In this paper, we introduce the notion of co-annihilator in hoops and investigate some related properties of them. Then we prove that the set of filters form two pseudo-complemented lattices (with ∗ and ⊤) that if A has (DNP), then the two pseudo-complemented lattices are the same. Moreover, by defining the operation → on the lattice , we prove that is a Heyting algebra and by defining of the product operation, we show that is a bounded hoop. Finally, we define the C - Ann (A) to be the set of all co-annihilators of A, then we have that it had made a Boolean algebra. Also, we give an extension of a filter, which leads to a useful characterization of α-filters on hoops. For instance, we obtain a series of characterizations of α-filters. In addition, we show that there are no non-trivial α-filters on hoop-chains. That implies the structure of all α-filters contains only trivial α-filters on hoops. On hoops, we prove that the set of all α-filters is a pseudo-complemented lattice. Moreover, the structure of all α-filters can form a Boolean algebra under certain conditions.
It is well known that various logical algebras have been proposed and researched as the semantical systems of non-classical logical systems. Among these logical algebras, residuated lattices were introduced by Ward and Dilworth in 1939 to constitute the semantics of Höhle Monoidal Logic which are the basis for the majority of formal fuzzy logic. Apart from their logical interest, residuated lattices have interesting algebraic properties and include two important classes of algebras: BL-algebras and MV-algebras. In order to study the basic logic framework of fuzzy set system, based on continuous triangle module and under the theoretical framework of residuated lattices theory, Hájek [21], proposed a new fuzzy logic system BL-system and the corresponding logical algebraic system BL-algebra. MV-algebras were introduced by Chang [16], in order to give an algebraic proof of the completeness theorem of Lukasiewice system of many valued logic. The notion of filters has been introduced in many algebraic structures such as lattices, rings, MV-algebras. Filters theory is a very effective tool for studying various algebraic and logical systems. In the theory of MV-algebras the notion of deductive systems and ideals are the dual notions, in BL-algebra, with the lack of a suitable algebraic addition, the focus is shifted to deductive systems also called filters. Turunen [30], defined co-annihilator of a non-empty set X of L and proved some of its properties on BL-algebras. They got A⊤ as a prime filter if and only if A is linear and A ≠ {1}. Also, in [25], B. A. Laurentiu Leustean introduced the notion of the co-annihilator relative to F on pseudo-BL-algebras, which is a generalization of the co-annihilator, and they also extended some results obtained in [18]. Moreover, in [26], B. L. Meng et al. defined the generalized co-annihilator of BL-algebras as a generalization of co-annihilator on BL-algebras.
Hoops are naturally ordered commutative residuated integral monoids, introduced by B. Bosbach in [12, 13] then study by J. R. Büchi and T. M. Owens in [14], a paper never published. In the last years, hoops theory was enriched with deep structure theorems (see [1, 7–13]). Many of these results have a strong impact with fuzzy logic. Particularly, from the structure theorem of finite basic hoops(2[Corollary 2.10]10) one obtains an elegant short proof of the completeness theorem for propositional basic logic (see [2, Theorem 3.8]10), introduced by Hájek in [21]. The algebraic structures corresponding to Hájek’s propositional (fuzzy) basic logic, BL-algebras, are particular cases of hoops. The main example of BL-algebras in interval [0,1] endowed with the structure induced by a t-norm. MV-algebras, product algebras and Gödel algebras are the most known classes of BL-algebras. Recent investigations are concerned with non-commutative generalizations for these structures.
Now in this paper, we introduce the notion of co-annihilator in hoops and investigate some related properties of them.
Preliminaries
In this section, we gather some basic notions relevant to hoop which will need in the next sections.
A hoop is an algebra (A, ⊙ , → , 1) of type (2, 2, 0) such that, for all x, y, z ∈ A:
(HP1) (A, ⊙ , 1) is a commutative monoid,
(HP2) x → x = 1,
(HP3) (x ⊙ y) → z = x → (y → z), (HP4) x ⊙ (x → y) = y ⊙ (y → x).
On hoop A we define x ≤ y if and only if x → y = 1. It is easy to see that " ≤ " is a partial order relation on A. A hoop A is bounded if there is an element 0 ∈ A such that 0 ≤ x, for all x ∈ A. We let x0 = 1, xn = xn-1 ⊙ x, for any . Let A be a bounded hoop. We define a negation ″ ′ ″ on A by, x′ = x → 0, for all x ∈ A. If (x′)′ = x, for all x ∈ A, then the bounded hoop A is said to have the double negation property, or (DNP) for short(See [2]).
The following proposition provides some properties of hoop.
Proposition 2.1.[12, 13] Let (A, ⊙ , → , 1) be a hoop. Then the following conditions hold, for all x, y, z, a ∈ A:
(i) (A, ≤) is a ∧-semilattice with x ∧ y = x ⊙ (x → y),
(ii) x ⊙ y ≤ z if and only if x ≤ y → z,
(iii) x ⊙ y ≤ x, y,
(iv) x ≤ y → x,
(v) x → 1 =1,
(vi) 1 → x = x,
(vii) x ⊙ (x → y) ≤ y,
(viii) x ≤ y implies x ⊙ a ≤ y ⊙ a,
(ix) x ≤ y implies z → x ≤ z → y, (x) x ≤ y implies y → z ≤ x → z,
(xi) x → (y ∧ z) = (x → y) ∧ (x → z).
Proposition 2.2.[20] Let A be a bounded hoop. Then the following conditions hold, for all x, y ∈ A:
(i) x ≤ y″,
(ii) x ⊙ x′ = 0 and x″′ = x′,
(iii) x ≤ x′ → y,
(iv) if x = x″′, then x → y = y′ → x′.
Proposition 2.3.[20] Let A be a hoop and for any x, y ∈ A, we define, x ⊔ y = ((x → y) → y) ∧ ((y → x) → x). Then the following conditions are equivalent:
(i) ⊔ is an associative operation on A,
(ii) x ≤ y implies x ⊔ z ≤ y ⊔ z, for all x, y, z ∈ A,
(iii) x ⊔ (y ∧ z) ≤ (x ⊔ y) ∧ (x ⊔ z), for all x, y, z ∈ A,
(iv) ⊔ is the join operation on A.
A hoop A is called a ⊔-hoop, if ⊔ is a join operation on A.
Proposition 2.4.[5] Let A be a ⊔-hoop. Then, for all x, y, z ∈ A and ,
(i) (x ⊔ y) → z = (x → z) ∧ (y → z),
(ii) x ⊙ (y ⊔ z) = (x ⊙ y) ⊔ (x ⊙ z),
(iii) (x ⊔ y) n → z = ⋀ {(x1 ⊙ . . . ⊙ xn) → z ∣ xi ∈ {x, y}},
(iv) (A, ⊔ , ∧) is a distributive lattice.
Let A be a hoop. A non-empty subset F of A is called a filter of A if it satisfies,
(F1) x, y ∈ F implies x ⊙ y ∈ F;
(F2) x ∈ F and x ≤ y imply y ∈ F, for any x, y ∈ A. We use to the denote the set of all filters of A. Clearly, 1 ∈ F, for all . A filter F of A is called a proper filter if F ≠ A. It can be easily seen that, if A is a bounded hoop, then a filter is proper if and only if it is not containing 0. If A is a ⊔-hoop and F is a proper filter of A, then F is called a prime filter of A if x ⊔ y ∈ F, then x ∈ F or y ∈ F, for some x, y ∈ A(See [5, 11]).
If X ⊆ A, we denote by 〈X〉 the filter generated by X in A. A description of 〈X〉 is easily obtained.
Proposition 2.5.[20] Let A be a hoop, X ⊆ A and F be a filter of A. Then
In particular, for any element x ∈ A, we have
Let F be a filter of hoop A and x ∈ A. Then
Let X be a non-empty subset of bounded hoop A with (DNP). Then X⊥ = {a ∈ A ∣ a ∧ x = 0, any x ∈ X} is called an annihilator of X.
Definition 2.6. [22, 23] Consider X as a non-empty set. A mapping is called a closure map on X, if the following holds, for all :
(C1) Y ⊆ ϕ (Y),
(C2) ϕ2 (Y) = ϕ (Y),
(C3) Y ⊆ Z implies ϕ (Y) ⊆ ϕ (Z).
Theorem 2.7. [5] Let (L, ∧ , ∨) be a lattice and f : L → L be a closure map. Then Imf is a lattice in which the lattice operations are given by inf {a, b} = a ∧ b and sup {a, b} = f (a ∨ b).
Definition 2.8. [1] Let A and B be two hoops. Then h : A → B is called a homomorphism if, for all a, b ∈ A,
If A and B are two bounded hoops, then h (0A) =0B. Also, if a hoop homomorphism h is a surjection, then it is called a hoop epimorphism. A one-to-one and onto hoop homomorphism h is called a hoop isomorphism from A to B, in this case, A and B are called to be isomorphism and denoted by A ≅ B.
Definition 2.9. [6] A Heyting algebra is an algebra (A, ∨ , ∧ , → , 1) of type (2, 2, 2, 0), where (A, ∨ , ∧ , 1) is a lattice with the greatest element 1 and, for any x, y, z ∈ A,
Notation. From now on, in this paper, (A, ⊙ , → , 1) or simply A is a ⊔-hoop, unless otherwise state.
Co-annihilators in hoops
In this section, we introduce the notion of co-annihilator set in a hoop and investigate some related properties of them. We show that is a pseudo-complemented lattice, and for any , it’s pseudo-complement is the co-annihilator of F. Then we prove that the set of all co-annihilators of A is a Boolean algebra.
Definition 3.1. Let X be a nonempty subset of A. Then the set
is called a co-annihilator of X.
Example 3.2. Let A = {0, a, b, c, d, 1} where 0 ≤ a ≤ b ≤ 1, 0 ≤ a ≤ d ≤ 1 and 0 ≤ c ≤ d ≤ 1. Suppose that operations → and ⊙ on A are defined by the Cayley tables as follows:
→
0
a
b
c
d
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
a
d
1
1
d
1
1
b
c
d
1
c
d
1
c
b
b
b
1
1
1
d
1
b
b
d
1
1
1
0
a
b
c
d
1
⊙
0
a
b
c
d
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
a
0
0
a
b
0
a
b
0
a
b
c
0
0
0
c
c
c
d
0
0
a
c
c
d
1
0
a
b
c
d
1
Then by routine calculations we can see that (A, → , ⊙ , 0, 1) is a bounded ⊔-hoop. Now, if X1 = {b, 1}, X2 = {d, 1} and X3 = {a, c, d, 1}, then it is easy to check that , and .
Lemma 3.3.For any x, y, z ∈ A,
Proof. Let x, y, z ∈ A. Then;
Hence, (x ⊔ z) ⊙ (y ⊔ z) ≤ (x ⊙ y) ⊔ z. □
Proposition 3.4. Let ∅ ≠ X ⊆ A. Then X⊤ is a filter of A.
Proof. Let ∅ ≠ X ⊆ A. Since 1 ∈ A, so for any x ∈ X, x ⊔ 1 =1 and then 1 ∈ X⊤. Suppose a, b ∈ X⊤. Then, for any x ∈ X, a ⊔ x = b ⊔ x = 1. Thus, by Lemma 3.3, 1 = (a ⊔ x) ⊙ (b ⊔ x) ≤ (a ⊙ b) ⊔ x, and so (a ⊙ b) ⊔ x = 1. Hence, a ⊙ b ∈ X⊤. Moreover, let a ≤ b, for a ∈ X⊤ and b ∈ A. Then, for any x ∈ X, a ⊔ x = 1. Since a ⊔ x ≤ b ⊔ x, we have b ⊔ x = 1, thus, b ∈ X⊤. Therefore, . □
Proposition 3.5. Let A be a bounded ⊔-hoop with (DNP). Then, for any ∅ ≠ X ⊆ A, (X⊤) ′ = (X′) ⊥, where X′ = {x′ ∣ x ∈ X}.
Proof. Let a ∈ (X⊤) ′. Then, there exists b ∈ X⊤ such that a = b′. Since b ∈ X⊤, for any x ∈ X, b ⊔ x = 1. Then by Proposition 2.4(i), 0 = (b ⊔ x) ′ = b′ ∧ x′ = a ∧ x′. So, for any x′ ∈ X′, a ∧ x′ = 0. Thus, a ∈ (X′) ⊥. Hence, (X⊤) ′ ⊆ (X′) ⊥. Conversely, let a ∈ (X′) ⊥. Then, for any x′ ∈ X′, a ∧ x′ = 0. Thus, for any x″ ∈ X″, a′ ⊔ x″ = 1. Since A has (DNP), for any x ∈ X, a′ ⊔ x = 1. Then, a′ ∈ X⊤, and so a ∈ (X⊤) ′. Hence, (X′) ⊥ ⊆ (X⊤) ′. Therefore, (X⊤) ′ = (X′) ⊥. □ In the following example, we show that the condition (DNP) is necessary in Proposition 3.5.
Example 3.6. Let A = {0, a, b, c, d, 1} where 0 ≤ a ≤ c ≤ 1, 0 ≤ b ≤ d ≤ 1 and 0 ≤ b ≤ c ≤ 1. Suppose that operations → and ⊙ on A are defined by the Cayley tables as follows:
→
0
a
b
c
d
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
a
d
1
d
1
d
1
b
a
a
1
1
1
1
c
0
a
d
1
d
1
d
a
a
c
c
1
1
1
0
a
b
c
d
1
⊙
0
a
b
c
d
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
a
0
a
0
a
b
0
0
b
b
b
b
c
0
a
b
c
b
c
d
0
0
b
b
d
d
1
0
a
b
c
d
1
Then by routine calculations we can see that (A, → , ⊙ , 0, 1) is a bounded ⊔-hoop that has not (DNP). Now, if X = {b, d}. Then X′ = {a}, then it is easy to see that (X⊤) ′ = {0} and (X′) ⊥ = {0, b, d}, and so (X⊤) ′ ≠ (X′) ⊥.
Proposition 3.7. The following statements hold, for any a, b ∈ A:
(i) {0} ⊤ = A⊤ = {1} and {1} ⊤ = A,
(ii) if a ≤ b, then {a} ⊤ ⊆ {b} ⊤,
(iii) {a} ⊤ ∩ {b} ⊤ = {a ∧ b} ⊤,
(iv) {a} ⊤ ∪ {b} ⊤ ⊆ {a ⊔ b} ⊤,
(v) if x ∈ {a} ⊤ and y ∈ {b} ⊤, then x ⊔ y ∈ {a ∧ b} ⊤ and x ∧ y, x ⊙ y, x ⊔ y ∈ {a ⊔ b} ⊤,
(vi) if x ∈ {a} ⊤ and y ∈ {a ∧ b} ⊤ or y ∈ {a ⊙ b} ⊤, then x ∧ y, x ⊙ y, x ⊔ y ∈ {a ⊔ b} ⊤.
(vii) if f : A → B is a ⊔-hoop isomorphism, then f ({x} ⊤) = {f (x)} ⊤, for any x ∈ A.
Proof. (i) According to the definition of co-annihilator, we have
Also,
Moreover,
(ii) Let x ∈ {a} ⊤. Then a ⊔ x = 1. Since a ≤ b and a ⊔ x ≤ b ⊔ x, we have b ⊔ x = 1. Hence, x ∈ {b} ⊤.
(iii) Since a ∧ b ≤ a, b, by (ii), {a ∧ b} ⊤ ⊆ {a} ⊤, {b} ⊤, then {a ∧ b} ⊤ ⊆ {a} ⊤ ∩ {b} ⊤. Let x ∈ {a} ⊤ ∩ {b} ⊤. Then a ⊔ x = b ⊔ x = 1. Since A is a ⊔-hoop, by Proposition 2.4(iv), A is a distributive lattice, thus, 1 = (x ⊔ a) ∧ (x ⊔ b) = x ⊔ (a ∧ b). Hence, x ∈ {a ∧ b} ⊤. Therefore, {a} ⊤ ∩ {b} ⊤ = {a ∧ b} ⊤.
(iv) Since a, b ≤ a ⊔ b, by (ii), {a} ⊤, {b} ⊤ ⊆ {a ⊔ b} ⊤. So, it is clear that {a} ⊤ ∪ {b} ⊤ ⊆ {a ⊔ b} ⊤.
(v) Let x ∈ {a} ⊤ and y ∈ {b} ⊤. Then by Proposition 2.4(iv), A is a distributive lattice, thus,
So, x ⊔ y ∈ {a ∧ b} ⊤. Also, since A is a distributive lattice, we have,
By Lemma 3.3, we get that,
Moreover, (x ⊔ y) ⊔ (a ⊔ b) = (x ⊔ a) ⊔ (y ⊔ b) =1. Therefore, x ∧ y, x ⊙ y, x ⊔ y ∈ {a ⊔ b} ⊤.
(vi) Since a ∧ b, a ⊙ b ≤ b, by (ii), {a ⊙ b} ⊤ ⊆ {b} ⊤ and {a ∧ b} ⊤ ⊆ {b} ⊤. Then by (vi), the proof is clear.
(vii) Let x ∈ A and a ∈ f ({x} ⊤). Then there exists b ∈ {x} ⊤ such that f (b) = a. Since b ∈ {x} ⊤ and f is a ⊔-hoop homomorphism, b ⊔ x = 1 and a ⊔ f (x) = f (b) ⊔ f (x) = f (b ⊔ x) =1. Then a ∈ {f (x)} ⊤. Conversely, suppose a ∈ {f (x)} ⊤. Since f is an isomorphism, there is b ∈ A such that a = f (b) and f (b) ⊔ f (x) =1, then f (b ⊔ x) =1. So, b ⊔ x = 1. Thus, b ∈ {x} ⊤. Hence, a = f (b) ∈ f ({x} ⊤). Therefore, f ({x} ⊤) = {f (x)} ⊤. □
In the following example, we show that the converse of Proposition 3.7(iv), may not be true, in general.
Example 3.8. Let A be a hoop as Example 3.6. It is easy to see that {c} ⊤ = {1, d} and {d} ⊤ = {1, a, c}. Then we consequence that A = {1} ⊤ = {c ⊔ d} ⊤ ⊈ {c} ⊤ ∪ {d} ⊤ = {1, a, c, d}.
Proposition 3.9. Let ∅ ≠ X ⊆ A. Then
Proof. Let B = {a ∈ A ∣ a → x = x and x → a = a, forall x ∈ X} and a ∈ X⊤. Then, for any x ∈ X, a ⊔ x = 1. By Proposition 2.3,
Thus, (x → a) → a = 1, and so x → a ≤ a. Moreover, by Proposition 2.1(iv), a ≤ x → a. Hence, x → a = a. By the similar way, we consequence that a → x = x, and so a ∈ B. Conversely, suppose a ∈ B. Then, for any x ∈ X, a → x = x and x → a = a. By Proposition 2.3, a ⊔ x = ((a → x) → x) ∧ ((x → a) → a) =1. Hence, a ∈ X⊤. Therefore, X⊤ = {a ∈ A ∣ a → x = x and x → a = a, forall x ∈ X}. □
Notation. For any ∅ ≠ X ⊆ A, we denoted by X∗ = {a ∈ A ∣ a → x = x, forall x ∈ X}.
Proposition 3.10. Let ∅ ≠ X ⊆ A. Then .
Proof. By Proposition 2.1(vi), 1 → x = x, for any x ∈ X. Then 1∈ X∗ ≠ ∅. Let a ≤ b and a ∈ X∗, for b ∈ A. Since a ∈ X∗, for any x ∈ X, a → x = x and by Proposition 2.1(iv) and (x), x ≤ b → x ≤ a → x = x. Thus, for any x ∈ X, b → x = x, and so b ∈ X∗. Moreover, if a, b ∈ X∗, then, for any x ∈ X, a → x = b → x = x. Thus, by (HP3), (a ⊙ b) → x = a → (b → x) = a → x = x. So, a ⊙ b ∈ X∗. Hence, . □
Proposition 3.11. Let ∅ ≠ X ⊆ A. Then X⊤ ⊆ X∗.
Proof. Let a ∈ X⊤. Then, for any x ∈ X, a ⊔ x = 1. By Propositions 2.1(iv) and 2.4(i), we have
Thus, a → x = x, and so x ∈ X∗. Hence, X⊤ ⊆ X∗. □
In the following example we show that the converse of Proposition 3.11, may not be true, in general.
Example 3.12. Let A = {0, a, b, 1} be a chain. Suppose the operations → and ⊙ on A are defined by the Cayley tables as follows:
→
0
a
b
1
a
1
1
1
1
a
0
a
1
1
b
0
a
b
1
1
0
a
b
1
⊙
0
a
b
1
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
a
a
b
0
a
b
b
1
0
a
b
1
Then routine calculations show that A with these operations is a bounded ⊔-hoop. Let X = {a}. Then X⊤ = {1} and X∗ = {1, b}. So, it is clear that X∗ ⊈ X⊤.
Proposition 3.13. If A is a bounded ⊔-hoop with (DNP), then X∗ = X⊤, for any ∅ ≠ X ⊆ A.
Proof. Let A be a bounded ⊔-hoop with (DNP) and x, y ∈ A. Since y″ = y, we have x → y = x → y″, then by (HP3), x → y″ = x → (y′ → 0) = y′ → (x → 0), and so x → y = y′ → x′. Now, we prove that (x → y) → y = (y → x) → x. Since y″ = y and x → y = y′ → x′, we have (x → y) → y = (y′ → x′) → y″. Thus, by (HP3),
By Proposition 2.1(i), (y′ ⊙ (y′ → x′)) →0 = (y′ ∧ x′) ′. By the similar way, we can prove that (y → x) → x = (y′ ∧ x′) ′. Hence, (x → y) → y = (y → x) → x, and so x ⊔ y = (y → x) → x. Let a ∈ X∗. Then, for any x ∈ X, a ⊔ x = (a → x) → x = x → x = 1. Thus, X∗ ⊆ X⊤, and by Proposition 3.11, X∗ = X⊤, for any ∅ ≠ X ⊆ A.□
Proposition 3.14. For any ∅ ≠ X ⊆ A, 〈X〉 ∩ X⊤ = {1}.
Proof. Since 〈X〉 is a generated filter of A and by Proposition 3.4, , it is clear that {1} ⊆ 〈X〉 ∩ X⊤. Let a ∈ 〈X〉 ∩ X⊤. Since a ∈ 〈X〉, by Proposition 2.5, there exist and x1, x2, . . . , xn ∈ X such that x1 ⊙ x2 ⊙ . . . ⊙ xn ≤ a. Moreover, a ∈ X⊤, then, for any x ∈ X, a ⊔ x = 1, so, for any 1 ≤ i ≤ n, a ⊔ xi = 1. By Lemma 3.3, we have,
Then a = 1. Hence, 〈X〉 ∩ X⊤ ⊆ {1}. Therefore, 〈X〉 ∩ X⊤ = {1}.□
Proposition 3.15. Let ∅ ≠ X, Y ⊆ A. Then the following statements hold:
(i) X∩ X∗ = ∅ or X ∩ X∗ = {1},
(ii) if X ⊆ Y, then Y∗ ⊆ X∗.
Proof. (i) If 1 ∈ X, by Proposition 3.10, , then 1 ∈ X ∩ X∗. Let x ∈ X ∩ X∗. Since x ∈ X∗, x = x → x = 1, thus, x = 1, and so X ∩ X∗ = {1}. Now, if 1 ∉ X, then, for any x ∈ X ∩ X∗, x ≠ 1. Moreover, since x ∈ X∗, 1 = x → x = x, so, x = 1, which is a contradiction. Hence, X∩ X∗ = ∅.
(ii) Let a ∈ Y∗. Then, for any y ∈ Y, a → y = y. Since X ⊆ Y, for any x ∈ X, we have x ∈ Y, then a → x = x. Thus, a ∈ X∗. Hence, Y∗ ⊆ X∗. □
Corollary 3.16.Let ∅ ≠ X ⊆ A. Then 〈X〉 ∩ X∗ = {1}.
Proof. By Proposition 3.10, , then by Proposition 3.15(i), the proof is clear. □
Proposition 3.17. If and F is linear, then F⊤ is a prime filter of A.
Proof. Let . Then by Proposition 3.4, . If x ∈ F, then x = x ⊔ x ≠ 1, thus, x ∉ F⊤. Hence, F⊤ is a proper filter of A. Suppose a ⊔ b ∈ F⊤ and a, b ∉ F⊤. Then there exist x1, x2 ∈ F such that a ⊔ x1 ≠ 1 and b ⊔ x2 ≠ 1. Let x = x1 ∧ x2. Since x1, x2 ∈ F, and by Proposition 2.1(iii), x1 ⊙ x2 ≤ x1 ∧ x2 = x, x ∈ F. Also, by Proposition 2.4(iv), A is a distributive lattice, then
Similarly, b ⊔ x ≠ 1. Moreover, F is linear, then without the lost of generality, let a ⊔ x ≤ b ⊔ x. Thus,
and so, b ⊔ x = 1, which is a contradiction. Hence, a ∈ F⊤ or b ∈ F⊤. Therefore, F⊤ is a prime filter of A. □
Proposition 3.18. Let ∅ ≠ X, Y ⊆ A. Then the following statements hold:
(i) if X ⊆ Y, then Y⊤ ⊆ X⊤,
(ii) X⊤ = ⋂ x∈X {x} ⊤,
(iii) X ⊆ X⊤⊤,
(iv) X⊤ = X⊤⊤⊤,
(v) X⊤ = 〈X〉⊤,
(vi) X⊤ ∩ X⊤⊤ = {1},
(vii) (X ∪ Y) ⊤ = X⊤ ∩ Y⊤,
(viii) X⊤ ∪ Y⊤ ⊆ (X ∩ Y) ⊤.
Proof. (i) Let a ∈ Y⊤. Then, for any y ∈ Y, a ⊔ y = 1. Since X ⊆ Y, for any x ∈ X, x ∈ Y, then a ⊔ x = 1. Hence, a ∈ X⊤.
(ii) Let a ∈ X⊤. Then, for any x ∈ X, a ⊔ x = 1. Thus, for any x ∈ X, a ∈ {x} ⊤. Hence, a ∈ ⋂ x∈X {x} ⊤. The proof of other side is similar.
(iii) By definition of co-annihilator, we have
So, for all x ∈ X⊤, if b ∈ X, then b ⊔ x = 1, hence, b ∈ X⊤⊤.
(iv) By (iii), X ⊆ X⊤⊤. Then by (i), X⊤⊤⊤ ⊆ X⊤. Now, let Y = X⊤. Then by (iii), Y ⊆ Y⊤⊤. Thus, X⊤ ⊆ X⊤⊤⊤. Hence, X⊤ = X⊤⊤⊤.
(v) Since , we have X ⊆ 〈X〉. Then by (i), 〈X〉⊤ ⊆ X⊤. Let a ∈ X⊤. Then, for any x ∈ X, a ⊔ x = 1. Also, for any z ∈ 〈X〉, by Proposition 2.5, there exist and x1, x2, . . . , xn ∈ X such that x1 ⊙ x2 ⊙ . . . ⊙ xn ≤ z. Then by Lemma 3.3,
Thus, z ⊔ a = 1, and so a ∈ 〈X〉⊤. Therefore, X⊤ = 〈X〉⊤.
(vi) By Proposition 3.4, . Then it is clear that {1} ⊆ X⊤ ∩ X⊤⊤. Let a ∈ X⊤ ∩ X⊤⊤. Then by definition of co-annihilator, we have a = a ⊔ a = 1. Hence, X⊤ ∩ X⊤⊤ = {1}.
(vii) Since X, Y ⊆ X ∪ Y, by (i) we have, (X ∪ Y) ⊤ ⊆ X⊤, Y⊤, and so (X ∪ Y) ⊤ ⊆ X⊤ ∩ Y⊤. Now, let a ∈ X⊤ ∩ Y⊤. Then, for any x ∈ X and y ∈ Y, a ⊔ x = a ⊔ y = 1. Suppose α ∈ X ∪ Y. Then α ∈ X or α ∈ Y. So, it is clear that a ⊔ α = 1. Hence, a ∈ (X ∪ Y) ⊤. Therefore, (X ∪ Y) ⊤ = X⊤ ∩ Y⊤.
(viii) Since X ∩ Y ⊆ X, Y, by (i), it is clear that X⊤ ∪ Y⊤ ⊆ (X ∩ Y) ⊤. □
In the following example we show that the converse of Proposition 3.18(viii), may not be true, in general.
Example 3.19. Let A be a hoop as Example 3.6. Let X = {1, c} and Y = {1, d}. Then by routine calculation, we get that X⊤ = {1, d} and Y⊤ = {1, a, c}. Then we consequence that A = {1} ⊤ = (X ∩ Y) ⊤ ⊈ X⊤ ∪ Y⊤ = {1, a, c, d}.
Notation. By routine calculations, we can see that all items in Proposition 3.18 hold for X∗.
Proposition 3.20. Let X and Y be two non-empty subsets of A such that a ∈ X⊤ and b ∈ Y⊤, for any a, b ∈ A. Then a ⊔ b ∈ (X ∪ Y) ⊤ and a ∧ b ∈ (X ∩ Y) ⊤.
Proof. Let a ∈ X⊤ and b ∈ Y⊤. Then, for any x ∈ X and y ∈ Y, a ⊔ x = b ⊔ y = 1. By Proposition 2.4(iv), A is a distributive lattice, thus, for any α ∈ X ∩ Y,
So, a ∧ b ∈ (X ∩ Y) ⊤. Moreover, for any x ∈ X ∪ Y,
Hence, a ⊔ b ∈ (X ∪ Y) ⊤. □
Proposition 3.21. Let X and Y be two non-empty subsets of A. Then X⊤ ∩ Y⊤ = {1} if and only if X⊤ ⊆ Y⊤⊤ and Y⊤ ⊆ X⊤⊤.
Proof. Let a ∈ X⊤ and b ∈ Y⊤. Then by Proposition 3.4, . Thus, a ⊔ b ∈ X⊤ ∩ Y⊤ = {1}, so a ⊔ b = 1. Hence, X⊤ ⊆ Y⊤⊤. By the similar way, we have Y⊤ ⊆ X⊤⊤. Conversely, suppose X⊤ ⊆ Y⊤⊤. Then X⊤ ∩ Y⊤ ⊆ Y⊤⊤ ∩ Y⊤. By Proposition 3.18(vi), X⊤ ∩ Y⊤ = {1}. □
Proposition 3.22. Let . Then the following statements hold:
(i) F ∩ G = {1} if and only if F ⊆ G∗,
(ii) F ⊆ F∗∗.
Proof. (i) Let such that F ∩ G = {1}. Then by Proposition 2.1(iv) and (vii), for any y ∈ G, x, y ≤ (x → y) → y. Since , (x → y) → y ∈ F ∩ G = {1}. Then x → y ≤ y. Thus, by Proposition 2.1(iv), x → y = y, and so x ∈ G∗. Conversely, since F ⊆ G∗, we have F ∩ G ⊆ G ∩ G∗. Then by Proposition 3.15, F ∩ G = {1} or F∩ G = ∅. Since , it is clear that F ∩ G = {1}.
(ii) Let . Then by Proposition 3.10, , so by Proposition 3.15, F ∩ F∗ = {1}. Thus, by (i), F ⊆ F∗∗. □
Proposition 3.23. Let F be a non-empty subset of A. Then there exists ∅ ≠ X ⊆ A such that F = X⊤ if and only if F is an upset, F⊤⊤ = F, F ∩ X⊤ = {1} and X⊤ ∩ F⊤ = {1}.
Proof. (⇒) Suppose there exists ∅ ≠ X ⊆ A such that F = X⊤. Then by Proposition 3.18(iv), F⊤⊤ = X⊤⊤⊤ = X⊤ = F. Also, by Proposition 3.18(vi), we have F ∩ X⊤⊤ = X⊤ ∩ X⊤⊤ = {1} and X⊤ ∩ F⊤ = X⊤ ∩ X⊤⊤ = {1}. Moreover, by Proposition 3.4, , then it is clear that F is an upset. (⇐) Let a ∈ F. Then, for any x ∈ X, a ≤ a ⊔ x. Since F is an upset, a ⊔ x ∈ F, also , then a ⊔ x ∈ F ∩ X⊤⊤ = {1}. Thus, by Proposition 3.18(vi), a ∈ X⊤⊤⊤ = X⊤, and so F ⊆ X⊤. Moreover, since F⊤ ∩ X⊤ = {1}, by Proposition 3.21, we have X⊤ ⊆ F⊤⊤ = F. Hence, X⊤ ⊆ F. Therefore, X⊤ = F. □
Proposition 3.24. Let A be a bounded ⊔-hoop, F be a linear filter of A, x ∈ F such that x ≠ 1 and x′ ⊔ x = 1. Then x is the smallest element of F.
Proof. For proving that x is the smallest element of F, it is enough to show that, for any a ∈ F, x ≤ a. For this, since x′ ⊔ x = 1, by Propositions 2.4(i), 0 = (x′ ⊔ x) ′ = x″ ∧ x′. Also, by Proposition 2.2(i), x ≤ x″, then x ∧ x′ ≤ x″ ∧ x′ = 0, so x ∧ x′ = 0. Let a ∈ F. Since A is a bounded ⊔-hoop, by Propositions 2.4(iv), A is a distributive lattice, then
Moreover, F is linear, by Proposition 3.17, F⊤ is a prime filter of A. Then x ⊔ x′ = 1 ∈ F⊤, so x ∈ F⊤ or x′ ∈ F⊤. If x ∈ F⊤, then, for any x ∈ F, x = x ⊔ x = 1, and so x = 1, which is a contradiction. Thus, x′ ∈ F⊤. So, for any a ∈ F, a ⊔ x′ = 1. Hence, a = a ⊔ x, and so x ≤ a. Therefore, x is the smallest element of F. □
In the following example we show that there is a bounded ⊔-hoop with properties in Proposition 3.24.
Example 3.25. Let A be a hoop as Example 3.6 and F = {1, d}. Then it is clear that A is a bounded ⊔-hoop, F is a linear filter of A and there exists an element 1 ≠ x ∈ F such that x′ ⊔ x = 1.
Definition 3.26. [37] In a lattice L with bottom element 0, an element x ∈ L is said to has a pseudo-complement element if there exists a greatest element x∗ ∈ L, disjoint from x, with the property that x ∧ x∗ = 0. More formally, x∗ = max {y ∈ L ∣ x ∧ y = 0}. The lattice L itself is called a pseudo-complemented lattice if every element of L has a pseudo-complement element.
Theorem 3.27.Let A be a bounded ⊔-hoop. Then is a bounded distributive lattice, where F ∧ G = F ∩ G and F ∨ G = 〈F ∪ G〉, for any .
Proof. By Proposition 2.5, it is clear that , for any . So, it is enough to prove that is a distributive lattice. For this, we prove that F ∧ (G ∨ H) = (F ∧ G) ∨ (F ∧ H), for any . Since G, H ⊆ 〈G ∪ H〉 = G ∨ H, we have F ∩ G, F ∩ H ⊆ F ∧ (G ∨ H). Then
Conversely, let x ∈ F ∧ (G ∨ H). Then x ∈ F and x ∈ G ∨ H = 〈G ∪ H〉. By Proposition 2.5, there exist and ai ∈ G ∪ H, for 1 ≤ i ≤ n, such that a1 ⊙ a2 ⊙ . . . ⊙ an-1 ⊙ an ≤ x. Since ai, x ≤ x ⊔ ai, for 1 ≤ i ≤ n, we get that ai ⊔ x ∈ F ∩ G or ai ⊔ x ∈ F ∩ H. Then by Lemma 3.3, we have
Theorem 3.28.Let A be a bounded ⊔-hoop. Then is a pseudo-complemented lattice and for any , F⊤ is pseudo-complement of F.
Proof. By Propositions 3.4 and 3.14, it is clear that, for any , F ∩ F⊤ = {1}. Suppose such that G ∩ F = {1}. We prove that G ⊆ F⊤. Let a ∈ G. Then, for any x ∈ F, x, a ≤ x ⊔ a. Since , a ⊔ x ∈ F ∩ G = {1}. Then a ⊔ x = 1, and so a ∈ F⊤. Hence, F⊤ is the largest filter of A such that G ∩ F = {1}. Therefore, F⊤ is a pseudo-complement of F. □
Theorem 3.29.Let A be a bounded ⊔-hoop. Then is a pseudo-complemented lattice and for any , F∗ is pseudo-complement of F.
Proof. By Proposition 3.22, it is clear that, for any , F ∩ F∗ = {1}. Suppose such that G ∩ F = {1}. We prove that G ⊆ F∗. Let a ∈ G. Then, for any x ∈ F, by Proposition 2.1(vii) and (iv), x, a ≤ (x → a) → a. Since , (x → a) → a ∈ F ∩ G = {1}. Then (x → a) → a = 1, and so x → a ≤ a. Also, by Proposition 2.1(iv), a ≤ x → a, so, x → a = a. Thus, a ∈ F∗. Hence, F∗ is the largest filter of A such that G ∩ F = {1}. Therefore, F∗ is a pseudo-complement of F. □
Notation. By Theorems 3.28 and 3.29, form two pseudo-complemented lattices (with ∗ and ⊤). By Proposition 3.13, if A has (DNP), then these two pseudo-complemented lattices are the same.
Lemma 3.30.Let a, b ∈ A. Then 〈a〉 ∨ 〈b〉 = 〈a ⊙ b〉.
Proof. Since a ⊙ b ≤ a ∧ b ≤ a, b, then it is clear that 〈a〉, 〈b〉 ⊆ 〈a ∧ b〉 ⊆ 〈a ⊙ b〉. Hence, 〈a〉 ∨ 〈b〉 ⊆ 〈a ⊙ b〉. For the converse inclusions, let x ∈ 〈a ⊙ b〉. Then there exists such that (a ⊙ b) n ≤ x, and so an ⊙ bn ≤ x. Since 〈a〉 ∨ 〈b〉 = 〈 {a} ∪ {b} 〉 = 〈 {a, b} 〉, an ∈ 〈a〉 and bn ∈ 〈b〉, by Proposition 2.4(iii), x ≥ an ⊙ bn ∈ 〈a〉 ∨ 〈b〉. Hence, 〈a ⊙ b〉 ⊆ 〈a〉 ∨ 〈b〉. Therefore, 〈a〉 ∨ 〈b〉 = 〈a ⊙ b〉. □
Notation. Let . Then we consider F1 → F2 by {a ∈ A ∣ F1 ∩ 〈a〉 ⊆ F2}.
Theorem 3.31.Let. Then the following statements hold:
(i) ,
(ii) F1 → F2 = {a ∈ A ∣ a ⊔ b ∈ F2, forall b ∈ F1},
(iii) F1 ∩ F2 ⊆ F3 if and only if F1 ⊆ F2 → F3,
(iv) is a Heyting algebra.
Proof. (i) Since 〈1〉 = {1} and {1} ∩ F1 = {1} ⊆ F2, we consequence that 1 ∈ F1 → F2. Now, let x, y ∈ A such that x ≤ y and x ∈ F1 → F2, that is 〈x〉 ∩ F1 ⊆ F2. Since 〈y〉 ⊆ 〈x〉, we have 〈y〉 ∩ F1 ⊆ 〈x〉 ∩ F1 ⊆ F2. Thus, 〈y〉 ∩ F1 ⊆ F2, and so y ∈ F1 → F2. Now, let x, y ∈ F1 → F2. Then 〈x〉 ∩ F1 ⊆ F2 and 〈y〉 ∩ F1 ⊆ F2. Thus, by definition of ∨ and Lemma 3.30,
Hence, a ⊙ b ∈ F1 → F2. Therefore, .
(ii) Let B = {a ∈ A ∣ a ⊔ b ∈ F2, forall b ∈ F1}, x ∈ B and z ∈ 〈x〉 ∩ F1. Since z ∈ 〈x〉, there exists such that xn ≤ z and z ∈ F1. Since x ∈ B, for any y ∈ F1, x ⊔ y ∈ F2, and so, x ⊔ z ∈ F2. By xn ≤ z, we get z = xn ⊔ z ≥ (x ⊔ z) n and this implies that, z ∈ F2. Hence, F1 ∩ 〈x〉 ⊆ F2, and so z ∈ F1 → F2. Therefore, B ⊆ F1 → F2. Conversely, suppose x ∈ F1 → F2. Then F1 ∩ 〈x〉 ⊆ F2. If y ∈ F1, then x, y ≤ x ⊔ y, and so, x ⊔ y ∈ F1 ∩ 〈x〉 ⊆ F2. Thus, x ⊔ y ∈ F2. Hence, x ∈ B, and so B ⊆ F1 → F2. Therefore, F1 → F2 = {a ∈ A ∣ a ⊔ b ∈ F2, forall b ∈ F1}.
(iii) Suppose F1 ∩ F2 ⊆ F3 and x ∈ F1. Then 〈x〉 ⊆ F1. Thus, 〈x〉 ∩ F2 ⊆ F1 ∩ F2 ⊆ F3. Hence, x ∈ F2 → F3. Conversely, let F1 ⊆ F2 → F3 and x ∈ F1 ∩ F2. Since x ∈ F1, we have x ∈ F2 → F3. Then 〈x〉 ∩ F2 ⊆ F3. Thus, x ∈ F3. Hence, F1 ∩ F2 ⊆ F3.
(iv) By (iii) and Theorem 3.27, the proof is clear. □
Theorem 3.32. is a bounded hoop.
Proof. First of all, we notice that the operation ∩, is the product operation of . Hence, it is clear that is a commutative monoid, so (HP1) holds. Also, by Theorem 3.31(i), for any , F → F = {a ∈ A ∣ F ∩ 〈a〉 ⊆ F} = A, and so (HP2) holds. For proving (HP4), first of all we show that, for any , F1 ∧ F2 = F1 ∩ (F1 → F2). For this, let x ∈ F1 ∧ F2. Then by Theorem 3.27, x ∈ F1 ∩ F2. Thus, F1 ∩ 〈x〉 ⊆ F1 ∩ F2 ⊆ F2. Hence, by Theorem 3.31(i), x ∈ F1 → F2, and so x ∈ F1 ∩ (F1 → F2). Conversely, if x ∈ F1 ∩ (F1 → F2), then x ∈ F1 ∩ 〈x〉 ⊆ F2, and so x ∈ F2. Hence, x ∈ F1 ∩ F2 = F1 ∧ F2. Therefore, F1 ∧ F2 = F1 ∩ (F1 → F2). Moreover, by Theorem 3.27, it is clear that in this structure the operations product and meet are the same. Thus, F1 ∩ (F1 → F2) = F1 ∧ F2 = F2 ∧ F1 = F2 ∩ (F2 → F1). Hence, (HP4) holds. Finally, we prove that F1 → (F2 → F3) = (F1 ∩ F2) → F3, for any . Let x ∈ (F1 ∩ F2) → F3. Then by Theorem 3.31(i), (F1 ∩ F2) ∩ 〈x〉 ⊆ F3. Thus, F2 ∩ (F1 ∩ 〈x〉) ⊆ F3, and so F1 ∩ 〈x〉 ⊆ F2 → F3. Hence, x ∈ F1 → (F2 → F3). So, (F1 ∩ F2) → F3 ⊆ F1 → (F2 → F3). Conversely, suppose x ∈ F1 → (F2 → F3). Then by Theorem 3.31(i), F1 ∩ 〈x〉 ⊆ F2 → F3. Thus, F2 ∩ 〈F1 ∩ 〈x〉〉 ⊆ F3, and so (F1 ∩ F2) ∩ 〈x〉 ⊆ F3. Hence, x ∈ (F1 ∩ F2) → F3. So, F1 → (F2 → F3) ⊆ (F1 ∩ F2) → F3. Then F1 → (F2 → F3) = (F1 ∩ F2) → F3, and so (HP3) holds. Therefore, is a bounded hoop. □
Note. Let C - Ann (A) = {X⊤ ∣ ∅ ≠ X ⊆ A} be the set of all co-annihilators of A. By Proposition 3.18(v), X⊤ = 〈X〉⊤, we get that . Hence, C - Ann (A) is the set of all pseudo-complements of the pseudo-complement lattice .
Proposition 3.33. The following statements hold, for any ∅ ≠ X ⊆ A and :
(i) {1} , A ∈ C - Ann (A),
(ii) F ∈ C - Ann (A) if and only if F⊤⊤ = F,
(iii) a map ⊤⊤ : X → X⊤⊤ is a closure map,
(iv) F ∩ (F ∩ G) ⊤ = F ∩ G⊤,
(v) (F ∩ G) ⊤⊤ = F⊤⊤ ∩ G⊤⊤,
(vi) (F ∨ G) ⊤ = F⊤ ∩ G⊤,
(vii) if F, G ∈ C - Ann (A), then F ⋁ C-Ann(A)G = (F⊤ ∩ G⊤) ⊤.
Proof. (i) By Proposition 3.7(i), {1} ⊤ = A and A⊤ = {1}. So {1} , A ∈ C - Ann (A).
(ii) Let F ∈ C - Ann (A). Then there exists ∅ ≠ X ⊆ A such that F = X⊤. Thus, by Proposition 3.18(iv), F⊤⊤ = X⊤⊤⊤ = X⊤ = F. Conversely, if F⊤⊤ = F, then X = F⊤, and so X⊤ ∈ C - Ann (A). Hence, F = F⊤⊤ ∈ C - Ann (A).
(iii) According to Definition 2.6, by Proposition 3.18(i), (iii) and (iv), the proof is clear.
(iv) Since F ∩ G ⊆ G, by Proposition 3.18(i), G⊤ ⊆ (F ∩ G) ⊤. Then F ∩ G⊤ ⊆ F ∩ (F ∩ G) ⊤. On the other side, by Proposition 3.14, (F ∩ G) ∩ (F ∩ G) ⊤ = {1}. Then by Proposition 3.21, F ∩ (F ∩ G) ⊤ ⊆ G⊤. Thus, F ∩ (F ∩ G) ⊤ ⊆ F ∩ G⊤. Hence, F ∩ (F ∩ G) ⊤ = F ∩ G⊤.
(v) Since F ∩ G ⊆ F, G, by Proposition 3.18(i), (F ∩ G) ⊤⊤ ⊆ F⊤⊤ ∩ G⊤⊤. On the other side, by Proposition 3.14, (F ∩ G) ∩ (F ∩ G) ⊤ = {1}. Then by Proposition 3.21, F ∩ (F ∩ G) ⊤ ⊆ G⊤. Also, by Proposition 3.18(iv), G⊤ = G⊤⊤⊤. Then we have F ∩ (F ∩ G) ⊤ ⊆ G⊤⊤⊤, and so F ∩ G⊤⊤ ∩ (F ∩ G) ⊤ = {1}. By the similar way, we can see that G⊤⊤ ∩ (F ∩ G) ⊤ ⊆ F⊤⊤⊤, and so F⊤⊤ ∩ G⊤⊤ ∩ (F ∩ G) ⊤ = {1}. Thus, F⊤⊤ ∩ G⊤⊤ ⊆ (F ∩ G) ⊤⊤. Therefore, (F ∩ G) ⊤⊤ = F⊤⊤ ∩ G⊤⊤.
(vi) Since F, G ⊆ F ∨ G, by Proposition 3.18(i), (F ∨ G) ⊤ ⊆ F⊤ ∩ G⊤. Now, by Proposition 3.18(iv) and (v), (F ∨ G) ⊤ ⊆ F⊤⊤⊤ ∩ G⊤⊤⊤ = (F⊤ ∩ G⊤) ⊤⊤. Also, by Proposition 3.18(iii), F ⊆ F⊤⊤ ⊆ (F⊤ ∩ G⊤) ⊤. By the similar way, G ⊆ (F⊤ ∩ G⊤) ⊤, and so F ∨ G ⊆ (F⊤ ∩ G⊤) ⊤. Hence, (F⊤ ∩ G⊤) ⊤⊤ ⊆ (F ∨ G) ⊤ ⊆ (F⊤ ∩ G⊤) ⊤⊤, and so, (F ∨ G) ⊤ = (F⊤ ∩ G⊤) ⊤⊤. Then by (v),
(vii) By Theorem 3.27 and the proof of (vii), F ⋁ C-Ann(A)G = (F ∨ G) ⊤⊤ = (F⊤ ∩ G⊤) ⊤. □
Theorem 3.34.(C - Ann (A) , ∧ , ∨ , ⊤ , {1} , A) is a Boolean algebra.
Proof. By Proposition 3.33, {1} , A ∈ C - Ann (A). Then C - Ann (A)≠ ∅ and it is bounded. By Proposition 3.33(vi) and (viii), for any F, G ∈ C - Ann (A), F ∧ C-Ann(A)G = F ∩ G and F ∨ C-Ann(A)G = (F⊤ ∩ G⊤) ⊤. Thus, (C - Ann (A) , ∧ , ∨ , ⊤ , {1} , A) is a bounded lattice. Now, we prove that it is a distributive lattice. For this, let F, G, H ∈ C - Ann (A). Then H ∧ (F ∨ G) = H ∩ (F ∨ G). Suppose K = (H ∩ F) ∨ (H ∩ G). By Proposition 3.18(iii), H ∩ F ⊆ K ⊆ K⊤⊤, then H ∩ F ∩ K⊤ = {1}, and so H ∩ K⊤ ⊆ F⊤. By the similar way, H ∩ K⊤ ⊆ G⊤. Thus, H ∩ K⊤ ⊆ F⊤ ∩ G⊤. By Proposition 3.18(iii), H ∩ K⊤ ⊆ F⊤ ∩ G⊤ ⊆ (F⊤ ∩ G⊤) ⊤⊤, and so H ∩ K⊤ ∩ (F⊤ ∩ G⊤) ⊤ = {1}. Then by Proposition 3.33(ii), H ∩ (F⊤ ∩ G⊤) ⊤ ⊆ K⊤⊤ = K. Hence,
Also, since H ∩ F ⊆ H, F and H ∩ G ⊆ H, G, by Proposition 3.18(i), F⊤, H⊤ ⊆ (F ∩ H) ⊤ and G⊤, H⊤ ⊆ (G ∩ H) ⊤. Then F⊤ ∩ G⊤ ⊆ (H ∩ F) ⊤ ∩ (H ∩ G) ⊤, and so [(H ∩ F) ⊤ ∩ (H ∩ G) ⊤] ⊤ ⊆ (F⊤ ∩ G⊤) ⊤. By Proposition 3.33(viii), (H ∧ F) ∨ (H ∧ G) ⊆ F ∨ G. Moreover, H ∩ F ⊆ H and H ∩ G ⊆ H, and so by Proposition 3.18(i), H⊤ ⊆ (F ∩ H) ⊤ ∩ (G ∩ H) ⊤. Then [(H ∩ F) ⊤ ∩ (H ∩ G) ⊤] ⊤ ⊆ H⊤⊤ = H. Hence,
Thus, (H ∧ F) ∨ (H ∧ G) = H ∧ (F ∨ G) and so C - Ann (A) is a distributive lattice. Also, for any F ∈ C - Ann (A), F ∩ F⊤ = {1} and F ∨ F⊤ = (F⊤ ∩ F⊤⊤) ⊤ = ({1}) ⊤ = A. Then the complement of F ∈ C - Ann (A) is F⊤. Therefore, (C - Ann (A) , ∧ , ∨ , ⊤ , {1} , A) is a Boolean algebra. □
α-filter of hoops
In this section, we introduce an extension of a filter, which leads to a useful characterization of α-filters on hoops. For instance, we obtain a series of characterizations of α-filters. In addition, we show that there are no non-trivial α-filters on hoop-chains. That implies the structure of all α-filters contains only trivial α-filters on hoops. On hoops, we prove that the set of all α-filters is a pseudo-complemented lattice. Moreover, the structure of all α-filters can form a Boolean algebra under certain conditions.
Definition 4.1. A filter F of A is called an α-filter of A if, a⊤⊤ ⊆ F, for any a ∈ F. We note by the set of all α-filters of A.
Note. For any bounded ⊔-hoop A, it is easy to see that {1} and A are α-filters of A, which are called trivial α-filters of A.
Example 4.2. Let A be a hoop as Example 3.8. By routine calculation, we can see that F = {1, d} is an α-filter of A.
The largest element of A which is not 1, is called a co-atom. It means that if a ∈ A is a co-atom and a ≤ x, then x = 1 or x = a.
Proposition 4.3. If A contains only one co-atom, then A has no non-trivial α-filter.
Proof. Let the element a ∈ A be the unique co-atom of A. Then, for any 1 ≠ x ∈ A, x ≤ a. Suppose F is a non-trivial α-filter of A. Then, there exists 1 ≠ y ∈ A such that y ≤ a. Thus, x ⊔ y ≤ a ⊔ a = a ≠ 1. Hence, y⊤ = {1} and so, by Proposition 3.7(i), y⊤⊤ = A ⊈ F, which is a contradiction. Therefore, A has no non-trivial α-filter. □
Proposition 4.4. If A is a linear hoop, then A has no non-trivial α-filter.
Proof. Suppose A has non-trivial α-filter such as F. Then, for 1 ≠ x ∈ F and any y ∈ A, since A is linear, we have x ≤ y or y ≤ x. Without the lost of generality, let x ≤ y. Then x ⊔ y = y ≠ 1. Thus, x⊤ = {1}, and so by Proposition 3.7(i), x⊤⊤ = A ⊈ F, which is a contradiction. Therefore, A has no non-trivial α-filter. □
In the following example, we show that the converse of Proposition 4.4, may not be true, in general.
Example 4.5. Let A = {0, a, b, c, d, 1} where 0 ≤ a ≤ c ≤ 1 and 0 ≤ b ≤ c ≤ 1. Suppose operations → and ⊙ are defined on A by the Cayley tables as follows:
→
0
a
b
c
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
a
b
1
b
1
1
b
a
a
1
1
1
c
0
a
b
1
1
1
0
a
b
c
1
⊙
0
a
b
c
1
a
0
a
0
a
a
b
0
0
b
b
b
b
0
0
b
b
b
c
0
a
b
c
c
1
0
a
b
c
1
Then routine calculations show that (A, → , ⊙ , 0, 1) is a bounded ⊔-hoop. It is clear that A has no non-trivial α-filter and A is not linear.
Definition 4.6. For any non-empty subset X of A, define E (X) the smallest α-filter of A containing X. We can get that E (X) = E (〈X〉). Now, we give an extension of a filter which leads to a useful characterization of α-filter.
Theorem 4.7.Let . Then
Proof. Let B = {a ∈ A ∣ ∃ f ∈ F suchthat f⊤ ⊆ a⊤}. It is enough to prove that and it is the smallest α-filter containing F. For this, since A is a ⊔-hoop and , 1 ∈ A and 1 ∈ F. By Proposition 3.7(i), {1} ⊤ = A. Thus, 1 ∈ B. Let a ≤ b and a ∈ B, for any b ∈ A. Since a ∈ B, there exists f ∈ F such that f⊤ ⊆ a⊤. By Proposition 3.7(ii), a⊤ ⊆ b⊤, and so, f⊤ ⊆ a⊤ ⊆ b⊤. Thus, b ∈ B. Now, suppose a, b ∈ B. Then there exist f, g ∈ F such that f⊤ ⊆ a⊤ and g⊤ ⊆ b⊤. Since , f ⊙ g ∈ F. Let x ∈ (f ⊙ g) ⊤. Then x ⊔ (f ⊙ g) =1. By Proposition 2.1(iii), f ⊙ g ≤ f, g. Then 1 = x ⊔ (f ⊙ g) ≤ x ⊔ f and 1 = x ⊔ (f ⊙ g) ≤ x ⊔ g. So x ⊔ f = 1 and x ⊔ g = 1. Thus, x ∈ f⊤ and x ∈ g⊤. Since f⊤ ⊆ a⊤ and g⊤ ⊆ b⊤, we have x ⊔ a = x ⊔ b = 1. Then by Lemma 3.3,
Thus, x ⊔ (a ⊙ b) =1. Hence, (f ⊙ g) ⊤ ⊆ (a ⊙ b) ⊤, and so a ⊙ b ∈ B. Hence, . Now, let a ∈ B and x ∈ a⊤⊤. By Proposition 3.18(iv), a⊤ = a⊤⊤⊤ ⊆ x⊤. Since a ∈ B, there exists f ∈ F such that f⊤ ⊆ a⊤. Then f⊤ ⊆ a⊤ ⊆ x⊤. Thus, x ∈ B. Hence, a⊤⊤ ⊆ B, and so . Suppose C is an α-filter of A containing F. Then, for any a ∈ B, there is f ∈ F such that f⊤ ⊆ a⊤. By Propositions 3.18(ii) and 3.33(ii),
Hence, B ⊆ C. Therefore, E (F) = {a ∈ A ∣ ∃ f ∈ F suchthat f⊤ ⊆ a⊤}. □
Corollary 4.8.Let . Then
Proof. Let B = {a ∈ A ∣ ∃ f ∈ F suchthat a⊤⊤ ⊆ f⊤⊤} and a ∈ E (F). Then there exists f ∈ F such that f⊤ ⊆ a⊤. By Proposition 3.18(i), a⊤⊤ ⊆ f⊤⊤. Then a ∈ B. Conversely, suppose a ∈ B. Then there exists f ∈ F such that a⊤⊤ ⊆ f⊤⊤. By Proposition 3.18(i) and (iv), f⊤ = f⊤⊤⊤ ⊆ a⊤⊤⊤ = a⊤. Hence, a ∈ E (F). Therefore, E (F) = {a ∈ A ∣ ∃ f ∈ F suchthat a⊤⊤ ⊆ f⊤⊤}. □
Notation. By Proposition 3.7(i), it is clear that {1} ⊤⊤ = {1}. Then {1} is an α-filter of A. So, we can consequence that .
Example 4.9. Let A be a hoop as Example 3.6 and F = {1, b, d}. Then E (F) = {0, b, d, 1}.
Proposition 4.10. Let . Then the following statements are equivalent:
(i) F is an α-filter of A,
(ii) E (F) = F,
(iii) for any x, y ∈ A, if x⊤ = y⊤ and x ∈ F, then y ∈ F,
(iv) F = ⋃ x∈F {x} ⊤⊤.
Proof. (i) ⇒ (ii) According to definition of E (F), it is clear that F ⊆ E (F). Let a ∈ E (F). Then by Theorem 4.7, there exists f ∈ F such that f⊤ ⊆ a⊤. Thus, by Proposition 3.18(i), a⊤⊤ ⊆ f⊤⊤. Let x ∈ a⊤⊤. Since F is an α-filter of A and a⊤⊤ ⊆ f⊤⊤, x ∈ F, and so E (F) ⊆ F. Hence, E (F) = F. (ii) ⇒ (iii) Let x ∈ F. By (ii), F = E (F), then x ∈ E (F). So, there exists f ∈ F such that f⊤ ⊆ x⊤. Since x⊤ = y⊤, we have f⊤ ⊆ y⊤. Then y ∈ E (F) = F. Hence, y ∈ F. (iii) ⇒ (i) Let a ∈ F. Then by Proposition 3.18(iv), a⊤ = a⊤⊤⊤. Thus, a⊤ = (a⊤⊤) ⊤ and a ∈ F, then by (iii), a⊤⊤ ⊆ F. Hence, . (i) ⇒ (iv) Since , for any x ∈ F, x⊤⊤ ⊆ F. Then ⋃x∈F {x} ⊤⊤ ⊆ F. Now, let a ∈ F. Then by Proposition 3.18(iii), {a} ⊆ {a} ⊤⊤ ⊆ ⋃ x∈F {x} ⊤⊤. Hence, F ⊆ ⋃ x∈F {x} ⊤⊤. Therefore, F = ⋃ x∈F {x} ⊤⊤. (iv) ⇒ (i) Let a ∈ F. Since F = ⋃ x∈F {x} ⊤⊤, there exists x ∈ F such that a ∈ {x} ⊤⊤. Then by Proposition 3.18(iii), {a} ⊆ {a} ⊤⊤. Thus, {a} ⊤⊤ ⊆ ⋃ x∈F {x} ⊤⊤ = F. Hence, . □
Proposition 4.11. Let . Then E (F1) = E (F2) if and only if F1 ⊆ E (F2) and F2 ⊆ E (F1).
Proof. Let , E (F1) = E (F2). Since F1 ⊆ E (F1) and E (F1) = E (F2), it is clear that F1 ⊆ E (F2). By the similar way, F2 ⊆ E (F1). Conversely, let F1 ⊆ E (F2) and a ∈ E (F1). Then there exists f ∈ F1 such that f⊤ ⊆ a⊤. Since F1 ⊆ E (F2), we get that f ∈ E (F2). Thus, there is g ∈ F2 such that g⊤ ⊆ f⊤, and so g⊤ ⊆ a⊤. Hence, a ∈ E (F2), and so, E (F1) ⊆ E (F2). By the similar way, we can see that E (F2) ⊆ E (F1). Therefore, E (F1) = E (F2). □
Proposition 4.12. Let A be a bounded hoop-chain. Then E (F) = {1} or E (F) = A, for any .
Proof. Let . If F = {1}, then by Proposition 3.7(i), we get that
Now, if F ≠ {1}, then there exists 1 ≠ a ∈ F. Since A is chain, for any b ∈ A, a ⊔ b = a ≠ 1 or a ⊔ b = b ≠ 1. Thus, a⊤ = {1}, and so by Proposition 3.7(i), we get that E (F) = {a ∈ A ∣ f⊤ ⊆ a⊤, forsome f ∈ F} = {a ∈ A ∣ f⊤ ⊆ {1} , forsome f ∈ F} = A □
Lemma 4.13.Let X and Y be two non-empty subsets of ⊔-hoops A and B, respectively. Then X⊤ × Y⊤ = (X × Y) ⊤.
Proof. We have
□
Proposition 4.14. Let . Then the following statements hold:
(i) F⊤ is an α-filter of A,
(ii) E (E (F)) = E (F),
(iii) E (F⊤) = F⊤,
(iv) if F ⊆ G, then E (F) ⊆ E (G),
(v) E (F ∩ G) = E (F) ∩ E (G),
(vi) E : F → E (F) is a closure map on A,
(vii) if B is a bounded hoop and , then E (F × G) = E (F) × E (G).
Proof. (i) Let a ∈ F⊤. Then, for any f ∈ F, a ⊔ f = 1. Thus, by the definition of co-annihilator, f ∈ a⊤, and so a⊤⊤ ⊆ f⊤. By Proposition 3.18(ii), a⊤⊤ ⊆ ⋂ f∈F {f} ⊤ = F⊤. Hence, a⊤⊤ ⊆ F⊤. Therefore, .
(ii) According to definition of E (F), it is clear that E (F) ⊆ E (E (F)). Now, let a ∈ E (E (F)). Then there exists b ∈ E (F), such that b⊤ ⊆ a⊤. Since b ∈ E (F), there is f ∈ F such that f⊤ ⊆ b⊤. Thus, f⊤ ⊆ a⊤, and so a ∈ E (F). Hence, E (E (F)) = E (F).
(iii) By definition of E (F), it is clear that F⊤ ⊆ E (F⊤). Let a ∈ E (F⊤). Then there exists b ∈ F⊤ such that b⊤ ⊆ a⊤. Since b ∈ F⊤, for any f ∈ F, b ⊔ f = 1, then f ∈ b⊤, and so f ∈ a⊤. Thus, for any f ∈ F, a ∈ f⊤. By Proposition 3.18(ii), a ∈ ⋂ f∈F {f} ⊤ = F⊤. Hence, E (F⊤) ⊆ F⊤. Therefore, E (F⊤) = F⊤.
(iv) Let F ⊆ G and a ∈ E (F). Then there exists f ∈ F such that f⊤ ⊆ a⊤. Since F ⊆ G, g ∈ G such that g⊤ ⊆ a⊤, and so a ∈ E (G). Hence, E (F) ⊆ E (G).
(v) Let a ∈ E (F ∩ G). Then there exists x ∈ F ∩ G such that x⊤ ⊆ a⊤. Thus, there is x ∈ F and x ∈ G such that x⊤ ⊆ a⊤. So, a ∈ E (F) and a ∈ E (G). Hence, E (F ∩ G) ⊆ E (F) ∩ E (G). Conversely, let a ∈ E (F) ∩ E (G), then there exist f ∈ F and g ∈ G such that f⊤ ⊆ a⊤ and g⊤ ⊆ a⊤. By Proposition 3.18(i), a⊤⊤ ⊆ f⊤⊤ and a⊤⊤ ⊆ g⊤⊤. Then a⊤⊤ ⊆ f⊤⊤ ∩ g⊤⊤. By Proposition 3.33(v), a⊤⊤ ⊆ f⊤⊤ ∩ g⊤⊤ = (f ⊔ g) ⊤⊤. Moreover, since f, g ≤ f ⊔ g, we get that f ⊔ g ∈ F ∩ G. By Proposition 3.18(iv),
So, a ∈ E (F ∩ G). Hence, E (F) ∩ E (G) ⊆ E (F ∩ G). Therefore, E (F) ∩ E (G) = E (F ∩ G).
(vi) Since F ⊆ E (F), by (ii), (iv) and Definition 2.6, the proof is clear.
(vii) By Lemma 4.13, we have (x, y) ⊤ = x⊤ × y⊤. Then
□
Corollary 4.15.LetA be a finite product of bounded ⊔-hoops Aλ, for λ ∈ Λ, then (i) ,
(ii) E (F ∩ G) = E (F) ∩ E (G), for any .
Proof. (i) By Proposition 4.14(vii), the proof is clear.
(ii) Since A is a finite product of bounded hoops Aλ, for λ ∈ Λ, we have . Since , then there exist and , for λ ∈ Λ, such that and . Thus, by Proposition 4.14(v), we have
□
Proposition 4.16. Let f : A → B be a bounded hoop isomorphism and . Then E (f (F)) = f (E (F)).
Proof. Let z ∈ E (f (F)). Then there is a ∈ f (F) such that a⊤ ⊆ z⊤. Since f is an isomorphism, there are b ∈ F and x ∈ A such that f (b) = a and f (x) = z. By Proposition 3.7(viii),
Since f is an isomorphism, we have b⊤ ⊆ x⊤. Then x ∈ E (F), and so z = f (x) ∈ f (E (F)). Conversely, let a ∈ f (E (F)). Then there exists b ∈ E (F) such that a = f (b). Since b ∈ E (F), there is x ∈ F such that x⊤ ⊆ b⊤. Thus, by Proposition 3.7(viii), f (x) ⊤ = f (x⊤) ⊆ f (b⊤) = f (b) ⊤ = a⊤. So, there is y = f (x) ∈ f (F) such that y⊤ ⊆ a⊤. Hence, a ∈ E (f (F)). Therefore, E (f (F)) = f (E (F)). □
Definition 4.17. Let A be a bounded ⊔-hoop and . Then F is said to be with meet-properties, if ∧ {x ∣ x ∈ F} exists and belong to F.
Example 4.18. Let A be a hoop as Example 3.6 and F = {1, d}. Then it is clear that ∧ {x ∣ x ∈ F} exists and ∧ {x ∣ x ∈ F} ∈ F. Hence, F has meet-properties.
Proposition 4.19. Let A be a bounded ⊔-hoop and . If F is with meet-properties, then the following statements hold:
(i) if F⊤ = {1}, then there exists z ∈ F such that z⊤ = {1},
(ii) if F is a proper α-filter of A, then F⊤ ≠ {1},
(iii) if F is a proper α-filter of A, then, for any x ∈ A, there is y ∈ A - F such that y ∈ x⊤.
Proof. (i) Let F⊤ = {1}. Then by Proposition 3.18(ii), F⊤ = ⋂ x∈F {x} ⊤ = {1}. Since F is with meet-properties, we get that ∧ {x ∣ x ∈ F} exists and ∧ {x ∣ x ∈ F} ∈ F. Suppose z = ∧ {x ∣ x ∈ F}. Then, for any x ∈ F, z ≤ x. If z⊤ ≠ {1}, then there exists a ∈ A such that a ⊔ z = 1. Since z ≤ x, for any x ∈ F, a ⊔ x = 1, then 1 ≠ a ∈ ⋂ x∈F {x} ⊤ = F⊤. Thus, F⊤ ≠ {1}, which is a contradiction. Hence, there exists z ∈ F such that z⊤ = {1}.
(ii) By contrary, let F⊤ = {1}. Then by (i), there exists z ∈ F such that z⊤ = {1}. Since F is a proper α-filter of A, by Proposition 3.7(i), A = z⊤⊤ ⊆ F, which is a contradiction. Hence, F⊤ ≠ {1}.
(iii) Suppose, for any y ∈ A - F, y ∉ x⊤. Then x⊤ ⊆ F. By Proposition 3.18(i), F⊤ ⊆ x⊤⊤. Since F is a proper α-filter of A, F⊤ ⊆ x⊤⊤ ⊆ F, then F⊤ ⊆ F. By Proposition 3.18(vi), F⊤ = F⊤ ∩ F = {1}. Thus, F⊤ = {1}, which is a contradiction by (ii). Hence, for any x ∈ A, there is y ∈ A - F such that y ∈ x⊤. □
Proposition 4.20. If P is a prime filter of A and P⊤ ≠ {1}, then P is an α-filter of A.
Proof. Let P be a prime filter of A and P⊤ ≠ {1}. Then there is 1 ≠ x ∈ P⊤. By Proposition 3.18(iii), P ⊆ P⊤⊤ ⊆ x⊤, so P ⊆ x⊤. Let a ∈ x⊤. Then a ⊔ x = 1. Since P is a prime filter of A, a ⊔ x = 1 ∈ P, then a ∈ P or x ∈ P. If x ∈ P, since x ∈ P⊤, then by Proposition 3.18(vi), x ∈ P ∩ P⊤ = {1}, and so x = 1, which is a contradiction. Hence, a ∈ P, and so x⊤ ⊆ P. Then x⊤ = P. Let a ∈ P. Then a ∈ x⊤, by Proposition 3.18(i), x⊤⊤ ⊆ a⊤ and so by Proposition 3.18(iv), a⊤⊤ ⊆ x⊤⊤⊤ = x⊤ = P. Therefore, P is an α-filter of A. □
Note. We denote and by Theorems 3.27 and 3.28, we know that the set of all filters of A is a complete lattice and, for any family {Fj} j∈J of filters of A, we have ⋀j∈JFj = ⋂ j∈JFj and ⋁j∈JFj = 〈 ⋃ j∈JFj〉.
Theorem 4.21.Let A be a bounded ⊔-hoop. Then is a pseudo-complemented lattice, where F ∧ G = F ∩ G, F ∨ EG = E (F ∨ G) and F′ = F⊤, for any .
Proof. By definition of E (F), it is clear that F ∨ G ⊆ E (F ∨ G). Since F, G ⊆ F ∨ G, we have F, G ⊆ E (F ∨ G). Now, we prove that E (F ∨ G), is an upper bounded of F and G. Let such that F, G ⊆ H. Then F ∨ G ⊆ H. Thus, by Proposition 4.15(iv), E (F ∨ G) ⊆ E (H). Moreover, since , by Proposition 4.10, E (F ∨ G) ⊆ E (H) = H. Hence, E (F ∨ G) is the smallest upper bounded of F and G. So, F ∨ EG = E (F ∨ G). Finally, let . We prove that F′ = F⊤. By Proposition 3.18(vi), F ∩ F⊤ = {1}. Let such that F ∩ H = {1}. Then by Proposition 3.23, H ⊆ F⊤. Hence, F⊤ = F′. Therefore, is a pseudo-complemented lattice. □
Theorem 4.22.Let A be a bounded ⊔-hoop. Then forms a complete distributive lattice.
Proof. Let . Then by Proposition 4.10(ii), E (F) = F. By Proposition 4.14(vi) and Theorems 3.25 and 3.27, it is clear that is a complete lattice. Now, we prove that is a distributive lattice. For this, let . Then by Proposition 4.14(vi) and Theorem 3.25, we have
□
Theorem 4.23.Let A be a bounded ⊔-hoop and, for any , F⊤ ∨ F is with meet-properties on A. Then is a Boolean algebra.
Proof. From Theorems 4.22, 3.25 and 3.26, we consequence that is a distributive pseudo-complemented lattice. Now, let . We prove F⊤ is the complement of . By Proposition 3.18(vi), F⊤ ∩ F = {1} and F⊤ ∨ EF = E (F⊤ ∨ F). Now, it is enough to prove that 0 ∈ E (F⊤ ∨ F). Since F⊤, F ⊆ F⊤ ∨ F, by Proposition 3.18(i), (F⊤ ∨ F) ⊤ ⊆ F⊤⊤, F⊤. Hence, (F⊤ ∨ F) ⊤ ⊆ F⊤⊤ ∩ F⊤ = {1}. Since F⊤ ∨ F is with meet-properties, by Proposition 4.19(i), there exists an element z ∈ F⊤ ∨ F such that z⊤ = {1}. It implies that z⊤ ⊆ {1} =0⊤, thus, 0 ∈ E (F⊤ ∨ F), which implies E (F⊤ ∨ F) = A. Therefore, F⊤ is the complement of F and is a Boolean algebra. □
Corollary 4.24.Let A be a finite bounded ⊔-hoop. Then is a Boolean algebra.
Proof. Suppose A is a finite bounded ⊔-hoop. Clearly, F⊤ ∨ F ⊆ A, then F⊤ ∨ F is finite. Thus, F⊤ ∨ F is with meet-properties. Therefore, by Theorem 4.23, is a Boolean algebra. □
Conclusions and future works
In this paper, we introduce the notion of co-annihilator in hoops and investigate some related properties of them. Also, we define the set X∗ and we prove that the set of filters form two pseudo-complemented lattices (with ∗ and ⊤) that if A has (DNP), then the two pseudo-complemented lattices are the same. Moreover, by defining the operation → on the lattice , we prove that is a Heyting algebra and by defining of the product operation, we show that is a bounded hoop. Finally, we define the C - Ann (A) to be the set of all co-annihilators of A, then we have that it had made a Boolean algebra. Also, we give an extension of a filter, which leads to a useful characterization of α-filters on hoops. For instance, we obtain a series of characterizations of α-filters. In addition, we show that there are no non-trivial α-filters on hoop-chains. That implies the structure of all α-filters contains only trivial α-filters on hoops. On hoops, we prove that the set of all α-filters is a pseudo-complemented lattice. Moreover, the structure of all α-filters can form a Boolean algebra under certain conditions.
Footnotes
Acknowledgment
This research is supported by a grant of National Natural Science Foundation of China (11971384).
References
1.
Aaly KologaniM. and BorzooeiR.A., On Ideal Theory of Hoops, Mathematica Bohemica DOI: 10.21136/MB.2019.0140-17
2.
AglianóP., FerreirimI.M.A., MontagnaF., Basic hoops: An algebraic study of continuous t-norm, draft, (2000).
3.
AmeriR., Hoskova-MayerovaS., Fuzzy continuous polygroups, In: Aplimat – 15th Conference on Applied Mathematics 2016 Proceedings. Bratislava: Vydavatelstvo STU – Slovak University of Technoology in Bratislava, 2016, pp. 4531–4. ISBN 978-8-227-4531-4.
4.
AmeriR., KordiA. and Hoskova-MayerovaS., Multiplicative hyperring of fractions and coprime hyperideals, Analele Stiintifice Ale Universitatii Ovidius Constanta-Seria Matematica25(1) (2017), 5–23.
5.
BlythT.S., Lattices and Ordered Algebraic Structures, Springer, London, 2005.
6.
BoicescuV., FilipoiuA., GeorgescuG. and RudeanuS., Lukasiewicz-Moisil algebras, Annals of Discrete Mathematics49 (1991).
7.
BorzooeiR.A. and Aaly KologaniM., Stabilizer Topology of Hoops, Algebraic Structures and Their Applications1(1) (2014), 35–48.
8.
BorzooeiR.A. and Aaly KologaniM., Filter Theory of Hoop-algebras, Journal of Advanced Research in Pure Mathematics6 (2014), 1–15.
9.
BorzooeiR.A., Aaly KologaniM. and ZahiriO., State of Hoops, Mathematica Slovaca67(1) (2017), 1–16.
10.
BorzooeiR.A. and Aaly KologaniM., On Fuzzy filter of Hoop Algebras, The Journal of Fuzzy Mathe-matics25(1) (2017), 177–195.
11.
BorzooeiR.A. and Aaly KologaniM., Local and perfect semihoops, Journal of Intelligent and Fuzzy Systems29 (2015), 223–234.
12.
BosbachB., Komplementäre Halbgruppen. Axiomatik und Arithmetik, Fundamenta Mathematicae64 (1969), 257–287.
13.
BosbachB., Komplementäre Halbgruppen. Kongruenzen and Quotienten, Fundamenta Mathematicae69 (1970), 1–14.
14.
BüchiJ.R., OwensT.M., Complemented monoids and hoops, unpublished manuscript, (1975).
15.
BurrisS., SankappanavarH.P., A course in universal algebra, SpringerVerlag, New York (1981).
16.
ChangC.C., Algebraic analysis of many valued logics, Transactions of The American Mathematical Society88 (1958), 467–490.
17.
CornishW.H., Annulets and α-ideals in distributive lattices, J Austrat Math Soc15 (1973), 70–77.
18.
DaveyB.A., Some annihilator conditions on distributive lattices, Algebra Universalis4 (1974), 316–322.
19.
FlautC., Hoskova MayerovaS., Borumand SaeidA., VasileR., Wajsberg algebras of order n, n ≤ 9, arXiv:1905.05755.
20.
GeorgescuG., LeusteanL. and PreoteasaV., Pseudo-hoops, Journal of Multiple-Valued logic and Soft Computing11(1-2) (2005), 153–184.
21.
HájekP., Metamathematics of fuzzy logic, Springer4 (1998).
22.
JamesI.M., Introduction to uniform spaces, Cambridge University Press, New York144 (1990).
23.
JoshiK.D., Introduction to general topology, NewAge International Publisher, India, (1983).
24.
LeleC. and NganouJ.B., MV-algebras derived from ideals in BL-algebras, Fuzzy Sets and Systems218 (2013), 103–113.
25.
LeusteanL., Some algebraic properties of non-commutative fuzzy structures, Stud Inform Control9 (2000), 365–370.
26.
MengB.L. and XinX.L., Generalized co-annihilator of BL-algebras, Open Mathematics13 (2015), 639–654.
27.
OnasanyaB. and Hoskova-MayerovaS., Some topological and algebraic properties of alpha-level subsets’ topology of a fuzzy subset, An St Univ Ovidius Constanta26(3) (2018), 213–227. DOI: 10.2478/auom-2018-0042
28.
OnasanyaB. and Hošková-MayerováS., Multi-fuzzy group induced by multisets, Italian Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics41 (2019), 597–604.
29.
ShojaeiH., AmeriR. and Hoskova-MayerovaS., On properties of various morphisms in the categories of general krasner hypermodules, Italian Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics39 (2018), 475–484.
30.
TurunenE., BL-algebras of basic fuzzy logic, Mathware and Soft Computing6 (1999), 49–61.
31.
XuY., RuanD., QinK. and LiuJ., Lattice valued logic, Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing132 (2003).