You are on page 1of 9

# Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol.

## Multi-Attribute Decision Making Based on Several

Trigonometric Hamming Similarity Measures under
Interval Rough Neutrosophic Environment
Surapati Pramanik1, Rumi Roy2, Tapan Kumar Roy3, Florentin Smarandache4
1
Department of Mathematics, Nandalal Ghosh B.T. College, Panpur, P.O.-Narayanpur, District –North 24 Parganas, Pin code-743126, West Bengal,
India. *E-mail: sura_pati@yahoo.co.in

2
Department of Mathematics, Indian Institute of Engineering Science and Technology, Shibpur, P.O.-Botanic Garden, Howrah-711103, West Bengal,
India, E-mail: roy.rumi.r@gmail.com
3
Department of Mathematics, Indian Institute of Engineering Science and Technology, Shibpur, P.O.-Botanic Garden, Howrah-711103, West Bengal,
India, E-mail: roy_t_k@gmail.com

Abstract. In this paper, the sine, cosine and cotangent similarity proposed multi attribute decision making approaches based on
measures of interval rough neutrosophic sets is proposed. Some proposed similarity measures. To demonstrate the applicability, a
properties of the proposed measures are discussed. We have numerical example is solved.

Keywords: sine hamming similarity measure, cosine hamming similarity measure, cotangent hamming similarity measure, interval
rough neutrosophic set.

## 1 Introduction and Mondal [20] presented cotangent similarity measure of

rough neutrosophic sets and its application to medical
The basic concept of neutrosophic set grounded by
diagnosis. Pramanik and Mondal [21] presented
Smarandache [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] is a generalization of classical
trigonometric Hamming similarity measure of rough
set or crisp set [6], fuzzy set [7], intuitionistic fuzzy set [8].
neutrosophic sets. Pramanik et al. [22] proposed rough
Wang et al.[9] extended the concept of neutrosophic set to
neutrosophic multi attribute decision making based on
single valued neutrosophic sets (SVNSs). Broumi et al.
correlation coefficient. Pramanik et al. [23] also proposed
[10, 11] proposed new hybrid intelligent structure namely,
rough neutrosophic projection and bidirectional projection
rough neutrosophic set combing the concept of rough set
measures. Mondal et al. [24] presented multi attribute
theory [12] and the concept of neutrosophic set theory to
decision making based on rough neutrosophic variational
deal with uncertainty and incomplete information. Rough
coefficient similarity measures. Mondal at al. [25] also
neutrosophic set is the generalization of rough fuzzy sets
presented rough neutrosophic TOPSIS for multi attribute
[13, 14] and rough intuitionistic fuzzy sets [15]. Several
group decision making. Mondal and Pramanik [26]
studies of rough neutrosophic sets have been reported in
presented tri-complex rough neutrosophic similarity
the literature. Mondal and Pramanik [16] applied the
measure and its application in multi-attribute decision
concept of rough neutrosophic set in multi-attribute
making. In 2015, Broumi and Smarandache [27]
decision making based on grey relational analysis.
combined the concept of rough set theory [12] and interval
Pramanik and Mondal [17] presented cosine similarity
neutrosophic set theory [28] and defined interval rough
measure of rough neutrosophic sets and its application in
neutrosophic set. Pramanik et al. [29] presented multi
medical diagnosis. Pramanik and Mondal [18] also
attribute decision making based on projection and
proposed some rough neutrosophic similarity measures
bidirectional projection measures under interval rough
namely Dice and Jaccard similarity measures of rough
neutrosophic environment.
neutrosophic environment. Mondal and Pramanik [19]
proposed rough neutrosophic multi attribute decision
making based on rough score accuracy function. Pramanik

Surapati Pramanik, Rumi Roy, Tapan Kumar Roy, Florentin Smarandache, Multi-attribute Decision Making Based on
Several Trigonometric Hamming Similarity Measures under Interval Rough Neutrosophic Environment
Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 19, 2018 111

2 Preliminaries
Multi-attribute decision making using trigonometric In this Section, we provide some basic definitions
Hamming similarity measures under interval rough regarding SVNSs, IRNSs which are useful in the paper.
neutrosophic environment is not addressed in the literature.
In 1999, Smarandache presented the following definition
Research gap MADM strategy using sine, cosine and of neutrosophic set (NS) [1].
cotangent similarity measures under interval rough
Definition 2.1.1. Let X be a space of points (objects) with
neutrosophic environment.
Research questions generic element in X denoted by x. A NS A in X is
characterized by a truth-membership function TA, an
(i) Is it possible to define sine, cosine and cotangent indeterminacy membership function I A and a falsity
similarity measures between interval rough membership function FA. The functions TA , IA and FA are
neutrosophic sets? real standard or non-standard subsets of (-0,1+) that is
(ii) Is it possible to develop new MADM strategies TA:X  (-0, 1+) , IA:X  (-0, 1+) and FA:X  (-0, 1+). It
based on the proposed measures in interval should be noted that there is no restriction on the sum of
rough neutrosophic environment? TA(x) , IA(x) and FA(x) i.e.

0  TA (X)  I A (X)  FA (X)  1
The objectives of the paper are
i. to define sine, cosine and cotangent similarity Definition 2.1.2: (Single-valued neutrosophic set) [9]. Let
measures between interval rough neutrosophic X be a universal space of points (objects) with a generic
sets. element of X denoted by x. A single valued neutrosophic
set A is characterized by a truth membership function TA(x)
ii. to prove the basic properties of sine, cosine and , a falsity membership function FA(x) and indeterminacy
cotangent similarity measures of interval rough function IA(x) with
neutrosophic sets. TA (x),IA (x) and FA (x)  [0,1]  x in X
iii. to develop new MADM strategies based on the When X is continuous, a SNVS S can be written as
proposed measures in interval rough neutrosophic follows
environment. A    TA (x), FA (x), I A (x)  / x  X
x

## Contributions and when X is discrete, a SVNS S can be written as

follows
(i) In this paper, we propose sine, cosine and
A    TA (x), FA (x), I A (x)  / x  X
cotangent similarity measures under interval
rough neutrosophic environment. For a SVNS S, 0 ≤ supTA(x) + supIA(x) + supFA(x) ≤ 3.
(ii) We develop new MADM strategy based on the
2.2 Rough neutrosophic set
proposed measures in interval rough
neutrosophic environment. Rough neutrosophic sets [10, 11] are the generalization of
(iii) We also present numerical example to show the rough fuzzy sets [13, 14] and rough intuitionistic fuzzy sets
[15].
feasibility and applicability of the proposed
measures. Definition 2.2.1: Let Y be a non-null set and R be an
equivalence relation on Y. Let P be neutrosophic set in Y
Rest of the paper is organized in the following way. with the membership function T P , indeterminacy function
Section 2 describes preliminaries of neutrosophic sets and IP and non-membership function FP . The lower and the
rough neutrosophic sets and interval rough neutrosophic upper approximations of P in the approximation (Y, R)
sets. Section 3, Section 4 and Section 5 presents definitions denoted by are respectively defined as:
and propositions of the proposed measures. Section 6 N(P)  x,TN(P) (x), I N(P) (x), FN(P) (x)  /y  [x]R ,
presents multi attribute decision-making strategies based
on the similarity measures. Section 7 provides a numerical xY 
example. Section 8 presents the conclusion and future and
scopes of research. N(P)  x, T (x), I (x), F (x)  /y  [x]R ,
N(P) N(P) N(P)

xY 
where,

Surapati Pramanik, Rumi Roy, Tapan Kumar Roy, Florentin Smarandache, Multi-attribute Decision Making Based on
Several Trigonometric Hamming Similarity Measures under Interval Rough Neutrosophic Environment
112 Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 19, 2018

TN(P) (x)   z  [x]R TP (Y), I N(P) (x)  z  [x]R I P (Y), 0  A ( RX  RX)  A (RX  RX)  1
FN(P) (x)   z  [x]R FP (Y)
Definition 2.3.3
and
T (x)   z  [x]R TP (Y), I (x)   z  [x]R I P (Y), Assume that, (U, R) be a Pawlak approximation space, for
N(P) N(P)
. an interval neutrosophic set
F (x)   z  [x]R FP (Y)
N(P) A = {<x, [TAL(x), TAU(x)], [IAL(x), IAU(x)], [FAL(x),
So, FAU(x)]> : x  U}
0  TN(P) (x)  I N(P) (x)  FN(P) (x)  3 The lower approximation AR and the upper approximation
A R of A in the Pawlak approximation space (U, R) are
and
0T (x)  I (x)  F (x)  3 expressed as follows:
N(P) N(P) N(P)
A R = {<x, [  y[x] {TAL (y)}, y [x] {TA (y)}],
Here  and  denote “max” and “min” operators [  y[x] {I AL (y)},
R

{I A (y)}],
respectively,TP(y), IP(y) and FP(y) are the membership , R
L
y [x]

## indeterminacy and non-membership of Y with respect to [  y[x] {F (y)},  y A [x]

{FA (y)}]> : x  U}
R
P. A R = {<x, [  y[x] {T (y)}, L
{TA (y)}],
A y [x]
Thus NS mapping, R

## [  y[x] {I AL (y)}, {I A (y)}],

N, N : N(Y)  N(Y) are, respectively, referred to as the R
y [x]
[  y[x] {FAL (y)},  y {FA (y)}]> : x  U}
lower and upper rough NS approximation operators, and R
[x]

the pair (N(P), N(P)) is called the rough neutrosophic set The symbols  and  indicate “min” and “max”
operators respectively. R denotes an equivalence relation
in (Y, R).
for interval neutrosophic set A. Here [x]R is the
2.3 Interval rough neutrosophic set equivalence class of the element x. It is obvious that
Interval rough neutrosophic set (IRNS) [22] is the hybrid [  y[x] {TAU (y)},  y [x] {TA (y)}]  [0,1],
structure of rough sets and interval neutrosophic sets.
R

## [  y[x] {I A (y)},  y [x]

{I LA (y)}]  [0,1],
According to Broumi and Smarandache, IRNS is the R

generalizations of interval valued intuitionistic fuzzy rough [  y[x] {FA (y)},  y [x]
{FAL (y)}]  [0,1].
R

{I AU (y)} 
R

R

## Let R be an equivalence relation on the universal set

U.Then the pair (U, R) is called a Pawlak Then AR is an interval neutrosophic set (INS)
approximationspace. An equivalence class of R containing Similarly, we have
x will bedenoted by [x]R for X  U, the lower and upper
[  y[x] {TAL (y)},  y {TA (y)}]  [0,1],
approximationof X with respect to (U, R) are denoted by R
[x]
L
respectively [  y[x] {I (y)},  y
A [x]
{I A (y)}]  [0,1],
R
L
RX and RX and are defined by [  y[x] {F (y)},  y
A [x]
{FA (y)}]  [0,1] and
R

RX = {x  U : [x]R  X },
U
0   y[x] {T (y)}   y A [x]
{I A (y)} 
R
U
RX = { x  U : [x]R  X ≠ Ø}.  y[x] {F (y)}] 3A
R

## Now if RX = RX , then X is called definable; otherwise Then AR is an interval neutrosophic set.

Xis called a rough set. If AR = A R then A is a definable set, otherwise A is an
Definition 2.3.2 interval valued neutrosophic rough set. Here, AR and A R
Let U be a universe and X, a rough set in U. An are called the lower and upper approximations of interval
intuitionistic fuzzy rough set A in U is characterized by a neutrosophic set with respect to approximation space (U,R)
membership function μA:U→ [0, 1] and non-membership respectively. AR and A R are simply denoted by A and
functionνA: U→ [0, 1] such that μA(RX)=1and νA(RX) = 0
A respectively.
ie, [μA (x),νA (x)]=[1,0] if x∈ (RX) and μA(U− R X)= 0,
νA(U− R X)=1
ie,

Surapati Pramanik, Rumi Roy, Tapan Kumar Roy, Florentin Smarandache, Multi-attribute Decision Making Based on
Several Trigonometric Hamming Similarity Measures under Interval Rough Neutrosophic Environment
Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 19, 2018 113

## 2.4 Hamming distance 3. cos(M,N) = cos(N,M).

Hamming distance between two neutrosophic sets Proof:
M  (TM ( x), I M ( x), FM ( x)) and N  (TN ( x), I N ( x), FN ( x)) is
1. Since the functions
defined as TM ( x), I M ( x), FM ( x), TN ( x), I N ( x) and FN (x)
H (M , N )  the value of the cosine function are within [0, 1], the
1 n similarity measure based on interval rough neutrosophic
 ( TM ( xi )  TN ( xi )  I M ( xi )  I N ( xi ) cosine Hamming similarity function also lies within [ 0, 1].
3 i 1
Hence 0  cos (M,N)  1.
 FM ( xi )  FN ( xi ) ).
This completes the proof.
2. For any two RNSs M and N, if M = N, then the
3. Cosine Hamming Similarity Measure of IRNS following relations hold
TM ( xi )  TN ( xi ), I M ( xi )  I N ( xi ),
Assume that
FM ( xi )  FN ( xi ).
M  { x i , ([TiM

, TiM

],[IiM

, IiM

],[FiM

, FiM

], Hence,
[TiM

, TiM

],[IiM

, IiM

],[FiM

, FiM

]  : i  1, 2,..., n} TM ( xi )  TN ( xi )  0, I M ( xi )  I N ( xi )  0,

## and FM ( xi )  FN ( xi )  0.

N  { x i ,[TiN , TiN ],[IiN

, IiN

],[FiN , FiN ], Thus cos(M,N) = 1
[T , T ],[I , I ],[F , F ]  :i  1, 2,..., n}
      Conversely,
iN iN iN iN iN iN
in X = {x1, x2, …, xn}be any two IRNSs. A cosine If cos(M,N) = 1, then
Hamming similarity operator between IRNS M and N is TM ( xi )  TN ( xi )  0, I M ( xi )  I N ( xi )  0,
defined as follows:
FM ( xi )  FN ( xi )  0.
1 n 
cos(M, N)   cos( ( TM (x i )  TN (x i )  Since cos(0) = 1. So we can write
n i 1 6
I M (x i )  I N (x i )  FM (x i )  FN (x i ) )). TM ( xi )  TN ( xi ), I M ( xi )  I N ( xi ),
FM ( xi )  FN ( xi ).
Hence M = N.
(TiM

 TiM

 TiM

 TiM

)
TM (x i )  , 3. As
4 1 n 
(I 
I 
 IiM

 IiM

) cos(M, N)   cos( ( TM (x i )  TN (x i ) 
iM iM n i 1 6
I M (x i )  , I M (x i )  I N (x i )  FM (x i )  FN (x i ) ))
4
(FiM

 FiM

 FiM

 FiM

) 1 n 
  cos( ( TN (x i )  TM (x i ) 
FM (x i )  , n i 1 6
4 I N (x i )  I M (x i )  FN (x i )  FM (x i ) ))
(TiN  TiN  TiN  TiN )  cos(N, M)
TN (x i )  ,
4 This completes the proof.
(I  I  IiN

iN

 IiN

iN
)
I N (x i )  , 4. Sine Hamming Similarity Measure of IRNS
4
(FiN  FiN  FiN  FiN ) Assume that
FN (x i )  .
4 M  { x i , ([TiM

, TiM

],[IiM

, IiM

],[FiM

, FiM

],
Properties 3.1 [TiM

, TiM

],[IiM

, IiM

],[FiM

, FiM

]  : i  1, 2,..., n}
The defined rough neutrosophic cosine hamming similarity and
operator cos(M, N) between IRNSs M and N satisfies the N  { x i ,[TiN , TiN ],[IiN

, IiN

],[FiN , FiN ],
following properties:
1. 0  cos (M,N)  1. [TiN , TiN ],[IiN

, IiN

],[FiN , FiN ]  :i  1, 2,..., n}
2. cos(M,N) = 1 if and only if M = N.
114 Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 19, 2018

in X = {x1, x2, …, xn}be any two IRNSs. A sine Hamming TM ( xi )  TN ( xi )  0, I M ( xi )  I N ( xi )  0,
similarity operator between IRNS M and N is defined as
follows: FM ( xi )  FN ( xi )  0.
1 n  Thus sin(M,N) = 1
sin(M, N)  1  [  sin( ( TM (x i )  TN (x i ) 
n i 1 Conversely,
I M (x i )  I N (x i )  FM (x i )  FN (x i ) ))].
If sin(M,N) = 1, then
TM ( xi )  TN ( xi )  0, I M ( xi )  I N ( xi )  0,
Here,
FM ( xi )  FN ( xi )  0.
    Since sin(0) = 1. So we can write
(TiM  TiM  TiM  TiM )
TM ( xi )  , TM ( xi )  TN ( xi ), I M ( xi )  I N ( xi ),
4
FM ( xi )  FN ( xi ).
   
( I iM  I iM  I iM  I iM ) Hence M = N.
I M ( xi )  ,
4 3. As
    1 n 
( FiM  FiM  FiM  FiM ) sin(M, N)  1  [  sin( ( TM (x i )  TN (x i ) 
FM ( xi )  , n i 1
4 I M (x i )  I N (x i )  FM (x i )  FN (x i ) ))]
(TiN  TiN  TiN  TiN ) 1 n 
 1  [  sin( ( TN (x i )  TM (x i ) 
TN ( xi )  , n i 1
4 I N (x i )  I M (x i )  FN (x i )  FM (x i ) ))]
   
( I iN  I iN  I iN  I iN )  sin(N, M).
I N ( xi )  ,
4 This completes the proof.
( FiN  FiN  FiN  FiN )
FN ( xi )  . 5. Cotangent Hamming Similarity Measure of
4 IRNS
Properties 4.1 Assume that
The defined rough neutrosophic sine hamming similarity M  { x i , ([TiM

, TiM

],[IiM

, IiM

],[FiM

, FiM

],
operator sin (M, N) between IRNSs M and N satisfies the [TiM

, TiM

],[IiM

, IiM

],[FiM

, FiM

]  : i  1, 2,..., n}
following properties:
1. 0  sin (M,N)  1. and
2. sin (M,N) = 1 if and only if M = N. N  { x i ,[TiN , TiN ],[IiN

, IiN

],[FiN , FiN ],
3. sin (M,N) = sin (N,M). [TiN , TiN ],[IiN

, IiN

],[FiN , FiN ]  :i  1, 2,..., n}
Proof: in X = {x1, x2, …, xn}be any two IRNSs. A cosine
Hamming similarity operator between IRNS M and N is
1.Since the functions
defined as follows:
TM ( x), I M ( x), FM ( x), TN ( x), I N ( x) and FN (x)
the value of the sine function are within [0,1], the cot(M, N) 
similarity measure based on interval rough neutrosophic 1 n  
cosine Hamming similarity function also lies within [ 0,1].  cot(  ( TM (x i )  TN (x i ) 
n i 1 4 12
Hence 0  sin (M,N)  1. I M (x i )  I N (x i )  FM (x i )  FN (x i ) )).
This completes the proved.
2.For any two RNSs M and N, if M = N, then the Here,
following relations hold
TM ( xi )  TN ( xi ), I M ( xi )  I N ( xi ), (TiM

 TiM TiM TiM )
TM (x i ) ,
FM ( xi )  FN ( xi ). 4
Hence, (IiM

 IiM IiM IiM )
IM (x i ) ,
4

Surapati Pramanik, Rumi Roy, Tapan Kumar Roy, Florentin Smarandache, Multi-attribute Decision Making Based on
Several Trigonometric Hamming Similarity Measures under Interval Rough Neutrosophic Environment
Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 19, 2018 115

(FiM

 FiM

 FiM

 FiM

) 6. Decision making under trigonometric interval
FM (x i )  , rough neutrosophic Hamming similarity
4 measures
(TiN  TiN  TiN  TiN )
TN (x i )  , In this section, we apply interval rough cosine, sine and
4 cotangent Hamming similarity measures between IRNSs to
(IiN

 IiN

 IiN

 IiN

) the multi-attribute decision making problem. Consider
I N (x i )  ,
4 C={C1,C2, ... ,Cm} be the set of attributes and A={A1,A2, ...
(F  F  FiN  FiN )
   , An} be a set of alternatives. Now we provide an algorithm
iN iN
FN (x i )  . for MADM problems involving interval rough
4 neutrosophic information.
Properties 5.1 Algorithm 1. (see Fig 1)

The defined rough neutrosophic cosine hamming similarity Step 1: Construction of the decision matrix with interval
operator cot(M, N) between IRNSs M and N satisfies the rough neutrosophic number
following properties: Decision maker considers the decision matrix with respect
1. cot(M, N) = 1 if and only if M = N. to m alternatives and n attributes in
2. cot(M, N) = cot(N, M). terms of interval rough neutrosophic numbers as follows:

## Proof: Table1: Interval Rough neutrosophic decision matrix

 Z11 Z12 ... ... ... Z1m 
1.For any two RNSs M and N, if M = N, then the  Z Z ... ... ... Z 
following relations hold  21 22 2m

TM ( xi )  TN ( xi ), I M ( xi )  I N ( xi ), FM ( xi )  FN ( xi ). D=<Zij>nxm=  ... ... ... ... ... ... 
 ... ... ... ... ... ... 
Hence,  ... ... ... ... ... ... 
TM ( xi )  TN ( xi )  0, I M ( xi )  I N ( xi )  0,  Zn1 Zn 2 ... ... ... Znm 
FM ( xi )  FN ( xi )  0. Where
Thus cot(M,N) = 1 Zij = <( [TiM 
, TiM

],[IiM

, IiM

],[FiM

, FiM

],
with
Conversely, [TiM , TiM ],[IiM , IiM ],[FiM , FiM ])>
     

## If cot(M,N) = 1, then 0   y[x] R {TAU (y)}   y[x] R {I U

A (y)}   y[x] R {FA (y)}]  3
U

## TM ( xi )  TN ( xi )  0, I M ( xi )  I N ( xi )  0, Step 2: Determination of the ideal alternative

FM ( xi )  FN ( xi )  0. Generally, the evaluation attribute can be categorized into
two types: benefit type attribute and cost type attribute. We
 define an ideal alternative S* .
Since cot( ) = 1. So we can write
4 For benefit type attribute,
TM ( xi )  TN ( xi ), I M ( xi )  I N ( xi ), S*=
FM ( xi )  FN ( xi ). {(min i Tij , max i I ij , max i Fij ), (maxi Tij , min i I ij , min i Fij )} .
Hence M = N.
For cost type attribute,
2. As,
S*=
1 n  
cot(M, N)   cot(  ( TM (x i )  TN (x i )  {(maxi Tij , min i I ij , min i Fij ), (min i Tij , max i I ij , max i Fij )} .
n i 1 4 12
I M (x i )  I N (x i )  FM (x i )  FN (x i ) )) Step 3: Determination of the interval rough trigonometric
neutrosophic Hamming similarity function of the
1 n   alternatives
  cot(  ( TN (x i )  TM (x i ) 
n i 1 4 12 We compute interval rough trigonometric neutrosophic
I N (x i )  I M (x i )  FN (x i )  FM (x i ) )) similarity measure between the ideal alternative S* and
 cot(N, M). each alternative Zi = <Zij>nxm for all i = 1, ….., n and j = 1,
….., m.
This completes the proof.
Step 4: Ranking the alternatives

Surapati Pramanik, Rumi Roy, Tapan Kumar Roy, Florentin Smarandache, Multi-attribute Decision Making Based on
Several Trigonometric Hamming Similarity Measures under Interval Rough Neutrosophic Environment
116 Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 19, 2018

## Using the interval rough trigonometric neutrosophic

similarity measure between each alternative and the ideal C1 C2 C3 C4
alternative, the ranking order of all alternatives can be
determined and the best alternative is selected with the
highest similarity value.
Step 5: End. S1 <([.6, .7], <([.5, .7], <([.5, .6], <([.8, .9],
Start [.3, .5], [.3, .4], [.4, .5], [.3, .4],
[.3, .4]), [.1, .2]), [.4, .6]), [.5, .6]),
([.8, .9], ([.7, .9], ([.7, .8], ([.7, .8],
Set the attributes(in terms of IRNSs) [.1, .3], [.3, .5], [.2, .4], [.3, .5],
[.1, .2])> [.3, .4])> [.3, .4])> [.3, .5])>

## Construct the decion matrices

S2 <([.7, .8], <([.6, .7], <([.5, .7], <([.7, .8],
[.2, .3], [.1, .2], [.2, .3], [.3, .5],
Determine the ideal alternative [.0, .2]), [.0, .2]), [.1, .2]), [.1,.3]),
([.7, .9], ([.6, .7], ([.6, .9], ([.5, .7],
[.1, .2], [.1, .3], [.3, .5], [.5, .6],
[.1, .2])> [.1, .3])> [.2 .4])> [.2, .3])>
Calculate the interval rough trigonometric
neutrosophic Hamming similarity
measures
S3 <([.6, .7], <([.5, .7], <([.6, .8], <([.4, .7],
[.3, .4], [.2, .4], [.2, .4], [.2, .4],
Rank the alternative [.0, .3]), [.2, .4]), [.3, .4]), [.4, .5]),
([.6, .9], ([.6, .8], ([.6, .8], ([.5, .8],
[.1, .2], [.1, .3], [.2, .5], [.2, .5],
[.1, .2])> [.1, .2])> [.3, .5])> [.0, .2])>
End

## Fig 1. A flowchart of the proposed decision making

method Step 2: Determine the benefit type attribute and cost type
attribute
7. Numerical example Here three benefit type attributes C1, C2, C3 and one cost
type attribute C4. We calculate the ideal alternative as
Assume that a decision maker intends to select the most follows:
suitable laptop for random use from the three initially
S* 
chosen laptops (S1, S2, S3) by considering four attributes
namely: features C1, reasonable price C2, customer care C3, { ([.6, .7],[.3, .5],[.3, .4]),([.8, .9],[.1, .2],[.1, .2]) ,
risk factor C4. Based on the proposed approach discussed  ([.5, .7],[.3, .4],[.2, .4]),([.7, .9],[.1, .3],[.1, .2]) ,
in section 5, the considered problem is solved by the  ([.5, .6],[.4, .5],[.4, .6]),([.7, .9],[.2, .4],[.2, .4]) ,
following steps:
 ([.8, .9],[.2, .4],[.1, .3]),([.5, .7],[.5, .6],[.3, .5]) ) }
Step1: Construct the decision matrix with interval rough
neutrosophic number Step3: Calculate the interval rough trigonometric
neutrosophic Hamming similarity measure of the
The decision maker construct the decision matrix with
alternatives
respect to the three alternatives and four attributes in terms
of interval rough neutrosophic number. cos(S1 ,S* )  0.999998923,
cos(S1 ,S* )  0.999997135,
cos(S1 ,S* )  0.999998505,
sin(S1 ,S* )  0.999531651,
sin(S1 ,S* )  0.997658256 ,

Surapati Pramanik, Rumi Roy, Tapan Kumar Roy, Florentin Smarandache, Multi-attribute Decision Making Based on
Several Trigonometric Hamming Similarity Measures under Interval Rough Neutrosophic Environment
Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 19, 2018 117

## sin(S1 ,S* )  0.998343644 , [6] G. Cantor. Über unendliche, lineare Punktmannigfaltigkeiten

V [On infinite, linear point-manifolds(sets)]. Mathematische
cot(S1 ,S* )  70.25049621, Annalen, 21 (1883), 545–591.
cot(S1 ,S* )  67.22363275, [7] L. A. Zadeh. Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8(3)
cot(S1 ,S* )  68.81008448. (1965), 338-353.
[8] K. T. Atanassov. Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets and
Step 4: Rank the alternatives Systems, 20(1) (1986), 87-96.
Ranking of alternatives is prepared based on the [9] H. Wang, F. Smarandache, Y. Q. Zhang and R. Sunderraman.
descending order of similarity measures. The highest value Single valued neutrosophic sets. Multispace and
Multistructure, 4 (2010), 410-413.
reflects the best alternatives.
[10] S. Broumi, F. Smarandache and M. Dhar. Rough
Here, neutrosophic sets. Italian Journal of Pure and Applied
cos(S1 , S*)> cos(S3 , S*)> cos(S2 , S*). Mathematics, 32 (2014), 493-502.
sin(S1 , S*)> sin(S3 , S*)> sin(S2 , S*). [11] S. Broumi, F. Smarandache and M. Dhar. Rough
cot(S1 , S*)> cot(S3 , S*)> cot(S2 , S*). neutrosophic sets. Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, 3 (2014),
60-66.
Hence, the laptop S1 is the best alternative for random use. [12] Z. Pawlak. Rough sets. International Journal of Information
and Computer Sciences, 11(5) (1982), 341-356.
8. Conclusions
[13] D. Dubios and H. Prade. Rough fuzzy sets and fuzzy rough
In this paper, we have proposed interval rough sets. International Journal of General System, 17
trigonometric Hamming similarity measures and proved (1990),191-208.
their properties. We have developed three MADM [14] S. Nanda, and S. Majumdar. Fuzzy rough sets. Fuzzy Sets
strategies base on sine, cosine and cotangent similarity and Systems, 45 (1992), 157–160.
[15] K. V. Thomas and L. S. Nair. Rough intuitionistic fuzzy sets
measures under interval rough neutrosophic environment. in a lattice. International Mathematics Forum, 6 (27) (2011),
Then we solved an illustrative numerical example to 1327-1335.
demonstrate the feasibility, applicability of the developed [16] K. Mondal and S. Pramanik. Rough neutrosophic multi-
attribute decision-making based on grey relational analysis.
strategies. The concept presented in this paper can be
Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, 7 (2015), 8-17.
applied other multiple attribute decision making problems [17] S. Pramanik and K. Mondal. Cosine similarity measure of
such as teacher selection [30, 31, 32], school selection rough neutrosophic sets and its application in medical
[33], weaver selection [34, 35, 36], brick field selection diagnosis. Global Journal of Advanced Research, 2(1)
(2015), 212-220.
[37, 38], logistics center location selection [39, 40], data
[18] S. Pramanik and K. Mondal. Some rough neutrosophic
mining [41] etc. under interval rough neutrosophic similarity measure and their application to multiattribute
environment. decision making. Global Journal of Engineering Science and
Research Management, 2(7) (2015), 61-74.

## [19] K. Mondal and S. Pramanik. Rough neutrosophic multi-

References attribute decision-making based on rough accuracy score
function. Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, 8 (2015), 16-22.
[1] F. Smarandache. A unifying field in logics, neutrosophy: [20] S. Pramanik and K. Mondal. Cotangent similarity measure of
neutrosophic probability, set and logic. AmericanResearch rough neutrosophic sets and its application to medical
Press, Rehoboth, (1998). diagnosis. Journal of New Theory, 4 (2015), 90-102.
[2] F. Smarandache. Linguistic paradoxes and tautologies. [21] K. Mondal, S. Pramanik and F. Smarandache. Several
Libertas Mathematica, University of Texas at Arlington, IX trigonometric Hamming similarity measures of rough
(1999), 143-154. neutrosophic sets and their applications in decision making.
[3] F. Smarandache. A unifying field in logics: neutrosophic New Trends in Neutrosophic Theory and applications, 1,
logics. Multiple Valued Logic, 8(3) (2002), 385-438.
2016, 93-103.
[4] F. Smarandache. Neutrosophic set- a generalization of
intuitionistic fuzzy sets. International Journal of Pure and [22] S. Pramanik, R. Roy, T. K. Roy and F. Smarandache. Multi
Applied Mathematics, 24(3) (2005), 287-297. criteria decision making using correlation coefficient under
[5] F. Smarandache. Neutrosophic set-a generalization of rough neutrosophic environment. Neutrosophic Sets and
intuitionistic fuzzy set. Journal of Defense Resources Systems, 17 (2017), 29-38.
Management, 1(1) (2010), 107-116.
[23] S. Pramanik, R. Roy, and T. K. Roy. Multi criteria decision
making based on projection and bidirectional projection
measures of rough neutrosophic sets. In F. Smarandache, &

Surapati Pramanik, Rumi Roy, Tapan Kumar Roy, Florentin Smarandache, Multi-attribute Decision Making Based on
Several Trigonometric Hamming Similarity Measures under Interval Rough Neutrosophic Environment
118 Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, Vol. 19, 2018

S. Pramanik(Eds.), New Trends in Neutrosophic Theory and [35] P. P. Dey, S. Pramanik and B. C. Giri. An extended grey
Applications, Vol. II. Brussels: Pons Editions. In Press. relational analysis based interval neutrosophic multi-
attribute decision making for weaver selection. Journal of
[24] K. Mondal, S. Pramanik, and F. Smarandache. Multi New Theory, 9 (2015), 82-93.
attribute decision making based on rough neutrosophic [36] P. P. Dey, S. Pramanik and B.C. Giri. Extended projection
variational coefficient similarity measure. Neutrosophic Sets based models for solving multiple attribute decision making
and Systems, 13 (2016), 3-17. problems with interval valued neutrosophic information. In
[25] K. Mondal, S. Pramanik, and F. Smarandache. Rough F. Smarandache, & S. Pramanik (Eds.), New Trends in
Neutrosophic Theory and Applications, Brussels: Pons
neutrosophic TOPSIS for multi-attribute group decision
Edition, 2016, 127-140.
making. Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, 13 (2016), 105-
117. [37] K. Mondal and S. Pramanik. Intuitionistic fuzzy multi
criteria group decision making approach to quality-brick
[26] K. Mondal, and S. Pramanik. Tri-complex rough
selection problem. Journal of Applied Quantitative Methods
neutrosophic similarity measure and its application in multi-
attribute decision making. Critical Review, 11 (2015), 26- 9 (2) (2014), 35-50.
[38] K. Mondal and S. Pramanik. Neutrosophic decision making
40.
model for clay-brick selection in construction field based on
[27] S. Broumi and F. Smarandache. Interval neutrosophic rough grey relational analysis. Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, 9
sets. Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, 7 (2015), 23-31.
(2015), 72-79.
[28] H. Wang, F. Smarandache, Y. Q. Zhang and R.
Sunderraman. Interval neutrosophic sets and logic: theory [39] S. Pramanik, S. Dalapati, and T. K. Roy. Logistics center
and applications in computing. Hexis, Phoenix, (2005). location selection approach based on neutrosophic multi-
[29] S. Pramanik, R. Roy, T. K. Roy and F. Smarandache. Multi criteria decision making. New Trends in Neutrosophic
attribute decision making strategy on projection and Theories and Applications, Pons-Editions, Brussels, 2016,
bidirectional projection measures of interval rough 161-174.
neutrosophic sets. Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, 19 [40] S. Pramanik, S. Dalapati, and T. K. Roy. Neutrosophic
(2018). Accepted for publication. multi-attribute group decision making strategy for logistics
center location selection. In F. Smarandache, M. A. Basset,
[30] S. Pramanik, and D. Mukhopadhyaya. Grey relational & V. Chang (Eds), Neutrosophic Operational Research
analysis based intuitionistic fuzzy multi-criteria group Volume III, Brussels: Pons asbl, 2016, 13-32.
decision-making approach for teacher selection in higher [41] K. Mondal, S. Pramanik, and B. C. Giri. Role of
education. International Journal of Computer Applications, Neutrosophic Logic in Data Mining. New Trends in
34 (2011), 21-29. Neutrosophic Theory and Application, Pons-Editions,
[31] K. Mondal and S. Pramanik. Multi-criteria group decision Brussels, 2016, 15-23.
making approach for teacher recruitment in higher education [45] Abdel-Basset, M., Mohamed, M., Smarandache, F., &
under simplified Neutrosophic environment. Neutrosophic Chang, V. (2018). Neutrosophic Association Rule Mining
Sets and Systems, 6 (2014), 28-34. Algorithm for Big Data Analysis. Symmetry, 10(4), 106.
[32] S. Pramanik, R. Roy, and T. K. Roy. Teacher Selection
Strategy Based on Bidirectional Projection Measure in [46] Abdel-Basset, M., & Mohamed, M. (2018). The Role of
Neutrosophic Number Environment. In F. Smarandache, M. Single Valued Neutrosophic Sets and Rough Sets in Smart
Abdel – Basset & V. Chang(Eds.), Neutrosophic City: Imperfect and Incomplete Information Systems.
Operational Research, Vol. II. Brussels: Pons Editions. Measurement. Volume 124, August 2018, Pages 47-55
2017. [47] Abdel-Basset, M., Gunasekaran, M., Mohamed, M., &
[33]K. Mondal and S. Pramanik. Neutrosophic decision making Smarandache, F. A novel method for solving the fully
model of school choice. Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, 7 neutrosophic linear programming problems. Neural
(2015), 62-68. Computing and Applications, 1-11.
[34] P. P. Dey, S. Pramanik and B. C. Giri. Multi-criteria group
decision making in intuitionistic fuzzy environment based [48] Abdel-Basset, M., Manogaran, G., Gamal, A., &
on grey relational analysis for weaver selection in Khadi Smarandache, F. (2018). A hybrid approach of neutrosophic
institution. Journal of Applied and Quantitative Methods, 10 sets and DEMATEL method for developing supplier selection
(4) (2015), 1-14. criteria. Design Automation for Embedded Systems, 1-22.
[49] Abdel-Basset, M., Mohamed, M., & Chang, V. (2018).
NMCDA: A framework for evaluating cloud computing
services. Future Generation Computer Systems, 86, 12-29.

## Received : January 16, 2018. Accepted : March 21, 2018.

Surapati Pramanik, Rumi Roy, Tapan Kumar Roy, Florentin Smarandache, Multi-attribute Decision Making Based on
Several Trigonometric Hamming Similarity Measures under Interval Rough Neutrosophic Environment