On Coverings of Rough Transformation

Semigroups
S.P. Tiwari and Shambhu Sharan
Department of Applied Mathematics
Indian School of Mines
Dhanbad-826004, India
{sptiwarimaths,shambhupuremaths}@gmail.com
http://www.ismdhanbad.ac.in
Abstract. The purpose of this paper is towards the algebraic study of
rough nite state machines, i.e., to introduce the concept of homomor-
phisms between two rough nite state machines, to associate a rough
transformation semigroup with a rough nite state machine and to in-
troduce the concept of coverings of rough nite state machines as well
as rough transformation semigroups.
Keywords: Rough nite state machine, Rough transformation semi-
group, Homomorphism, Covering.
1 Introduction and Preliminaries
The concepts of homomorphism, transformation semigroup and covering play
prominent role in the study of nite state machines [2]. Much later, Malik,
Mordeson and Sen [3] introduced these ideas for fuzzy nite state machines and
explored their algebraic properties (cf., [5] for more details). Inspired from [6],
Basu [1] has recently introduced the concept of rough nite state automaton (a
concept resembles to rough nite state machine) and tried to design a recognizer
that accepts imprecise statements, while Tiwari, Srivastava and Sharan [7] stud-
ied the separated and connectedness properties of rough nite state automata.
The purpose of this paper is to introduce the concepts of homomorphism, trans-
formation semigroup and covering for rough nite state machines. In particular,
we establish a congruence relation to associate a semigroup with given rough -
nite state machine, which lead us to associate a rough transformation semigroup
to each rough nite state machine. Lastly, we introduce the notion of coverings
for both rough nite state machines and rough transformation semigroups.
Now, we collect some concepts associated with rough set theory, which are
useful in the next sections. We start from the following concept of approximation
space.
Denition 1. [6] Let X be a nonempty set and R be an equivalence relation on
X. Then the pair (X, R) is called an approximation space.
S.O. Kuznetsov et al. (Eds.): RSFDGrC 2011, LNAI 6743, pp. 7986, 2011.
c Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011
80 S.P. Tiwari and S. Sharan
Denition 2. [6] Let (X, R) be an approximation space and [x]
R
be the equiv-
alence class of x under R. Then lower approximation and upper approxi-
mation of A X are, respectively, dened to be the sets
A = x X [ [x]
R
A,and
A = x X [ [x]
R
A ,= .
For an approximation space (X, R), A X is called a denable set if it is an
union of equivalence classes under R and a pair (L, U) of denable sets is called
a rough set in (X, R) if L U, and if any equivalence class of x is a singleton
set x such that x U, then x L.
2 Rough Finite State Machines
In this section, we recall some concepts related to a rough nite state machine
and introduce the concept of homomorphism between two rough nite state
machines.
Denition 3. [1] A rough nite state machine (or RFSM) is a 4-tuple M =
(Q, R, X, ), where Q is a nonempty nite set (the set of states of M), R is a
given equivalence relation on Q, X is a nonempty nite set (the set of inputs)
and is a map : QX DD. D being the collection of all denable sets in
the approximation space (Q, R), if (q, a) = (D
1
, D
2
), where q Q and a X,
then (D
1
, D
2
) is a rough set with D
1
= A and D
2
= A, for some A Q.
If (q, a) = (D
1
, D
2
) with D
1
= A and D
2
= A, then by the abuse of notation,
we identify A as (q, a); thus D
1
= (q, a) and D
2
= (q, a) i.e., (q, a) =
((q, a), (q, a)).
Denition 4. [1] For any equivalence class (block) B of R and a X, Ba =
(Ba, Ba) is called block transition, where Ba =

qa [ q B, Ba =

qa [
q B and for a denable set D, Da =

Ba [ B is a block of R and B D,
Da =

Ba [B is a block of R and B D.
Let X

be the set of all words on X (i.e., nite strings of elements of X, which

form a monoid under concatenation of strings) including the empty word (which
we shall denote by ). Throughout, x X

, [x[ denotes the length of string x.

Denition 5. [7] For any equivalence class (block) B of R and x X

, Bx =
(Bx, Bx), where Bx =

qx [ q B, Bx =

qx [ q B and for a denable

set D, Dx =

Bx [ B is a block of R and B D, Dx =

Bx [B is a block
of R and B D.
Denition 6. [1] Let M = (Q, R, X, ) be a RFSM. Dene

: QX

DD
as follows:
1. q Q,

(q,
X
) = ([q]
R
, [q]
R
), where [q]
R
is the equivalence class of q under
R, and x X

X
,

(q, x) =

([q]
R
, x), and
On Coverings of Rough Transformation Semigroups 81
2. q Q, x X

and a X,

(q, xa) = (

(q, xa),

(q, xa)), where

(q, xa) = (

(q, x), a) =

Ba [ B is a block under R and B

(q, x)
and

(q, xa) = (

(q, x), a) =

Ba [ B is a block under R and B

(q, x).
In [1], it is shown that the transition function of a RFSM (Q, R, X, ) can be
recursively extended to a function

: QX

D D as follows:
1. q Q,

(q,
X
) = ([q]
R
, [q]
R
), where [q]
R
is the equivalence class of q under
R, and x X

X
,

(q, x) =

([q]
R
, x), and
2. q Q and x, y X

(q, xy) = (

(q, xy),

(q, xy)), where

(q, xy) =

(q, x), y) =

By [ B is a block under R and B

(q, x) and

(q, xy) =

(q, x), y) =

By [ B is a block under R and B

(q, x).
Inspired from [2], we now introduce the following denition of homomorphism
between two rough nite state machines.
Denition 7. A homomorphism from a RFSM M
1
= (Q
1
, R
1
, X
1
,
1
) to
RFSM M
2
= (Q
2
, R
2
, X
2
,
2
) is a pair of maps (f, g), where f : Q
1
Q
2
and g : X
1
X
2
are functions such that
1. (p, q) R
1
(f(p), f(q)) R
2
, p, q Q
1
,
2. (f(
1
(q, a)), f(
1
(q, a))) (
2
(f(q), g(a)),
2
(f(q), g(a))), q Q
1
and a X
1
.
Let M
1
= (Q
1
, R
1
, X
1
,
1
), M
2
= (Q
2
, R
2
, X
2
,
2
) be two rough nite state
machines and (f, g) : M
1
M
2
be a homomorphism. Let g

: X

1
X

2
be a
map such that g

(
X1
) =
X2
and g

(ua) = g

(u)g(a), u X

1
and a X
1
.
Then we have the following lemma.
Lemma 1. Let M
1
= (Q
1
, R
1
, X
1
,
1
), M
2
= (Q
2
, R
2
, X
2
,
2
) be two rough nite
state machines and (f, g) : M
1
M
2
be a homomorphism. Then g

(xy) =
g

(x)g

(y), x, y X

1
.
Proof. Let x, y X

1
. We prove the result by induction on [y[ = n. If n = 0,
then y =
X1
and so xy = x
X1
= x. Thus g

(xy) = g

(x) = g

(x)
X2
=
g

(x)g

(
X1
) = g

(x)g

(y), whereby, the result is true for n = 0. Also, let the

result be true z X

1
such that [z[ = n 1, n > 0 and y = za, where a
X
1
. Then g

(xy) = g

(xza) = g

(xz)g(a) = g

(x)g

(z)g(a) = g

(x)g

(za) =
g

(x)g

(y). Hence the result is true for [y[ = n. .

Proposition 1. Let M
1
= (Q
1
, R
1
, X
1
,
1
), M
2
= (Q
2
, R
2
, X
2
,
2
) be two rough
nite state machines and (f, g) : M
1
M
2
be a homomorphism. Then (f(

1
(q, x)),
f(

1
(q, x))) (

2
(f(q), g

(x)),

2
(f(q), g

(x))), q Q
1
and x X

1
.
82 S.P. Tiwari and S. Sharan
Proof. Let q
1
Q
1
and x X

1
. We prove the result by induction on [x[ =
n. If n = 0, then x =
X1
and g

(x) = g

(
X1
) =
X2
. Now q Q
1
,
(f(

1
(q,
X1
)), f(

1
(q,
X1
))) = (f([q]
R1
), f([q]
R1
)) ([f(q)]
R2
, [f(q)]
R2
)
= (

2
(f(q),
X2
),

2
(f(q),
X2
)) (as (q, q) R
1
(f(q), f(q)) R
2
, q
Q
1
). Let the result be true for all y X

1
such that [y[ = n 1, n > 0
and x = ya, where a X
1
. Then (f(

1
(q, x)), f(

1
(q, x))) = (f(

1
(q, ya)),
f(

1
(q, ya))) = (f(
1
(

1
(q, y), a)), f(
1
(

1
(q, y), a)))
2
(f(

1
(q, y)), g(a)),

2
(f(

1
(q, y)), g(a))) (
2
(

2
(f(q), g

(y)), g(a)),
2
(

2
(f(q), g

(y)), g(a)))
= (
2
(

2
(f(q), g

(ya))),
2
(

2
(f(q), g

(ya)))) = (

2
(f(q), g

(ya)),

2
(f(q), g

(ya))) = (

2
(f(q), g

(x)),

2
(f(q), g

(x))). .
3 Rough Transformation Semigroups
The notion of transformation semigroups has been introduced and studied in
both nite state machines and fuzzy nite state machines (cf., [2], [5]). In this
section, we introduce analogous notion for rough nite state machines and dis-
cuss their properties.
Recall from [5] that an equivalence relation on a semigroup (X, ) is called a
congruence relation on X if, a, b, c X, a b ac bc and ca cb.
Let (Q, R, X, ) be a RFSM. Dene a relation on X

by x y (

(q, x),

(q, x)) = (

(q, y),

(q, y)), q Q, x, y X

. Then we have the following.

Proposition 2. Let (Q, R, X, ) be a RFSM. Then the relation is a congru-
ence relation on X

.
Proof. It is obvious that the relation is an equivalence relation on X

. Let
x, y X

such that x y and z X

. Then q Q,

(q, xz) = (

(q, xz),

(q, xz)) = (

(q, x), z),

(q, x), z)) = (

(q, y), z),

(q, y), z)) =

(

(q, yz),

(q, yz)) =

(q, yz). Thus xz yz. Similarly, zx zy. Hence is a

congruence relation on X

. .
For given RFSM M = (Q, R, X, ), let [x] = y X

: x y and E(M) =
[x] : x X

. Dene a binary operation on E(M) by [x] [y] = [xy],

[x], [y] E(M). Then we have the following.
Proposition 3. For given RFSM M = (Q, R, X, ), (E(M), ) is a nite semi-
group with identity.
Proof. Associativity of the is trivial. For [x] E(M), we have [x] [
X
] =
[x
X
] = [x] = [
X
x] = [
X
] [x], whereby [
X
] is the identity of (E(M), ). Thus
(E(M), ) is a semigroup with identity. The niteness of E(M) follows from the
fact that Q is nite and by the denition of relation . Hence (E(M), ) is a
nite semigroup with identity. .
On Coverings of Rough Transformation Semigroups 83
Denition 8. A rough transformation semigroup (or RTS) is a 4-tuple
A = (Q, R, S, ), where Q is a nonempty nite set (the set of states of A), R
is an equivalence relation on Q, S is a nonempty nite semigroup and : QS
DD, where D is the collection of all denable sets in the approximation space
(Q, R), such that q Q,
1. if S contains the identity e, then (q, e) = ([q]
R
, [q]
R
), where [q]
R
is the
equivalence class of q under R, and
2. (q, uv) = ((q, uv), (q, uv)), where
(q, uv) = ((q, u), v) =

Bv [ B is a block under R and B (q, u) and

(q, uv) = ((q, u), v) =

Bv [ B is a block under R and B (q, u),
u, v S.
If, in addition, q Q and u, v S, ((q, u), (q, u)) = ((q, v), (q, v)) u =
v, holds. Then (Q, R, S, ) is called faithful RTS.
Let A = (Q, R, S, ) be a RTS which is not faithful. Dene a relation on S by
u v ((q, u), (q, u)) = ((q, v), (q, v)), u, v S and q Q. Then, it can
be easily seen that is an equivalence relation on S. Also, let u, v, w S and
u v. Then (q, uw) = ((q, uw), (q, uw)) = (((q, u), w), ((q, u), w)) =
(((q, v), w), ((q, v), w)) = ((q, vw), (q, vw)) = (q, vw). Thus uw vw.
Similarly, wu wv. Hence is a congruence relation on S.
Let [u] be the equivalence class of u induced by the relation and S/ =
[u] : u S. Dene : Q S/ D D by (q, [x]) = (q, x), i.e.,
((q, [x]), (q, [x])) = ((q, x), (q, x)), q Q and [x] S/ . Now (q, [e]) =
([q]
R
, [q]
R
). Also, ((q, [x][y]), (q, [x][y])) = ((q, [xy]), (q, [xy])) = ((q, xy),
(q, xy)) = (((q, x), y), ((q, x), y)) = (((q, [x]), [y]), ((q, [x]), [y])),
[x], [y] S/ . Again, let ((q, [x]), (q, [x])) = ((q, [y]), (q, [y])), q Q.
Then ((q, x), (q, x)) = ((q, y), (q, y)), q Q. Thus x y, whereby [x] = [y],
showing that (Q, R, S/ , ) is a faithful RTS.
Proposition 4. Let M = (Q, R, X, ) be a RFSM. Then (Q, R, E(M), ) is a
faithful RTS, where ((q, [x]), (q, [x])) = (

(q, x),

(q, x)), q Q and x

X

.
Proof. In view of Proposition 3.2, E(M) is a nite semigroup with identity
[
X
]. Obviously, (q, [
X
]) = ([q]
R
, [q]
R
). Let q Q and [x], [y] E(M). Then
(q, [x] [y]) = (q, [xy]) =

(q, xy) = (

(q, xy),

(q, xy)) = (

(q, x), y),

(q, x), y)) = (((q, [x]), [y]), ((q, [x]), [y])). Also, let (q, [x]) = (q, [y]),
i.e., ((q, [x]), (q, [x])) = ((q, [y]), (q, [y])), q Q. Then

(q, x) =

(q, y),
i.e., (

(q, x),

(q, x)) = (

(q, y),

(q, y)), q Q. Thus x y or [x] = [y].

Hence (Q, R, E(M), ) is a faithful RTS. .
84 S.P. Tiwari and S. Sharan
For RFSM M = (Q, R, X, ), We shall denote by RTS(M), the RTS
(Q, R, E(M), ), and call it the RTS associated with M.
Denition 9. A homomorphism from a RTS A
1
= (Q
1
, R
1
, S
1
,
1
) to RTS
A
2
= (Q
2
, R
2
, S
2
,
2
) is a pair of maps (, ), where : Q
1
Q
2
and : S
1

S
2
are functions such that
1. (p, q) R
1
((p), (q)) R
2
, p, q Q
1
,
2. (uv) = (u)(v), u, v S
1
,
3. if S
1
and S
2
contain the identity e
1
and e
2
respectively, then (e
1
) = e
2
, and
4. ((
1
(q, u)), (
1
(q, u))) (
2
((q), (u)),
2
((q), (u))), q Q
1
and
u S
1
.
A homomorphism (, ) : A
1
A
2
is called an isomorphism if and are
both one-one and onto.
Let S be a semigroup with identity e and (Q, R, S, ) be a faithful RTS. Dene
RFSM M = (Q, R, S, ) by taking = . Consider RTS (M)= (Q, R, E(M), ),
where E(M) = S

/ and ((q, [u]), (q, [u])) = (

(q, u),

(q, u)). Now, for all

q Q, ((q, [e]), (q, [e])) = (

(q, e),

(q, e)) = ((q, e), (q, e)) = ([q]

R
, [q]
R
).
Hence ((q, [e]), (q, [e])) = ((q, []), (q, [])), where is the empty word in
S

. Thus [e] = [].

Proposition 5. Let M = (Q, R, X, ) be a RFSM and S be a semigroup with
identity e. Then RTS(M) is isomorphic to faithful RTS A = (Q, R, S, ).
Proof. Let : Q Q and : S E(M) be maps such that (q) = q and
(u) = [u], q Q and u S. Let p, q Q. Then (p, q) R ((p), (q)) R
holds from the denition of . Let be the binary operation of S and for
a, b S, a b S, ab S

. Then

(q, a b) = (

(q, a b),

(q, a b)) =
((q, a b), (q, a b)) = ((q, a b), (q, a b)) = (((q, a), b), ((q, a), b)) =
(((q, a), b), ((q, a), b)) = ((q, ab), (q, ab)) =

(q, ab), q Q. Thus

[a b] = [ab], showing that (a b) = [a b] = [ab] = [a][b] = (a)(b).
Also, (((q), (u)), ((q), (u))) = ((q, [u]), (q, [u])) = (

(q, u),

(q, u)) =
((q, u), (q, u)) = ((q, u), (q, u)). Now it remains to show that is one-
one and onto. Let u, v S be such that (u) = (v). Then [u] = [v]. Thus
(

(q, u),

(q, u)) = (

(q, v),

(q, v)), or that ((q, u), (q, u))=((q, v), (q, v)),
implying that ((q, u), (q, u)) = ((q, v), (q, v)), or that u = v, as A is faith-
ful. Thus is one-one. Also, it can be easily see that if c
i
S, i [1, n], then
[c
1
c
2
....... c
n
] = [c
1
c
2
.......c
n
] by the induction. Lastly, let [x] E(M). If
x = , then [] = [e] and (e) = []. Let x = a
1
a
2
.......a
n
, a
i
S, i [1, n].
Then (a
1
a
2
....... a
n
) = [a
1
a
2
....... a
n
] = [a
1
a
2
.......a
n
] = [x]. Thus
is onto. .
On Coverings of Rough Transformation Semigroups 85
4 Coverings
The concept of coverings for both nite state machines and fuzzy nite state
machines have introduced in (cf., [2], [5]). In this section, we introduce analogous
notion for RFSM.
Denition 10. Let M
1
= (Q
1
, R
1
, X
1
,
1
) and M
2
= (Q
2
, R
2
, X
2
,
2
) be two
rough nite state machines. Let : Q
2
Q
1
be an onto map and : X
1
X
2
be a map. Then the pair (, ) is called a covering of M
1
by M
2
, if
1. (p, q) R
2
((p), (q)) R
1
, p, q Q
2
, and
2. (

1
((q
2
), x),

1
((q
2
), x)) ((

2
(q
2
,

(x))), (

2
(q
2
,

(x))), q
2
Q
2
and
x X

1
, where

: X

1
X

2
is a map such that

(
X
) =
X
and

(x) = (x
1
)(x
2
)...(x
n
), x = x
1
x
2
...x
n
X

1
.
We shall denote by M
1
_ M
2
, the covering of M
1
by M
2
.
Denition 11. Let A
1
= (Q
1
, R
1
, S
1
,
1
) and A
2
= (Q
2
, R
2
, S
2
,
2
) be two
rough transformation semigroups. An onto map : Q
2
Q
1
is called covering
of A
1
by A
2
, if
1. (p, q) R
2
((p), (q)) R
1
, p, q Q
2
, and
2. s S
1
, t
s
S
2
such that (
1
((q
2
), s),
1
((q
2
), s)) ((
2
(q
2
, t
s
)),
(
2
(q
2
, t
s
))), q
2
Q
2
.
We shall denote by A
1
_ A
2
, the covering of A
1
by A
2
.
Proposition 6. (i) Let M
1
, M
2
and M
3
be rough nite state machines. Then
M
1
_ M
2
, M
2
_ M
3
M
1
_ M
3
.
(ii) Let A
1
, A
2
and A
3
be rough transformation semigroups. Then A
1
_ A
2
,
A
2
_ A
3
A
1
_ A
3
.
Proof. The proof is straightforward. .
Proposition 7. Let M
1
and M
2
be two rough nite state machines such that
M
1
_ M
2
, then RTS(M
1
) _ RTS(M
2
).
Proof. Let M
1
= (Q
1
, R
1
, X
1
,
1
) and M
2
= (Q
2
, R
2
, X
2
,
2
) be two rough
nite state machines such that M
1
_ M
2
. Then there exists an onto map
: Q
2
Q
1
and a map

: X

1
X

2
such that (

1
((q
2
), x),

1
((q
2
), x))
((

2
(q
2
,

(x))), (

2
(q
2
,

(x))), q
2
Q
2
and x X

1
. Let RTS(M
1
)
= (Q
1
, R
1
, E(M
1
),
1
) and RTS(M
2
) = (Q
2
, R
2
, E(M
2
),
2
) be rough trans-
formation semigroups associated with rough nite state machines M
1
and M
2
respectively. Also, let s E(M
1
). Then x X

1
such that s [x]. Again,
let t
s
= [

(x)] E(M
2
) and q
2
Q
2
. Then (
1
((q
2
), s),
1
((q
2
), s)) =
(
1
((q
2
), [x]),
1
((q
2
), [x])) = (

1
((q
2
), x),

1
((q
2
), x)) ((

2
(q
2
),

(x)),
(

2
(q
2
),

(x))) = ((
2
(q
2
), [

(x)]), (
2
(q
2
), [

(x)])) = ((
2
(q
2
), t
s
),
(
2
(q
2
), t
s
)), showing that RTS(M
1
) _ RTS(M
2
). .
86 S.P. Tiwari and S. Sharan
5 Conclusion
Chiey inspired from [3] and [5], we tried to present here the concept of ho-
momorphism between two rough nite state machines, rough transformation
semigroup associated with a rough nite state machine and coverings of rough
nite state machines as well as rough transformation semigroups for the study of
algebraic rough machines theory. Even, much more can be done in this direction
by introducing the concept of dierent products of rough nite state machines,
as in [4].
Acknowledgments. The authors gratefully thank the reviewers for their ob-
servations.
References
1. Basu, S.: Rough nite state automata. Cybernetics and Systems 36, 107124 (2005)
2. Holcombe, W.M.L.: Algebraic automata theory. Cambridge University Press, Cam-
bridge (1982)
3. Malik, D.S., Mordeson, J.N., Sen, M.K.: Semigroups of fuzzy nite state machines.
In: Wang, P.P. (ed.) Advances in Fuzzy Theory and Technology, vol. II, pp. 8798
(1994)
4. Malik, D.S., Mordeson, J.N., Sen, M.K.: Products of fuzzy nite state machines.
Fuzzy Sets and Systems 92, 95102 (1997)
5. Mordeson, J.N., Malik, D.S.: Fuzzy Automata and Languages: Theory and Appli-
cations. Chapman and Hall/CRC, Boca Raton (2002)
6. Pawlak, Z.: Rough sets. Int. J. Inf. Comp. Sci. 11, 341356 (1982)
7. Tiwari, S.P., Srivastava, A.K., Sharan, S.: Characterizations of rough nite state
automata. Communicated