87-96, 1986.
[18] M. Anvari and G. F. Rose, Fuzzy
Relational
Databases, In Proceedings of the 1st
International Conference on Fuzzy
Information Processing, Kuaui, Hawaii, CRC
Press, 1984.
[19] J. F. Baldwin, A Fuzzy Relational
Inference
Language for Expert Systems, In Proceedings
of the 13th IEEE International Symposium on
Multivalued Logic, Kyoto, Japan, 416-423,
1983.
[20] J. Kacprzyk and A. Ziolkowski, Database
Queries with Fuzzy Linguistic Quantifier,
IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cyber. 16, 3:474-479,
May/June, 1986.
[21] L. A. Zadeh, Fuzzy Sets as the Basis for a
Theory of Possibility, Fuzzy Sets and Systems,
1:1-27, 1978.
[22] H. Prade and C. Testemale, Generalizing
Database Relational Algebra for the Treatment
of Incomplete or Uncertain Information and
Vague Queries, Information Sciences, 34:115-
143, 1984.
[23] H. Prade and C. Testemale,
Representation of Soft Constraints and Fuzzy
Attribute Values by Means of Possibility
Distributions in Databases, Analysis of Fuzzy
Information, Volume II, Artificial Intelligence
and Decision Systems, 213-229, 1987.
[24] Gau, W.L. and Buehrer, D, J., Vague sets,
IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and
Cybernetics, Vol.23 (1993) 610-614.
[25] Atanassov,K., Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets,
Fuzzy Sets and Systems.20(1986):87-96.
[26] Atanassov, K., Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets :
Theory and Applications, Physica-Verlag
(2000), New- York.
[27] Bustince, H. and Burillo, P., Vague sets
are
intuitionistic fuzzy sets, Fuzzy Sets and
Systems 79 (1996) 403-405.
[28] Chiang D., Chow L. R. and Hsien N,
“Fuzzy information in extended fuzzy
relational