Mathematics of Fuzzy Sets: Logic, Topology, and Measure Theory

MATHEMATICS OF FUZZY
SETS
LOGIC, TOPOLOGY, AND MEASURE

THEORY
THE HANDBOOKS
OF FUZZY SETS SERIES
Series Editors
Didier Dubois and Henri Prade
IRIT, Universite Paul Sabotier, Toulouse, France
FUNDAMENTALS OF FUZZY SETS, edited by Didier Dubois and Henri Prade

MATHEMATICS OF FUZZY SETS: Logic, Topology, and Measure Theory, edited
by Ulrich Höhle and Stephen Ernest Rodabaugh
FUZZY SETS IN APPROXIMATE REASONING AND INFORMATION
SYSTEMS, edited by James C. Bezdek, Didier Dubois and Henri Prade
FUZZY MODELS AND ALGORITHMS FOR PATTERN RECOGNITION AND
IMAGE PROCESSING, by James C. Bezdek, James Keller, Raghu Krisnapuram
andNikhil R. Pal
FUZZY SETS IN DECISION ANALYSIS, OPERATIONS RESEARCH AND
STATISTICS, edited by Roman Slowinski
FUZZY SYSTEMS: Modeling and Control, edited by Hung T. Nguyen and Michio
Sugeno
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS OF FUZZY TECHNOLOGIES, edited by Hans-
Jürgen Zimmermann
MATHEMATICS OF FUZZY
SETS
LOGIC, TOPOLOGY, AND MEASURE
THEORY
edited by
ULRICH HÖHLE
Fachbereich Mathematik
Bergische Universität, Wuppertal, Germany
and
STEPHEN ERNEST RODABAUGH

Department of Mathematics and Statistics
Youngstown State University, Youngstown, Ohio, USA
Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

....
"
Electronic Services <http://www.wkap.nl>
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Mathematics offuzzy sets : logic, topology, and measure theory /
edited by Ulrich Rohle and Stephen Emest Rodabaugh.
p. cm. -- (The handbooks offuzzy sets series ; 3)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-1-4613-7310-0 ISBN 978-1-4615-5079-2 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-1-4615-5079-2
1. Fuzzy sets. 2. Fuzzy mathematics. 1. Rohle, Ulrich.
II. Rodabaugh, Stephen Emest. III. Series: Randbooks of Fuzzy Sets
series ; FSRS 3.
QA248.5.M37 1999
511.3'22--dc21 98-45584
CIP
Copyright © 1999 by Springer Science+Business Media New York
Originally published by Kluwer Academic Publishers in 1999
AII rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a
retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, mechanical, photo-
copying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permis sion of the
publisher, Springer Science+Business Media, LLC
Printed on acid-free paper.

CONTENTS
Authors and Editors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
Foreword . . . . . . . ix
Introduction . . . . 1
1. Many-valued logic and fuzzy set theory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 5
S. Gottwald
2. Powerset operator foundations for poslat fuzzy set theories and topo-
logies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
S.E. Rodabaugh
Introductory notes to Chapter 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
U. Hohle
3. Axiomatic foundations of fixed-basis fuzzy topology. . .. 123
U. Hohle and A.P. Sostak
4. Categorical foundations of variable-basis fuzzy topology. . . . 273
S.E. Rodabaugh
5. Characterization of L-topologies by L-valued neighborhoods. . . . . . 389
U. Hohle
6. Separation axioms: Extension of mappings and embedding of spaces .. 433
T. Kubiak
7. Separation axioms: Representation theorems, compactness, and com-
pactifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 481
S.E. Rodabaugh
8. Uniform spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 553
W. Kotze
9. Extensions of uniform space notions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " 581
M.H. Burton and J. Gutierrez Garcia
10. Fuzzy real lines and dual real lines as poslat topological, uniform,
and metric ordered semirings with unity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 607
S.E. Rodabaugh
11. Fundamentals of generalized measure theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 633
E.P. Klement and S. Weber
12. On conditioning operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 653
U. Hohle and S. Weber
13. Applications of decomposable measures. . .675
E. Pap
14. Fuzzy random variables revisited .. . . 701
D.A. Ralescu
Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 711
Authors and Editors
Michael Howard Burton
Department of Mathematics
Rhodes University
Grahamstown, 6140, South Africa.
Javier Gutierrez Garda
Matematika Saila
Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea
E-48080 Bilbo, Spain.
Siegfried Gottwald
Institut fUr Logik und Wissenschaftstheorie
Universitat Leipzig
Augustusplatz 9
D-04109 Leipzig, Germany.
Ulrich Hohle
Fachbereich 7 Mathematik
Bergische Universiat Wuppertal
GauBstraBe 20
D-42097 Wuppertal, Germany.
Erich Peter Klement
Institut fur Mathematik
Johannes Kepler Unversitat Linz
A-4040 Linz, Austria.
Wesley Kotze
Depatment of Mathematics
Rhodes University
Grahamstown, 6140, South Africa.
Tomasz Kubiak
Wydzial Matematyki i Informatyki
ul. Matejki 48/49
PL-60-769 Poznan, Poland.
Endre Pap
Institute of Mathematics
21000 Novi Sad
Trg Dositeja Obradovica 4
Yugoslavia.
Dan A. Ralescu
Department of Mathematical Sciences
University of Cincinnati
Cincinnati, Ohio 45221-0025, USA.
Stephen Ernest Rodabaugh
Department of Mathematics and Statistics
Youngstown State University.
Youngstown, Ohio 44555-3609, USA.
Alexander P. Sostak
Department of Mathematics
University of Latvia
LV-1586 Riga, Latvia.
Siegfried Weber
Fachbereich Mathematik
Johannes Gutenberg-Universitat Mainz
0-55099 Mainz, Germany.
Foreword
This book, Volume 3 of the The Handbooks of Fuzzy Sets Series, is intended
to serve as a reference work for certain fundamental mathematical aspects of
fuzzy sets, including mathematical logic, measure and probability theory, and
especially general topology.
Its place in this Handbook series has a two-fold historical root: the need
for standardization, both conceptually and notationally, in the mathematics
of fuzzy sets; and the prominent role in the development of the mathematics
of fuzzy sets played by the International Seminar on Fuzzy Set Theory-also
known as the Linz Seminar-held annually since 1979 in Linz, Austria.
By the late 1980's, it was apparent to a broad spectrum of workers in fuzzy
sets that the utility of the mathematics being rapidly developed in fuzzy sets was
significantly restricted in every way by the overall incoherence of its literature,
both conceptually and notationally. In keeping with the long-standing traditions
of the Linz Seminar, many Seminar participants felt this problem should be
addressed by a reference work which would standardize definitions, notations,
and concepts, as well as make the mathematics of fuzzy sets more accessible
and usable for the world-wide scientific community. This volume, in significant
measure the work of Seminar participants, is an attempt to be such a reference
work.
Given the role which this volume was intended to play, the editors kept
always in mind the two critical criteria of a reference work: standardization and
state-of-the-art. These criteria were often intertwined: in many of the chapters
contained herein, significant new developments were sometimes necessary to
facilitate standardization. It is the editors' hope that this volume so satisfies
these two criteria that readers and workers from many backgrounds and interests
will find it a useful reference tool as well as a platform for future research.
No work of this purpose and scope can hope for any degree of success with-
out the support of many talented and committed individuals. The editors are
grateful to the editors of the Handbook series, D. Dubois and H. Prade, for the
opportunity to organize and edit this volume and for their supporting the inclu-
sion of the mathematics of fuzzy sets in the Handbook series. Deepest thanks
go to the chapter authors for their willingness to be a part of this important
project and for their willingness to write, rewrite, rewrite yet again, polish, and
enlarge their chapters to collectively produce this reference work. Appreciation
is also expressed to the editors' respective universities for the use of facilities
and secretarial and system staff help. Finally, gratitude is expressed to Mr.
Gary Folven of Kluwer Academic Publishers for his cooperation, support, and
infinite patience.
The Editors
Series Foreword
Fuzzy sets were introduced in 1965 by Lotfi Zadeh with a view to reconcile
mathematical modeling and human knowledge in the engineering sciences. Since
then, a considerable body of literature has blossomed around the concept of
fuzzy sets in an incredibly wide range of areas, from mathematics and logics
to traditional and advanced engineering methodologies (from civil engineering
to computational intelligence). Applications are found in many contexts, from
medicine to finance, from human factors to consumer products, from vehicle
control to computational linguistics, and so on. Fuzzy logic is now currently
used in the industrial practice of advanced information technology.
As a consequence of this trend, the number of conferences and publications on
fuzzy logic has grown exponentially, and it becomes very difficult for students,
newcomers, and even scientists already familiar with some aspects of fuzzy sets,
to find their way in the maze of fuzzy papers. Notwithstanding circumstan-
cial edited volumes, numerous fuzzy books have appeared, but, if we except
very few comprehensive balanced textbooks, they are either very specialized
monographs, or remain at a rather superficial level. Some are even misleading,
conveying more ideology and unsustained claims than actual scientific contents.
What is missing is an organized set of detailed guidebooks to the relevant
literature, that help the students and the newcoming scientist, having some
preliminary knowledge of fuzzy sets, get deeper in the field without wasting
time, by being guided right away in the heart of the literature relevant for her
or his purpose. The ambition of the HANDBOOKS OF FUZZY SETS is to
address this need. It will offer, in the compass of several volumes, a full picture
of the current state of the art, in terms of the basic concepts, the mathematical
developments, and the engineering methodologies that exploit the concept of
fuzzy sets.
This collection will propose a series of volumes that aim at becoming a useful
source of reference for all those, from graduate students to senior researchers,
from pure mathematicians to industrial information engineers as well as life,
human and social sciences scholars, interested in or working with fuzzy sets.
The original feature of these volumes is that each chapter is written by one or
several experts in the concerned topic. It provides introduction to the topic,
outlines its development, presents the major results, and supplies an extensive
bibliography for further reading.
The core set of volumes are respectively devoted to fundamentals of fuzzy set,
mathematics of fuzzy sets, approximate reasoning and information systems,
fuzzy models for pattern recognition and image processing, fuzzy sets in decision
analysis, operations research and statistics, fuzzy systems modeling and control,
and a guide to practical applications of fuzzy technologies.
Didier DUBOIS Henri PRADE

Toulouse
Introd uction
The mathematics of fuzzy sets is the mathematics of lattice-valued maps. Lat-

tice-valued maps play different roles and have different connotations in different
areas of mathematics.
In mathematical logic, lattice-valued maps are many-valued interpretations
of predicate symbols. This type of interpretation goes back to the work of A.
Mostowski, who was the first to apply Heyting algebra valued maps to proof-
theoretic problems of intuitionistic logic (cf. [11]). Seventeen years later, L.A.
Zadeh attached a special philosophical meaning to lattice-valued maps; in the
case of the real unit interval he interpreted [0, I)-valued maps as generalized
characteristic functions - i.e. as membership functions of a new kind of subsets,
so-called fuzzy sets (cf. [12]).
In general topology, lattice-valued maps appear in the lattice-valued con-
struction of the filter monad over SET - a concept on which, from the point
of view of neighborhood systems, the notion of topological space can be based
in a strict sense (cf. [3, 5, 6]). Here lattice-valued maps do not have imme-
diately a special meaning or only that meaning which is intrinsically related
to a special philosophical understanding of monads. If we follow E.G. Manes'
non-deterministic interpretation of monads (cf. [10]), then lattice-valued filters
can be understood as non-standard points of the respectively given topological
space. On the other hand, if we identify neighborhood systems with collections
of open subsets, then lattice-valued maps also appear in the formulation of open
lattice-valued subsets - an approach originating with the seminal work of J.A.
Goguen [4) in the early seventies, which in turn was a significant expansion of
the initial paper of C.L. Chang [2) on [0, I)-valued topologies.
In probability theory, especially in the field of measure-free conditioning,
[0, I)-valued maps appear in the representation of semisimple MV-algebras (cf.
[1]) - a structure which is usually formed by the universe of conditional events.
Here, in this context, lattice-valued maps can be understood as mathematical
formulations of conditional events.
The purpose of this volume is to contribute to the standardization of the
mathematics and notation of fuzzy sets in these three fields-mathematical logic
and foundations, general topology, and probability and measure theory-and to
do this by presenting the state of the art in a coordinated collection of carefully
selected chapters. In one volume we are not able to treat all three fields with
the same degree of completeness (e.g. in mathematical logic, the treatment of
fuzzy sets as separated presheaves over a fixed GL-monoid is completely missing
(cf. [7])). Instead, we focus special attention on the need for standardization in
lattice-valued topology by giving for the first time a comprehensive overview on
the most important lattice-valued, topological axioms together with canonical
examples and non trivial applications to fields inside of mathematics.
This volume opens with two chapters on foundations. Chapter 1 presents
various kinds of non-classical logics and their syntactic and semantic basis.
Among other things this presentation pays special attention to Godel's logic,
U. Höhle et al. (eds.), Mathematics of Fuzzy Sets

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1999
2
Hajek's product logic, Lukasiewicz' logic, Pawelka's fuzzy logic, and their ap-
plications to fuzzy set theory. Chapter 2 investigates image and pre-image
operators between fuzzy powersets, and establishes properties of powerset oper-
ators crucial to the lattice-theoretic foundations of any mathematical discipline
in which image and pre-image playa critical role.
Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 make the extraordinary attempt to give a complete
analysis of the axiomatic foundations of lattice-valued topologies in the case of
non completely distributive, complete lattices. Both chapters treat in a differ-
ent way the important problem of changing the underlying lattice. Chapter
3 is restricted to fixed-basis lattice-valued topologies and includes appropriate
convergence theories which show that the basic axioms do have non-trivial con-
sequences. Chapter 4 is devoted to the more general situation of variable-basis
lattice-valued topologies and constructs a super-category unifying the theory
of locales, fixed-basis lattice-valued topologies, and Hutton fuzzy topological
spaces; that this more general setting has non-trivial consequences can be seen
in Chapter 7. Both chapters contain sections on canonical examples related to
the theory of frames (resp. locales), the theory of the fuzzy real line, and the
theory of stochastic processes.
Chapter 5 fills the gap between probabilistic topological spaces and fuzzy
neighborhood spaces and explains their relationship to lattice-valued topologies.
Chapter 6 and Chapter 7 investigate the important role of separation axioms
within the theory of lattice-valued topological spaces with different perspectives.
Chapter 6 puts special emphasize on space embedding and mapping extension
problems, while Chapter 7 develops Stone-Cech-compactification and Stone-
representation theorems even for the variable-basis case. Both chapters carefully
present their results in light ofthe underlying lattice-theoretic bases. Comparing
Chapters 3,6, and 7, it is surprising to see there is not yet general agreement on
the underlying lattice-theoretic structure or formulation of the Hausdorff and
regularity separation axioms.
Chapter 8 and Chapter 9 present a brief introduction to the most important
concepts of lattice-valued uniformities and their properties. In comparison to the
topological situation, it is interesting to see that there exist three fundamentally
different approaches to lattice-valued uniform spaces. In the case of the real
unit interval as lattice-theoretic basis, Chapter 9 develops the basic theory of
precompact or complete, [0, I)-valued uniform spaces.
This list of topological chapters is closed by Chapter 10 which is primarily
devoted to the algebraic, topological, and uniform structures of the fuzzy real
line and fuzzy unit interval. These spaces stem from the work of B. Hutton [8, 9]
in the mid-seventies and play an important role in the study of higher separation
axioms of lattice-valued topological spaces. An overlap between Chapter 6,
Chapter 7, and Chapter 10 is therefore inevitable. A comprehensive study
of these fundamental mathematical structures is important for future research
work in the area of canonical examples in lattice-valued topology.
The remaining four chapters are dealing with measure-theoretic aspects
of lattice-valued maps. Chapter 11 lays down the foundations of generalized
measure theory, including its representation by Markov kernels. Subsequently,
3
Chapter 12 develops the important theory of conditioning operators and its

application to fundamental problems of measure-free conditioning. Further,
Chapter 13 presents the elements of pseudo-analysis and their applications to
the Hamilton-Jacobi equation and to optimization problems. Finally, Chapter
14 is a brief survey on the fundamentals of fuzzy random variables - a concept
which can be understood as a [0, 1]-valued interpretation of the theory of ran-
dom sets.
The Editors
References
[1] L. Belluce, Semisimple algebras of infinite-valued logic and Bold fuzzy set
theory, Canad. J. Math. 38 (1986), 1356-1379.
[2] C.L. Chang, Fuzzy topological spaces, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 24, 182-190.
[3] M. Frechet, Les Espaces Abstraits (Gauthier-Villars, Paris 1928, new edition
Gauthier-Villars 1951).
[4] J.A. Goguen, The fuzzy TychonofJ theorem, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 43, 734-
742.
[5] F. Hausdorff, Grundzuge der Mengenlehre (Berlin 1914) (Reprint: Chelsea
Publishing Company, New York 1965).
[6] U. Hahle, Introductory notes to Chapter 3 (in this volume).
[7] U. Hahle, Presheaves over GL-monoids, in: Non-Classical Logics and Their
Applications to Fuzzy Subsets, U. Hahle and E.P. Klement (eds.), 127-157
(Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Boston, 1995).
[8] B. Hutton, Normality in fuzzy topological spaces, J. Math. Anal. Appl.
50(1975), 74-79.
[9] B. Hutton, Uniformities on fuzzy topological spaces, J. Math. Anal. Appl.
58(1977), 559--571.
[10] E.G. Manes, Algebraic Theories (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, New
York 1976).
[11] A. Mostowski, Proofs of non-deducibility in intuitionistic functional calcu-
lus, J. Symbolic Logic 13 (1948),204-207.
[12] L.A. Zadeh, Fuzzy sets, Information and Control 8 (1965),338-353.

CHAPTER 1
Many-Valued Logic And Fuzzy Set Theory
s. GOTTWALD 1
Introduction
Rather early in the (short) history of fuzzy sets it became clear that there is
an intimate relationship between fuzzy set theory and many-valued logic. In
the early days of fuzzy sets the main connection was given by fuzzy logic - in
the understanding of this notion in those days: and this was as switching logic
within a multiple-valued setting.
In parallel, soon it became obvious that fuzzy sets quite naturally could be
discussed within the language of many-valued logic and, moreover, could be
considered as sets of a particular (naive) set theory based on a suitable many-
valued logic; cf. [29, 33].
Accordingly, the theory of fuzzy sets has given an important impetus for the
recent revival of many-valued logic. And many-valued logic, on the other hand,
retained its supporting role for the development of substantial results in fuzzy
set theory. Some of the central topics which relate fuzzy set theory and many-
valued logic shall be discussed in this chapter, essentially from the viewpoint of
many-valued logic.
With the variety of set algebraic operations for fuzzy sets, like different types
of unions and intersections, the fact is related that not only the larger sets of
truth degrees of many-valued logics, as compared with classical two-valued logic,
allow for "more" truth degree functions - the most common systems of many-
valued logic, moreover, are not functionally complete.
Therefore in many-valued logic the suitable choice of basic connectives -
which, as usual for crisp sets, also for fuzzy sets are in one-one correspondence
with set algebraic operations - becomes much more intriguing. Accordingly the
present chapter presents, after a short discussion of the basic ideas underlying
many-valued logic, just this topic as the first one.
1 Research for this paper was partly supported by the COST programs action no. 15.

6 S. Gottwald
Having determined suitable families of connectives, particular systems of

many-valued logic will be constituted by them. The most common ones among
a large variety of possible systems shall be described.
It is well known from classical logic that logical equivalence as well as prov-
able equivalence constitute congruence relations in the algebra of all well-formed
formulas, and that the quotient structures - the so-called LINDENBAUM algebras
- become BOOLEan algebras. Furthermore, logival validity in classical logic is
just validity w.r.t. all BOOLEan algebras as value structures.
In many-valued logic one has corresponding relationships between logical
systems and particular types of algebraic structures. These problems shall be
discussed immediately following the presentation of particular systems of many-
valued logic - on the level of propositional logics for simplicity.
The extension of many-valued propositional logics to first-order systems es-
sentially is a routine matter and therefore treated only in passing. Nevertheless
one has to take some care as infinitary inference rules may become necessary
to get adequate axiomatisations for the class of logically valid formulas or of
the entailment relation. And it proves to be an intriguing problem to extend
first-order many-valued logics to logics with (nontrivial) identity relations.
First-order many-valued logics are suitable tools to develop fuzzy set theory
within their language, as will be indicated with some few examples.
Fuzzy sets as a tool to treat vagueness phenomena have, however, influenced
many-valued logic also in another important way - they supported the extension
of many-valued logics to logics which allow for graded notions of entailment and
of provability: to fuzzy logics for short. And these systems of generalised many-
valued logics form the last main topic of the present chapter.
We finish this section with a brief outline:
§1 Basic ideas.
§2 Outline of the history.
§3 Characteristic connectives.
§4 Many-valued propositional logics.
§5 Algebraic structures for many-valued logics.
§6 Many-valued first-order logic.
§7 Fuzzy sets and many-valued logic.
§8 Fuzzy logic.
1 Basic ideas
1.1 From classical to many-valued logic
Logical systems in general are based on some formalised language which includes
a notion of well formed formula, and then are determined either semantically or
syntactically. .
That a logical system is semantically determined means that one has a notion
of interpretation or mode12 in the sense that w.r.t. each such interpretation every
2We prefer to use the word interpretation in general and to restrict the use of the word
Many-valued logic 7
well formed formula has some (truth) value or represents a function into the set
of (truth) values. It furthermore means that one has a notion of validity for well
formed formulas and based on it also a natural entailment relation between sets
of well formed formulas and single formulas.
That a logical system is syntactically determined means that one has a notion
of proof and of provable formula, i.e. of (formal) theorem, as well as a notion of
derivation from a set of premisses.
From a philosophical, especially epistemological point of view the semantic
aspect of (classical) logic is more basic than the syntactic one, because it are
mainly the semantic ideas which determine what are suitable syntactic versions
of the corresonding (system of) logic.
The most basic (semantic) assumptions of classical, i.e. two-valued - propo-
sitional as well as first order - logic are the principles of bivalence and of compo-
sitionality. Here the principle of bivalence is the assumption that each sentence3
is either true or false under anyone of the interpretations, i.e. has exactly one of
the truth values T and 1.., usually numerically coded by 1 and O. And the prin-
ciple of compositionality4 is the assumption that the value of each compound
well formed formula is a function of the values of its (immediate) subformulas.
The most essential consequence of the principle of compositionality is the
fact that each one of the propositional connectives as well as each one of the
(first order) quantifiers is semantically determined by a function (of suitable
arity) from the set of (truth) values into itself or by a function from its powerset
into the set themselves.
Disregarding the quantifiers for a moment, i.e. restricting the considerations
to the propositional case, the most essential (semantical) point is the determi-
nation of the truth value functions, i.e. of the operations in the truth value set
which characterise the connectives. From an algebraic point of view, hence, the
crucial point is to consider not only the set of truth values, but a whole alge-
braic structure with the truth value set as its support. And having in mind that
all the classical connectives are definable from the connectives for conjunction,
disjunction, and negation, this means to consider the set {O, I} of truth values
together with the truth functions min, max and 1 - ... of these connectives -
and this is a particular BOOLEan algebra. The semantical notion of validity
of a well formed formula H w.r.t. some interpretation now means that H has
truth value 1 at this particular interpretation. (And universal validity of course
means being valid for every interpretation.)
Generalising the notions of truth value, of interpretation and of validity
in such a way that the truth value structure may be any (nontrivial) BOOLEan
algebra B = (B, n, U, *,0,1), that an interpretation is any mapping from the set
of all propositional variables into B, the truth value functions for conjunction,
model to particular interpretations which are tied in a specific way with sets of well formed
formulas.
3By a sentence one means either any well formed formula of the corresponding formalised
propositional language or any well formed formula of the corresponding formalised first order
language which does not contain any free individual variable.
4Sometimes this principle is also named principle of extensionality.
8 S. Gottwald
disjunction, negation are chosen as n, u, *, respectively, and validity of a well

formed formula H w.r.t. a given interpretation means that H has the BOOLEan
value 1 at this interpretation.
This generalised type of interpretations can easily become extended to the
first order case: one then has to consider only complete BOOLEan algebras
and has to consider the operations of taking the infimum or supremum as the
operations corresonding to the universal or existential quantifier.
It is well known that the class of universally valid formulas of classical logic is
just the class of all formulas valid for all (nontrivial) - and complete (in the first
order case) - BOOLEan algebras as truth value structures. This fact is refered
to by saying that the class of (complete) BooLEan algebras is characteristic for
classical logic.
Many-valued logic deviates from these two basic principles only in that it
neglects the principle of bivalence. Therefore, any system 5 of many-valued
logic is characterised by a suitable formalised language Cs which comprises
• its (nonempty) family .Js of (basic) propositional connectives,
• its (possibly empty) family of truth degree constants,
• its set of quantifiers 5,
and adopts the usual way of defining the class of well formed formulas w.r.t. these
syntactic primitives, and parallel to these syntactic data by the corresponding
semantic data, i.e. by
• a (nonempty) set W S of truth degrees,
• a family of truth degree functions together with a correspondence between
these truth degree functions and the propositional connectives of the (for-
mal) language,
• a (possibly empty) family of nullary operations, i.e. of elements of the truth
degree set together with a one-one correspondence between the members
of this family and the truth degree constants of the (formal) language,
• a set of quantifier interpreting functions from ./P(WS) into W S together
with a one-one correspondence between these functions and the quantifiers
of the (formal) language.
Usually one additionally assumes that the classical truth values (or some
"isomorphic" copies of them, also coded by 1 and 0) appear among the truth
degrees of any suitable system 5 of many-valued logic:
(1)
5Each quantifier for simplicity is supposed here to be a unary one. This means that we
allow to have some kinds of generalised quantifiers in the sense of MOSTOWSKI [75] but we do
not consider the possibility to have quantifiers with more than one scope, as is allowed e.g. in
[90,33].
Many-valued logic 9
As in the case of classical logic, any system of many-valued logic can either
be semantically based or syntactically. Further on, we shall prefer to have the
systems semantically based which we are going to consider, without however
excluding syntactic foundations. This essentially also means that we usually
start from a set W S of truth degrees together with some (finitary) operations in
it, determining the truth degree functions of the basic connectives. Hence, also
for (the semantic approach toward) many-valued logics some algebraic structures
get a basic role. Unfortunately, however, there is (up to now) no single class
of algebraic structures, like the BOOLEan algebras in the case of classical logic,
which are characteristic for many-valued logic. Instead, different approaches
toward many-valued logic rely to different algebraic structures.
1.2 Truth degrees

Formally, for the systems 5 of many-valued logic there is essentially no restriction
concerning the set W S of truth degrees of 5 besides (1). Nevertheless the choice
of W S as a set of numbers (either integers or rationals or even reels) is widely
accepted use. At least as long as one is not interested to have an ordering of
the truth degrees which allows for incomparable truth degrees 6 • The existence
of incomparable truth degrees, however, may be crucial for certain particular
applications, e.g. in a situation where the truth degrees are intended to code
parallel evaluations of different points of view. To imagine such a situation
assume to be interested, in image processing, to evaluate whether a certain point
P belongs to a certain figure F, i.e. to determine the truth value of the sentence
"P is a point of F". For pure black and white pictures, the evaluation yields
one of the truth values T,..L Being instead confronted with a graytone picture,
the evaluation of this sentence may yield as truth degrees the values of some
scale which characterises the different gray levels. And being, finally, confronted
with a coloured picture, e.g. on the screen of some monitor, which consists of
(coloured) pixels which themselves are generated by superposing pixels of the
three basic colours, then it may be reasonable to evaluate the above mentioned
sentence by a truth degree which is a triple of the levels of the basic colours
which give point P.
Another widely accepted kind of approach is to assume that among the truth
degrees there is a smallest one, usually interpreted as an equivalent for the truth
value ..i, and a biggest one, usually interpreted as an equivalent for T.
Based on these common assumptions it is usually at most a simple matter
of isomorphic exchange of the structure of truth degrees to assume (1) together
with
WS ~ [0, 1] ~ JR. (2)
And this choice of the truth degree set shall be the standard one in the following
discussions.
60f course, even in such a situation one can take a set of numbers for the set of truth
degrees - and adjoin another ordering relation to these numbers than their natural ordering.
But this is rather unusual.
10 s. Gottwald
For the case of infinitely many truth degrees it is common usage to consider
either countably many or uncountably many truth degrees and furthermore to
choose either one of the truth degree sets
Wo =def {x E QIO:::; x:::; I} or Woo =def {x E ]RIO:::; x:::; I}. (3)

For the case of finite sets of truth degrees usually one additionally assumes that
these truth degrees form a set of equidistant points of the real unit interval [0, 1),
i.e. are of the kind
k
Wm =def { - -
m-l
10:::;
-
k:::;
-
m -I} (4)
for some integer m ~ 2.
1.3 Designated truth degrees

In classical logic there is a kind of superiority of the truth value T over the
other one 1.: given some well formed formula (or some set of wff) one mainly
is interested in those interpretations for the system of many-valued logic one is
working in which make the given wff true.
With the set W S of truth degrees each system 5 of many-valued logic has
its equivalent to the truth value set {T, 1.}. However, even admitting condition
(1), this does not mean that the truth degree 1 has to be the equivalent of
T. The rather vague philosophical idea that in many-valued logic one considers
some kind of "splitting" of the classical truth values does not by itself determine
which truth degrees "correspond" to T. Therefore, to determine some system
5 of many-valued logic does not only mean to fix its set of truth degrees and its
formal language, i.e. its connectives, quantifiers, predicate symbols and individ-
ual constants, together with their semantic interpretations, it also means to fix
which truth degrees "correspond" to T.
Formally this means, that with each system 5 of many-valued one connects
not only his set W S of truth degrees but also some set V S of designated truth
degrees. Of course, usually one supposes
1 E V S <;;; W S together with 0 ¢ Vs. (5)
Such a choice of designated truth degrees is of fundamental importance for the
generalisation of the notions of logical validity and of logical consequence.
A further generalisation, although not so common as the use of a set of
designated truth degrees, intends to have truth degrees which correspond to T
as well as truth degrees which correspond to 1.. Accordingly, then, one has to
distinguish positively designated truth degrees and negatively designated ones,
i.e. one has to determine two disjoint sets V S+, V s - such that
vS+ U V s - <;;; W S and V s+ n Vs - = 0
usually together with the additional assumptions
1 E V s+ and 0 E Vs- .
Many-valued logic 11
This idea of two types of designated truth degrees, mentioned e.g. in [90], seems
not to be as important as the simpler idea to have only one type of designated
truth degrees. This may depend on the fact that one usually in many-valued
logic is interested in suitable generalisations of logically valid formulas and of
logical consequences, and that the negatively designated truth degrees do not
count for these generalisations. They would, instead, become crucial if one
would intend to discuss the notion of contradiction (e.g. additionally in a context
without negation connective). But this, up to now, has not been of much
interest.
Therefore, we essentially shall restrict the considerations to the simpler case
of only one set of designated truth degrees.
1.4 Logical validity and logical consequence

Based on the notion of designated truth degrees it is essentially a routine matter
to generalise the notions of logical validity and of logical consequence to any
system 5 of many-valued logic.
Adopting the standard usage to mean by a sentence either a well formed
formula in the case of a propositional language .cs or a well formed formula
without free individual variables of a first order language .cs, one calls a sen-
tence H valid in an interpretation iff it has a designated truth degree in that
interpretation, and one calls a sentence H logically valid iff it is valid in every
suitable interpretation.
As usual, furthermore, a formula H of a first order language .cs is called
valid in a given interpretation 2(, iff it has a designated truth degree w.r.t. any
valuation of the individual variables of the language.
On the other hand, an interpretation 2( is called a model of a well formed
formula H iff this formula H is valid in 2(. And it is called a model of a set I:
of well formed formulae iff it is a model of any formula H E I:. The fact that 2(
is a model of H or I: as usual is denoted by 2( 1= H or 2( 1= I:.
Sometimes, the notion of model is generalised a bit further in many-valued
logic. Given some truth degree a and some sentence H, an interpretation 2( is
called an a-model of H iff the truth degree of H in the interpretation 2( equals a
or 7 iff it is greater or equal to a. We prefer here, to speak in the last mentioned
case of a (2:: a)-model.
Correspondingly the notion of a-model of a set of sentences is used. In this
case, the most suitable way is to call an interpretation 2( an (2:: a)-model of a
set I: of sentences iff 2( is an (2:: a)-model of each sentence H E I:.
Based on these preliminaries, the notion of logical consequence is defined
almost in the standard way, but again with mainly two slightly different basic
intuitions. For simplicity, we restrict again the considerations to sentences only.
The extension to all well formed formulas happens in many-valued logic exactly
as in classical logic.
7Both these variants are in use. One has to check the use of the term a-model in the
particular case to see which version applies.
12 S. Gottwald
One defines that a sentence H is a logical consequence of a set 1: of sentences,

usually also written 1: F H, iff
(Version 1): each model of 1: is also a model of H,
(Version 2): each (~ a)-model of 1: is also a (~ a)-model of H.
With F H as shorthand for 0 F H in any case F H means that H is logically
valid.
The checking of well formed formulas of any propositional system of many-
valued logic for being logically valid can be done in the same way as for classical
logic by determining complete truth degree tables - and this is effective provided
the set of truth degrees is finite.
Theorem 1.1 For each finitely many-valued system 5 of propositional logic the
property of being a logically valid sentence is decidable, and for each finite set
1: of sentences of 5 also the property of being a logical consequence of 1: is
decidable.
2 Outline of the history

Many-valued logic as a separate part of logic was created by the works of J.
LUKASIEWICZ [59) and E.L. POST [87) in the beginning 1920th. Admittedly,
both authors have not been the first ones which did not assume the principle
of bivalence, but earlier attempts to do logic without this principle of bivalence
did not prove to be influential8 .
The prehistory of many-valued logic, however, may be traced back up to
ARISTOTLE 9 who e.g. in his De Interpretatione, chapt. 9, discussed the problem
of future contingencies, i.e. the problem which truth value a proposition should
have today which asserts some future event. This problem was stimulating even
for J. LUKASIEWICZ [60], and it is closely tied with the philosophical problem of
determinism. The link is provided by the interpretation that the classification
of some future event as (actually) "possible" or "undetermined" may well be
seen as the acceptance of a third "truth value" besides T and..L Surely, this
reading is not the necessary one. Nevertheless, the acient philosopical school
of Epicureans which tended toward indeterminism refused the principle of biva-
lence, whereas the school of the Stoics did accept it - and strongly advocated
determinism.
The same problem of contingentia futum was also the source for several
extended discussions during the Middle Ages, cf. e.g. [61, 68, 1, 90), without
getting resolved. And in the phase of the general revival of investigations into
the field of logic during the second half of the 19th century the idea of neglecting
the principle of bivalence appeared (partly without clear mentioning of this fact)
to H. MCCOLL [65), cf. also [57], and CR.S. PEIRCE, cf. [85, vol. 4) as well as
[21, 108).
BEven the previous paper [58] of J. LUKASIEWICZ which also admitted generalised truth
"degrees" besides the traditional truth values T,..L did not influence the development of logic
toward many-valued logic in any perceivable manner.
9The interested reader may consult e.g. [60, 62, 90, 83].
The real starting phase of many-valued logic was the time interval from 1920
till about 1930, and the main force of development was the Polish school of logic
under J. LUKASIEWICZ. The papers [63, 60) as well as the influential textbook
[55), all published in 1930, explain the core ideas as well as the background
of philosophical ideas and the main technical results proven up to this time lO •
They also stimulated further research into the topic.
In [60) Lukasiewicz intends to give a modal reading to his many-valued propo-
sitionallogic, claiming that only the 3-valued and the infinite valued case (with
the set of all rationals between 0 and 1 as truth degree set) are really of interest
for applications. In [63) however all finitely many-valued propositional systems
and the just mentioned infinitely many-valued one are discussed, always based
on a negation and an implication connective as primitive ones characterised
semantically by their truth degree functions.
Basic theoretical results for systems of many-valued logics which followed
this initial phase of "Polish" many-valued logic have e.g. been
• M. WAJSBERG'S [111) axiomatisation of the three valued (propositional)
system L3 of LUKASIEWICZ, Le. of that one propositional system with
LUKASIEWICZ'S implication and negation connectives as primitive con-
nectives,
• the extension of LUKASIEWICZ's system L3 to a functionally complete one
and its axiomatisation by J. SLUPECKI [101],
• the work of K. GODEL [28) and S. JASKOWSKI [48) which clarified the
mutual relations of intuitionistic and many-valued logic in the sense that
it was proven that there does not exist a single (propositional) many-
valued system whose set of logically valid formulas coincides with the set
of logically valid formulas of intuitionistic (propositional) logic,
• the application of systems of three valued logic to the problems of logical
antinomies by BOCVAR [5, 6) with the third truth value read as "senseless",
• the application of systems of three valued logic to problems of partially
defined function by S. KLEENE [50, 51) with the third truth value read as
"undefined" .
Furthermore, during the 1940th basic approaches have been generalised and
essential results were proven by B. ROSSER and A.R. TURQUETTE in a series
of papers and later on most of this material collected in their monograph [94),
which besides the LUKASIEWICZ papers of 1930 was the standard reference for
years.
In the 1950th and 1960th then there was some decline in the interest in
many-valued logics - and at the same time some shift in the focus of what
10 As a side remark it has to be mentioned that P. BERNAYS [4] used more than the usual
two truth values of classical logic to study independence problems for systems of axioms for
systems of classical propositional calculus. But in his case these multiple values were only
formal tools for his unprovability results.
14 S. Gottwald
were considered as the more interesting problems. The decline as well as the
shift may have been caused by the same situation: the fact - mentioned in the
ROSSER/TURQUETTE monograph [94] quite open - that up to this time no really
convincing applications had been approached by the methods of many-valued
logic. The shift in interest inside many-valued logic thus happened toward
problems of definability of operations in {1, 2, ... , n} from particular sets of such
operations, i.e. toward problems connected with the functional incompleteness
of most of the then "usual" systems of connectives of (finitely) many-valued
systems of (propositional) logic. In the background, however, there was not
only the theoretical problem of functional completeness, there was (and is) also
the related problem in switching theory of sets of suitable elementary circuits
which allow to generate all the (finitary) operations in {1, 2, ... , n} by being
combined into suitable circuits - or the related problem to determine the class
of all operations which can be generated by some given ones.
3 Characteristic connectives
As customary in the language of classical logic, some types of "standard" logical
connectives get main attendance, also because of their overwhelming use in
colloquial language. These "basic" connectives usually are the connectives for
conjunction, disjunction, negation, and implication.
It is, however, even in the field of classical logic and its subsystems a still
unsolved problem to give structural criteria to characterise these different types
of connectives, i.e. to determine by structural properties what e.g. is a negation
connective or a conjunction connective. The more this is the case in many-valued
logic.
Therefore the approach can not start with general definitions what are -
in many-valued logic - e.g. conjunction connectives or negation connectives.
Instead, one has to start with the consideration of typical, i.e. characteristic
examples for these different types of connectives. Starting from such examples
and from ideas on the ordinary use of the corresponding words in everyday
communication, then of course typical properties of different types of connec-
tives can be "inferred". This shall be done now for the most common types of
connectives.
Additionally one usually assumes that any truth degree function T for some
connective which is intended to generalise some standard connective of classical
logic gives back the truth value function of just this connective as its restriction
T r {a, 1} to the argument set {O,1}.
For general considerations it even is useful to distinguish among all truth
degree functions those ones with a restriction to {a, 1} which is an operation
in {O,1}. Therefore, a truth degree function T is called normal iff one has
rg(T r {O,1}) ~ {O,1}.
Any superposition of normal truth degree functions obviously is again a
normal truth degree function. This gives immediately the
Proposition 3.1 A necessary condition for the functional completeness of a

system 5 of many-valued propositional logic is that at least one of the basic
connectives from :Js is interpreted by a non-normal truth degree function.
It is an interesting problems for many-valued propositional logics then to

find suitable sufficient conditions for functional completeness. This problem is,
obviously, covered by the larger one to find results how to determine the class
(J) of all truth degree functions (over a given set W m ) generated by any given
class J of such functions, i.e. to determine the smallest closed class of m-valued
functions containing J. And this itself is a large field of investigations, cf. e.g.
[86J.
Two of the simplest among those criteria are given in the following theorems.
Theorem 3.2 A system 5 of finitely many-valued propositional logic with truth

degree set Wm is functionally complete if the truth degree functions veil and
non2 either are truth degree functions of some of the basic connectives of 5 or
if they are definable within S.
Theorem 3.3 A system 5 of finitely many-valued propositional logic with truth

degree set Wm is functionally complete if the truth degree functions veil, etl, all
the truth degrees ll d E Wm and all the unary functions
ifu = _k_
m-l (6)
otherwise
either are truth degree functions of some of the basic connectives of 5 or if they
are definable within S.
3.1 The J-connectives

The last mentioned Theorem 3.3 gives rise to a particular type of connectives,
usually denoted J s , sEW any truth degree, and often considered in connection
with systems of many-valued logic, which correspond to truth degree functions
jm,k defined in accordance with (6) by
{ 0I ifu=s
js(u) =def (7)
otherwise
and which generalise the use of truth value constants T (true) and .1 (false) in
classical logic.
The interest in these connectives comes not only from their relationship
with the problem of functional completeness 12 but, even more, from a rather
uniform method of adequate axiomatisation of a whole class of finitely many-
valued systems, cf. Section 4.6.
llThis means, of course, the corresponding nullary functions over W m .
12 Obviously Theorem 3.3 says that the availability of these connectives, either as primitives
or as definable ones, almost suffices to have a functionally complete system.
16 S. Gottwald
3.2 Conjunction connectives

The most basic example for a truth degree function of a conjunction connective
comes from the earlier papers of LUKASIEWICZ and is also used by GODEL. It
is the (binary) function etl with the definition
etl(U,V) =def min{u, v}. (8)
Another example which also appeared already in the beginning papers by Lu-
KASIEWICZ has the more complicated definition
et2(U, v) =def max{O, u + v - I} (9)
and is known as LUKASIEWICZ (arithmetic) conjunction or bounded product,

but sometimes also called bold(face) conjunction 13 • Both these definitions are
independent of the number of truth degrees of the particular system of many-
valued logic they belong to. In the finitely many-valued systems with truth
degree sets Wm one often prefers to describe these functions using (truth degree)
tables instead of analytical formulas as done in (8), (9). In the present case for
5-valued systems this would mean to give the tables of Fig. 1.
Another type of truth degree function for a conjunction connective which can
1 1 3 1 1 3
etl 0 4" "2 4" 1 et2 0 4" "2 4" 1
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
4" 0 4" 4" 4" 4" 4" 0 0 0 0 4"
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
"2 0 4" "2 "2 "2 "2 0 0 0 4" "2
3 1 1 3 3 3 1 1 3
4" 0 4" 2" 4" 4" 4" 0 0 4" "2 4"
1 1 3 1 1 3
1 0 4" "2 4" 1 1 0 4" "2 4" 1
Figure 1: Truth table characterisations of conjunction connectives
only be used for some suitable truth degree sets is the function
et3(U, v) =def U· v. (10)
This truth degree function has seriously been considered only recently. That
may, at least partly, be caused by the fact that among the typical truth degree
sets, mentioned at the end of Section 1.2, besides the traditional truth value set
W2 only the infinite ones are closed under et3, i.e. under the product. And in
the earlier periods of many-valued logic there was a tendency to prefer truth
degree functions which can equally well be considered in the finitely as well as
in the infinitely many-valued systems.
l3The motivations for these names are historical in the first case, systematical in the second,
and essentially accidental in the third one which refers to a notation sometimes used for the
corresponding connective. The qualification "arithmetic" depends on the fact that in the
LUKASIEWICZ systems as introduced in Section 4.1 also the connective (8) is present.
These three truth degree functions are, however, only particular cases of a
much wider variety of possible candidates. Obviously, it is not of much interest
to extend this list of examples, instead one likes to have some (few) leading
principles which reasonable candidates for conjunction connectives should sat-
isfy. Actually, there is a wide agreement that such principles should be the
commutativity and associativity of the truth degree functions together with
some suitable monotonicity and borderline condition. The type of truth degree
functions thus determined are the t-norms.
Definition 3.1 A binary operation t in the real unit interval [0,1] is at-norm
iff it is
(T1) associative and commutative;
(T2) non-decreasing in the first - and hence in each - argument;
(T3) has 1 as neutral element, i.e. satisfies t(u, 1) = u for each u E [0,1].
As a corollary of this definition one immediately has that for any t-norm t
there holds true
t(u,O) = 0 for each u E [0,1]
because of t(u, 0) = t(O, u) ~ t(O, 1) = O.
In algebraic terms, each t-norm represents a semigroup operation 14 in the
unit interval [0,1] with identity 1.
The notion of t-norm appeared in the context of probabilistic metric spaces
in the work of MENGER about 1942, cf. his [67], as well as in the work of
SCHWEIZER and SKLAR, cf. [98, 99], in the context offunctional equations and
in the work of FRANK [25]. A recent monograph devoted solely to t-norms and
their applications is [54], other books which provide essential results on t-norms
are [9, 24]. A short first introduction may also be [52].
The class of all t-norms is quite large. Therefore subclasses of it are taken
into account for different reasons. One approach toward interesting subclasses
of t-norms is to impose some continuity properties: from this point of view the
most interesting subclasses are formed by the left continuous as well as by the
continuous t-norms.
Another interesting subclass is formed by the archimedean t-norms which
are characterised by the condition
t archimedean iff for all u, v E (0,1) there exists some (11)

n E N such that ut) < v
with the power notation uin) defined by
= 1,
ui n ) =def {
u
n times
if n
(12)
t(u, U, ~ .. , 'Ii) if n > 1.
14We prefer here, as later on with the t-conorms, the function notation t(u,v), but the infix
notation u t v which is more common in the algebraic context is equally usual for t-norms.
18 s. Gottwald
For continuous t-norms there is a much simpler characterisation of archimedean-

icity which for this class of t-norms often is even taken as the definition of that
property.
Proposition 3.4 A continuous t-norm t is archimedean iff t( u, u) < u holds

true for all u E (0,1).
A further important class of t-norms are the strictly monotone t-norms,

i.e. those t-norms t which as binary functions over [0,1]2 are stricly increasing
functions over (0,1)2, that means which satisfy:
u <v => t(u,w) < t(v,w). (13)
One has to be careful with terminology in this case: being strict means for a
t-norm to be continuous and stricly monotonous.
By Proposition 3.4, therefore, the strictness of a t-norm is sufficient for its
archimedeanicity. However, there are stricly monotone and left continuous t-
norms which are not archimedean. An example is the t-norm t* which is for
x, y E (0,1) given by
00
t*(x,y) =def I:(2Xn+Yn-n)-1

n=O
with reference to the binary expansions x = 2:~=o 2- Xn and y = 2:~=o 2- Yn

with infinite, strictly monotone sequences 15 (xn)n~o, (Yn)n~o, cf. [53).
Again another nice algebraic characterisation is available for the strictly
monotone t-norms:
°
at-norms t is strictly monotone iff it satisfies the cancellation law,
i.e. iff always t(u,w) = t(v,w) for w > implies u = v.
All the above mentioned truth degree functions etk, k = 1, ... ,3, are con-
tinuous t-norms. The t-norms et2 and et3 are even archimedean ones, but etl
isn't archimedean. And et3 is the only strict t-norm among them.
Two other intersting t-norms are the sometimes so-called drastic product to
defined by
t(
o u, V -def °
)- {min{u,v} ifmax{u,v}=1
ot h .
erWlse
(14)
and the nilpotent minimum tl of FODOR [23] defined by
t (
1 U, V
)-
-def °
{min{u,v} ifu+v> 1
otherwise.
(15)
The drastic product to is archimedean but not continuous, and the nilpotent
minimum tl is neither archimedean nor continuous, but left continuous.
15That means, that even rational numbers have to be described by infinite binary expan-
sions.
Obviously, one has additionally for any t-norm t the inequality
to ~ t ~ etl = min (16)
with the ordering ~ of the (binary) functions taken pointwise.

Further examples of t-norms are provided by a variety of - usually one-
parametric - families. HAMACHER [41] e.g. considers the one-parametric family
tH,,,! with parameter 'Y 2: 0 defined as
UV
tH~(U,V) (17)
,, =def
'Y + (1 - 'Y )( U + v - uv )
These t-norms contain for 'Y = 1 the (algebraic) product et3 and for 'Y -+ 00 the
drastic product to.
A problem on functional equations was the source of FRANK [25] to consider
the family
tF,s(U, v) =def logs (1+
(SU -1)(sV -
s_ 1
1)) (18)
of continuous archimedean t-norms with parameter s < 0, s =j:. 1 and the partic-
ular cases
tF,O(U,V) =def lims--+o utF,sv min{u,v},

tF,l(U,V) =def lims--+l utF,sV U· v,
tF,oo(U, v) =def lims--+ oo tF,s(U, v) max{O,u + v -I}.
YAGER [113] introduced still another family ty,p with parameter p > 0 by
ty,p(u, v) =def 1 - min {I, ((1 - u)p + (1- V)p)l/p}. (19)
For p -+ 0 these t-norms converge toward the drastic product to, and for p -+ 00
they converge toward the minimum. Additionally, for p = lone has the t-norm
et2.
A fourth family tw,>. with parameter oX > -1 was introduced by WE-
BER [112]. He defined
u + v - I + oXuv (20)
tw,>.(U,V)=defmax{O, l+oX }.
The parameter oX = 0 here gives the bounded product et2' For oX -+ -1 the
t-norms tw,>. converge toward the drastic product to. And for oX -+ 00, finally,
the t-norms tw,>. converge toward the (algebraic) product et3'
To define parametrised families of t-norms via (real) parameters is one ap-
proach toward subclasses of the class of t-norms. Another way is to refer to
some method of generation of t-norms out of simpler ones or out of some type
of generating functions. This idea turns out to work especially well for the
classes of continuous and of archimedean t-norms.
To state such a reduction result for continuous t-norms we have to introduce
the notion of ordinal sum of a family of t-norms.
20 S. Gottwald
Definition 3.2 Suppose that ([ai, bi])iEI is a countable family of non-overlap-

ping proper subintervals of the unit interval [0,1) and let (ti)iEI be a family of
t-norms. Then the ordinal sum of the combined family (([ai, bi ], ti))iEI is the
binary function T : [0,1)2 -+ [0,1) characterised by
T(u,v) = { a k. + (b k - k k (u-a.
a)t v-a.)
b.-a.' b,-a. Z
f (U,V ) E [ak, b)
k (21)
mm{u, v} otherwise.
Then from results of MOSTERT and SHIELDS [74) one gets the following theorem.
Theorem 3.5 For each continuous t-norm t one of the following cases appears:
1.t=et1=min,
2. t is archimedean ,
3. t is the ordinal sum of a family (([ai, bi ], ti))iEI of continuous archimedean
t-norms.
For continuous archimedean t-norms one has even a further type of repre-
sentation theorem. It refers to the pseudoinverse f(-l) of a function f : [0,1)-+
[0,00) which is for each non-increasing f defined for each z E [0,00) by
f(-l) (z) =def sup{x E [0,1)1 f(x) > z}

and which can for strictly decreasingand continuous functions f with f(l) = 0
be simpler characterised for each zE [0,00) by
f(-l)(Z) _ { f - 1 (z), if z E [O,f(O))

- 0, if z E (1(0),00).
Theorem 3.6 To each continuous and archimedean t-norm t there exists a con-
tinuous and monotonically decreasing function f : [0,1) -+ [0,00) with f(l) = 0
and for all u, v E [0,1)
t(u,v) = f(-l) (j(u) + f(v)). (22)
And this generating function f is uniquely determined up to a positive factor by

the archimedean t-norm t.
Conversely, each binary function is a continuous archimedean t-norm which

is given via (22) using a function f with these properties of continuity and
monotonic decreasingness. However, already if f : [0,1) -+ [0,00) has the weaker
properties to be non-increasing and to satisfy
f(u) + f(v) E rg (1) U (1(0),00)
for all u, v E [0,1), then by (22) an archimedean t-norm is determined.

The continuous archimedean t-norms themselves are determined by the strict
t-norms in the sense of the following result of LING [56).
Theorem 3.7 Each continuous and archimedean t-norm is the limit of a point-
wise convergent sequence of continuous strict t-norms.
So we may ask for another representation theorem for strict t-norms. To

state such a result we need the notion of an automorphism of the unit interval.
By such an automorphism we mean an continuous, strictly increasing surjection
of [0,1] onto itself, i.e. an automorphism of the lattice ([0,1]' min, max, 0, 1).
Then one has the following theorem.
Theorem 3.8 A continuous t-norm t is strict iff there exists an automorphism

<p of the unit interval with
(23)
The t-norm et3, the usual arithmetic product, hence is a kind of "prototype"
for the continuous and strict t-norms.
There are more such representation results for different classes of t-norms,
cf. e.g. [24, 54], which shall not be discussed here.
3.3 Negation connectives

Starting again from the historical origins, the papers of LUKASIEWICZ [59] and
POST [87] gave two particular truth degree functions for negation connectives.
LUKASIEWICZ used uniformly
(24)
for anyone of the standard truth degree sets, and POST restricting himself to
the finite valued cases considered within the truth degree set Wm the truth
degree function
I ifu=O
non2(u) =def { U -l -'-fI" Ul.0 (25)
m-l
Later on the work of GODEL added as another truth degree function for a
negation connective the function
I ifu=O
nono (U ) =def { 0 (26)
otherWlse.
.
The present discussion, however, considers POST'S cyclic operation non2 as a

non-standard, even exotic example and tends to exclude it from more general
considerations. Accordingly the following definition actually is prevalent.
Definition 3.3 A function n : [0,1] -t [0,1] is called negation function iff n

is nonincreasing and satisfies n(O) = 1 and n(l) = O. A negation function n
is called strict iff it is even stricly decreasing and continuous. And it is called
strong iff it is strict and an involution, i.e. satisfies also the condition
n(n(u» =u for all u E [0,1] (27)

22 S. Gottwald
It is interesting to remark that the inverse function n- l of each strict nega-

tion function n is again a strict negation function. And strong negation func-
tions even coincide with their inverse functions.
Regarding the previous examples, non2 is not a negation function at all
assuming m > 2, but nona is a negation function, and nonl is even a strong
negation function. Another example of a negation function which is not a strict
one is characterised by the equation
{I 1
non *(U ) =def
° 'f U <
if
lU=l.
(28)
and thus obviously a kind of dual to nona.

These two negation functions nona, non* are extreme examples in the sense
that for each negation function n it holds true
nona::;:; n ::;:; non*. (29)

An example of a strict negation function which is not also a strong one is
provided by the function non3 with
(30)
Other examples of strong negation functions are all the functions of the family
l-u
ns,>.(u) =def 1 + AU (31)
with parameter>' > -1 which M. SUGENO [103] introduced under the name of
A-complement.
For strict as well as for strong negations one has nice representation theo-
rems, cf. [22, 106].
Theorem 3.9 (i) A function n : [0,1] --+ [0,1] is a strong negation function iff
there exists an automorphism r.p of the unit interval such that
n(u) = r.p-l(1 - r.p(u» for all U E [0,1]. (32)

(ii) A function n : [0,1] --+ [0,1] is a strict negation function iff there exist
automorphisms r.p, 'ljJ of the unit interval such that
n(u) = 'ljJ(I- r.p(u» for all U E [0,1]. (33)
Strong as well as strict negation functions are hence "variants" of the nega-
tion function nonl.
Combining t-norms and negation functions allows to prove some further
interesting representation theorem for a class of particular t-norms, cf. [81, 24].
Theorem 3.10 Suppose that t is a continuous t-norm and n a strict negation

function. Then one has
t(u,n(u»=O foralluE[O,I]
iff there exists an automorphism <p of the unit interval such that for all u, v E
[0,1] one has
t(u,v) = <p-1(et2(<p(U), <p(v))) and n(u) ~ <p-1(1_ <p(u)).
Therefore, the pair et2, non1 represents in a suitable sense the "typical sit-
uation" of a continuous t-norm and a strict negation function which together
satisfy a kind of generalised "law of contradiction" .
3.4 Disjunction connectives

With the actual preliminaries two different approaches toward truth degree func-
tions for disjunction connectives are suitable. One of them is to look for reason-
able conditions such truth degree functions should satisfy - and thus to parallel
the approach toward truth degree functions for conjunction connectives. The
other one is to approach a truth degree function for a disjunction connective
from a truth degree functions for a conjunction connective and another one
for a negation connective - and to demand that some analogue of the usual
DEMoRGAN connection between these types of connectives should hold true.
There is no reasonable preference one of these approaches has over the other.
Thus we should look at both of them.
The general properties one likes to have satisfied by disjunction connectives
lead to the following class of t-conorms as truth degree functions for them.
Definition 3.4 A binary operation 8 in [0,1] is a t-conorm iff it is

(Sl) associative and commutative;
°
(S2) non-decreasing in each argument;
(S3) has as neutral element, i.e. 8(U,0) = U for each u E [0,1].
As a corollary of this definition one has that for any t-conorm 8 it holds true
8(U, 1) =1 for each u E [0,1]

because of 8(U, 1) = 8(1,u) ~ 8(1,0) = l.
In algebraic terms, each t-conorm represents a semigroup operation in the
unit interval [0,1] with identity 0.
The other approach toward truth degree functions via a DEMoRGAN con-
nection amounts to introduce some function 8 : [0, 1]2 -+ [0, 1] by defining with
reference to some negation function n and to some truth degree function t for
a conjunction connective, e.g. thus by some t-norm t
8(U, v) =def n(t(n(u), n(v))) for all u, v E [0,1] (34)

or by defining
8(U, v) =def n- 1(t(n(u), n(v))) for all u, v E [0,1] (35)

or something like.
Both these main approaches, however, coincide as the following result shows.
24 S. Gottwald
Theorem 3.11 Suppose that n is a strong negation function and that two bi-
nary oparations t, S in [0,1] are related such that
S(u, v) = n(t(n(u), n(v))) for all u, v E [0,1]
holds true. Then t is a t-norm iff S is a t-conorm.
The fact that within this theorem a strong negation function, i.e. an invo-
lutive one, is taken into account causes that (34) and (35) become equivalent.
Therefore, the particular form of the DEMoRGAN connection between t-norms
and t-conorms becomes inessential.
The standard choice of a strong negation function to connect t-norms and
t-conorms is nonl. Starting from at-norm t one then combines with it the
t-conorm
St(u,v) =def 1- t(l- u, 1- v). (36)
The main examples for truth degree functions of disjunction connectives
which ever have been discussed fir into this schema. The most popular examples
are the truth degree functions
vell(U,V) =def max{u, v}, (37)

veI2(U,V) =def min{l,u+v}, (38)
veI3(U, v) =def U + V - u . v, (39)
which are chosen in such a way that veli is related to eti via (36) for i = 1 ... , 3.
The usual names for these truth degree functions parallel the names for the
conjunction connectives: Vel2 is the LUKASIEWICZ disjunction or bounded sum,
and vel3 is the algebraic sum. With the drastic product to and the nilpotent
minimum tl in the same manner the t-conorms
So(u, v) =def
{ ~ax{u,v}, if min{u, v}
otherwise,
= ° (40)
SI(U,V) =def
{ ~ax{u,v}, ifu+v<l (41)
otherwise
are connected and correspondingly named drastic sum and nilpotent maximum.
But there are also other, extralogical aspects which relate sometimes t-norms
and t-conorms like functional equations as we mentioned already in connection
with the introduction of the FRANK family of t-norms tF,s. For them one has,
using SF,s to denote the t-conorm related with tF,s via (36), the following result.
Theorem 3.12 A continuous t-norm t and a continuous t-conorm S satisfy the

functional equation
t(u,v)+S(u,v)=u+v for allu,v E [0,1] (42)
iff one of the following conditions is satisfied:

(i) there exists some s E [0,00] such that t = tF,s and S = SF,s,
(ii) t is an ordinal sum of t-norms tF,. from the FRANK family with s >0
and s is determined via equation (42).
And all archimedean solutions of (42) have the form (t, s) = (tF,., SF,.) of t-
norms of the FRANK family and their corresponding t-conorms.
Via (36) also notions and results, like archimedeanicity or representation

theorems, which hold true for t-norms can be transfered to t-conorms. For
details we refer to [24].
3.5 Implication connectives

The last kind of truth degree functions which needs to be considered separately
are the truth degree functions for implication connectives. For biimplication
connectives, the last type of connective usually taken as (more or less) basic,
then the standard approach also in many-valued logic is to take them as suitable
conjunctions of implications.
Historically the first example of a truth degree function for an implication
connective was given by LUKASIEWICZ [59]. This function seq 2 can be charac-
terised 16 by the equation
seq 2(u, v) =def min {I, 1 - u + v}. (43)
This truth degree function as well as its corresponding connective are usually
refered to as LUKASIEWICZ implication.
Another important example was introduced by GODEL [28] and may be
characterised by
ifu<v
{ I
seq 1 (
u, )
V =def h - . (44)
v ot erWlse.
As in the case of the previous example, this truth degree function as well as its
corresponding implication connective are usually refered to as GODEL implica-
tion.
From a more general point of view, again one either looks for ways to reduce
or relate implication connectives to other ones, or one asks for general properties
any (suitable) implication connective should satisfy.
First examing ways to relate implications to other connectives, one of the
standard methods in classical logic is to reduce implication to disjunction and
negation or to conjunction and negation. And indeed the same reducibility
property is satisfied for the LUKASIEWICZ implication seq 2 because one has for
all u,v E [0,1]:
seq 2(u, v) = vel2(nonl (u), v) = non 1 (et2(u, nonl (v))). (45)
These results also give the motivation to call vel2 the LUKASIEWICZ (arithmetic)
disjunction and to call et2 the LUKASIEWICZ (arithmetic) conjunction.
16The choice of the index "2" here has a systematic background which shall become clear
soon, cf. (45).
26 s. Gottwald
The last type of reduction is impossible for the GOOEL implication, even
assuming that the negation function n involved in these formulas is a strong
one. For in such a case seq 1(n(u), v) had to be a commutative binary operation
in u, v which obviously is impossible. However, another type of reduction is
possible and one has
seq1(u,v) = sup{wI et1(U,W) ::; v}. (46)
And this reduction is a quite reasonable one. This becomes clear if one has
in mind that GOOEL'S paper [28], which introduced the truth degree function
seq 1, discussed the possible relationships of many-valued and intuitionistic logic:
in HEYTING algebras, the characteristic structures for intuitionistic logic, the
intuitionistic implication is interpreted as the pseudo complement and thus has
a characterisation like (46) which can equivalently be written as
(47)
Algebraically, this construction amounts to having via this adjunction property

(47) the GOOEL implication as the relative pseudocomplement of the lattice
([0, 1], min, max) resp. to having an adjoint pair et1, seq 1.
It is interesting and important to notice that also for the LUKASIEWICZ
implication (43) one has
(48)
Therefore also et2, seq 2 form an adjoint pair.
These examples (46), (48) indicate that the adjunction property
w::;seq(u,v) ¢:> et(u,w)::;v, (49)
i.e. the fact that et, seq form an adjoint pair, may be a characteristic connection
between a conjunction connective et and an implication connective seq.
Straightforward calculations yield that from the adjunction property (49)
one gets that the truth degree function seq is isotonic, i.e. non decreasing in the
second argument, and additionally satisfies the inequalities
et(u,seq (u,v)) ::; v and v::; seq (u,et(u,v)) (50)

which code 17 the soundness of the rule of detachment (for the implication con-
nective based on the truth degree function seq) and of a kind of rule of intro-
duction of conjunction. Particularly the availability of the inference schema of
modus ponens, i.e. of the rule of detachment, for each adjoint pair et, seq makes
this approach highly valuable.
Together, the two types of reduction (45) on the one hand and (46), (48)
resp. (49) on the other provide standard examples and motivate the following
definition. Sometimes some further types of implication functions are discussed
which shall also be introduced.
17This way of coding is the same as in classical propositional logic and based on the under-
standing that the higher truth degrees are the "better" ones.
Definition 3.5 Let some t-norm t, some t-conorm s and some strong negation
function n be given. Then the R-implication function seq t determined by t is
defined as
seq t(u, v) =def sup{ wi t(u, w) ~ v}, (51)
the S-implication function seq s,n determined by sand n is defined as
seqs,n(u,v) =def s(n(u),v), (52)

and the QL-implication function 18 seq t,s,n determined by t, s, and n is defined
as
seq t,s,n(u, v) =def s(n(u), t(u,v)). (53)
Some care is necessary, however, with the definition of the R-implications:
in the full generality as in (51) an adjoint pair t, seq t results exactly in the cases
where t is a left continuous t-norm. Therefore, this definition of R-implication
is reasonable only for left-continuous t-norms.
R-implications as well as S-implications generalise well known relationships
of classical and intuitionistic logic. From this point of view it is difficult to rank
these generalisations. There is, nevertheless, an interesting point of difference:
R-implications of left-continuous t-norms as implications coming from an adjoint
pair satisfy the generalised modus ponens principle in the form that one always
has
t(u,seqt(u,v)) ~ v, (54)
the S-implications in general do not have this property.
As a side remark, it is interesting to notice that R-implications did not only
appear in the context of intuitionistic logic, but also in connection with fuzzy
relational equations and their solutions. There SANCHEZ [95, 96) interest in
biggest solutions of fuzzy relational equations with max-min composition intro-
duced a so-called a-operation 19 which was exactly our operation seq 1. Gen-
eralising the max-min composition to max-t composition, t some t-norm, W.
PEDRYCZ [84) introduced the notion of ~-operator 'Pt (connected with t) for
a binary operation that has to satisfy the isotonicity condition for the second
argument together with further characterising conditions which exactly corre-
spond to the properties mentioned in (50). Straightforward calculations yield
also in this case that a t-norm and its corresponding ~-operator form an adjoint
pair. Therefore these ~-operators 'Pt are exactly the R-implications seq t.
Quite another approach as giving these definitions is it to have some list of
basic characteristic properties of implication operations i which collects basic
properties all suitable implication operations should have. Unfortunately, how-
ever, for implication operators actually there does not exist a commonly agreed
such list. Nevertheless, such a list was proposed by SMETS/MAGREZ [102) and
extended by different authors, cf. [24). A reasonably complete collection of such
properties consists of the following ones:
18This name QL-implication reminds an implication connective used in quantum logic.
19This a-operation is discussed also in the chapter on fuzzy relational equations in vol. 1:
Fundamentals of Fuzzy Sets of this set of handbooks.
28 s. Gottwald
1. left antitonicity: i is nonincreasing in the first argument.
2. right isotonicity: i is nondecreasing in the second argument.
3. left boundary condition: i(O,v) = 1 for all v E [0,1].

4. right boundary condition: i(u, 1) = 1 for all u E [0,1].
5. normality condition: i(l,O) = 0.
6. degree ranking property: i(u,v) =1 ¢:} u:::; v for all u,v E [0,1].
7. left neutrality: i(l, v) = v for all u E [0,1].

8. exchange principle: i(u, i(v, w)) = i(v, i(u, w)) for all u,' wv E [0,1].
9. law of contraposition: i(u,v) = i(n(v),n(u)) for all u,v E [0,1] w.r.t.

some strict negation function n.
The first five of these conditions seem to represent a kind of minimal require-
ment for suitable truth degree functions for implication connectives. Hence,
following [24], we give the
Definition 3.6 A function i : [0,1]2 -+ [0,1] is an implication function iff it

satisfies the conditions of left antitonicity and right isotonicity together with the
left and right boundary and the normality condition.
Of course, not all the properties listed above are independent. One of the
interesting results in this context is the following
Proposition 3.13 Any function i : [0, IF -+ [0,1] which satisfies the condition
of right isotonicity, the exchange principle, and which has the degree ranking
property is an implication function which satisfies also the left neutrality condi-
tion.
Even more interesting is the fact that the R-implications as well as the S-
implications have characterisations in terms of these properties, as the next tWQ
theorems show.
Theorem 3.14 A function i : [0, IF -+ [0,1] is an R-implication based on some

suitable left continuous t-norm iff it satisfies the right isotonicity condition as
well as the exchange principle, has the degree ranking property and is itself a left
continuous function in the second argument for any first argument from [0,1].
And if additionally for each u E (0,1) the function iu : [0,1] -+ [0,1] defined
by iu(y) = i(u,y) is strictly increasing on [O,u], then i is an R-implication
which is based on a continuous t-norm. 20
20The last part of this theorem was announced in [16).
Theorem 3.15 An implication function is an S-implication function w.r.t.

some strong negation function n and some suitable t-conorm iff it satisfies the
exchange principle, the law of contraposition w.r.t. n, and the left neutrality
condition.
For continuous R-implications, furthermore, the Lukasiewicz implication

seq 2 again is a kind of "prototype" as the following representation theorem
shows, cf. [24).
Theorem 3.16 A function i : [0,1)2 -+ [0,1) is continuous and satisfies the

right isotonicity condition as well as the exchange principle, and has the degree
ranking property iff there exists an automorphism 'P of the unit interval such
that
i(u,v) = 'P-1(seq 2('P(U), 'P(v))) for all u,v E [0,1).
Despite the fact that we started from truth degree functions for conjunction
and negation connectives, mainly because in these cases one widely agrees on the
basic structural properties of such connectives, also (the truth degree functions
of) implication connectives could form the starting point to derive other types
of connectives.
This is most famous in the case of negations, again following the paradigm
set by intuitionistic logic.
Theorem 3.17 Suppose that a function i : [0, IF -+ [0,1) satisfies the right
isotonicity condition and the exchange principle, and has the degree ranking
property. Then the function n : [0,1) -+ [0,1) which is defined by the equation
n(u) =def i(u,O) for all u E [0,1). (55)
has the following properties:

(i) n is a negation function.
(ii) id ~ non.
(iii) n = non 0 n.
(iv) lfn is also continuous, then it is involutive and the law of contraposition
is satisfied.
In the particular case of the Lukasiewicz negation, by (55) one gets the
negation function non 1:
nonl(u) = seq2(u,0) for all u E [0,1).
Furthermore, even the Lukasiewicz disjunction and conjunction functions are

determined by the Lukasiewicz implication:
veI2(U,V) seq2(nonl(u),v) for all u,v E [0,1]'

et2(U,V) = nonl(seQ2(u,nonl(v))) for all u,v E [0,1).
30 S. Gottwald
4 Many-valued propositional logics

Based on the previously discussed varieties of truth degree functions of connec-
tives for systems of many-valued propositional logic we now take a closer look
at different such systems which have been considered for quite different reasons.
According to our remarks in Section 1.1 the languages £s of the following
systems S of propositional logic are determined by their families of connectives
and of truth degree constants. As set of propositional variables in any case the
set
v = {p',p",plll, ... }
is chosen and the convention adopted to use as metavariables for propositional
variables the symbols p, q, r, ... possibly with indices. The truth degree con-
stants, however, playa rather marginal role in these systems, hence the sets of
connectives JS are of main importance.
For the semantic interpretation of these systems one needs the sets W S of
truth degrees and 1)s of designated truth degrees together with the families of
truth degree functions for the connectives of £s. These data commonly are
collected into the characteristic matrix
(56)
in which T1, ... ,Tn is the family of the truth degree functions of the basic con-
nectives of S.
Therefore the basic data for each of the following systems of many-valued
propositional logic are the family of connectives and the characteristic matrix.
In most of these cases the set of truth degrees is not completely fixed. For
simplicity of notation hence we additionally write W· to indicate anyone for
the truth degree sets Wo, Woo and all Wm, m ~ 2.
Having in mind that the t-norms form a very basic class of candidates for
truth degree functions of conjunction connectives and remembering that by The-
orems 3.5 and 3.7 besides t = et1 = min the continuous strict t-norms are of
particular importance, then also t = et3 becomes a kind of prototypical continu-
ous t-norm. Another such prototypical t-norm, in presence of a suitable negation
function, furthermore is t = et2 according to Theorem 3.10. Therefore systems
of many-valued logic with these conjunction operations form, independent of
their historical importance, very interesting cases of such systems.
4.1 The LUKASIEWICZ systems

The LUKASIEWICZ propositional systems Lv with v = 0,3,4, ... ,00 have in
[59, 63) been originally formulated in negation and implication, i.e. their set of
basic connectives Jlv is {..." -+d. They have the characteristic matrices 21
(57)
21Classical propositional logic (in implication and negation) fits well into this schema.
Therefore sometimes l2 is considered too and understood simply as classical logic. We shall
not follow this use and restrict the considerations to the "proper" many-valued systems with
W' t- {a, 1}.
This choice of the truth degree functions is the reason that seq 2 is denoted as
LUKASIEWICZ implication function.
According to Proposition 3.1 these LUKASIEWICZ systems are not function-
ally complete. This poses the problem of a characterisation of all those truth
degree functions which can be generated by superposition of seq 2 and non1, i.e.
which can be defined in the LUKASIEWICZ systems. Obviously, it is enough to
solve this problem for the case of the infinite valued system Leo because any
truth degree function definable in anyone of the systems Lm is a restriction of
the truth degree function of Leo which is defined by the same defining formula.
The following theorem of McNAUGHTON [66] solves this problem. 22
Theorem 4.1 Let f : [O,I]n -t [0,1] be any n-ary function. The function f
is a truth degree function determined by some sentence of the LUKASIEWICZ
system Leo iff f is continuous and there exist a finite number of polynomials
n
gi(Xl, .. . , xn) = bi + L: aijXj, i= 1, ... ,m
j=l
with integer coefficients aij, bi such that for all dl , ... , d n E [0, 1] there exists
some 1 :::; k :::; m with
It is common usage to define further connectives for arbitrary well formed

formulas H1,H2 by
H1 VH2 =def (H1 -tL H2) -tL H2, (58)

Hll\H2 =def . . {-,H1 V..,H2), (59)
H l i8l H2 =def ..,(Hl -tL ..,H2), (60)
Hl ffi H2 =def ..,Hl -tL H2, (61)
Hl +-tL H2 =def (Hi -tL H 2) 1\ (H2 -tL Ht}. (62)
The first four of these connectives have well known truth degree functions:
connective V 1\ i8l ffi

truth degree function veil et1 et2 vel2
And the truth degree function T~ for the biimplication connective +-tL is char-
acterised by the equation
T~(U,V) = l-Iu - vi. (63)

22McNAUGHTON'S proof involved a lot of computetions and looked quite sophisticated. Re-
cently, a more transparent proof which emphasises the geometric ideas was given in [77).
32 s. Gottwald
This has, by the way, the interesting consequence that the truth degree function
determined by -.(Hl ++L H 2) is a metric, i.e. measures the distance of the truth
degrees of Hl and H2.
The logically valid sentences of different such LUKASIEWICZ systems are
nicely related. Using the notation taut~ for the set of all logically valid sentences
of the system Lv and additionally taut~ for the set of all tautologies of classical
two-valued propositional logic one has the following interesting results.
Theorem 4.2 For all m, n E N with m, n 2: 2 there hold true:
(i) taut~ ~ taut~ ¢} Wm 2Wn ,
(ii) taut~ ~ taut~ ¢} (n - 1) I (m - 1),
(iii) L
taut m ~ L +1
taut m L+
and taut m ~ L+ ,
taut m
2 1
(iv) L =
taut 00 n
00
m=3
taut m'
L
(v) taut~ = taut6.

Therefore, only one of the infinite valued systems needs consideration. Be-
cause of the quantifiers usually considered in first order logic it is preferable to
prefer the system Loo.
From the syntactical point of view, the problem of adequate axiomatisations
for the LUKASIEWICZ systems is the most interesting one still to consider.
For the infinite valued system Loo a very simple axiomatisation is available.
It was conjectured as a adequate, i.e. sound and complete axiomatisation already
in the 1930th. The proof of this fact, however, was given only in [92] in 1958.
Theorem 4.3 A sound and complete axiomatisation of the system Lao is given
by the rule of detachment w.r.t. the LUKASIEWICZ implication -+L together with
the following list of axiom schemata:
(i) Hl -+L (H2 -+L Ht),
(ii) (Hl -+L H2) -+L ((H2 -+L H 3 ) -+L (Hl -+L H 3 )),
(iii) (-.H2 -+L -.H1 ) -+L (Hl -+L H2),
(iv) ((Hl -+L H2) -+L H2) -+L ((H2 -+L H 1 ) -+L Hl).
A correspondingly simple axiomatisation exists for the other extreme case,
the three-valued system L3 and was given by WAJSBERG [111].
Theorem 4.4 A sound and complete axiomatisation of the system L3 is given
by the rule of detachment w.r.t. the LUKASIEWICZ implication -+L together with
(i) Hl -+L (H2 -+L Ht),
(ii) (Hl -+L H 2) -+L ((H2 -+L H 3 ) -+L (Hl -+L H 3 )),
(iii) (-.H2 -+L -.Ht) -+L (Hl -+L H2),
(iv) ((Hl -+L -.H1 ) -+L H1 ) -+L H 1 .
Because for each set of logically valid sentences of Lm one has the inclusion
taut~ ~ taut~ it is quite natural to expect to get an adequate axiomatisation
for Lm by extending a suitable axiom system for Loc. The formulation of such
an axiom systems needs, however, the finite iterations of the connectives ®, ffi.
Therefore we define recursively for any family H 1 , H 2 , ••• of well formed formulas
of £L
n+1 n 1
II Hi =def II Hi ®Hn+1 with II Hi =def H!, (64)

i=l i=l i=l
n+1 n 1
LHi =def LHi ffi Hn+1 with LHi =def H1. (65)
i=l i=l i=l
Theorem 4.5 A sound and complete axiomatisation of the system Lm is given

by the rule of detachment w.r.t. the LUKASIEWICZ implication ---?L together with
(i) H1 ---?L (H2 ---?L H 1),

(ii) (H1 ---?L H 2) ---?L ((H2 ---?L H 3 ) ---?L (H1 ---?L H 3 )),
(iii) (...,H2 ---?L ...,Hd ---?L (H1 ---?L H 2),
(iv) ((H1 ---?L H 2) ---?L H 2) ---?L ((H2 ---?L Hd ---?L H 1),
m m-1
(v) LH ---?L L H,
i=l i=l
for all 1 < k < m
(vi)
with (k -1) V(m -1).
4.2 The GODEL systems

GonEL's family of many-valued propositional logics Gil with 1/ = 0,3,4, ... ,00
was introduced in [28] in the context of investigations aimed to understand
intuitionistic logic. Accordingly they have been formulated as systems in con-
junction, disjunction, negation and, implication with a set of basic connectives
.JG v = {/\,v,"-',---?G}. They have as their characteristic matrices 23 the struc-
tures
(66)
This choice of the truth degree functions is the reason that seq 1 is called GonEL
implication function.
According to Proposition 3.1 also these GonEL systems are not functionally
complete.
23Classical propositional logic fits well into this schema. Therefore sometimes G2 is consid-
ered too and understood simply as classical logic. We shall not follow this use and restrict
the considerations to the "proper" many-valued systems with W· =I {D, I}.
34 S. Gottwald
For the sets taut~ of all logically valid sentences of Gil one has as for the
LUKASIEWICZ systems the equality taut~ = tautij and therefore only one infinite
valued GODEL system. Furthermore one has for all 2 ~ mEN the relations
G G
taut~ C tautm+l C taut m , (67)
n taut~
00
taut~ (68)
m=2
with again m = 2 indicating the case of classical logic.
The close relationship of the GODEL systems with intuitionistic logic proves
to be essential for the axiomatisation of the GODEL systems as was shown by
DUMMETT [17).
Theorem 4.6 A sound and complete axiomatisation of the infinite valued Go-
DEL system Goo is provided by any adequate axiomatisation of intuitionistic
propositional logic (with the connectives /\, V, "', -+G of LG instead of the intu-
itionistic ones) enriched with the axiom schema
(69)
An adequate axiomatisation for ta ut~, hence, is provided by the propositional
calculus LC which is constituted by the rule of detachment (w.r.t. the implication
connective -+G) together with the following axiom schemata:
(LCl) Hi -+G (Hi /\ Ht},
(LC2) (Hi /\ H2) -+G (H2 /\ Hi),
(LC3) (Hi -+G H2) -+G (Hi /\ H3 -+G H2 /\ H3),
(LC4) ((Hi -+G H2) /\ (H2 -+G H3)) -+G (Hi -+G H3),
(LC5) Hi -+ (H2 -+G Hi),
(LC6) Hi /\ (Hi -+G H2) -+G H2,
(LC7) Hi -+G Hi V H2,
(LC8) Hi V H2 -+G H2 V Hi,
(LC9) (Hi -+G H3) /\ (H2 -+G H 3) -+G (Hi V H2 -+G H 3 )),
(LClO) '" Hi -+G (Hi -+G H2),
(LCn) (Hi -+G H2) /\ (Hi -+G'" H2) -+G'" Hi,
(LCl2) (Hi -+G H 2) V (H2 -+G Hi).
For a solution of the axiomatisation problem of the finitely many-valued
systems taut~ we shall look at extensions of this propositional calculus LC. And
by a proper extension a propositional calculus shall be understood which proves
more theorems than LC, cf. [18, 33).
Theorem 4.7 If the propositional calculus T is a proper consistent extension of
LC by some additional axiom schemata, then there exists some 2 ~ mEN such
that the set of all theorems of T is the set taut~ of all logically valid sentences
ofG m ·
As a corollary one gets an adequate axiomatisation of each one of the systems

taut~ by extending LC by the axiom schema
m m+l
V V ((Hi --*G Hk) 1\ (Hk --*G Hi)).
i=l k=i+l
4.3 The product logic

A particular case of a many-valued propositional system with a t-norm based
conjunction connective 0 is provided by considering the case of the product
t = et3 as corresponding truth degree function. This t-norm is continuous which
allows to adjoin a corresponding R-implication connective --* p with truth degree
function characterised by
I ifu<v
seq 3 (u, v) = { ~ othe;wise (70)
according to (51).
Based on this origin the product logic IlL has as its primitive connectives the
set {--* p, 0, 0,1} and the structure
(71)
of signature (2,2,0,0) as its characteristic matrix.

As in the LUKASIEWICZ systems also here it is usual to introduce some
additional connectives.
Definition 4.1 For any well formed formulas H I ,H2 of the language of product
logic let be
-.HI =def HI --* P 0,

HI 1\ H2 =def HI 0 (HI --*p H 2),
HI V H2 =def ((HI --*p H2) --*p H 2) 1\ ((H2 --*p Hd --*p HI),
HI t+ H2 =def (HI --*p H 2) 1\ (H2 --*p Hd.
Obviously, the truth degree functions of 1\, V are etl, veil, resprectively.
The problem of axiom at isat ion was solved for this system only recently in
[40], cf. also [39].
Theorem 4.8 A sound and complete axiomatisation of the infinite valued prod-
uct logic IlL is given by the following axiom schemata
IlL! HI --*p (H2 --*p Hd,

IlL2 (HI --*p H2) --*p ((H2 --*p H 3 ) --*p (HI --*p H s )),
IlL3 HI --*p 1 and 0 --*p HI,
IlL4 HI 0 H2 --*p H2 0 HI,
36 S. Gottwald
IlL5 (HI 0 (H2 0 H3)) ++ ((HI 0 H2) 0 H3),

IlL6 (HI 0 H2 -tp H 3) ++ (HI -tp (H2 -tp H3)),
IlL7 (HI -tp H2) -tp (HI 0 H3 -tp H2 0 H3),
IlL8 ...,...,H3 -tp ((HI 0 H3 -tp H2 0 H 3) -tp (HI -tp H 2)),
IlL9 (HI -tp H 2) -tp ((HI -tp H 3) -tp (HI -tp H21\. H3)),
IlUO (HI -tp H 3) -tp ((H2 -tp H 3) -tp (HI V H2 -tp H3)),
IlUl (HI -tp H 2) V (H2 -tp HI),
IlU2 (HI I\. ...,Ht) -tp 0
together with the rule of detachment as the only inference rule.
4.4 The POST systems

The POST family of finitely many-valued propositional logics Pm with m =
3,4, ... was introduced in [87] in the context of investigations in classical logic,
e.g. of investigations toward functional completeness. They have been for-
mulated as systems in disjunction and negation with set of basic connectives
.JPm = {V, "'p}. They have as their characteristic matrices 24 the structures
(72)
This choice of the truth degree functions is the reason that non2 sometimes is
called POST negation function.
According to Theorem 3.2 the POST systems are functionally complete. This
is, as it seems, the most interesting property they have.
The set v P of designated truth degrees is, however, not completely fixed
for these systems. The present version v P = {l} is mainly chosen, but alredy
POST [87] discussed also other possibilities.
This (more or less open situation) is actually not an essential difficulty. But
this is connected with the (somewhat astonishing) fact that from the point of
view of formal logic these POST systems have not been the object of extended
studies. So, for instance, there do not exist till now axiomatisations of these
systems. They have, however, been the source for introducing and studying a
particular class of algebraic structures - called POST algebras - which, after
some reformulations which essentially used the functional completeness of the
POST systems for being equivalent to the original POST matrix, motivated inves-
tigations on some essentially modified systems of many-valued logic fonm.iated
without reference to the POST negation.
The m-valued logical system based on these m-valued POST alg,.;bras has as
set of basic connectives the set
(73)
24 Classical propositional logic (in disjunction and negation) fits well into this schema. There-
fore sometimes P2 is considered too and understood simply as classical logic. We shall not
follow this use and restrict the considerations to the "proper" many-valued systems with
W· :f. {O, I}.
of five binary and m - 1 unary connectives together with a set
(74)
of truth degree constants and is based on the axiom schemata (LCl) to (LClO)
and for all i = 1, ... , m -1 the further schemata which additionally refer to the
biimplication connective +-+ defined as H +-+ G =def (H -+ G) /\ (G -+ H):
(P11) Di(HI V H 2) +-+ (DiHI V DiH2),

(PI2) Di(HI /\ H 2) +-+ (DiHI /\ D i H 2),
(PI3) Di(HI -+ H 2) +-+ ((DIHI -+ D I H 2) /\ (D2HI -+ D 2 H 2 ) /\ •••
/\(DiHI -+ Di H 2),
(PI4) D i ("" HI) +-+"" DIHI ,
(PI5) DiDjHI +-+ DjHI ,
(PI6) Diej for i :S j and"" Diej for i > j,
(P17) HI +-+ (DIHI /\ ed V (D2HI /\ e2) V ... V (Dm-IHI /\ em-I),
(PI8) DIHI V"" DIHI
together with the rule

H
Dm-IH
and the rule of detachment (w.r.t. the implication -+) as inference rules.
4.5 A partial generalization: monoidal logic

To a large extend caused by developments in the field of fuzzy sets and their
applications, in recent years a tendency goes toward systems of many-valued
logic which are based on the lattice
with universal bounds 0,1 enriched with an adjoint pair (t, seq t) consisting of a
(left) continuous t-norm t and their corresponding R-implication seq t together
with a negation introduced in accordance with (55) such that for the lattice
ordering ~ the structure
([0, 1],~, t)
forms an integral lattice ordered commutative semigroup, i.e. an integral lattice
ordered monoid.
There is no simple standard characteristic matrix in this case, the just
mentioned type of monoid, considered in more detail in Section 5.6, gives a
whole class of algebraic structures characterizing what U. HOHLE [44, 47] calls
monoidal logic.
This monoidallogic itself is not a (pure) many-valued logic but it is nicely
related also to systems of many-valued logic and therefore should be mentioned
38 S. Gottwald
here. In any case, it has as its set of designated truth degrees the singleton
V M = {I} of the universal bound.
Propositional monoidal logic .cmon as a formal system has {/\, V, -', @, -+ }
as its set of basic connectives. Here /\, V are to be read as conjunction and
disjunction connectives based upon the lattice operations and @ is another,
usually non-idempotent conjunction connective, often called "context". The
logical calculus characterizing the formal theorems of .c mon may be determined
by the rule of detachment (w.r.t. the implication connective -+) as its only
primitive inference rule together with the following set of axiom schemes:
(MI ) ((HI -+ H2) -+ ((H2 -+ H 3) -+ (HI -+ H3))),

(M2 ) (HI -+ (HI V H2)),
(M3) (H2 -+ (HI V H2)),
(M4) ((HI -+ H 3) -+ ((H2 -+ H 3) -+ ((HI V H 2) -+ H 3))),
(M5) ((HI /\ H2) -+ Hd,
(M6) ((HI @H2) -+ HI),
(M7) ((HI/\ H2) -+ H 2),
(Ms) ((HI @ H 2) -+ (H2 @ Hd),
(Mg) (((HI @ H2) @ H 3) -+ (HI @ (H2 @ H3))),
(MlO) ((H3 -+ Hd -+ ((H3 -+ H2) -+ (H3 -+ (HI /\ H2)))),
(Ml1 ) ((HI -+ (H2 -+ H 3)) -+ ((HI @H2) -+ H3)),
(MI2 ) (((HI @ H2) -+ H3) -+ (HI -+ (H2 -+ H3))),
(MI3 ) ((HI @ -,Hd -+ H2),
(M14 ) ((HI -+ (HI @ -,HI )) -+ -,Hd·
It is a routine matter to prove that the provability-of-implication relation
is a preordering in the class of all well-formed formulas and hence determines

an equivalence relation of "provable equivalence". The corresponding Linden-
baum algebra Lmon then is an integral lattice ordered monoid w.r.t. the ordering
relation ::; induced by the preordering [> and the operation * induced by the
connective @.
Furthermore, this operation * together with the operation -+[] induced by
the connective -+ form an adjoint pair, i.e. one has for all a, 13, I E Lmon
Extending the list of axiom schemes of .cmon with the law of idempotency
makes the connectives /\ and @ logically equivalent and transforms thus .c mon
into intuitionistic logic.
Extending instead the list of axiom schemes of C mon with the law of double
negation
transforms Cmon into GIRARD'S commutative linear logic [26]. And adding
additionally the law of divisibility
transforms then Cmon into the LUKASIEWICZ infinite valued logic Loo.25
4.6 A uniform method of axiomat is at ion

Up to now, we considered (classes of) quite particular systems of many-valued
logic which have been discussed by various authors for various reasons. There
was always a kind of uniformity in the definition of the systems of one class,
there were, however, important differences in the particular approaches.
From the semantic point of view, i.e. from the choice of truth degree sets
and truth degree functions constitutive for the particular systems, this is not a
problem.
However, it would be welcome to have a kind of uniform syntactic approach
toward systems of many-valued logic giving, e.g., adequate axiomatisations for
semantically determined systems.
Such an approach was offered by J .B. ROSSER and A.R. TURQUETTE in [94]
for a wide class of systems S of many-valued logic with finite truth degree sets
of the form W S = Wm,m ~ 2.
They assume that the set .:Js of connectives of S shall contain a binary
connective --+, denoting a kind of implication connective, and unary connectives
J s for each SEWs, or at least that such connectives are definable from the
primitive connectives of the system S.
These connectives have to satisfy the following conditions:
RT 1 The truth degree function corresponding to the connective --+ assumes a

non-designated truth degree just in the case that its first argument is a
designated truth degree and its second argument is a non-designated one.
RT 2 The unary truth degree function corresponding to the connective J s , S E

WS, assumes a designated truth degree just in the case that their argument
value is s, and a non-designated truth degree in all other cases.
For a compact formulation of the axioms a sort of finite iteration of the

connective --+ is needed. Therefore we define for any well-formed formulas
25 As a side remark it should be mentioned that extending C mon with all the schemes
(Ml5), (Ml6), (Ml7) yields classical propositional logic.
40 S. Gottwald
HI, H 2 , ••• , G of the language Cs recursively:
o
tv (Hi, G) =def G
i = 1
k+l k
tv (Hi,G) =def Hk+l -t tv (Hi, G).
i=l i =1
Additionally, for each connective <p E :Js its corresponding truth degree function
shall be ver <P'
Now let AXRT be the set of all well-formed formulas falling under one of the
following schemata:
AXRTl: A -t (B -t A) ,
AXRT2: (A -t (B -t C)) -t (B -t (A -t C)) ,
AXRT3: (A -t B) -t ((B -t C) -t (A -t C)) ,
AXRT4: (Js(A) -t (Js(A) -t B)) -t (Js(A) -t B) for each sEWs,
m
AXRT5: tv (J.!.=.!..(A) -t B,B),
i = 1 m-l
AXRT6: Js(s) for each truth degree s and each truth degree constant
s denoting it,
AXRT7: Jt(A) -t A for each designated truth degree t ,
n
AXRT8 : tv (JSi (Ai), J (<p(Al, ... ,An)))
t for each n-ary connective
i =1
<p E :Js , for all Sl, ... ,Sn E W S and for the particular truth
degree t = ver<p(sl, ... , sn).
Particularly the last group (AXRT8) of axioms indicates, that the present ap-
proach follows some kind of "brute force" strategy: this group simply codes the
truth degree behaviour of all the available connectives of the system S.
For this approach, then, one has the following axiomatisation theorem,
proven in [94] and e.g. also in [33].
Theorem 4.9 Suppose that 5 is a system of many-valued logic with W S = Wm

and with connectives satisfying conditions RT 1 and RT 2. Then this system 5 has
as an adequate, i. e. sound and complete axiomatisation the set AXRT of formulas
together with the rule of detachment (w.r.t. the connective -t).
The assumptions of this theorem can be weakened or changed suitably such

that the theorem is also applicable to the finitely many-valued LUKASIEWICZ
systems. But that is not of great importance because for them much simpler
adequate axiomatisations are available.
5 Algebraic structures for many-valued logics

Corresponding to the diversity of systems of many-valued logics, also a wide
variaty of algebraic systems has been connected with many-valued logic. In the
following a survey is given which covers the most important ones, giving finally
a unifying point of view for a lot of them - as was done for the systems of
many-valued logic in the last section. 26
5.1 MV-algebras
MV-algebras have been introduced by CHANG [10, 11] in investigations toward
a completeness proof for the infinite valued LUKASIEWICZ system. They play,
however, an important role in algebraic studies related to all the LUKASIEWICZ
many-valued logics and proved to have interesting relationships to other struc-
tures toO. 27 For simplicity we use for the operations in MV-algebras the same
notation as for the corresponding connectives of the language .cL.
The following definition is a simplification, essentially given by MANGANI [64], of
the original definition of CHANG [10], and refers only to some ofthe fundamental
operations one usually considers in the LUKASIEWICZ logics.
Definition 5.1 An algebraic structure A = (A, EEl, -', 0) of signature (2,1,0) is

an MV-algebra iff (A, EEl, 0) is an abelian monoid with neutml element 0 and if
furthermore for all x, yEA there hold true
(i) -,-,(x) = x,
(ii) x EEl -,0 = -,0,
(iii) -,(-,(x) EEl y) EEl y = -,(-,(y) EEl x) EEl x.
Such an MV-algebm is nontrivial iff it contains at least two elements.
Obviously each structure (W*, veb, non!, 0) is an MV-algebra. What is not

explicitely taken into consideration here is e.g. the truth degree function of
the LUKASIEWICZ implication. But an MV-algebraic equivalent of it and also
equivalents of the other truth degree functions which are important for the
LUKASIEWICZ systems are definable in MV-algebras.
Definition 5.2 Suppose that A = (A, EEl, -', 0) is an MV-algebm. Then one
defines for any x, yEA:
26It is, however, not intended to give - from an algebraic point of view - a fairly balanced
survey. We concentrate on these structures which seem to be the most important ones from
the perspective of fuzzy sets related many-valued logic.
27The theory of MY-algebras for quite a time seemed to be of particular interest only for
the LUKASIEWICZ many-valued logics. Only more recently it became clear that this class of
structures is much more important in mathematics. The first extended monograph devoted
to MY-algebras is [15) and covers the majority of the important actual results in the field of
MY-algebras.
42 S. Gottwald
x~Y =def -.(x) EB y,

x VY =def (x ® -.(y)) EB y,
x 1\ Y =def (x EB -.(y)) ® y,
1 =def -.(0).
Using these definitions, an MV-algebra is nontrivial iff 0 =I- 1.
The original definition of CHANG [10] was based on the (primitive) operations
EB, ®, -. and the constants 0,1, gave the definitions of V, 1\ as in Definition 5.2
and consisted of the following much longer list of conditions:
aEBb=bEBa a®b = b®a,

a EB (b EB c) = (a EB b) EB c a®(b®c) = (a®b)®c,
a EB -,a = 1 a®-.a = 0,
aEB1=1 a®O = 0,
aEBO=a a® 1 = a,
-,(a EB b) = -.a ® -,b -.(a ® b) = -,a EB -.b,
avb=bVa a 1\ b = b 1\ a,
a V (b V c) = (a V b) V c a 1\ (b 1\ c) = (a 1\ b) 1\ c,
a EB (b 1\ c) = (a EB b) 1\ (a EB c) a ® (b V c) = (a ® b) V (a ® c),
-.0 = 1.
Of course, all these properties become provable with our simpler definition.
Each MV-algebra A is, in a natural way, equipped with an ordering relation
~ defined for all a, b E A by
a :$ b =def there exists c E A with a EB c = b (75)
which is a partial ordering, i.e. reflexive, transitive, and antisymmetric. All the
operations EB, ®, 1\, V are isotonic w.r.t. this ordering, and -. is order reversing
and thus antitonic. Hence, the operation ~ is isotonic in its second argument,
and antitonic in its first one.
For this ordering, also other quite natural characterisations are available,
e.g. one always has:
a :::; b {:} a ® -.b = 0 {:} a ~ b = 1. (76)

And this ordering is even a lattice ordering w.r.t. the operations 1\, V. Further-
more, the lattice (A, 1\, V) with this ordering is a distributive lattice.
Therefore, each MV-algebra A = (A, EB, -., 0) yields in a natural wayan
abelian lattice ordered monoid (A, ®, 0, 1,~) with universal lower and upper
bounds.
Among the MV-algebras, the subclass of all the MV-chains, i.e. of all those
MV-algebras for which their natural ordering ~ is total, is of particular impor-
tance. One of the main points for this is the following subdirect representation
theorem.
Theorem 5.1 Every nontrivial MV-algebra is a subdirect product of MV-

chains.
For finite MV -algebras an even stronger characterisation is possible.
Theorem 5.2 An MV-algebra is finite iff it is isomorphic to a finite product

of finite MV-chains.
Moreover, given a finite MV-algebra, the MV-chains which appear as "factors"

in its representation are uniquely determined (up to their order as factors).
For another interesting result which refers to MV-chains we need the notion
of an MV-equation: this is any equation in the first-order language of MV-
algebras, i.e. in the language with the same signature as the MV-algebras - and
usually also with operation and relation symbols for all the notions introduced
in Definition 5.2 - with its individual variables interpreted as elements of an
MV-algebra under consideration ..
The notion of satisfaction of such an MV-equation in an MV-algebra A
(w.r.t. a given valuation, i.e. mapping of the set of individual variables into the
support A of A) is the usual model theoretical notion of satisfaction. The same
holds true for the notion of validity (of an MV-equation in an MV-algebra).
Then one has the following
Theorem 5.3 An MV-equation is valid in all MV-algebras iff it is valid in all

MV-chains.
Any MV-equation for which there is an MV-counterexample hence is already

not valid in a suitable MV-chain. In other words: the equational theory of
MV-algebras coincides with the equational theory of MV-chains.
This result, however, can be further strenghtened to the following complete-
ness theorem.
Theorem 5.4 An MV-equation is valid in all MV-algebras iff it is valid in the

particular infinite LUKASIEWICZ MV-algebra (Woo, vel2, nonl, 0).
The MV-algebras, thus, have for the LUKASIEWICZ system of infinite-valued

logic essentially the same importance as the BOOLEan algebras have for classical
two-valued logic.
From a more algebraic point of view the notion of ideal is of crucial impor-
tance, i.e. of such subsets I of a MV-algebra A which contain the universal lower
bound and are downward closed w.r.t. the natural ordering ~ and also closed
under EEl:
o E I, a ~ bEl ~ a E I, a, bEl ~ a EEl bEl. (77)
Of course, A itself is an ideal of A, the trivial one, all the other ideals are called
proper. The maximal ideals are the ~-maximal elements in the class of all
proper ideals. And the intersection of all the maximal ideals of an MV-algebra
A is the radical Rad (A) of A.
44 S. Gottwald
Definition 5.3 An MV-algebra A is simple iff it is nontrivial and has {O} as

its only proper ideal, and it is semisimple iff Rad (A) = {O}.
There are characterisations of the simple and the semisimple MV-algebras

which are interesting and important from the viewpoints of many-valued logic
and of fuzzy set theory. For the simple MV-algebras one has the
Theorem 5.5 An MV-algebra A is simple iff it is isomorphic to a subalgebra

of the particular infinite LUKASIEWICZ MV-algebra (Woo, vel2, nonl, 0).
This theorem immediately gives a characterisation of the truth degree struc-

tures of the finite many-valued LUKASIEWICZ logics.
Corollary 5.6 The finite LUKASIEWICZ MV-algebras (Wn, vel2, nonl, 0) are, up
to isomorphism, the only finite and simple MV-algebras.
And for the semisimple MV-algebras one has the following two characteri-
sations.
Theorem 5.7 (i) An MV-algebra A is semisimple iff it is a subdirect product

of subalgebras of the infinite LUKASIEWICZ MV-algebra (Woo, vel2, nonl, 0).
(ii) An MV-algebra A is semisimple iff it is isomorphic to an algebra of
[0, I)-valued continuous functions, i.e. to an algebra of fuzzy subsets of some
nonempty compact Hausdorff space.
As algebraic structures, MV-algebras are closely related to some other types

of structures. The most prominent examples are the bounded commutative
BCK-algebras and the abelian lattice-ordered groups with a strong order unit.
Definition 5.4 A bounded commutative BCK-algebra is an algebraic structure

B = (B, ®, 0, 1) of signature (2,0,0) satisfying for all a, b, c E B the equations
(a®b)®c = (a®c)®b, a®(a®b) = b®(b®a),

a®a = 0, a®O = a, a® 1 = O.
In this case one has the following relationship between both types of structures.
Theorem 5.8 (i) If (A, EB, ..." 0) is an MV-algebra, then the algebraic structure
(A, ®, 0, ...,0) with the operation ® defined via a ® b =def a EB ...,b is a bounded
commutative BCK-algebra.
(ii) If B = (B, ®, 0,1) is a bounded commutative BCK-algebra, then the
structure (B, EB,"", 0) with the operations ..." EB defined via -;a =def 1 ® a and
a EB b =def 1 ® ((1 ® a) ® b) is an MV-algebra.
(iii) These mappings between the classes of MV-algebras and of bounded com-
mutative BCK-algebras are inverse to one another and hence bijections.
Definition 5.5 An abelian lattice-ordered group with a strong order unit is an

algebraic structure (G, +, -,0, Uj~) of signature (2,1, OJ 2) such that (G, +, -,0)
is an abelian group endowed with a lattice ordering ~ in G, with the correspond-
ing lattice meet and join denoted by n, u, such that the group operation + is
monotonous w.r.t. the (reflexive partial) ordering ~, and such that the strong
order unit 0 ~ U E G has the property that for each a E G there is an integer
n ~ 0 with a U -a ~ nu.
Starting from an abelian lattice-ordered group 9 = (G, +, -,0, Uj~) with a

strong order unit U and considering the interval [O,u] = {x E GIO ~ x ~ u} of
G together with two operations defined as
a €B b =def U n (a + b), ...,a =def U - a, (78)
one gets another algebraic structure as
r(Q) =def ([0, u], €B,..." 0). (79)
Theorem 5.9 The operator r defined by (79) maps abelian lattice-ordered

groups with strong order unit to MV-algebras and is even a natural equiva-
lence between the categories of abelian lattice-ordered groups with a strong order
unit and of MV-algebras (both with the respective natural homomorphisms as
morphisms) .
Besides its algebraic content, this last result may may be read as stating that
MV-algebras are not only important for LUKASIEWICZ'S many-valued logics and
interesting algebraic objects but also provide an equational formulation of the
theory of magnitudes with an Archimedean unit.
This operator r is also of interest because of its relations to injective MV-
algebras which form another algebraically interesting28 class of MV-algebras.
Definition 5.6 An MV-algebra A is injective iff each MV-homomorphism h :

C -+ A from some MV-subalgebra C of an MV-algebra B into A can be extended
to an MV-homomorphism from B into A.
For these injective MV-algebras the following interesting theorem was proven
by G LUSCHANKOF [27].
Theorem 5.10 An MV-algebra A is injective iff it is isomorphic to an MV-

algebra of the form r(Q) with 9 divisible abelian lattice-ordered group with strong
order unit whose underlying lattice is complete. In the particular case IAI ~ [0,1]
one has even that A is injective iff IAI = [0, 1], and also iff the underlying lattice
of A is complete.
28The interest in this class of MV-algebras is not a purely algebraic one as indicates a
compactness theorem for fuzzy logic mentioned later on in Section 8.4.1.
46 S. Gottwald
5.2 Lukasiewicz algebras

An algebraic approach toward the LUKASIEWICZ systems of many-valued logic
which differs considerably from the MV-algebras was initiated by MOISIL [70,
71]. He startet from the 3-valued case and the observation that, notwithstanding
the fact that it is impossible to define -+L from /\, V,..." this becomes possible if
one adds a unary connective m with truth degree function u 1-+ vel2 (u, u). The
generalisation to the m-valued case resulted in the following definition.
Definition 5.7 Given any 2 ::; mEW, an m-valued LUKASIEWICZ algebra

is an algebraic structure A = (A, V, /\,"",51', ... , S~_l' 0,1) of signature
(2,2,1,1, ... , 1,0,0) such that (A, V, /\, 0,1) is a distributive lattice with zero
and unit and such that for all x, yEA and all 1 ::; i, j ::; m - 1 there hold true:
(LAl) ...,(...,(x)) = x,
(LA2) ...,(x Vy) = ...,(x) /\ ...,(y),
(LA3) si(x Vy) = si(x) V si(y),
(LA4) si(x) V ""si(x) = 1,
(LA5) sj(si(x)) = si(x),
(LA6) si(""(x)) = ""S~_i(x),
(LA7) si(x) V SH-l (x) = SH-l (x) for i < m - 1,
(LAS) x V S~_l (x) = S~_l (x),
(LAg) (x/\",,(si(X))/\SH-l(X))Vy=y for i<m-l.
The theory of these structures is to a large extend developed in [14].
5.3 Product algebras

The completeness proof for the product logic IlL as given in [40], adopting the
proof method which CHANG [10, 11] gave for the LUKASIEWICZ logics, is too
based on suitable algebraic structures, called product algebras, which reflect
the main structural properties of the matrix (71) and play for product logic a
similar role as MV-algebras play for LUKASIEWICZ logic.
Definition 5.8 An algebraic structure A = (A, 0, -+,0,1) is a product algebra

if together with the additional operations
x/\y =def x0(x-+y),

XV Y =def ((x -+ y) -+ y) /\ ((y -+ x) -+ x),
...,(x) =def X -+ 0
the algebraic structure (A, /\, V, 0, -+, 0,1) is a residuated lattice which further-
more satisfies the laws
(i) ((x -+ y) V (y -+ x)) = 1,

(ii) •• (z) 0 ((x 0 z) -+ (y 0 z)) ::; (x -+ y),

(iii) x A .[x] = 0,
(iv) x 0 (y V z) ::; (x 0 y) V (x 0 z),
(v) x 0 (y A z) 2: (x 0 y) A (x 0 z).
The LINDENBAUM algebra of the product logic is a product algebra. And
the class of all product algebras is a characteristic class for the product logic,
i.e. the class of all theorems of product logic (and hence the class of all logically
valid sentences of this logic) is the class of all sentences satisfied in all product
algebras.
The definition of product algebras can be rewritten as a sequence of (uni-
versally quantified) HORN formulas. Therefore the class of all product algebras
is a variety. Thus the direct products and the subalgebras of product algebras
are product algebras too. Furthermore, the only finite linearly ordered product
algebra is the two element BooLEan algebra {O, I} - and each BooLEan alge-
bra, with its lattice meet for the product 0, is a product algebra since it is a
sub direct product of copies of {O, I}.
5.4 POST algebras

Algebraic counterparts of the POST systems of many-valued logic first have been
introduced by ROSENBLOOM [93]. His POST algebras have been algebraic struc-
tures of signature (2,1) characterised by equations algebraically determining the
truth degree functions veil, non2' These characterising equations, however, had
been rather difficult and not quite intuitive. Hence, POST algebras appeared as
some kind of exotic structures for investigations. This situation changed quite
to the opposite as EpSTEIN [20] redefined these structures within another signa-
ture. We shall explain here this (modified) notion of POST algebras 29 following
a slightly different approach of DWINGER [19] who characterises POST algebras
as particular lattices.
Some authors prefer, also based on the approach initiated by EpSTEIN, to
define POST algebras as algebraic structures of a more complicated signature.
One such possibility is to follow closely the formal structure of the language of
the POST systems, which thus amounts to consider pseudo-BooLEan algebras
enriched with n - 1 unary operations Di and n distinguished elements ei which
together satisfy suitable algebraic translations of the basic axioms (Pl1) to
(PI8) of the POST systems. All these approaches, however, create classes of
interdefinable structures, cf. [89, 91].
Definition 5.9 A distributive lattice A = (A, +",0,1) with zero and unit el-
ement is a POST algebra of order n, n 2: 2, iff there exists a finite chain 0 =
eo ~ el ~ ... ~ en-l = 1 w.r.t. the lattive ordering ~ such that for each a E A
29This modification is, however, an inessential one: starting from ROSENBLOOM'S POST
algebras one is able to define corresponding POST algebras in the sense of EpSTEIN, and vice
versa.
48 S. Gottwald
there is a unique representation a = 2:~==-11 ai . ei with al ~ a2 ~ ... ~ an-l and

such that each of these coefficients ai has a complement in the lattice A.
A POST algebra A of order n uniquely determines its finite chain of dis-

tinguished elements eO,el, ... ,en-l E A. Therefore every POST algebra has a
unique order. Furthermore, POST algebras are relatively pseudo-complemented
lattices.
A deeper understanding of the internal structure of algebras like the POST
algebras often is provided by suitable representation theorems. The following
results are particularly interesting for POST algebras.
Theorem 5.11 A distributive lattice A = (A, +,·,0,1) with zero and unit ele-
ment is a POST algebra of order n, n ~ 2, iff there exists a BOOLEan algebra
B = (B, U, n, c, 0, 1) such that the lattice A is isomorphic to the lattice of all
ordered (n-l)-tuples B = {(bl , ... , bn - l ) E Bn I bl ~ b2 ~ ... ~ bn - l } with com-
ponentwise defined operations and with 0 = (0, ... ,0) as zero and 1 = (1, ... ,1)
as unit element.
ment is a POST algebra iff it is the coproduct of a BOOLEan algebra and a finite
chain.
ment is a POST algebra iff it is isomorphic to the lattice of continuous functions
of a BOOLEan space X to a finite chain.
5.5 DEMoRGAN algebras

During the initial phase of the development of fuzzy set theo.; a lot of authors
restricted their considerations to the union and intersection of fuzzy sets based
on the maximum and minimum operations and to a complementation based on
the (l-.. )-operation. The corresponding system of many-valued logic thus was
based on conjunction, disjunction, and negation connectives with truth degree
functions etl, veil and non 1, resprectively.
The algebraic counterpart are the distributive DEMORGAN algebras. They
have been introduced already by MOISIL [69] and studied later on also by RA-
SIOWA, cf. [89], under the name of quasi-BooLEan algebras.
Definition 5.10 A distributive DEMoRGAN algebra A = (A, /\, V, -,0,1) is an

algebraic structure of signature (2,2,1,0,0) such that the reduct (A, /\, V, 0,1) is
a distributive lattice with zero and unit and - is an involution which satisfies
the DEMORGAN laws
x /\y = xVy,
x Vy x /\ y.
These DEMORGAN algebras are taken into consideration occasionally. There

seems, however, to be no really interesting theory of these algebras besides the
fact that they are reducts of different types of algebras which themselves come
into consideration as characteristic structures for the algebraic study of different
systems of many-valued, and also of other types of non-classical logics.
5.6 Residuated f-monoids

The discussion of truth degree functions for systems of many-valued logic which
counts t-norms as basic candidates for truth degree functions and then aims to
base further connectives to a large extend on the conjunction connective alge-
braically amounts to having in the truth degree set W a commutative semigroup
operation *. But the monotonicity properties of the t-norms additionally forces
to have an ordering relation ~ for the set of truth degrees.
If one does not intend to restrict from the very beginning the truth degree
sets to subsets of the real unit interval, then the most reasonable point of view
is to have ~ at least as a lattice ordering with universal upper and lower bounds
within the set of truth degrees.
Hence the truth degree structure should at least be a lattice-ordered commu-
tative monoid (W,~, *) with universal upper and lower bounds for the lattice
ordering, a commutative i-monoid for short.
The approaches toward adding further connectives split in essentially two
variants: either to first introduce a negation function or to first introduce an
implication function. The approach toward residuated commutative i-monoids
prefers implication over negation and thus chooses R-implications as the suitable
type of implication function. Algebraically this means to have a further binary
operation I> satisfying the adjointness condition
(80)
for all x, y, z E W, which additionally characterises I> uniquely.
Definition 5.11 A commutative residuated i-monoid, for short: ri-monoid,

is an ordered algebmic structure A = (A,~, *, 1» such that (A,~, *) is a com-
mutative i-monoid and (*, 1» is an adjoint pair, i.e. satisfies condition (80).
In any ri-monoid A = (A,~, *, 1» one has by the lattice structure also the
lattice operations n, U, and one has for all elements x, y, z E A satisfied the
properties
x*(Xl>y) ~ y,
x I> (y I> z) = (x * y) I> z,
x * (y U z) = (x * y) U (y *z),
x I> (y n z) = (x I> y) n (x I> z),
(xuY)l>z = (x I> z) n (y I> z).
50 s. Gottwald
At the present level of generality the unit element T of the semigroup operation
* needs not to coincide with the universal upper bound 1 of the lattice ordering.
If this is the case, however, i.e. if T = 1 holds true, the rl-monoid shall be called
integral.
And, according to HOHLE [45, 47], these integral rl-monoids are the appro-
priate algebraic structures for those many-valued logics which are determined
by t-norm based conjunction connectives and which play a crucial role in a
majority of theoretical papers related to fuzzy set theory.
Integrality of a rl-monoid may equivalently be characterised by demanding
either one of the following two conditions:
x :s;; y {:} x I> Y = 1,

x = 11> x.
And in each integral rl-monoid one has
x * y :s;; x n y for all x, y.
A further important requirement to be imposed on an integral rl-monoid

A = (A,:S;;, *, 1» is its divisibility, i.e. the property that for any x, yEA which
satisfy the condition x :s;; y there exists some z E A such that x = y * z. This
divisibility can equivalently be characterised by the property that
xny = x * (x I> y) for all X,y E A.
Integral divisible rl-monoids e.g. provide an interesting relationship to the

HEYTING algebras characteristic for intuitionistic logic.
Theorem 5.14 Let A = (A,:S;;, *, 1» be an integral rl-monoid which is divisible

and satisfies the condition
(xl>y)U(yl>x)=l forallx,yEA. (81)
Then the set HA = {x E A I x * x = x} of *-idempotent elements of A forms a

HEYTING algebra w.r.t. the underlyinglattice of A. And this HEYTING algebra
has I> as its pseudo-complementation.
This relation to intuitionistic logic stimulates the idea to look w.r.t. any rl-
monoid A = (A,:S;;, *, 1» at the unary operation - characterised by the equation
-x =def X I> 0 (82)
with 0 the universal lower bound of A. This operation is related to a possibility

to define negation in intuitionistic logic.
And indeed, also for integral rl-monoids one has
-0 =1 and - 1 =0
and integrality together with the additional condition
x = (x c> 0) c> 0 = - - x for all x E A (83)
suffice that the operation - is antitonous in A and thus has all the properties a
negation function in [0,1] has to have. Therefore - is termed negation operation.
Accepting this further assumption then leads into the area of well known
algebraic counterparts of systems of many-valued logic, cf [45, 46].
Theorem 5.15 An integral rf-monoid is a MV-algebra w.r.t. its semigroup and

its negation operations iff it is divisible and satisfies condition (83).
6 Many-valued first-order logic

6.1 Basic notions
The languages £s of systems 5 of first-order many-valued logic follow the same
pattern as the languages of systems of classical first-order logic: they are based
on some countable set V = {vo, Vl, V2,' .. } of individual variables and are deter-
mined by
• their (nonempty) family .Js of (basic) propositional connectives and,

sometimes, their truth degree constants,
• their set QS of quantifiers,
• their family pS of predicate symbols together with an arity function as-

signing each predicate symbol its arity,
• and possibly their set of individual constants and their set of function
symbols.
It then is a routine matter to define the class of well formed formulas and
to distinguish free and bounded occurences of individual variables within well
formed formulas. All this are standard syntactic definitions with no differences 30
to the case of classical first-order logic.
The semantic parts of these systems, again, differ only slightly from the
corresponding situation for classical first-order logic. Like there, one basically
has
• a set W S of truth degrees, which again preferably shall be chosen as in (4)

and (3), together with a subset v S of designated truth degrees,
• for each connective a truth degree function determining this connective,
• for each truth degree constant a corresponding truth degree, and

30 Disregarding the inessential and minor difference which may be caused by the existence
of truth degree constants for truth degrees different of 0 and 1.
52 S. Gottwald
• for each quantifier Q of arity k a corresponding truth degree mapping

ver~ : JP(WS)k ~ W S determining this quantifier
as fixed data characterising the whole system 5 which have to be combined with
particular interpretations !X collecting
• a nonempty set A = 1211 of individuals, the universe of the interpretation,
• for each individual constant a of Cs a corresponding individual a 21 E A,
• for each predicate symbol P of Cs of arity n a corresponding n-ary W s _
valued relation p21 in A.
By an n-ary WS-valued relation R we here understand a mapping R : An ~
W S, i.e. an n-ary fuzzy relation in the universe of discourse A (and with their
membership degrees from W S).
The satisfaction relation (!X, a) 1= H, H any well formed formula and a :
V ~ A any valuation, now becomes a graded relationship and hence preferably is
defined as a function VaI S 21(H, a) mapping well formed formulas and valuations
onto truth degrees. The details are standard as the quantifier case shows in
which the definition reads for any unary quantifier Q binding one variable
VaI S21(QxH, a) =def ver~( {Val s 21(H,,8) 1,8 : V ~ A such that

a(y) = ,8(y) for all y E V with y:f. x}).
Proceeding as usual now, a formula H is called S-valid (or simply valid if
the reference to the particular system 5 is obvious) in an interpretation !X iff
H has a designated truth degree for each suitable valuation in !X. And H is
called logically S-valid (or again simply logically valid) iff H is valid in any
S-interpretation.
Therefore, all the usual basic model theoretic notions are available also for
systems of many-valued first-order logic. It is, however, sometimes advisable to
split classical notions into distinct ones for the many-valued case. To give an
idea, how this can be done, we consider the notion of model.
As usual, an interpretation !X is a S-model of a set ~ of sentences iff each
H E ~ is valid in 21. By ModS(~) the class of all S-models of ~ shall be denoted.
It is, however, suitable to consider even for any truth degree t the notions of
t-model and of (~ t)-model21 of ~ by imposing the condition that H E ~ always
has truth degree t or always has truth degree ~ t in !X, respectively.
Defining then for any sentence31 H and any set ~ of sentences the conse-
quence relation I=s by
gives via
31 For simplicity we restrict here to the case of sentences. The extensions of these notions
to well formed formulas in general proceed as in classical logic.
a consequence operator which is a closure operator within the set of all sentences.
More model theoretic constructions and results become available on this
basis as e.g. the ultraproduct construction which works for any truth degree
set together with a corresponding version of Loss theorem which holds true for
any finitely many-valued system, cf. [33], and can even be extended to suitable
infinitely many-valued systems as done e.g. in [13].
The many-valued systems behave also w.r.t. other results much like classical
logic, cf. [33]:
• each finitely many-valued one of them satisfies the compactness theorem,
• each one of them satisfies a suitable version of the downward LOWENHEIM-

SKQLEM theorem,
• and each finitely many-valued one of them satisfies a suitable version of

the upward LOWENHEIM-SKOLEM theorem.
and the restriction to the finitely many-valued case can again be deleted for
suitable infinite truth degree sets, e.g. for compact HAUSDORFF spaces and
truth degree functions of the connectives and the quantifiers which satisfy some
suitable continuity conditions, d. [13].
For particular systems we shall only look at the first-order LUKASIEWICZ
logics because the type of transition from the propositional to the first-order
case, standard for these systems, may be choosen in the case of other systems
as well. For the monoidallogic this was done by U. HOHLE e.g. in [47].
6.2 LUKASIEWICZ'S first-order logics

The first-order systems of LUKASIEWICZ's many-valued logics are determined
by the standard methods of transfer from propositional to first-order logic as
explained in Secion 6.1 together with the choice of a universal quantifier V and
an existential quantifier 3, both of them unary quantifiers, defined by the truth
degree operations ver~, ver~ with characterising equations 32
ver~(X) =def inf X and ver~(X) =def sup X (84)
for all X ~ W L •
Obviously, all the finite sets Wm as well as the infinite set Woo are closed
under inf and sup. The truth degree set Wo, however, is not closed neither under
inf nor under sup. Hence one has also in the first-order case all the finitely many-
valued LUKASIEWICZ systems as well as the infinitely one with truth degree
set Woo, there is, however, no reason to consider an infinitely many-valued
LUKASIEWICZ system with truth degree set Woo As in the propositional case, by
3 2 These two definitions are suitable ones in all the cases in which the truth degree set bears
the structure of a complete lattice. And because this is satisfied for almost all of the important
systems of many-valued logic, these definitions are the standard ones for these tow quantifiers.
A rare exception is [105] where the author, instead of basing V on min as its finite correlate,
describes a method to combine a universal quantifier with any t-norm s its finite correlate.
54 S. Gottwald
L" the LUKASIEWICZ first-order logic with truth degree set W", v = 3,4, ... ,00,
is denoted 33 •
The set of designated truth degrees is for first-order LUKASIEWICZ logic the
same as in the propositional case. Therefore, semantic notions like validity
in some interpretation, logical validity, the notion of model together with the
notions of a- and (~ a)-model, as well as the semantic entailment relation
can be defined in the standard ways predetermined by classical first-order and
many-valued LUKASIEWICZ propositional logic.
Writing Ival l " for the set of all logically valid formulas of the system L", one
has
W" £;; W p ¢} Ival l " ;2 Ival l p for all v, p E {3, 4, ... ,oo} (85)
as well as
nIval
00
Ival l oo = l n' (86)

n=3
Hence, each formula which is not Loo-Iogically valid is already not logically valid
in some of the finitely many-valued LUKASIEWICZ systems.
The situation is, however, more complicated with respect to satisfyability.
There are sentences ofthe language.cl of the LUKASIEWICZ systems which have
a Loo-model but do not have any Ln-model for any 2 :::; n E N. An example is
provided by the formula
3xP(x) 1\ Vx3y(P(y) « P(x)),
where P is a unary predicate symbol and « defined for any formulas HI, H2 by
The essential idea here is that an interpretation 2l is a model of a sentence

HI « H2 iff the truth degree of H2 in 2l is twice the truth degree of H2 in 2l,
cf. [33, 88].
For the finitely many-valued LUKASIEWICZ systems all the semantic results
like the compactness theorem and LOWENHEIM-SKOLEM theorems hold true
which have been mentioned already in Section 6.1. Furthermore, also a suitable
ommiting types theorem holds true for all finitely many-valued systems Ln ,
cf. [33].
But even the infinitely many-valued LUKASIEWICZ system Loo behaves se-
mantically quite well:
- for Loo the compactness theorem holds true,
- for Loo hence suitable LOWENHEIM-SKOLEM theorems hold true,
- for Loo the omitting types theorem holds true.
The problem of axiom atis ability for the finitely many-valued LUKASIEWICZ
systems Ln was solved by THIELE [104] in such a way as to add to any adequate
system of axioms for the propositional system Ln some inference rules which
33 Again II = 2 is possible and gives just classical first-order logic.
control the behaviour of the quantifiers and which allow some kinds of free and
of bounded substitution. For details consult d. [33, 104].
Much harder is the axiomatisability problem for the infinitely many-valued
LUKASIEWICZ system Loo. ROSSER/TuRQUETTE [94] have proven the axioma-
tis ability of its monadic fragment. But SCARPELLINI [97] proved that the set
Ival l oo of Loo-Iogically valid formulas is not recursively enumerable34 and hence
not axiomatisable.
The axiomatisability situation changes however if one changes the set of
designated truth degrees. If r E Q n [0,1] is any rational number of the unit
interval then
(i) for each set V = (r,l] of designated truth degrees the corresponding set
of logically valid formulas of the language Cl of the LUKASIEWICZ systems is
adequately axiomatisable, d. [76, 2],
(ii) for each set V = [r,l] of designated truth degrees the corresponding set
of logically valid formulas of the language Cl of the LUKASIEWICZ systems is
not axiomatisable, d. [2, 12].
Work of BELLUCE/CHANG [3] as well as of HAY [42] provides, however,
a weaker axiomatisability result for Loo. Both authors give particular axiom
systems 35 and hence determine particular provability notions f-BC and f-H such
that for each well formed formula H of Cl it holds true
n
HE Ival l oo ¢:} f-BC H EB II H for each n ~ 1
i=l
n
¢:} f-H H EB II H for each n ~ 1.
i=l
Therefore one gets adequate axiomatisations for the LUKASIEWICZ system Loo
by enriching these axiom systems with the infinitary inference rule
{H EB n~-l H 11 ~ n E N}
(87)
H
or also, as shown in [44], by enriching them with the infinitary inference rule
{...,H -+l f1~=1 H 11 ~ n E N}

(88)
H
Denoting by LPC* the infinitary LUKASIEWICZ predicate calculus, one has the
following completeness theorem, d. [44].
34 The idea is to show that the recursive enumerability of the set Ival L 00 implies the recursive
enumerability of the set of all finitely logically valid formulas of classical first-order logic,
which however is known to be not recursively enumerable by results of TRAKHTENBROT [107],
cf. e.g. [8].
35Both these axiom systems are only slight modifications of adequate axiom systems for
classical first-order logic and shall not be given in detail here.
56 S. Gottwald
Theorem 6.1 For each well formed formula H of £L there are equivalent
(i) H is LP(* -provable,

(ii) H is valid in all interpretations whose truth degree structure is
the standard matrix 9J1Loo ,
(iii) H is valid in all interpretations whose truth degree structure is
any MV-algebra based on a complete lattice.
This result also shows that MV-algebras play for Loo the same role as BOOLEan
algebras play for classical first-order logic.
6.3 First-order monoidal logic

In this case there is the same kind of standard transfer from the propositional
to the first-order case as for LUKASIEWICZ'S many-valued logics. And the quan-
tifiers V,:3 again have to be understood via the equations
for all subsets X of the actual "truth degree" , i.e. values structure, which now
has to be a complete integral lattice ordered monoid. Of course, the infimum
and supremum here have to be taken w.r.t. the lattice ordering in this monoid.
As in the propositional case, the set of designated truth degrees is the sin-
gleton DM = {I} of the universal bound in each of these integral monoids.
An adequate axiomatisation of the class of universally valid formulas charac-
terised by the class of all complete integral £-monoids then is given by the axiom
schemata (M1 ), • •. , (M14 ) of Section 4.5 together with the first-order schemata
(VxH -+ H[x/rJ),
(H[x/rJ) -+ 3xH
for terms r, and together with the inference rules of detachment, of generalisa-
tion in the succedent, and of particularisation in the antecedent:
G-+H H-+G
(89)
G -+ VxH' :3xH -+ G
with the crucial variable x not free in G.

Extending this system of first-order monoidallogic with the axiom schema
(M15 ) again yields an adequate axiomatisation of first-order intuitionistic logic,
and extending it with the axiom (M16 ) gives the first-order version of GIRARD's
commutative linear logic.
The analogy with the propositional case and the particular logical systems
brought up via extensions by additional axioms breaks down, however, in the
case of the LUKASIEWICZ first-order system Loo because in this case one of the
infinitary inference rules (87) or (88), or something equivalent, is necessary -
and not available only via the rules (89) and additional axioms.
6.4 The uniform axiomatisation method of

ROSSER/TuRQUETTE
Concerning a unified approach toward formalisations of systems of first-order
many-valued logics, the situation is as in the case of propositional logics: for the
different types of first-order many-valued logics in each case a uniform approach
exists, but up to now our considerations did not give a true unification which
embraces different groups of first-order many-valued logics.
For a large class of finitely many-valued first-order logics there is, however,
again a kind of "brute force" approach which extends the approach of Section 4.6
from the propositional to the first order case.
We do not intend to give all the details here which can be found e.g. in
[94, 33], but sketch only the main ideas of how to get an adequate axiomatisation
also in the first-order case.
Obviously, the problem is the treatment of quantifiers, having in mind the
approach toward the connectives as realised for the propositional case in the
group (AXRT8) of axioms, i.e. the coding of the value assignment of the truth
degree functions by suitable axioms. The core idea again in the present case is to
"code" also the truth degree behaviour of the quantifiers by appropriate axioms.
To approach the problem in this way one has to assume that the truth degree
behaviour of the quantifiers of the first-order finitely many-valued system S is
describable in the language £2 of classical first-order logic. For this, we suppose
to have in £2 negation, implication, and generalisation as its primitive logical
constants, and to have for each predicate symbol P of the language £s and
each truth degree SEWs a predicate symbol 7rp,s of the same arity as P such
that 7rp,s(a), a any assignment of individuals of a given interpretation 2l to the
individual variables of P, holds true just in case P(a) has truth degree s.
However, it is not enough to be able to discuss only quantified formulae,
one has also to be able to discuss well-formed formulas with quantified parts.
And this seems to be impossible in the previous elementary way of coding via
a suitable choice of - almost obvious - axioms.
Denoting the truth degree of any formula H of £s w.r.t. an interpretation
2{ and a valuation ii again by VaI S 21(H, ii), the basic assumption on S is that
for all such H and all sEWs the relation VaI S 21(H, a) = s can adequately be
expressed in £2 by a formula Vs(H). If this basic assumption is satisfied, we
shall say that the first-order many-valued logic S has truth degree conditions.
Now we suppose additionally that in £s there are a binary connective -+,
unary connectives", and Js , SEWs, and a (unary) quantifier 1\ for which we
consider besides (RTd, (RT 2 ) the additional conditions:
RT 3 The truth degree function corresponding to the connective '" assumes a

non-designated truth degree just in the case that its argument is a desig-
nated truth degree.
RT4 For each well-formed formula H(x) of £s and each interpretation 2{ the
following two conditions are equivalent:
58 s. Gottwald
(a) there is a designated truth degree s E 'Os such that the truth degree
condition V.(/\xH(x)) holds true,
(b) for each a E 12t1 there is a designated truth degree s E 'Os such that
the truth degree condition V.(H(a)) holds true.
Finally, to get the ROSSER/TuRQUETTE axioms in the first-order case we

have to consider S-translations V;(H) ofthe truth degree conditions V.(H). The
S-translation of V.(H) is an Cs-formula which one gets from V.(H) by writing
always "', -7, /\ instead of the classical connectives ..." =>, 'V and by substituting
each subformula trp,s(x) of V.(H) by Js(P(x)).
The axiom schemata (AxRTl), ... , (AXRT8) of the propositional case shall
now be completed by the schemata:
AXRT9: /\xH(x) -7 H(t) for all Cs-terms t suitable for this substitution,
AXRTlO: /\x(G -7 H(x)) -7 (G -7 /\xH(x)) for all formulas G not

containing x as a free variable,
AXRT 11: V; (H) -7 J s (H) for all quantified formulas 36 H and all sEWs.
Again by AXRT the set of all well-formed formulas falling under one of the
schemata (AxRTl), ... , (AXRT11) shall be denoted.
For the present approach, then, one has the following axiomatisation theo-
rem, again proven in [94] and also in [33].
Theorem 6.2 Suppose that 5 is a system of many-valued logic with W S =

Wm and with connectives -7, '" and J., sEWs and a quantifier /\ satisfying
conditions RT 1 to RT 4. Suppose also that 5 has truth degree conditions. Then
this system 5 has as an adequate, i.e. sound and complete axiomatisation the set
AXRT of formulas together with the rules of detachment (w.r.t. the connective
-7) and of generalisation (w.r.t. the quantifier /\).
As mentioned for the propositional case, also in the first-order case this result
can be generalised in a way that makes it applicable also to the finitely many-
valued LUKASIEWICZ systems. But, again, this is not very important because
for these systems simpler axiomatisations are well known.
6.5 Adding identity

As in classical first-order logic, also in the many-valued case identity as a logical
predicate can not be defined but has to be added explicitely with axioms gov-
erning its intended interpretation. For many-valued logic, however, the matter
is even more complicated because there is no general agreement concerning the
intuition underlying the intended understanding of identity.
The crucial point here is the problem whether the suitable understanding
of identity should allow for truth degrees in between the "classical" degrees
36This means, for all those formulas which have an .cs-quantifier in front.
0, 1 to really appear as degrees of identity statements, or whether such identity

statements have to have their truth degrees out of {O, 1} only.
Therefore, we shall consider both variants: an "absolute" point of view al-
lowing only two-valued identity relations in interpretations of many-valued first-
order logic with identity, and the more "liberal" point of view compatible also
with "truly" graded identity relations.
For the simplicity of formulations we introduce, previous to any formal def-
inition of identity, the following notions.
Definition 6.1 For any system 5 of many-valued first-order logic, an identity

relation id : IlXl-+ W S is called crisp iff one has rg (id) ~ {0,1}, and it is called
many-valued otherwise.
6.5.1 Identity: the absolute point of view

The problem of many-valued identity logic was first considered explicitely by
H. THIELE [104] for the finitely many-valued LUKASIEWICZ systems with the
following restrictive result.
Theorem 6.3 Let a suitable axiomatisation AxL of some LUKASIEWICZ first-

order system Lm be given which satisfies the completeness theorem. Assume that
the language .cL is in the usual way extended with an equality sign ==. If one
then extends AXL with the additional axiom schemata37
'v'x(x == x),
'v'x'v'y(x == y -+L (H -+L H[x/y]))
for all wff H of the extended language, then the extended first-order system Lm
has only models with crisp identity relations.
In some sence, therefore, the LEIBNIZ principles of identity trivialise the LUKA-
SIEWICZ systems Lm with identity.
Without restriction to the LUKASIEWICZ systems Lm one is, however, able
to axiomatize a whole class of many-valued logics with identity in the style of
the ROSSER/TuRQUETTE axiomatisation as explained in Sections 6.4 and 4.6.
Because of the absolute point of view to be considered here we call an 5-
interpretation ==-absolute iff it interprets the identity symbol == by a crisp iden-
tity relation.
Using the same assumptions for the language .cs as in Section 6.4, and adding
the further assumption that .cs also shall have connectives n for a conjunction
and U for a disjunction, the following additional axiom schemata provide a
suitable axiomatisation:
Axld*l: /\xJ 1 (x == x),
Axld*2: /\x, y(J l (x == y) U Jo(x == y)),
37Here H[x/y) is the usual substitution notation saying that the term y is substituted for
the variable x.
60 s. Gottwald
Axld* 3: for each function symbol F of .cs

AXI, ... ,XnAYI, ... ,Yn(XI == YI n ... n Xn == yn-t
-t F(XI, ... ,xn) == F(YI, ... ,Yn)),
Axld*4: for each predicate symbol P of .cs and each truth degree sEWs
AXI, ... , Xn AYI, ... , Yn (Xl == YI n ... n Xn == Yn n
n J.(P(XI, ... ,Xn)) -t J.(P(YI, ... ,Yn))).
The set of all formulae falling under one of these schemata (Axld*I), ... , (Axld*4)
shall be denoted by Axld*.
The additional connectives of .cs taken into account here force to consider
also two further conditions:
RT 5 The truth degree function corresponding to the connective n assumes a

designated truth degree just in the case that both its arguments are des-
ignated truth degrees.
RT 6 The truth degree function corresponding to the connective U assumes a

non-designated truth degree just in the case that both its arguments are
non-designated truth degrees.
For this absolute point of view, then, one has the following axiomatisation
theorem of MORGAN [72], cf. also [33].
Theorem 6.4 Suppose that 5 is a system of many-valued logic with W S = Wm

and with connectives -t, n, U, '" and J., sEWs, and a quantifier A satisfy-
ing conditions RT I to RT 6. Suppose also that 5 has truth degree conditions.
Then the class of all wff logically valid in all ==-absolute S-interpretations has
as an adequate axiomatisation the set AXRT U Axld* of formulas together with
the rules of detachment (w.r.t. the connective -t) and of generalisation (w.r.t.
the quantifier A).
6.5.2 Identity: the liberal point of view

Many-valued first-order identity logic which allows also many-valued identity
relations was first concidered only in the mid 1970, was partly inspired by re-
search on fuzzy set theory, and followed the lines of the ROSSER/TuRQUETTE
approach, cf. [73].
For a system S of finitely many-valued first-order logic the intended inter-
pretations 2l now shall be called ==-normal. They shall be characterised by the
fact that the function id : 1211 2 -t W S = Wm which interprets in 2l the identity
symbol == has to satisfy for all bl , b2 E 1211 the following three conditions:
N=1: id(b l , b2 ) = 1,
N=2: id(b l ,b2 ) = id(b 2 ,b l ),
N=3: id(blo b2 ) ::; inf{l -lp'11(a) - p'11(C) I I PEPs and (a, C) E C(Pj blo b2 )}
with C(Pj bl , b2 ) the set of all pairs of n-tuples, n the arity of P, which
coincide in all coordinates but one which is bl in a and b2 in c.
In the present case the same assumptions concerning Cs as in the previous

subsection ehall apply. In particular, Cs shall have the connectives n, U as
before, and we let U denote the finite iteration of U. However, for simplicity
we suppose that Cs has only predicate symbols. Then the following schemata
of axioms become important:
Axld1: AxJ1(x == x),
Axld2: Ax,y(Js(x == y) -+ Js(Y == x)) for all SEWs,
Axld3: AXi,Yi(Js(Xi == Yi) n (Js(P(XI" .Xi ... xn ))-+

-+ U~:;t;(':~t)(Jr(P(XI" ·Yi·· .xn)))
for each predicate symbol P of Cs and all s, t E W S .
The set of all formulae falling under one of these schemata (Axld1), ... , (Axld3)
shall be denoted by Axld.
For this liberal point of view, then, one has the following axiomatisation
theorem of MORGAN [73], cf. also [33].
Theorem 6.5 Suppose that 5 is a system of many-valued logic with WS = Wm

and with connectives -+, n, U, ...... and Js , sEWs, and a quantifier A satisfying
conditions RT I to RT 6. Suppose also that 5 has truth degree conditions. Then
the class of all wff logically valid in all ==-normal S-interpretations has as an
adequate axiomatisation the set AXRTUAxld of formulas together with the rules of
detachment (w.r.t. the connective -+) and of generalisation (w.r.t. the quantifier
A)·
Unfortunately, the axioms in Axld look rather complicated. Quite a bit
simpler becomes the situation for the LUKASIEWICZ systems Lm. In this case it
suffices to consider the axiom schemata:
IdL1: Vx(x == x),
IdL2: Vx,y(x == Y -+L Y == x) ,
IdL3: VXi, Yi (Xi == Yi I8i P(XI ... Xi· .. Xn) -+L P(XI ... Yi ... xn))
for each predicate symbol P of Cs.
As an immediate corollary one gets that an Lm-interpretation Ql is ==-normal iff

it is a model of the set Id L of axioms determined by these schemata.
And the axiomatisation of Lm according to the slightly modified ROSSER/
TURQUETTE approach suitable for Lm again gives that IdL provides an adequate
axiomatisation for the liberal finitely many-valued first-order LUKASIEWICZ
identity logics, cf. [31, 32].
62 S. Gottwald
In the particular case of pure identity logic, i.e. in the case that the first-
order language .eL has == as its only predicate symbol, condition IdL3 collapses
to the requirement of 0-transitivity:
Vx,y,z(x == y0y == Z ~L X == z).

And this situaition, obviously, is easily generalised to the case of an arbitrary
(left continuous) t-norm t. In such a case, therefore, reflexivity, symmetry, and
t-transitivity form a suitable set of conditions38 characterising a generalised,
many-valued identity relation. In other words, in this case the fuzzy similari-
ties 39 are just the suitable generalised identity relations.
6.5.3 Identity and degrees of existence

Still another, a bit more general approach toward many-valued identities, in the
liberal understanding, is offered in the context of monoidal first-order logic by
U. HOHLE [43, 47]. The crucial point now is that even the assumption that for
liberal identities == each formula t = t has to have the truth degree 1, or at
least a designated40 truth degree, is abandoned.
Then the problem arises, how to intuitively interpret a situation that in an
interpretation 2l for some individual a the formula a == a has a truth degree
different from the universal upper bound 1. The solution is to interpret each
such truth degree of a == a as degree 0/ existence 41 of the object a.
The intended monoidal ==-interpretations are in this case all the monoidal
interpretations 2l enriched with an M-valued equality E : 1211 2 ~ M characterised
by the properties:
E1: E(x,y) :::; E(x,x) t\ E(y,y),
E2: E(x,y) = E(y,x),

E3: E(x,y) * (E(y,y) ~ E(y,z)) :::; E(x,z).
For the formal system of monoidal first-order identity logic M it is suitable
to assume that the language .eM besides the binary identity symbol == has a
unary symbol e to denote the existence predicate. Given any monoidal ==-
interpretation 2l with M-valued equality E, the standard understanding is that
the function € : 1211 ~ M with always €(a) = E(a,a) is the meaning of the
existence symbol e w.r.t. 2l.
38This situation has, however, not yet been generally axiomatised.
390ften also called fuzzy equivalence relations, cf. e.g. [34].
40 Actually, both these possibilities coincide because only the case that the universal bound
of the monoidal truth structure is the single designated truth degree has been discussed.
41This is an adaption and generalisation of a corresponding approach of D. SCOTT [100]
toward intuitionistic logic. Accordingly the following axiom schemata (AxIEl) to (AxIE7)
reduce to his intuitionistic axioms of identity and existence. Intuitively, this degree of existence
may be understood as indicating a kind of partial existence, e.g. a localised or locally restricted
(in a suitable geometrical sense) one.
A suitable set Axl E of axioms for monoidal first-order identity logic, i.e. one
which provides together with the other axioms of first-order monoidal logic an
adequate axiomatisation, is then determined by the following axiom schemata,
cf. [47]:
AxIE1: x == Y --+ (e(x) 1\ e(y)),
AxIE2: e(x) --+ x == x,
AxIE3: x == y --+ Y == x,
AxIE4: P(Xlo .. " xn) --+ I\~=l e(xi) for each n-ary predicate symbol P,
AxIE5: (e(Yi) --+ Yi == Zi) --+ (P(Xl," . ,Yi, ... ,xn) --+ P(Xlo ... ,Zi, ... ,xn))
for each n-ary predicate symbol P,
AxIE6: e(F(xl,"" xn)) --+ I\~=l e(xi) for each n-ary function symbol F,
AxIE7: Yi == Zi --+ F(Xl,'" ,Yi,'" ,xn) == F(Xl,'" ,Zi,··· ,xn)

for each n-ary function symbol F.
7 Fuzzy Sets and Many-Valued Logic

7.1 Membership Degrees as Truth Degrees
A fuzzy set A is characterised by its generalised characteristic function J.tA : X --+
[0,1]' called membership function of A and defined over some given universe of
discourse X, i.e. it is a fuzzy subset of X.
The essential idea behind this approach was to have with the membership
degree J.tA(a) for each point a E X a graduation of its membership with respect
to the fuzzy set A. And this degree obviously is nothing else as a degree to which
the sentence "a is a member of A" holds true. Hence it is natural to interpret the
membership degrees of fuzzy sets as truth degrees of the membership predicate
in some (suitable system of) many-valued logic S.
To do this in a reasonable way one has to accept some minimal conditions
concerning the language Cs.
Disregarding - for simplicity - fuzzy sets of type 2 and of every higher type as
well (as is done in the overwhelming majority of fuzzy sets applications) one has,
from the set theoretic point of view inspired by the usual idea of a cumulative
hierarchy of sets, fuzzy sets as (generalized) sets of first level over a given set of
urelements. Therefore the intended language needs besides a (generalized, i.e.
graded) binary membership predicate f: e.g. two types of variables: (i) lower
case latin letters a, b, c, ... ,X, y, Z for urelements, i.e. for points of the universe
of discourse X, and (ii) upper case latin letters A, B, C, ... for fuzzy subsets of
X. And of course it has some set of connectives and some quantifiers - and thus
a suitable notion of well-formed formula.
Having in mind the standard fuzzy sets with membership degrees in the real
unit interval [0,1] thus forces to assume that 5 is an infinitely many-valued logic.
64 S. Gottwald
And the usual intuitive understanding of the membership degrees furthermore

supports the assumption that V S = {1} is the set of designated truth degrees.
It is not necessary to fix all the details of the language Cs in advance. We
suppose, for simplicity of notation, that from the context it shall always be
clear which objects the individual symbols are to denote. 42 Denoting the truth
degree of a well-formed formula H by [H], to identify membership degrees with
suitable truth degrees then means to put
f.1-A(X) = [xc A]. (90)

This type of interpretation proves quite useful: it opens the doors to clarify far
reaching analogies between notions and results related to fuzzy sets and those
ones related to usual sets, cf. [33, 34].
7.2 Doing Fuzzy Set Theory with MVL Language

Based on the main idea to look at the membership degrees of fuzzy sets as
truth degrees of a suitable membership predicate, it e.g. becomes quite natural
to describe fuzzy sets by a (generalized) class term notation, adapting the cor-
responding notation {x I H(x)} from traditional set theory and introducing a
corresponding notation for fuzzy sets by
A = {x E X II H(x)} ¢>def f.1-A(X) = [H(x)] for all x E X, (91)
with now H a well-formed formula of the language of our system S of many-

valued logic for fuzzy set theory. As usual, the shorter notation {x II H(x)} is
also used, and even preferred.
7.2.1 Fuzzy set algebra

With this notation the intersection and the cartesian product of fuzzy sets A, B
are, even in their t-norm based version, determined as
AntB = {xl!xcAAtxeB},
AXtB = {(x,y)l! xcAAtyeB},
and the standard, i.e. min-based form of the compositional rule of inference43
applied w.r.t. a fuzzy relation R and a fuzzy set A becomes
AoR= {y 113x(xeAA(x,y)eR)}, (92)
i.e. the analogue of a formula well known from elementary relation algebra.
42Which, formally, means that we assume that a valuation always is determined by the
context and has not explicitely to be mentioned.
43This compositional rule of inference is of central importance for the applications of fuzzy
sets to fuzzy control and to approximate reasoning, cf. Chapter 1 of the Handbook volume
"Fuzzy Sets in Approximate Reasoning and Information Systems" edited by J. BEZDEK, D.
DUBOIS and H. PRADE.
Also for the inclusion relation between fuzzy sets this approach works well.
The standard definition of inclusion amounts to
A c B <=> I-'A(X) ~ I-'B(X) for all x E X
which in the language of many-valued logic is the same as
A cB <=> 1= Vx(xe A -+t xe B) (93)
w.r.t. anyone R-implication connective based on a left continuous t-norm.
Obviously this version (93) of inclusion is easily generalised to a "fuzzified" ,
i.e. (truly) many-valued inclusion relation defined as
A ~ B =def Vx(xe A -+t xe B). (94)
And this many-valued inclusion relation for fuzzy sets has still nice properties,
e.g. it is t-transitive, i.e. one has:
7.2.2 Fuzzy relation theory

This natural approach (92) toward the compositional rule of inference is almost
the same as the usual definition of the relational product R 0 S of two fuzzy
relation, now - even related to some suitable t-norm - to be determined as
Rot S = {(x,y) 113z((x,z)cRAt (z,y)cS)}.
Relation properties become, in this context, again characterisations which for-
mally read as the corresponding properties of crisp sets. Consider, as an exam-
ple, transitivity of a fuzzy (binary) relation R in the universe of discourse X
w.r.t. some given t-norm. The usual condition for all x, y, z E X
t(I-'R(X, y), I-'R(y, z)) ~ I-'R(X, z)
in the language £5 of the intended suitable [0, I)-valued system for fuzzy set
theory becomes the condition
1= R(x, y) At R(y, z) -+t R(x, z)
for all x, y, z E X or, even better, becomes
1= Vx,y,z(R(x,y) At R(y,z) -+t R(x,z)) (95)
with the universal quantifier V as in the LUKASIEWICZ systems.
This point of view not only opens the way for a treatment of fuzzy relations
quite analogous to the usual discussion of properties of crisp relations, it also
opens the way to consider gmded versions of properties offuzzy relations, cf. [34].
In the case of transitivity, a graded or "fuzzified" predicate Trans with the
intended meaning "is transitive" may be defined as
Trans(R) =def Vx,y,z(R(x,y) At R(y,z) -+t R(x,z)). (96)
66 S. Gottwald
7.2.3 Fuzzy sets and many-valued identities

Actually, there are essentially two interesting relationships between fuzzy sets
and many-valued identity relations in the liberal sense.
Fuzzy sets determined by many-valued identities: Starting with a many-

valued identity relation id in some given universe of discourse X, having some t-
norm t at hand, and assuming additionally that == is the only predicate symbol to
be taken into account for the language under consideration, then - as mentioned
in Section 6.5 - it is suitable to take id as a t-transitive fuzzy similarity.
Extending the language then with the generalised membership predicate €
the most natural adoption of the identity axiom Id L 3 to this situation is to
assume that each fuzzy set A has to be characterised by a membership function
PA satisfying
t(PA(a),id(a,b)) ~ PA(b)
for all a, bE X. In the language of many-valued logic this means to have satisfied
1= Vx,y(x€ A At x == y -tt y€ A). (97)
This particular adoption of the identity axiom therefore IdL3 in the present
situation becomes a condition of extensionality for fuzzy sets written down in
the language of many-valued logic for fuzzy set theory.
The same type of approach also works in the case that one starts from an
M-valued equality.
Extensionality in this sense was a basic idea behind the authors approach in
[29, 30] toward a cumulative hierarchy of fuzzy sets, and is constitutive for the
theory of M-valued sets of U. HOHLE [45, 47].
As a particular case of (97) the fuzzy singleton {a h of a E X then may be
defined by
{ah =def {x II x == a},
i.e. by the membership function Pea) characterised by the equation Pea) (x) =
id(x,a).
For X = IR and with a suitable choice of id such singletons become triangular
fuzzy numbers and may be considered as the input and output values of fuzzy
implications as used in systems of fuzzy control rules, d. [49].
A many-valued identity for fuzzy sets: The previous discussions have

related fuzzy sets and many-valued identities in such a way as to start from
some many-valued identity and then to consider fuzzy sets as based on it.
There is also another possibility to connect fuzzy sets and many-valued iden-
tities: one can define a "fuzzified", Le. many-valued identity between fuzzy sets.
A quite natural basis for such an approach gives the many-valued inclusion
relation (94), again w.r.t. some left continuous t-norm t, via the definition
(98)
This really gives a many-valued identity because one has e.g. the properties,
cf. [34]:
(i) FA =t A,
(ii) FA =t B -+t B =t A,
(iii) FA =t B "t B =t C -+t A =t C,
(iv) FA =t B -+t Ant C =t B nt C,
(v) FA =t B -+t A Xt C =t B Xt C,
(vi) FA =t 0 V B =t 0 -+t A Xt B =t 0.
8 Fuzzy logic
The present state of development of the field of fuzzy logic forces to start with
a terminological side remark concerning an essential ambiguity in the use of
the terminus fuzzy logic. There is a widespread use, mainly originating from
developments in the engineering fields of automatic control and of knowledge
engineering, to understand by fuzzy logic any topic which involves fuzzy sets.
Actually, this understanding of the terminus "fuzzy logic" which is not tied with
the core ideas of formal logic often is refered to as: fuzzy logic in the wider sense.
This understanding of the terminus "fuzzy logic" supersedes an older one which
meant by fuzzy logic any system of many-valued logic related to fuzzy sets.
Contrary to this usage, fuzzy logic in the narrower sense of the word refers
to a particular extension of many-valued logic, an extension which allows for
fuzzy sets of premisses from which (graded) conclusions may be drawn.
It is this usage in the narrower sense which is our topic in the following parts
of this paper. For more details, the reader should consult the quite recent book
[39] of P. HAJEK.
8.1 Adding partially sound inference rules to many-valued

logic
Any well-formed formula of many-valued propositional logic as well as any closed
formula of many-valued first order logic describes some propositions which may
be only partially true (or partially false), i.e. which has a truth degree (instead
of a traditional truth value).
Additionally, in many-valued first order logic formulas which contain free
individual variables describe properties which hold for the objects, of which
they are properties, only to some (truth) degree.
Finally, fuzzy logic combines the idea of a logical calculus as a formal system
for inferring formulas from given (sets of) premises with the idea of fuzzy sets
in the way that fuzzy logic allows for only partially "given" premises, i.e. for
fuzzy sets of premises.
As systems of logic, both many-valued as well as fuzzy logic have a syntactic
and a semantic aspect. The semantic considerations for many-valued logic are
68 S. Gottwald
based (i) in the propositional case on valuations, i.e. mappings v : V -+ V from

the set V of propositional variables into the set V of truth degrees and com-
pleted by a consequence operation ens: IP(FOR) -+ IP(FOR) over subsets
of the class FOR of all (well formed) formulas, and (ii) in the first order case
on interpretations Q( which map individual constants into a given universe of
discourse IQ(I and predicate letters (of arity n) to (n-ary) functions from IQ(I
into the set V of truth degrees and again completed by a consequence operation
ens: IP(FOR) -+ IP(FOR).
The semantic considerations for fuzzy logic are based (i) on the valuations
v : V -+ V which map the set of propositional variables V into the set V of mem-
bership degrees and completed by a consequence operation en 5 : IF(FOR) -+
IF(FOR) over the fuzzy subsets (with membership degrees in V) of the class
FOR of formulas, and (ii) in the first order case on interpretations Q( which
map individual constants into the universe of discourse IQ(I and predicate letters
(of arity n) to (n-ary) fuzzy relations in IQ(I and completed again by a conse-
quence operation en 5 : IF(FOR) -+ IF(FOR) over the fuzzy subsets (with
membership degrees in V) of the class FOR of formulas.
The syntactic considerations for many-valued as well as fuzzy logic are based
on suitable calculi fixed by their respective (crisp) sets of axioms and sets of
inference rules. (Inferences in any case are finite sequences.) For fuzzy logic
each inference rule R with k premises splits into two parts R = (R\ R2) such
that Rl is a (partial) k-ary mapping from FOR into FOR and R2 is a k-ary
mapping from V into V. The idea is that R2 associates with the degrees to
which actual premises of R are given a degree to which the actual conclusion of
R is given.
In any case, one of the main goals of those calculi is the axiomatization of
the set of logically true formulas or of the logical part of elementary theories.
Let us first look at many-valued logic. Of course, not every inference schema
is accepted as an inference rule: a necessary restriction is that to sound inference
schemata, i.e. to inference schemata which led "from true premises only to a true
conclusion". For many-valued logic this actually shall mean either that in case
all premises have truth degree 1, which we suppose to be the only designated
one, also the conclusion has truth degree 1 or that the conjunction of all premises
has a truth degree not greater then the truth degree of the conclusion.
For fuzzy logic a comparable soundness condition is assumed, called "infal-
libility" in [7] instead of "soundness" as e.g. in [78], [80] or "Korrektheit" as in
[33].
Now, looking back at the approaches we mentioned, one recognises that
many-valued logic deals with partially true sentences, fuzzy logic deals with
even partially given (sets of) premises - but in both cases soundness of the rules
of inference is taken in some absolute sense.
What about partial soundness for inference schemata?
Is it possible to consistently discuss such a notion of partial soundness? And
if possible: how such a notion can be integrated into many-valued as well as
into fuzzy logic?
Regarding applications of partially sound rules of inference, it is quite ob-
vious that an analysis of the heap paradox or the bold man paradox or other
types of paradoxes may, instead of referring to the use of implications with a
truth degree a little bit smaller then 1, become based upon the use of inference
schemata which are "not completely sound" .
8.2 Formalising the problem

As already in the preceding remarks we will restrict the considerations here to
LUKASIEWICZ type many-valued systems: truth degrees a subset of the real in-
terval [0, 1], bigger truth degrees as the "better" ones, and 1 the only (positively)
designated truth degree.
As the inference schema under discussion let us consider the schema
(R) :
with n premises HI, ... , H n and the conclusion H. Furthermore, we use [G]
to denote the truth degree of the formula G. The dependence of [G] from the
supposed interpretation and a valuation of the (free) individual variables can
be supposed to be clear from the context.
The usual soundness condition for (R) we shall consider is the inequality
(99)
with & for a suitable conjunction operation, e.g. some t-norm. We prefer (99)
because it is more general then demanding only
IF [Hd = ... = [Hn] = 1 THEN [H] =1 . (100)
A partially sound schema (R) of inference, which is not sound in the usual
sense, has to deviate from (99) to some degree. And this degree of deviance we
intend to use to "measure" the deviance of schema (R) from soundness, Le. to
define the "degree of soundness" of schema (R).
Referring to a measure of deviance of schema (R) from soundness condition
(99) it is quite natural to look at the value oCR) defined as
oCR) = sup (max{O, [HI & ... &Hn] - [HH) (101)
where the sup has to be taken with respect to all interpretations and all valua-
tions of the individual variables. But other approaches as (101) can be discussed
too.
Now, with respect to a suitable implication connective -t one should have
(102)
for any formulas G I , G 2 and hence
[HI& ... &Hn -t H] =1 (103)

70 S. Gottwald
as an equivalent soundness condition instead of (99). Using the symbol 1= for

the consequence or satisfaction relation one has thus usually
(R) sound ¢:} always [HI & ... &Hn] :::; [H]
¢:} always [HI & ... &Hn --7 H] = 1
¢:} 1= (H I & ... &Hn --7 H) .
These equivalences give another way to approach partial soundness instead of

(101).
Definition 8.1 For a schema of inference (R) its degree of soundness shall be
K(R) =def inf([HI& ., . &Hn --7 H]) (104)

with the infimum taken over all interpretations and all valuations of the indi-
vidual variables.
Corollary 8.1 With --7 the LUKASIEWICZ implication, characterised by the

truth degree function seq L (u, v) = min {I, 1 - u + v}, one has
K(R) =1- 8(R)
and thus (104) as a suitable generalisation of the idea which led to (101).
For K(R) the degree of soundness of inference rule (R) one thus always has
or even, accepting K(R) as a constant of the language to denote the degree K(R)
and having (102) satisfied,
[K(R) --7 (HI& . .. &Hn --7 H)] =1

which via importation and exportation for the implication, and commutativity
for the conjunction operations is equivalent to
[HI & ... &Hn --7 (K(R) --7 H)] =1

This is a first way to "code" partially sound rules: it presupposes that one has
to have each degree of soundness as a truth degree constant available within the
language.
8.3 Partially sound rules in many-valued logic

The use of sound rules of inference within the process of inference of new propo-
sitions from given premises can be seen as a transfer of confidence in the premises
to a confidence in the conclusion.
For classical logic, this type of interpretation looks completely unproblem-
atic: "confidence" can be understood as the assumption of truth. A sound rule
of inference does then rationally transfer this confidence from the premises to
the conclusion. For many-valued logic, one way to interpret "confidence" in a
formula or proposition H is to translate this into the statement [H] = 1, i.e.
again into the assumption of the (complete) truth of H. But it also seems natu-
ral to give "confidence in H" another reading meaning [H] ~ u for some truth
degree u. In this second sense confidence itself is graded in some sense, and this
is in very interesting coincidence with the basic idea of many-valued logic, i.e.
with the graduation of truth.
Soundness condition (99) now can be read as allowing only such infer-
ence schemata as sound ones which transfer the "common confidence" in the
premises, i.e. the confidence in the conjunction of the premises into a suitable
confidence in the conclusion.
This reading of soundness shows that and why soundness condition (99)
seems to be preferable over soundness condition (100). And this reading is
based on a kind of identification of truth degrees with degrees of confidence (in
the sense that degree u of confidence in H means [H] ~ u) - and this does not
seem completely unreasonable. Yet, here this interpretation of truth degrees as
(lower bounds of) confidence degrees either refers to an identification of truth
degrees with degrees of confidence - or it can simpler be seen as an addition of
confidence degrees to classical logic.
Up to now the discussion was related simply to soundness. What about par-
tially sound rules of inference? Of course, depending on their degree of sound-
ness the confidence in the conclusion, given the confidences in the premises,
should be smaller than in case of a completely sound rule of inference (with
the same premises) - and becoming as smaller as the degree of soundness is
becoming smaller.
Looking again at the schema (R) and first assuming full confidence in the
premises, i.e. assuming [Hi] = 1 for 1 :::; i :::; n or 1= Hi for 1 :::; i :::; n, it seems
reasonable to assume
,..(R) :::; confidence in H ,
i.e. to assume
IF [Ht] = ... = [Hn] = 1 THEN ,..(R):::; [H] (105)
This last condition in the present case also can be written as
(106)
simply assuming additionally that [1 -t H] = [H] holds always true, which is
only a mild and natural restriction concerning the implication connective -t.
Thus, from the intuitive point of view an application of a partially sound
rule of inference can be understood via the additional idea of confidence degrees.
But, what about repeated applications of partially sound rules of inference?
And is it really a convincing idea to identify degrees of confidence with (lower
bounds of) the truth degrees?
At least for the second one of these questions a more cautious approach may
help to separate confidence and truth degrees: a change from formulas to ordered
72 S. Gottwald
pairs consisting of a formula and a degree of confidence. The consequence of

this idea for inference schemata like (R) now is that premises and conclusions
have to become ordered pairs, i.e. (R) changes into the modified schema
(Hl' al), ... , (Hn, an)
(R) :
(H,{3)
Choosing here confidence degrees, like membership degrees and truth degrees,
from the real unit interval [0,1] means that in (R) usually ai > 0 for 1 :::; i :::; n
as well as {3 > OJ furthermore {3 = (3(iJ.) has to be a function of iJ. = (al," ., an).
A modified soundness condition for the inference schema (R) now is easily
at hand.
Definition 8.2 A modified inference schema of the form (R) is sounrr iff it
always holds true that in case one has [Hi] ~ ai for aliI:::; i :::; n, then one
also has[H] ~ {3.
The weaker form (100) of the usual soundness condition for (R) often is formu-
lated in model theoretic terms as the condition that each model of {H1, ... , Hn}
also is a model of H. In its stronger form (99) this model theoretic version in
many-valued logic simply reads: each interpretation is a model of
Hl& ... &Hn -+ H .

Slightly modifying the notion of model, cf. [33], and calling for a E [0,1] an
interpretation A an a-model of a formula H iff [H] ~ a in A (for all valua-
tions of the individual variables) enables a model theoretic reformulation also
of soundness* .
This formulation becomes even simpler if one calls A an (al, ... , an)-model
of a sequence (Hl , ... , Hn) of formulas iff A is an ai-model of Hi for alII:::; i :::;
n.
Corollary 8.2 A modified inference schema of the form (R) is sounrr iff every
(al,." ,an)-model of (Hl , ... ,Hn) is a {3-model of H.
Obviously, Definition 8.2 subsumes the traditional soundness condition (100),
but also (99) and even condition (8.2) - simply depending on a suitable choice
of {3 as a function of iJ. = (al, ... , an).
Regarding condition (99) and assuming that (R) fulfils condition (99) one
may take in (R) the degree (3 = et(n)(iJ.) with et(u,v) the truth degree function
characterising the conjunction & and et(n) the n-ary generalisation of et, then
of course this schema (R) is sound*. On the other hand, having the inference
schema (R) sound* and using ai = [Hi] for alII:::; i :::; n, so in case (3(iJ.) =
et(n)(iJ.) the corresponding "reduced" schema (R) is simply sound.
But if (R) is sound* and one does not always have (3(iJ.) ~ et(n) (iJ.), then for
8*(R) = infO!l'''',O!n ((3(iJ.) - et(n) (iJ.)) one has always
1 + 8*(R) :::; 1 - et(n)(iJ.) + (3(iJ.) . (107)

With x;*(R) = 1 + 8*(R) this can be written as

(108)
and obviously corresponds to (the first inequality of) condition (106).

Therefore, inference schemata of type (R) cover the usual sound inference
rules as well as the partially sound rules of inference, and the soundness· for
(R) covers usual soundness together with partial soundness.
Having a closer look at schema (R) one recognises that this schema can be
split into two parts, viz. the old schema (R) together with a mapping Rsem :
(n) f-T (3(n). Taking (R) = (Rsyn; Rsem) with now (Rsyn) for (R), because (R)
describes the "syntactic part" of (R), one has that (R) corresponds to
Hl, ... ,Hn.

( (109)
H '
Moreover, starting a deduction from a set ~ of "premises" using inference
rules of type (R) needs premises which have the form of ordered pairs (formula;
degree), i.e. one in such a case has to assume
(110)
But this exactly means to consider
~ :FOn-+V (111)
if one "completes" the set ~ of (110) with all the ordered pairs (H,O) for which
H ~ {H 1 ,H2 , ••• }.
With V = [0,1] or V S;; [0,1] as was always supposed up to now, (111) means
that ~ is a fuzzy subset of the set Fan of all well-formed formulas.
8.4 Many-valued logic with graded consequences

In Section 8.1 our starting point was to extend the basic idea of many-valued
logic, viz. that sentences need to be only partially true to the situation that
rules of inference may be only partially sound.
Now we extend this idea of partiality in another direction assuming that the
premisses a <:ierivation is going to start from need to be given only partially,
i.e. only to some degree. This degree, of course, should always be anyone of the
truth degrees of the particular system of many-valued logic under consideration.
Having in mind the usual treatment of the situation that one derives formu-
las from some given set ~ of premisses, the common understanding in particular
applications is that this set ~ should comprehend the (and only the) fundamen-
tal principles which are of basic importance for this application - and should
not contain "redundant information" in the sense of (purely) logically valid
sentences. To underline this situation, one says that by ~ some (formalised)
74 s. Gottwald
theory44 T is determined and that 1: is the (or: some possible) set of nonlogical
axioms of this theory T.
The extension we actually are interested in now amounts to consider elemen-
tary theories with fuzzy sets of nonlogical axioms. Such theories shall be called
fuzzy theories. And the part of logic devoted to the examination of such fuzzy
theories is the fuzzy logic (in the narrower sense).
In fuzzy logic, like in the standard approach toward many-valued logic and
logical consequence, there is the duality of the semantic approach via interpreta-
tions (models), the satisfaction relation and the notion of semantical entailment,
and there is the syntactic approach via rules of inference and a suitable notion
of proof.
The formal language which we intend to use shall, as before, be some lan-
guage of a suitable system of first-order many-valued logic. Their particular
connectives and quantifiers as well as their truth degree constants shall become
specified only if necessary. As we suppose that the membership degrees of the
fuzzy sets which shall enter the discussion shall be truth degrees, there this
language shall have enough of expressive power to handle the situation we have
in mind.
8.4.1 The semantic approach

As in the case of (pure) many-valued logic, let us first consider the semantic
approach. Because of the fact that the language for fuzzy logic is the same
as for many-valued logic, the notion of interpretation is the same as before:
based on fixed truth degree functions for the connectives and the quantifiers as
well as on a fixed correspondence between the actual truth degree constants of
the language and the truth degrees denoted by them, any interpretation has to
provide the meanings of the predicate symbols and of the individual constants.
The essential point for fuzzy logic thus, regarding the semantic approach
toward the entailment relation, is the definition of what shall be a model ~ for
a fuzzy set 1: of sentences. Intuitively, the crucial condition (for classical logic)
reads
if H is a sentence of 1: then ~ is a model of H. (112)
Because now 1: is a fuzzy set of sentences the antecedent of this condition
(112) either has to be read as the graded formula He 1: - or as some statement
involving the truth degree [H e 1:] of it. The succedent of (112), however, is a
classical statement, i.e. either true or false.
Thus, we either should transform He 1: into a classical statement, or we
should transform "~ is a model of H" into some graded formula.
We shall follow the second one of these ideas guided by the intuition that,
classically, the truth value of "~ is a model of H" is the same as the truth value
44In the standard case that the system of logic one is refering to is the classical first-order
logic, such formalised theories usually are called elementary theories. We shall extend this
terminology and use this terminus "elementary theory" also in the case the actual logical
system is some system of many-valued first-order logic.
of H if evaluated in the interpretation 45 21. Writing p* (21, H) for the graded

version of "21 is a model of H" it is natural to define
[ p* (21, H)] =def Val s2l(H) (113)
in accordance with the notation which was used in Section 6.1. Then (112)
becomes the condition
Hc~ -+ p* (21,H) (114)
which has to be "satisfied", i.e. which has to have truth degree 1, and in which
-+ now has to be understood as a suitable implication connective of many-valued
logic.
Having in mind that the degree ranking property is one of the basic prop-
erties of implication connectives for systems of many-valued logic, which is sat-
isfied e.g. for all R-implications based upon left continuous t-norms, condition
(114), and hence also (112), becomes
[H c~] ~ [ p. (21, H)]. (115)
Therefore we give the
Definition 8.3 An interpretation 21 for some system 5 of many-valued logic is

a model of a fuzzy set ~ of sentences of .cs, denoted: 21 p. H, iff condition
(115) is satisfied for each .cs -sentence H.
This definition opens the way to define the fuzzy set Cn*(~) of all the sen-
tences which are logically entailed by ~. In classical logic the corresponding set
Cn(~) may be characterised as
Cn(~) = {H 121 P H for all models 21 of~} = n{Th(21) 121 p ~}

using the notion Th(21) = {H 121 1= H} for the theory of a structure 21.
For the present situation we only have to adapt this notion of the theory of
a structure in such a way that it becomes a fuzzy set of formulas. And this is
done simply by defining for any interpretation 21
Th·(21) =def {H II 1=. (21,H)}. (116)
Then, as in the classical case, one defines furthermore the fuzzy set of all the
sentences entailed by a fuzzy set ~ of sentences as
(117)
with n here for the intersection of a (crisp) set of fuzzy sets.

Of course, the degree to which some sentence H is entailed by ~ now is the
membership degree [H c Cn·(~)], and one obviously has
[H c Cn~(~)] = inf{[ 1=. (21, H)] 121 1=* ~}. (118)

45We remind the reader that we suppose that ~ is a (fuzzy) set of sentences which means
that the truth value/degree of H in 21 is indepent of any further valuation.
76 S. Gottwald
Further semantic notions, like e.g. the notion of satisfiability, then can be in-
troduced along the lines well known from standard many-valued logic. Suit-
able generalisations of standard results become provable in this more general
realm. As an example one has the following (propositional) compactness theo-
ren, cf. [109], which holds true for all propositional fuzzy logics with an injective
MV-algebra as set of truth degrees.
Theorem 8.3 A fuzzy set E of well-formed (propositional) formulas is satisfi-

able iff each finite fuzzy subset46 of E is satisfiable.
8.4.2 The syntactic approach

The syntactic approach toward many-valued logic with graded consequences,
i.e. toward fuzzy logic (in the narrower sense) has to refer to a suitable notion
of derivation which allows to derive consequences from fuzzy sets of premisses,
and which as usual has to be based on a suitable calculus, i.e. some algorithmic
system with a rule base and some - possibly fuzzy - set AXFL of axioms, for
fuzzy logic.
As is common usage, also in fuzzy logic a derivation shall be a finite sequence
of well-formed formulas. But the intention to get the derived formula of every
derivation with some degree forces to combine each derivation with some degree.
Because of the usual understanding that each initial segment of a derivation
again is a derivation (of its last formula), each initial segment of a derivation in
fuzzy logic itself should come with a degree. And the most simple way to reach
this goal seems to be a parallel treatment of formulas and degrees in derivations
in fuzzy logic. Formally this means that the constituents of derivations in fuzzy
logic should be ordered pairs of the form (formula, degree).
Fortunately this fits very well with the additional assumption that the sets
of premisses now should be fuzzy sets of sentences, because fuzzy sets of for-
mulas - or their membership functions - according to the usual set-theoretic
understanding of functions are nothing but (crisp) sets of ordered pairs of just
the type (formula, membership degree).
But then the inference rules should follow the same pattern: they either
have to have as their premisses finite sequences of pairs of the form (formula,
degree) and a consequent of the same form, or they have to consist itself of two
parts acting in parallel - a first one that treats the formulas (in the standard
way well known from calculi for classical logic) and a second one that treats
the corresponding degrees. In any case, however, the result of an application of
such a rule of inference has to be an ordered pair of the form (formula, degree).
That means, looking back at partial soundness of inference rules via their
formulation in the form (R), the previous way to add partially sound rules of
inference to many-valued logic was leading immediately into the field of fuzzy
logic: the sets of premises to start a derivation from became in a very natural
way read as fuzzy subsets of the set of all formulas, and the inference schemata
proved to be prototypical for the form these schemata have in fuzzy logic.
46This means any fuzzy set >It C E with a finite support.
However, for the moment we shall suppose that the (generalised) inference
rules of the form (R) have to be sound - in one of the senses we discussed before.
A derivation in fuzzy logic of a sentence H from a fuzzy set ~ of premisses
then is a finite sequence
(HI, al), (H2 , (2), ... , (Hn, an), (119)
of ordered pairs (Hi, ai) of the form (formula, degree) such that
• either Hi comes from ~ and it is ai = [Hi € ~],

• or Hi comes from the fuzzy set of axioms AXFL and it is ai = [Hi € AXFL],
• or (Hi, ai) results from the application of one of the rules of inference to
pairs (Hk,ak) with 1 ~ k < i.
And the degree to which Hn is derived by the derivation (119) is an.
In fuzzy logic each derivation of a sentence H from a fuzzy set ~ of premisses
provides a degree to which H is derived from ~ by this derivation. Unlike
classical logic, however, different derivations of the same sentence H from the
fuzzy set ~ may provide different degrees to which they are derivations of H.
Therefore, a single derivation of H from ~ gives only a lower bound for what
may be called the degree of derivability of the sentence H from the fuzzy set ~.
And this degree of derivability 1-* (H,~) itself should be the supremum
I-*(H,~) =def sup{a n l(H1 ,al),(H2 ,a2), ... ,(H,an ) (120)

is a derivation of H from ~}.
As usual now, the (fuzzy) syntactic, i.e. derivability based consequence hull
Cn~(~) of the fuzzy set~, i.e. the fuzzy set of theorems of the (fuzzy) elementary
theory T with the fuzzy set ~ of nonlogical axioms is
(121)
8.4.3 Axiomatising fuzzy logic

As each system 5* of (propositional or first-order) fuzzy logic extends some
system 5 of many-valued (propositional or first-order) logic, the problem of
axiomatisability for this system 5* of fuzzy logic may be expected to be closely
tied to the problem of axiom at is ability of the "underlying" system 5 of many-
valued logic. The crucial point here is that the semantic entailment operation
Cn~ of 5* extends the semantic entailment relation Cnl= of 5 in such a way that
for each crisp(!) set ~ of sentences of the (common) language Cs of 5* and 5
one has Cn~(~) = Cnl=(~)' Therefore, assuming that 5* and 5 have the same
set of designated truth degrees, 5* has the same (crisp) set Cn~(0) = Cnl=(0)
of logically valid sentences as 5, and any adequate axiomatisation of of the
logically valid sentences of 5 is at the same time an adequate axiomatisation for
the logically valid sentences of 5*.
78 s. Gottwald
Even more holds true. Given an adequate axiomatisation of the semantic

entailment operation Cnl= of S, i.e. a notion of S-provability f-s such that H E
Cnl=(~) holds true iff ~ f-s H for each sentence H and all sets ~ of sentences of
S, then one already has an axiomatisation of a "fragment" of Cn~, viz. of the
restriction of Cn~ to crisp argument sets. The only minor change which has to
be made is a kind of rereading of the inference rules which, for fuzzy logic, have
to treat in parallel formulas and degrees. As "nonfuzzy" many-valued logics
can, from the point of view of fuzzy logic, be considered as treating all the
formulas to degree one (in the set of axioms as well as in any set of premisses),
the rereading of the inference rules simply amounts to combining with all the
premisses of these rules and with their conclusions the truth degree 1.
At all thus, (adequate) axiomatisations of the semantic entailment operation
of fuzzy logics may be chosen as extensions of (adequate) axiomatisations of the
semantic entailment operation of the "underlying" many-valued logic in such a
way that further axioms may be added (perhaps to some degree) and that the
rules of inference need to become joined with a treatment of degrees to parallel
the treatment of formulas they already regulate.
In accordance with the actual state of the art in fuzzy logic, however, we
shall not intend to discuss the problem of axiom at isability for large classes of
systems of many-valued logic as these remarks may seem to suggest. Instead,
we restrict our considerations to the case that the "underlying" system of many-
valued logic is the infinite valued LUKASIEWICZ logic Lao and take this case as
a kind of prototype of how to approach the problem for other systems of fuzzy
logic too.
For the LUKASIEWICZ propositional system Lao (in LUKASIEWICZ'S impli-
cation and negation as primitive connectives) an adequate axiomatisation not
only of the set of tautologies but even of the semantic entailment operation is
provided by the axioms (i) to (iv) mentioned in Theorem 4.3 together with the
rule of detachment w.r.t. -+L.
Before we extend this axiomatisation to the fuzzy LUKASIEWICZ proposi-
tionallogic we should consider a possibility to "code" the membership degree
h = [H c Cn~(~)] of H in the fuzzy consequence hull of ~ inside the language
of this fuzzy logic. This goal can be reached because from (118) together with
(113) one has that
h ~ Vals!a(H) for all models 2l of ~ (122)
and therefore that
Vals!a(h -+L H) =1 for all models 2l of ~ (123)
if one introduces the truth degree constant h into the language to denote the
truth degree h. That means that from h = [H c Cn~(~)] one gets that [(h -+L
H) c Cn~(~)] = 1. And then one can hope to find a suitable axiomatisation
from this idea and a further strategy to have only minor changes in the sets
of inference rules compared with axiomatisations of the "background" many-
valued LUKASIEWICZ logic.
Guided by this observation we enrich the language of our fuzzy LUKASIEWICZ

logic by truth degree constants for every truth degree, writing from now on y.
to denote the truth degree u.
Now we are in a position to give an adequate axiomatisation of the propo-
sitional fuzzy logic based upon the infinite valued LUKASIEWICZ logic Loc. The
fuzzy set of axioms Ax~ for this system consists of:
• the axioms (i) to (iv) of Theorem 4.3 with membership degree 1,
• the truth degree constants y. with membership degree u for every u E [0,1]'
• the formulas (y. -+L 1L) ++L seq 2(u, v) with membership degree 1 for all
U,v E [0,1]'
• the formulas -'y' ++L nonl (u) with membership degree 1 for every u E [0,1].
And the rules of inference, written down as in (109) as rules which connect
ordered pairs of the form (formula, degree) to finite lists of such pairs, are the
following ones:
• the generalised modus ponens which allows to infer the ordered pair
(H2,et2(U,V» from the ordered pairs (Hl'U) and (HI -+L H2,v), Le.:
u,v )
et2(U,v) ,
• the constant introduction rule which allows to infer the ordered pair
(y. -+L H,seq2(u,v» from the pair (H,v), i.e.:
(y.! H; Seq2~U'V»)
Both the fuzzy set of axioms as well as the list of inference rules look, after
some inspection, quite natural. The same still holds true for a lot of further gen-
eralised inference rules which prove to be sound in fuzzy logic, cf. [110]. There
is, however, notwithstanding the fact that it is quite usual in set theoretically
oriented mathematical logic to use such uncountable languages, a severe diffi-
culty with this approach: it uses truth degree constants for all the real numbers
of the unit interval [0,1], i.e. for a non-denumerably infinite set of degrees -
and therefore this extended language cannot be realised in the usual way as a
language whose words are finite strings of symbols of a denumerable alphabet.
Fortunately there is a way to overcome this difficulty: for most applications
it is sufficient to have as truth degree constants only symbols for the rational
numbers of the real unit interval [0,1]. And because this is a denumerable set
of numbers, the language of this rational fuzzy LUKASIEWICZ logic is itself a
denumerable language.
What finally shall be discussed is the extension to the case of first-order
fuzzy LUKASIEWICZ logic. Completely standard (as for LUKASIEWICZ logic in
80 S. Gottwald
general) is the change in the language if changing from propositional to first-

order logic. The only point for discussion is, again as usual, how to extend the
(fuzzy) set of axioms and the list of inference rules. One possibility is to add as
further axioms
• the formulas VxH(x) -?L H(t), where t is any term free for the individual
variable x in H, with membership degree 1,
• the formulas Vx(G -?L H(x)) -?L (G -?L VxH(x)), where G does not
contain the individual variable x free, with membership degree 1,
• the formulas (G -?L 3xH(x)) -?L 3x(G -?L H(x)), where G does not
contain the individual variable x free, with membership degree 1,
and thus adding (essentially) just the same axioms which can also be used in
extending an axiomatisation of classical propositional logic to an axiomatisation
of classical first-order logic.
And the list of inference rules has e.g. to be extended by adding
• the suitable modified generalisation rule which allows to infer the ordered
pair (VxH,u) from the ordered pair (H,u), i.e.: Le.:
8.4.4 Some theoretical results

Notwithstanding the fact, that the semantic as well as the syntactic approach
toward graded consequences parallel the usual approaches in classical and in
"standard" many-valued logic in a natural way, the syntactic approach has
some particular pecularity. The crucial point is that, unlike the situation in
classical logic, because of definition (120) the knowledge of a single derivation
of a sentence H from ~ (with some degree a for this derivation of H) does not
necessarily give the membership degree of H in Cn~(~). And in the case that
the many-valued logic a particular system of fuzzy logic is based upon itself is
an infinitely many-valued system, even a finite set of such derivations of H from
~ may not suffice to determine this membership degree. In this sense, despite
the fact that all the inference rules are supposed to be finitary, Le. to have each
only a finite number of rule premisses, the present notion of provability in fuzzy
logic is not a finitary notion of provability.
In this particular sense, provability in fuzzy logic is much more complicated
a matter as is provability in classical first-order logic.
One of the most basic problems for graded consequences is the relation be-
tween the semantic and the syntactic approach. Here, again, the system of
many-valued logic the approach toward graded consequences is based upon, be-
comes of importance. If suitably chosen, as done in the last section for propo-
sitional as well as first-order LUKASIEWICZ fuzzy logic, both these approaches
give the same degrees of consequence.
Theorem 8.4 (Completeness Theorem)

For the approach toward gmded consequences based on one of the (propositional
or first-order) LUKASIEWICZ systems Loo with truth degree constants for all the
real numbers from [0,1] one has for any fuzzy set ~ of sentences
Therefore one has completeness in the strong sense of an adequate axioma-

tisation of the semantic entailment operation.
With respect to the problem of partially sound rules of inference, which was
our starting point for looking at graded consequence operations, the essential
results are given in the following two theorems.
Theorem 8.5 Each many-valued elementary theory which one gets by enrich-
ing many-valued logic with some (crisp) set of nonlogical axioms and some par-
tially sound rules of inference is equivalent to some elementary theory in the
realm of fuzzy logic chamcterized by a fuzzy set of nonlogical axioms.
Extending also fuzzy logic with partially sound rules of inference gives further-
more
Theorem 8.6 Each many-valued elementary theory which one gets by enrich-
ing fuzzy logic with some (fuzzy) set of nonlogical axioms and some partially
sound rules of inference is equivalent to some elementary theory in the realm of
fuzzy logic chamcterized simply by a fuzzy set of nonlogical axioms and using
only sound rules of inference.
These last mentioned results have the disadvantage that the language of
fuzzy logic becomes uncountable by the addition of all the truth degree con-
stants. It is interesting that essentially the same result is already provable
with only truth degree constants for the rationals from [0, 1], as was shown by
P. Hajek [37]. He proves the following
Theorem 8.7 (Restricted Completeness Theorem) Suppose that the ap-

proach toward gmded consequences is based on one of the (propositional or
first-order) LUKASIEWICZ systems Loo with truth degree constants for all the
mtional numbers from [0,1], then one has for any "mtional valued" fuzzy set
~ : :FOn -+ [0,1] n Q of sentences
Interestingly, the definitions (117), (121) of Cn~, Cn~ can remain unchanged in
this new situation with the restricted language.
Even in this restricted form with truth degree constants only for the rationals
the provability relation is not a simple one, and the theoremhood property is
even a quite complicated one, as was proven also by P. H' AJEK [37, 38, 39]
extending results of RAGAZ [88] and HAHNLE [36].
82 S. Gottwald
Theorem 8.8 Suppose that T is an axiomatizable rational fuzzy theory, i.e.

that T : :FOR --+ [0,1] n Q is a recursive function. Then
(i) the (crisp) satisfiability relation Cn~(T) = {(H, r) I [H c Cn~(T)] = r} is
a Ih -relation,
(ii) and already for T = 0 all the sets Cntl = {H I [H c Cn~(0)] ~ r}, r E Q,
are II2 -complete.
In particular, this means that already the set of logically valid formulas of
the first-order (LUKASIEWICZ style) fuzzy logic Loo with rational truth degree
constants is II 2 -complete. 47
8.4.5 Historical remarks

Fuzzy logic (in the narrower sense) was first studied in [82] by the Czech math-
ematician J. PAVELKA. He was concerned with fuzzy propositional logic and
intended to be as general as possible regarding the truth degree sets. He pre-
sented axiomatisations for the fuzzy logics and succeded, however, with the
proof of a completeness theorem only for the case that this truth degree set is
(isomorphic to) the truth degree set of one of the LUKASIEWICZ systems.
The extension to the first-order case was mainly done in papers of another
Czech mathematician V. NOVAK and is reported e.g. in [78, 79]. He is using
truth degree constants for all the reals of the unit interval.
The problem of partial soundness of inference rules was discussed by the
present author in [35]. And the restriction to the rational fuzzy logic together
with simplifications of the axiomatisation and with interesting further results
on this fuzzy logic was quite recently given by a third Czech mathematician P.
HAJEK, e.g. in [37, 39].
References
[1] Baudry, L. (1950). La Querelle des Future Contingents: Louvain 1465 - 1475,
Vrin, Paris.
[2] Belluce, L.P. (1964). Further results on infinite valued predicate logic. J. Sym-
bolic Logic 29, 69 - 78.
[3] Belluce, L.P. and Chang, C.C. (1963). A weak completeness theorem for infinite
valued first-order logic. J. Symbolic Logic 28, 43 - 50.
[4] Bernays, P. (1926). Axiomatische Untersuchungen des Aussagenkalkiils der

"Principia Mathematica". Math. Zeitschr. 25, 305 - 320.
[5] Bocvar, D.A. (1938). Ob odnom trechznaenom iscislenii i ego primenenii k anal-
izu paradoksov klassiceskogo funkcional'nogo isCislenija. Mat. Sbornik 4 (46),
287 - 308.
47For further complexity results concerning fuzzy propositional as well as first-order logics
the interested reader should consult [39].
[6] Bocvar, D.A. (1943). K voprosu 0 neprotivorecivosti odnogo trechznaenogo

iscislenija. Mat. Sbornik 12 (54), 353 - 369.
[7] Bole, L. and Borowik, P. (1992). Many- Valued Logics, 1. Theoretical Founda-
tions. Springer, Berlin.
[8] Borger, E., Gradel, E. and Gurevich, Y. (1997). The Classical Decision Problem.
Perspectives in Mathematical Logic, Springer, Berlin.
[9] Butnariu, D. and Klement, E.P. (1993). Triangular Norm-Based Measures and
Games with Fuzzy Coalitions. Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht.
[10] Chang, C.C. (1958). Algebraic analysis of many valued logics. 'frans. Amer.
Math. Soc. 88, 467 - 490.
[11] Chang, C.C. (1959). A new proof of the completeness of the Lukasiewicz axioms.
'frans. Amer. Math. Soc. 93, 74 - 80.
[12] Chang, C.C. (1965). Infinite valued logic as a basis for set theory. In: Logic,
Methodology and Philosophy of Science. Proc. Internat. Congress Jerusalem
1964 (Y. Bar-Hillel et al. eds.), North-Holland Publ. Comp., Amsterdam, 93 -
100.
[13] Chang, C.C. and Keisler, H.J. (1966). Continuous Model Theory. Ann. of Math.
Stud., vol. 58, Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ.
[14] Cignoli, R. (1970). Moisil Algebras. Notas Logica Matematica, vol. 27, Univer-
sidad Nacional del Sur, Bahia Blanca.
[15] Cignoli, R., d'Ottaviano, I. and Mundici, D. (1994). Algebras das L6gicas de
Lukasiewicz. Coleltao CLE, vol. 12, Centro de Logica, Epistemologica e Historia
da Ciencia - UNICAMP, Campinas, Brasil.
[English translation Algebraic Foundations of Many-Valued Reasoning in prepa-
ration (to appear approximately 1998).]
[16] De Baets, B. and Mesiar, R. (1996) Residual implicators of continuous t-norms.

In: Fourth European Congress on Intelligent Techniques and Soft Computing,
EUFIT '96, Aachen, Sept. 1993, Proceedings (H.-J. Zimmermann ed.), ELITE
Foundation, Aachen, 27 - 31.
[17] Dummett, M. (1959). A propositional calculus with denumerable matrix. J.

Symbolic Logic 24, 97 - 106.
[18] Dunn, M. and Meyer, R.K. (1971). Algebraic completeness results for Dum-
mett's LC and its extensions. Ztschr. Math. Logik Grundlag. Math. 11, 225 -
230.
[19] Dwinger, Ph. (1977). A survey of the theory of Post algebras and their general-
izations. In: Modern Uses of Multiple- Valued Logic (M. Dunn and G. Epstein
eds.), Reidel, Dordrecht, 53 - 75.
[20] Epstein, G. (1960). The lattice of Post algebras. 'frans. Amer. Math. Soc. 95,
300-317.
84 S. Gottwald
[21] Fisch, M. and Turquette, A.R. (1966). Peirce's triadic logic. nans. Charles
Sanders Peirce Society 2, 71 - 85.
[22] Fodor, J. (1993). A new look at fuzzy connectives. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 57,
141 - 148.
[23] Fodor, J. (1993). On contrapositive symmetry of implications in fuzzy logic. In:

First European Congress on Fuzzy and Intelligent Technologies, EUFIT '93,
Aachen, Sept. 1993, Proceedings (H.-J. Zimmermann ed.), Verlag Augustinus
Buchhandlung, Aachen, 1342 - 1348.
[24] Fodor, J. and Roubens, M. (1994). Fuzzy Preference Modelling and Multicrite-
ria Decision Support. Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dordrecht.
[25] Frank, H.J. (1979). On the simultaneous associativity of F(x, y) and x +y -

F(x, y). Aequationes Math. 19, 194 - 226.
[26] Girard, J.Y. (1987). Linear logic. Theor. Comp. Sci. 50, 1 - 102.
[27] Gluschankof, D. (1992). Prime deductive systems and injective objects in the
algebras of Lukasiewicz infinite-valued calculi. Algebra Universalis 29, 354 -
377.
[28] Giidel, K. (1932). Zum intuitionistischen Aussagenkalkiil. Anzeiger Akad. Wiss.

Wien, math.-naturwiss. Kl., 69, 65 - 66.
[29] Gottwald, S. (1979). Set theory for fuzzy sets of higher level. Fuzzy Sets Syst.
2, 25 - 51.
[30] Gottwald, S. (1980). Fuzzy uniqueness of fuzzy mappings. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 3,
49 - 74.
[31] Gottwald, S. (1985). A generalized Lukasiewicz-style identity logic. In: Mathe-

matical Logic and Formal Systems (L.P. de Alcantara (ed.), Lecture Notes Pure
and Applied Mathematics, vol. 94, Marcel Dekker, New York, 183-195.
[32] Gottwald, S. (1986). Characterizations of the solvability of fuzzy equations.

Elektron. Informationsverarb. Kybernet. ElK 22, 67 - 91.
[33] Gottwald, S. (1989). Mehrwertige Logik. Eine Einfiihrung in Theorie und An-
wendungen. Akademie-Verlag, Berlin.
[34] Gottwald, S. (1993). Fuzzy Sets and Fuzzy Logic. Vieweg, Wiesbaden.
[35] Gottwald, S. (1995). An approach to handle partially sound rules of infer-

ence. In: Advances in Intelligent Computing - IPMU '94, Selected Papers (B.
Bouchon-Meunier, RR. Yager, L.A. Zadeh eds.), Lecture Notes Computer ScL,
vol. 945, Springer, Berlin, 380 - 388.
[36] Hiihnle, R. (1994). Many-valued logic and mixed integer programming. Annals
of Math. and ArtiE. Intelligence 12, 231 - 263.
[37] Hajek, P. (1995). Fuzzy logic and arithmetical hierarchy. Fuzzy Sets and Systems
73, 359 - 363.
[38] Hajek, P. (1997). Fuzzy logic and arithmetical hierarchy II. Studia Logica 58,
129 - 141.
[39] Hajek, P. (1998). Metamathematics of Fuzzy Logic. Kluwer Acad. Publ., Dor-
drecht.
[40] Hajek, P., Godo, L. and Esteva, F. (1996). A complete many-valued logic with
product-conjunction. Arch. Math. Logic 35, 191 - 208.
[41] Hamacher, H. (1978). Uber logische Aggregationen nicht-binar explizierter Ent-

scheidungskriterien. Rita G. Fischer Verlag, Frankfurt/Main.
[42] Hay, L.S. (1963). Axiomatization of the infinite-valued predicate calculus. J.

[43] Hohie, U. (1992). M-valued sets and sheaves over integral commutative CL-
monoids. In: Applications of Category Theory to Fuzzy Subsets (S.E. Rod-
abaugh, E.P. Klement, U. Hohle eds.), Kluwer Acad. Pub!., Dordrecht, 33 -
72.
[44] Hohle, U. (1994). Monoidal logic. In: Fuzzy Systems in Computer Science (R.
Kruse, J. Gebhardt, R. Palm eds.), Vieweg, Wiesbaden, 233 - 243.
[45] Hohie, U. (1995). Commutative, residuated l-monoids. In: Non-Classical Logics

and Their Applications to Fuzzy Subsets (U. Hohle, E.P. Klement eds.), Kluwer
Acad. Pub!., Dordrecht, 53 - 106.
[46] Hohle, U. (1995). Presheaves over GL-monoids. In: Non-Classical Logics and
Their Applications to Fuzzy Subsets (U. Hohle, E.P. Klement eds.), Kluwer
Acad. Pub!., Dordrecht, 127 - 157.
[47] Hohie, U. (1996). On the fundamentals offuzzy set theory. J. Math. Anal. Appl.
201, 786 - 826.
[48] JaSkowski, S. (1936). Recherches sur Ie systeme de la logique intuitioniste. In:

Actes du Congres Internat. de Philosophie ScientiHque 1936, vol. 6, Actualites
Scientifique et Industriel, vol. 393, Hermann, Paris, 58 - 61.
[49] Klawonn, F. and Kruse, R. (1993). Equality relations as a basis for fuzzy control.
Fuzzy Sets and Systems 54, 147 - 156.
[50] Kleene, S.C. (1938). On notation for ordinal numbers. J. Symbolic Logic 3, 150
- 155.
[51] Kleene, S.C. (1952). Introduction to Metamathematics, North-Holland Publ.

Comp./van Nostrand, Amsterdam/New York.
[52] Klement, E.P. (1997). Some mathematical aspects of fuzzy sets: triangular
norms, fuzzy logics, and generalized measures. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 90, 133
- 140.
[53] Klement, E.P. and Mesiar, R. (1997). Triangular Norms. Tatra Mountain Math.
Publ. 13, 169 - 193.
86 S. Gottwald
[54] Klement, E.P., Mesiar, R. and Pap, E. (199?). 'Iriangular Norms. (book in
preparation)
[55] Lewis, C.J. and Langford, C.H. (1932). Symbolic Logic, Dover, New York.
[56] Ling, C.H. (1965). Representation of associative functions. Publ. Math. Debre-
cen 12, 182 - 212.
[57] Lovett, E.O. (1900-01). Mathematics at the International Congress of Philoso-

phy, Paris 1900. Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 1, 157 - 183.
[58] Lukasiewicz, J. (1913). Die logischen Grundlagen der Wahrscheinlichkeits-

rechnung, Krakow [ef. also his (1970)].
[59] Lukasiewicz, J. (1920). 0 logice tr6jwartosciowej. Ruch Filozoficzny 5, 170 -

171.
[60] Lukasiewicz, J. (1930). Philosophische Bemerkungen zu mehrwertigen Systemen

des Aussagenkalkiils. C. R. Seances Soc. Sci. et Lettr. Varsovie, cl. III, 23, 51
- 77.
[61] Lukasiewicz, J. (1935). Zur Geschichte der Aussagenlogik. Erkenntnis 5, 111 -

131.
[62] Lukasiewicz, J. (1970). Selected Works (L. Borkowski, ed.). North-Holland

Publ. Comp., Amsterdam.
[63] Lukasiewicz, J. and Tarski, A. (1930). Untersuchungen liber den Aussagenkal-

klil. C. R. Seances Soc. Sci. et Lettr. Varsovie, cl. III, 23, 30 - 50.
[64] Mangani, P. (1973). Su certe algebre connesse con logiche a pili valori.
Boll. Unione Math. Italiana (4) 8, 68 - 78.
[65] McColl, H. (1897). Symbolic reasoning, II. Mind, N.S., 6, 493 - 510.
[66] McNaughton, R. (1951). A theorem about infinite-valued sentential logic. J.

[67] Menger, K. (1979). Selected Papers in Logic and Foundations, Didactics, Eco-
nomics, Reidel, Dordrecht.
[68] Michalski, K. (1937). Le probleme de la volonte a Oxford et a Paris au XIVe

siecle. Studia Philosophica 2, 233 - 365.
[69] Moisil, G.C. (1935). Recherches sur l'algebre de la logique. Ann. Sci. Univ. Jassy
22,1- 117.
[70] Moisil, G.C. (1940). Recherches sur les logiques non chrysipiennes. Ann. Sci.
Univ. Jassy 26, 431 - 466.
[71] Moisil, G.C. (1941). Notes sur les logiques non-chrysipiennes. Ann. Sci. Univ.
Jassy 21, 86 -98.
[72] Morgan, C.G. (1974). A theory of equality for a class of many-valued predicate
calculi, Zeitschr. math. Logik Grundl. Math. 20, 427-432.
[73] Morgan, C.G. (1975). Similarity as a theory of graded equality for a class of
many-valued predicate calculi. In: Proc. 1975 Internat. Symp. Multiple-Valued
Logic, Bloomington, Long Beach, 436-449.
[74] Mostert, P.S. and Shields, A.L. (1957). On the structure of semigroups on a
compact manifold with boundary. Ann. of Math., 65, 117 - 143.
[75] Mostowski, A. (1957). On a generalization of quantifiers. Fund. Math. 44, 12 -

36.
[76] Mostowski, A. (1961/62). Axiomatizability of some many valued predicate cal-

culi. Fund. Math. 50, 165 - 190.
[77] Mundici, D. (1994). A constructive proof of McNaughtons theorem in infinite-

valued logics. J. Symbolic Logic 59, 596 - 602.
[78] Novak, V. (1989). Fuzzy Sets and Their Applications. A. Hilger, Bristol.
[79] Novak, V. (1990). On the syntactico-semantical completeness of first-order fuzzy

logic. I - II. Kybernetica 26, 47 - 66; 134 - 154.
[80] Novak, V. (1992). The Alternative Mathematical Model of Linguistic Semantics

and Pragmatics. Plenum Press, New York.
[81] Ovchinnikov, S.V. and Roubens, M. (1991). On strict preference relations. Fuzzy
Sets and Systems 43, 319 - 326.
[82] Pavelka, J. (1979) On fuzzy logic. I - III. Ztschr. Math. LogikGrundlag. Math.
25, 45 - 52; 119 - 134; 447 - 464.
[83] Patzig, G. (1973). Aristotle, Lukasiewicz and the origins of many-valued logic.
In: Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science IV (P. Suppes et al. eds.),
PWN/North-Holland Publ. Comp., Warsaw/Amsterdam, 921 - 929.
[84] Pedrycz, W. (1982). Fuzzy control and fuzzy systems. Dept. Math., Delft Univ.
of Technology, Report 82 14.
[85] Peirce, Ch.S. (1931 - 58). Collected Papers (C. Hartshorne et al. eds.), Harvard
Uni. Press, Cambridge, MA.
[86] Poeschel, K. and Kaluznin, L.A. (1979). Funktionen- und Relationenalgebren.

Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften, Berlin.
[87] Post, E.L. (1921). Introduction to a general theory of elementary propositions.

Amer. J. Math. 43, 163 - 185.
[88] Ragaz, M. (1981). Arithmetische Klassifikation von Formelmengen in der un-

endlichwertigen Logik. Dissertation, ETH Ziirich.
[89] Rasiowa, H. (1974). An Algebraic Approach to Non-Classical Logic, North-

Holland Publ. Comp./PWN, Amsterdam/Warsaw.
[90] Rescher, N. (1969). Many-Valued Logic, McGraw-Hill, New York.

88 S. Gottwald
[91] Rine, D.C. (ed.) (1977). Computer Science and Multiple- Valued Logic, North-
Holland Pub!. Comp., Amsterdam.
[92] Rose, A. and Rosser, J.B. (1958). Fragments of many-valued statement calculi.
Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 87, 1 - 53.
[93] Rosenbloom, P.C. (1942). Post algebras. 1. Postulates and general theory. Amer.
J. Math. 64, 167 - 188.
[94] Rosser, J.B. and Turquette, A.R. (1952). Many-Valued Logics, North-Holland
Pub!. Comp., Amsterdam.
[95] Sanchez, E. (1976). Resolution of composite fuzzy relation equations. Informa-

tion and Control 30, 38 - 48.
[96] Sanchez, E. (1977). Solutions in composite fuzzy relation equations: application

to medical diagnosis in Brouwerian logic. In: Fuzzy Automata and Decision
Processes (M.M. Gupta, G.N. Saridis. B.R. Gaines eds.), North-Holland Pub!.
Comp., Amsterdam, 221 - 234.
[97] Scarp ellini , B. (1962). Die Nichtaxiomatisierbarkeit des unendlichwertigen

Pradikatenkalkiils von Lukasiewicz. J. Symbolic Logic 27, 159 - 170.
[98] Schweizer, B. and Sklar, A . (1961). Associative functions and statistical triangle
inequalities. Publ. Math. Debrecen 8, 169 - 186.
[99] Schweizer, B. and Sklar, A. (1983). Probabilistic Metric Spaces. North-Holland

Pub!. Comp., Amsterdam.
[100] Scott, D.S. (1979). Identity and existence in intuitionistic logic. In: Applications
of Sheaves, Lect. Notes Math., vo!. 753, Springer, New York, 660 - 696.
[101] Slupecki, J. (1936). Der volle dreiwertige Aussagenkalkii!. C. R. Seances Soc.

Sci. et Lettr. Varsovie, d. III, 29, 9 - 11.
[102] Smets, P. and Magrez, P. (1987). Implication in fuzzy logic. Internat. J. Approx.
Reasoning 1, 327 - 347.
[103] Sugeno, M. (1977). Fuzzy measures and fuzzy integrals: a survey. In: Fuzzy
Automata and Decision Processes (M.M. Gupta, G.N. Saridis, B.R. Gaines
eds.), North-Holland Pub!. Comp., Amsterdam, 89 - 102.
[104] Thiele, H. (1958). Theorie der endlichwertigen Lukasiewiczschen Pradikatenkal-

kiile der ersten Stufe. Ztschr. Math. Logik Grundlag. Math. 4, 108 - 142.
[105] Thiele, H. (1995). On fuzzy quantifiers. In: Fuzzy Logic and Its Applications
to Engineering, Information Sciences, and Intelligent systems. Selected Papers
of the 5th IFSA World Congress, Seoul, Korea, July 1993, (Z. Bien, K.C. Min
eds.), Kluwer Acad. Pub!., Dordrecht, 343-352.
[106] Trillas, E. (1979). Sobre funciones de negacion en la teoria de conjuntos difusos.

Stochastica III, 47 - 60.
[107] Trakhtenbrot, B.A. (1950). Nevozmoznost' algorifma dlja problemy razresimosti

na konecnykh klassakh. Doklady Akad. Nauk SSSR 10, 569 - 572.
[English Translation: The impossibility of an algorithm for the decision problem
for finite models. AMS 'Transl. Series 2 (1963), 1 - 6.]
[108] Turquette, A.R. (1967). Peirce's Phi and Psi operators for triadic logic. 'Trans.
Charles Sanders Peirce Society 3, 66 - 73.
[109] Turunen, E. (1995). Well-defined fuzzy sentential logic. Math. Logic Quarterly
41,236 - 248
[110] Turunen, E. (1997). Rules of inference in fuzzy sentential logic. Fuzzy Sets and
Systems 85, 63 - 72.
[111] Wajsberg, M. (1977). Axiomatization of the three-valued propositional calculus.
In: M. Wajsberg: Logical Works (S.S. Surma ed.), Ossolineum, Wroclaw, 12 -
29.
[112] Weber, S. (1983). A general concept of fuzzy connectives, negations and im-
plications based on t-norms and t-conorms. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 11, 115 -
134.
[113] Yager, R.R. (1980). On a general class of fuzzy connectives. Fuzzy Sets and
Systems 4, 235 - 242.
CHAPTER 2
Powerset Operator Foundations For Poslat

Fuzzy Set Theories And Topologies
S. E. RODABAUGH
Introd uction
This chapter summarizes those powerset operator foundations of all mathemat-
ical and fuzzy set disciplines in which the operations of taking the image and
preimage of (fuzzy) subsets playa fundamental role; such disciplines include
algebra, measure theory and analysis, and topology. We first outline such foun-
dations for the fixed-basis case---where the lattice of membership values or basis
is fixed for objects in a particular category, and then extend these foundations
to the variable-basis case---where the basis is allowed to vary from object to
object within a particular category. Such foundations underlie almost all chap-
ters of this volume. Additional applications include justifications for the Zadeh
Extension Principle [19] and characterizations of fuzzy associative memories in
the sense of Kosko [9]. Full proofs of all results, along with additional material,
are found in Rodabaugh [16]-no proofs are repeated even when a result below
extends its counterpart of [16]; some results are also found in Manes [11] and
Rodabaugh [14,15].
1 History, motivation, and preliminaries

Traditional mathematics hinges disproportionately around the notion of power-
sets and powerset operators. More precisely, given f : X -+ Y, the traditional
powerset operators f--+ : P(X) -+ P(Y) and r- :
P(X) -+ P(Y) given by
f--+(A) = {f(x) : x E A}, f~(B) = {x : f(x) E B}

92 s. E. Rodabaugh
playa critical role in ordinary mathematics. While it took more than a century
of mathematics to "empirically" confirm that these powerset operators are the
"correct" liftings of f to the powersets of X and Y, it is first verified math-
ematically and directly by E. G. Manes [11]. The differently formatted, but
equivalent proof of S. E. Rodabaugh [16] creates f--+ by proving the adjunction
between SET and CSLAT (the category of complete semilattices and arbitrary
join-preserving maps), which is essentially the proof in P. T. Johnstone [7] that
CSLAT is algebraic, and then creates r- from f--+ by the Adjoint Functor
Theorem for order-preserving mappings between partially ordered sets. In fact,
the powerset operator foundations of traditional mathematics may be viewed as
entirely a consequence of the Adjoint Functor Theorem (AFT).
The development of the mathematics of fuzzy sets has seen a correspond-
ingly disproportionate dependence on the powersets of fuzzy subsets and pow-
erset operators. All chapters of this volume laying axiomatic and/or categorial
foundations for topology, uniformities, measure theory, and algebra are them-
selves underpinned in an essential way by the powerset operator foundations
summarized in this chapter; e.g. see U. H6hle / A. Sostak [5], Rodabaugh [17],
etc.
The fundamental importance of powerset operators for fuzzy sets is recog-
nized from the beginning in 1. A. Zadeh's pioneering paper [19] introducing
fuzzy sets. To state the Zadeh powerset operators and the associated Zadeh
Extension Principle, let L be a complete lattice and f : X -+ Y. Then the fuzzy
powerset operators fi! : LX --+ L Y and fJ: : LX +- L Y are defined by
fi!(a)(y) = V{a(x) : f(x) = y}, fJ:(b) =b 0 f
While Zadeh's original definition is limited to the base L = [0,1], the needed
properties of L are those of a complete (semi) lattice-cf. J. A. Goguen [4].
That Zadeh [19] puzzles over the definition of f--+ (whether to use V or 1\)
indicates it was not clear to Zadeh whether his powerset operators were the
correct ones. But Manes [11] gives the first proof, using a monadic approach
for a certain restricted class of lattices L, that the Zadeh operators were the
right ones. Then in [16], Rodabaugh gives two different proofs for all complete
lattices L vindicating Zadeh's definitions-first, using AFT to generate/lift the
Zadeh operators from the traditional operators, and second, using classes of
naturality diagrams indexed by L to generate the Zadeh operators directly from
the original function. In this chapter we extend these results, along with several
characterizations of each of the Zadeh operators, to lattices taken from CIQML,
the largest category of lattices in which all the results of [16] can be derived; and
then we stipulate these results as definitions of the Zadeh operators for ordered
structures in CQML, the largest category of lattices appearing in this volume.
Starting with B. Hutton [6], Rodabaugh [13], P. Eklund [2], and others,
fuzzy sets broadens to allow the change of base along with the change of set,
begetting variable-basis fuzzy sets and variable-basis topology, the previ-
ously considered approaches being denoted fixed-basis. Thus the next natural
question concerns the existence of variable-basis fuzzy powerset operators: given
Powerset operator foundations 93
f : X -t Y, how should the fuzzy powerset operators of f be defined from LX

to MY and from MY to LX, where L, M are complete (quasi-monoidal) lat-
tices with a known relationship (morphism) between them? Phrasing the ques-
tion more precisely leads us to "ground" or "base" categories of the form SET
x LOQML (defined below), which explicitly indicate our point-set lattice-
theoretic or poslat approach to fuzzy sets, powerset operators, and the overly-
ing topological, measure-theoretic, and algebraic theories. The AFT is used to
generate variable-basis powerset operators from the Zadeh fixed-basis operators
so that under appropriate conditions the variable-basis operators are adjunctive.
It is the purpose of this chapter to outline the above results and ideas, as well
as their application to ground isomorphism characterizations, fuzzy systems,
and fuzzy associative memories. All these results are taken or extended from
[16], and the proofs are formally identical to those of [16] and shall not repeated
here; it is left to the reader to check that these proofs work for the objects of
CQMIL. Important related material is also found in [14-15].
The remainder of this section summarizes adjunctions, needed lattice-theore-
tic categories, the generation of the traditional powerset operators, and criteria
appropriate for powerset operators both traditional and generalized. We begin
with the definition of adjunction between categories as used in this chapter and
adapted from S. Mac Lane [10].
1.1 Definition (Adjunction between categories). Let F : C -t D and

G : C f- D be functors. We say F is left-adjoint to G iff the following two
criteria are satisfied in the order stated:
(1) Lifting/Continuity criterion:
\f A E ICI, 31] : A -t GF(A), \f BE IDI, \f f : A -t G(B),

3!1 F(A) -t B, f = Ga) 01]
(2) Naturality criterion:
\f f : AT -t A2 in C, F (I) = (or =) 1]A 2 0 f
where the "=" option allows F to only be defined initially on objects, in

which (1) and "=" will stipulate an action for F on morphisms such that
F -l G.
94 S. E. Rodabaugh
MAJOR DIAGRAM: LIFTING/CONTINUITY
c D
VA (1) F(A)
vf (4) o :3 ! 1 (5)
(6)
G(B) GF(A) VB (3)

G(J)
MINOR/NATURALITY DIAGRAM (ASSUMING MAJOR DIAGRAM)
f
Al A2 F(AI)
TJAI 0
j "" j ! ""
of
GF(AI) • GF(A 2 ) F(A 2 )

GF( TJA 2 of)
==> F(j) = (or =) TJA2 0 f
We also say that G is right-adjoint to F or that (F, G) is an adjunction,

or we may write F -1 G. The map TJ is the unit of the adjunction; and the
D morphism c dual to T} in the duals of the above statements is the co unit of
the adjunction. If both TJ and c are isomorphisms in their respective categories,
then (F, G) is an equivalence (of categories).
It is well-known that if such a definition is instantiated with partially-ordered
sets are taken as categories with order-preserving maps as functors between,
then we obtain the following proposition:
1.2 Proposition. Let f : L -+ M and 9 : L +- M be order-preserving maps

between partially ordered sets L, M. Then f -i 9 iff [idL ::; gof and fog::; idM].
The inequalities of the proposition are dubbed the Adjunction Inequalties

(AI) and will be so referenced sequens. The following result creating adjunctions
in the partially-ordered case is well-known [7] and is critical to the study of
powerset operators; its dual also holds, both are used sequens, and both are
referred to as AFT.
1.3 Theorem (Adjoint functor theorem). Let L, M be partially-ordered

sets, let f : L -+ M be a function between them, let L have arbitrary joins (or
V), and let f preserve arbitrary joins. Then f is a functor from L to M; :3 9 a
functor from M to L, given by
g(b) = V{a E L: f(a)::; b}
such that f -i g; 9 is the unique right adjoint of f; and 9 preserves all meets
(or A) in M.
The category SET comprises all sets and functions between sets. If f :X -+
Y in SET and P is a property identifying certain elements of Y, then
[f has P] == {x EX: f (x) has P}
If X is a set and A eX, then XA denotes the characteristic function from

X to {..1, T}, where {..1, T} usually denotes the set of bounds of some lattice
L, i.e. XA : A -+ {..1, T} <-+ L. We shall notationally distinguish characteristic
functions only by subset A, not by the various lattices L.
POSET is the category of partially-ordered sets and order-preserving maps,
and CSLAT is the category of complete (join) semilattices and arbitrary V
preserving maps.
1.4 Definition (SFRM, FRM, SLOC, LOC). The category SFRM [17]
comprises all complete lattices with arbitrary V preserving and finite 1\ pre-
serving maps, and in the objects are called semi-frames. The full subcategory
of objects which possess the first infinite distributive law is denoted FRM,
and the objects are called frames. The dual SFRMop of SFRM is denoted
SLOC, and the objects are called semilocales; and the dual FRMOP of FRM
is denoted LOC, and the objects are called locales.
1.5 Definition (CQML, LOQML). The objects of the category CQML

comprise all complete quasi-monoidallattices, i.e. (L,::;,@) satisfying:
(1) (L,::;) is a complete lattice with upper bound T and lower bound ..L.
(2) @: L x L -+ L is a binary operation satisfying the following axioms:
96 S. E. Rodabaugh
(a) 0 is isotone in both arguments, i.e. 01 ~ 02, (31 ~ (32 ::} 01 0 (31 ~
020(32;
(b) T is idempotent, i.e. T 0 T = T.
And the morphisms of CQML are mappings preserving 0, arbitrary V, and
T. The category CQML is studied extensively in [5] and used extensively in
[17]. The dual CQMLoP is denoted LOQML, its objects are called localic
quasi-monoids, and it is used extensively in [17].
1.6 Definition (CQMIL). If an object (L,~, 0) of CQML additionally sat-

isfies these axioms-
(1) T is a right-identity of 0,
(2) .1 is a two-sided zero of 0
-then we call such an object a complete quasi-monoidal integral lattice

and label the corresponding full subcategory of CQML by CQMIL. The dual
of CQMIL is denoted LOQMIL and its objects are called localic quasi-
monoidal integral lattices. Of course, 0 = 1\ satisfies this condition, as does
o = . for L = [0, 1].
1. 7 Lemma. W E LOQML(A, B), :3 [4>] E POSET(A, B) given by
[4>)(a) = /\ {b : a ~ 4>0P(b)}
It is also the case that [4>](.1) = .i.
The "ground category" of much of traditional mathemat.ics is SET. This

ground category may be rewritten as SET x 2, where 2 in this sense is the
category whose sole object is the lattice {.1, T} and sole morphism is id{l.,T}'
Similarly, the ground category of fixed-basis fuzzy set theory, for basis L, is
SET x L, where L is the category whose sole object is the localic quasi-monoid
L and sole morphism is idL. The definition of variable-basis ground categories,
the largest of which we now define, hints at the extraordinary richness of mor-
phisms in fuzzy theories based on such grounds.
1.8 Definition (Ground category SET x LOQML [17]). The ground cat-
egory SET x LOQML comprises the following data:
(1) Objects. (X,L), where X E ISETI, L E ILOQMLI. The object (X,L)

is a (ground) set.
(2) Morphisms. (1,4» : (X, L) --+ (Y, M), where f : X --+ Y in SET and
4> : L --+ M in LOQML, i.e. 4>0P : L +- M in CQML.
(3) Composition. Component-wise in the respective categories.
(4) Identities. Component-wise in the respective categories

(id(x,L) = (idx, idL)).
1.9 Question. What sort of set theory must (or should) we have in each of
SET x 2, SET x L, or SET x LOQML? The answer lies in detailing the
mathematical development of the classical powerset operators and seeing how
that development can be carried over to the general case.
1.10 Criteria for traditional operators. Traditional set theory should be

examined and found to be a poslat set theory in the sense that functions between
sets give rise to two powerset operators between powersets, the latter two having
important categorical and lattice-theoretic properties. More precisely:
(1) V f : X ~ Y, there should be a unique lifting, the forward powerset

operator f-+ : P(X) ~ P(Y) of f to the associated powersets which
preserves arbitrary V(= U);
(2) the f-+ of (1) should uniquely generate the backward powerset opera-
tor r- :P(X) ~ P(Y) via adjunction between the pre-ordered categories
P(X) and P(Y), so that f-+ -l r-.
We now state the result that the traditional set theory in fact satisfies these
criteria.
1.11 Theorem (SET -I CSLAT and generation of traditional powerset

operators). Let P : ISETI ~ ICSLATI and V : SET ~ CSLAT be defined
by
P (X) = P (X), V (L, '.5J = L, V (1) =f

Then the following hold:
(1) The lifting criterion of 1.1(1) above is satisfied, i.e. VX E ISETI ,377X :
X ~ P(X) defined by 77x (x) = {x}, V(M, :~;) E ICSLATI, Vf: X ~ M
in SET, 3!7: P (X) ~ M in CSLAT, f = Va) 077x.
98 S. E. Rodabaugh
SET CSLAT
vX (1) P(X)
vf (4) o :3 T/ x (2) :3!1 (5)

(6)
B P(X) VB (3)
(2) If f : X -+ Y in SET is given and P (f) is stipulated to be T/y 0 f, then

P is a functor and P -1 V.
f
X Y P(X)
T/x
j 0
j T/y j !'/y0!
P(X) P(Y) P(Y)

(T/y 0 f)
=> P(f) = (or =) T/y f 0
(3) T/y 0 f : P (X) -+ P (Y) is the traditional forward powerset operator f-+,
i.e.
T/y 0 f(A) = {f (x) E Y : x E A}
(4) Since T/y 0 f is a CSLAT morphism, then f-+ preserves arbitrary unions
and so has a right adjoint (by AFT) which is the traditional backward
powerset operator f~, i.e. the action of this right adjoint at B E P (Y) is
{xEX:f(x)EB}
1.12 Criteria for generalized operators. For any poslat set theory more
"general" than the traditional set theory, the following properties should hold:
(1) The analogue of f-t[f~] should be a unique lifting of f-t[j~], i.e. the
analogue of f-t[j~] should be a generalization of f-t[j~] in a natural
way.
(2) The analogue of f-t should be left adjoint to the analogue of f~, i.e. the
relationship f-t -j f~ between f-t and f~ should hold for their analogues.
Both the fixed-basis fuzzy case and the change-of-basis fuzzy case satisfy
Criteria 1.12-see §2 and §3 below, respectively. We also show in §2 that fixed-
basis poslat set theories in fact satisfy Criteria 1.10 restated for L a complete
quasi-monoidal integral lattice (Definition 1.6 above) with these substitutions:
p (X), P (Y) are replaced respectively by LX, L Y , and f-t, f~ are replaced
respectively by fi!, ft·
2 Fuzzy powerset operators for fixed-basis pos-

lat set theories
This section summarizes the results showing that fixed-basis poslat set theories
- theories in which the basis or lattice L of membership values is held fixed as in
[19], [4], [5], etc-satisfy Criteria 1.12 above. Restated, the results of this section
establish poslat set theories which have grounds of the form SET x L, where L E
ILOQMILli we then stipulate these operators for all poslat set theories having
grounds of the form SET x L, where L E ILOQMLI. As a consequence, this
section gives a rigorous justification of the traditional Zadeh powerset operators
and the so-called Zadeh Extension Principle, and completely characterizes the
existence of such operators. These results also show these operators are uniquely
determined with respect to Criteria 1.10 restated for the fixed-basis poslat case.
We point out that the first justification of the Zadeh operators is given by [11].
The results of [16] summarized in this section rest on methods different from
[11] and include many new justifications and characterizations of the Zadeh
operators.
2.1 Discussion. Let X E ISETI, L E ILOQMLI, and endow LX point-wise

with :S, V, 0 from L. Then LX E ILOQMLI, and is the localic quasi-monoid
of L-subsets of X because of
100 S. E. Rodabaugh
where X : P (X) -t {1., T} x by X (A) = XA is an isomorphism in CQML, and

'-+ a monomorphism (embedding) in CQML. Let 'f/x = '-+ 0 X in the sequel.
2.2 Criteria for fixed-basis operators. Let X, Y E ISETI and fix L E

ILOQMLI· Then there should exist Ii', II: such that the following, precise
restatements of the Criteria 1.12 for the fixed-basis case hold:
(1) Ii' lifts I~ uniquely, i.e. Ii' is the unique 9 : LX -t L Y such that
9 0 'f/x = 'f/Y 0 I~ .
(2) II: lifts r-uniquely, i.e. II: is the unique 9 : LX +-- L Y such that
go 'f/Y = 'f/x 0 r-·
(3) Ii' -l II:, viewing LX, LY as partially-ordered categories.
I
X Y
j 0
j
!I~ !I+-
P(X) , P(Y) P(X) • P(Y)
'f/ x
j 0
j 'f/y 'f/ x 0
j 'f/y
LX LY LX LY
?!Ii' ?!II:
2.3 Discussion. These criteria are met in the sequel in each of two ways:
(1) II: is determined first and then Ii' is determined, the obverse of the
classical case;
(2) Ii' is determined first and then II: is determined, as in the classical
case.
2.4 Notation. VX, V L, V n E L, Q denotes the constant map in LX having

value n.
The next lemma is crucial to the proof of several of the characterizations of

powerset operators given below and is similar to results in [12].
2.5 Lemma (Decomposition theorems). Let X E ISETI and let L E

ICQMILI (Definition 1.6 above). Then each b E LX has each of the following
forms:
b= V{g i8l X[b:?:a] : a E L} , b= V{b(x) i8l X{z} : x EX}
b = /\ {g i8l X[b:::;a] : a E L} , b = /\ {b(x) V X{z} : x EX}
2.6A Theorem (Characterizations of existence of backward powerset

operators). Let L be aLE ICQMILI. Then both ofthe following statements
hold:
I (Existence and uniqueness of ft). 'Vf ESET(X, Y), 3!g : LX t- L Y

satisfying the following conditions:
(1) 9 preserves arbitrary Vi

(2) 'Va E L, g(g) = gi
(3) 'Va E L, 'VB C Y, g(g i8l XB) = g i8l 9(XB)i and
(4) 9 lifts r-, i.e. 9 0 1Jy = 1Jx 0 r- in 2.2(2) above.
Furthermore, this 9 is the traditional Zadeh backward powerset operator ft
given by:
'VbELY,ft(b)=bof
In particular, 9 is the unique choice of ft with respect to (1-4) for each L
E ICQMILI with i8l = 1'1.
II (Converse to I). g: LX t- L Y satisfies the following conditions--
(1) 9 preserves arbitrary Vi

(2) 9 preserves constants, i.e. 'Va E L, g(g) = gi
(3) 9 preserves crisp subsets, i.e. 'Va E L, 'Vy E Y, g(g i8l X{y}) = g i8l
g(X{y})i
(4) 9 partitions X in the sense that, given
the collection {By : y E Y} partitions X

102 S. E. Rodabaugh
--iff 3! I :X -t Y, g = It.
2.6B Theorem (Characterizations dual to 2.6A). All assertions of 2.6A
hold with the following respective replacements for 1(1), 1(3), 11(1), 11(3), 11(5)
of2.6A:
1(1): g preserves arbitrary 1\;

11(1): g preserves arbitrary 1\;
1(3): Va E L, VB C Y, g(g V XB) = g V g(XB);
11(3): Va E L, Vy E Y, g(g V XY-{y}) = g V g(XY-{y})j
11(5): g partitions X in the sense that, given
Cy = {x EX: XX-{z} ~ g (XY-{Y})}

the collection {Cy : y E Y} partitions X.
2.7 Remark. We must take It as the g in Theorem 2.6A/B, justifying p. 346

of [19]. But we now give even more characterizations confirming this definition
of It.
2.8 AjB Theorems (Characterizations alternative to 2.6 AjB). All the

assertions of Theorem 2.6A [2.6B] hold with the following respective replace-
ments for 1(1), 11(1), and 11(5):
1(1): g preserves arbitrary V [1\] and finite /\ [V];

11(1): g preserves arbitrary V [1\] and finite /\ [V];
11(5): g covers X in the sense that {By: y E Y} [{Cy : y E Y}] covers x.
The generation and characterizations of the forward powerset opeorator Ii!
hinge around the backward operator It and the AFT (dual to 1.3 above).
2.9 Theorem (Characterizations of existence of forward powerset

operators). Let L E ICQMILI. Then each of the following statements hold:
I. (Existence and uniqueness of Ii!; Zadeh Extension Principle

(ZEP». V I E SET (X, Y), :3! h : LX -t LY satisfying the following con-
ditions:
(1) h preserves arbitrary V;

(2) h lifts the classical 1-+, i.e. 1Jy 01-+ = h 0 1Jx;
(3) h is left adjoint to ft, i.e. h -1 ft·
This h is defined by AFT(1.3 dual) as follows:
Va E LX, h (a) = 1\ {b ELY: a ~ ft (b)} (2.9.1)
Furthermore, this h is the traditional Zadeh forward powerset operator fi! given
by
VaELX, VyEY, fi!(a)(y)=V{a(x):f(x)=y} (2.9.2)
II. (Converse to I). h: LX -t L Y satisfies the following conditions--
(1) h preserves arbitrary V; and

(2) h preserves fuzzy singletons, i.e.
Vx E X, 3y E Y, Va E L - {.l}, h(Q.® X{X}) = Q.® X{y}
--iff 3! f E SET (X, Y) such h = fi!.
2.10 Remark.
(1) We must take fi! as the h in Theorem 2.9, justifying p. 346 of [19]. Thus
h, as defined by either (2.9.1) or (2.9.2), is the correct choice of fi!.
(2) This gives a justification of the so-called Zadeh Extension Principle

(ZEP) different from that of [11].
(3) The results of this section given so far show the criteria for a fixed-basis
poslat set theory, as outlined in 1.12 and 2.2, are satisfied.
(4) Note that the building of the Zadeh operators from the original mapping
f, even though it is the obverse of the classical powerset operator devel-
opment summarized in Section 1, follows a well-known "lifting" pattern.
Recall from elementary calculus that the map l/x lifts by integration to
In(x); In(x) then induces its adjoint exp(x) (by AFT), exp(x) lifts by well-
known properties of exp to the general eXPa(x) for a > 0 and a ::J 1, and
eXPa(x) then induces its adjoint loga(x) (again by AFT) which lifts In(x).
This pattern characterizes and summarizes this section thus far: f lifts to
f-t, f-t induces r-, r- lifts to ft, and ft induces fi! which lifts f-t,
where the crucial steps have occurred by the AFT.
(5) But in calculus one can also lift directly from l/x to loga(x) by using
standard limit constructions. We now proceed to give an alternate devel-
opment of fi! and ft in which we create fi! directly from f and then
create ft from fi!. This will imitate the development of the powerset
operators in the traditional set theory summarized in Section 1. In this
way, the promise of 2.3(2) above is fulfilled.
104 s. E. Rodabaugh
2.11 Theorem (Characterization of direct lifting of II! from f).

Let I : X -+ Y and L E ICQMILI be given. 'Va E L, let (7]ah : X -+ LX by
(7]ah (x) = ~ 1\ X{x}

where 7]a denotes both the arrow from X to LX and the arrow from Y to L Y .
Then the following equivalence holds:
(['VaEL, (7]a) y OI=go(7]ah] andgpreservesarbitrary V) ¢} g=lI!
I
X Y
"0 j
9
2.12 Theorem (Generation of It from II!). Let I : X -+ Y and let

9 : LX +- LY be the right adjoint of Ii! : LX -+ LY generated via AFT(1.3)
from the preservation of arbitrary V by II! (2.11). Then 9 = It:, i.e. the
following are equivalent formulations of It::
It:(b)=bol (2.12.1)
It: (b) = V{a E LX : Ii! (a) ~ b} (2.12.2)
2.13 Remark. The classical pattern of I generating 1-+ which in turn gen-
erates r- via AFT seems to be "duplicated" in 2.11 and 2.12 for the Zadeh
powerset operators: I generates II!, which in turn generates It: via AFT.
Thus this section presents two basic schemes for generating the Zadeh powerset
operators for fixed-basis fuzzy sets: first, generate these operators as liftings of
the classical powerset operators; and second, generate these operators directly
from the original function. Now the reader might have noted that this second
approach, as presented in 2.11 and 2.12, is not quite an exact duplication of the
classical pattern as given in 1.11: namely, in the classical case, I generates 1-+
via adjunction between the categories SET and CSLAT; but no adjunction
between concrete categories appears overtly in 2.11, though clearly I generates
II! by means of families of "a-level naturality diagrams" indexed by L. The
generation of II! from I by means of adjunction between categories can be seen
in [11] for a restricted subclass of complete lattices L.
The above results require that ® satisfy the additional axiom that T is a
right identity, i.e. that L E ICQMILI. This is satisfied by many examples of
L in which ® =J 1\, as well as satisfied by all L for which ® = 1\. But what of
L generally, i.e. what should be the powerset operators for the fixed-basis case
when L E ICQMLI? We handle this by stipulation in the following definition.
2.14 Definition (Powerset operators in general case). Let I : X -+ Y
and L E ICQMLI. Then Ii! : LX -+ L Y and It: : LX +-- L Y by
II: (a)(y) = V{a (x) : I (x) = y} It (b) = b 0 I
3 Fuzzy powerset operators for variable-basis

poslat set theories
This section summarizes the extension of the foundations of the fixed-basis case
of Section 2 to the variable-basis case. Restated, this section extends the foun-
dations for poslat set theories having ground categories of the form SET x L
to those poslat set theories having ground categories of the form SET x C,
where C <-+ LOQML == CQMLoP; these latter theories are called variable-
basis poslat set theories. For simplicity, we shall restrict our attention in
our summary to the ground SET x LOQML.
The question before us in this section has already been proposed in Ques-
tion 1.9 of Section 1. Using Definition 1.8 of Section 1, we now reformulate
this question precisely. Given a ground morphism (I, </J) : (X, L) -+ (Y, M) in
SET x LOQML, how should the variable-basis powerset operators
(f, </J)--+ : LX -+ MY, (f, </J)f- : LX +-- MY
be defined so as to satisfy the Criteria for Generalized Operators 1.12 of Section

1 for variable-basis poslat set theories? We show that such definitions can be
given which satisfy these criteria under rather mild conditions; when these mild
conditions are not satisfied, these definitions are stipulated.
The set theory summarized below comes from [16] and is a significant modi-
fication of that proposed (but undeveloped and unjustified) in Rodabaugh [13],
referenced in Rodabaugh [14-17] and Eklund [2], and greatly influenced by
Goguen [4], Hutton [6], Eklund [2], and M. A. Erceg [3].
3.1 Construction (Arrows ([</JD, (</J0P)). To describe the set theory in

SET x LOQML
we need two more arrow constructions. First, recall the arrow [</J] : L -+ M
constructed in Lemma 1.7 from </J : L -+ M in LOQML. Now fix X E ISETI
and put
106 S. E. Rodabaugh
by
([¢]) (a) = [¢] 0 a, (¢OP) (b) = ¢op 0 b
3.3 Discussion. Starting with a morphism (j, ¢) in SET x LOQML from

(X, L) to (Y, M), we must determine the definitions of the forward powerset
operator (j,¢)-+ and the backward powerset operator (j,¢)~ so that Criteria
1.12(1,2) are satisfied. The most difficult matter is the determination of (j, ¢)-+,
i.e. the change-of-basis generalization of ZEP (2.9). While there are two pos-
sibly different definitions of (j, ¢)~ that happily turn out to coincide, there
are two possibly different of (j, ¢)-+ which in fact are really different, and the
conditions under which these definitions of (j, ¢)-+ coincide are precisely those
which guarantee that (j, ¢)-+ -1 (j, ¢)~ and that the other conditions of Crite-
ria 1.12(1,2) are satisfied. Throughout this section use is made of the operators
II!, It, 1M, 1M uniquely determined and characterized in Theorems 2.6A/B,
2.8A/B, 2.9, 2.11, and 2.12. Our development culminates below in Fundamen-
tal Theorem 3.9, which gives general conditions guaranteeing the uniqueness of
(j, ¢)-+ and (j, ¢)~ with respect to satisfying the Criteria 1.12(1,2) for variable-
basis poslat set theories. As might be expected, the backward operator (j, ¢)~
proves much more tractable.
3.4 Definition (Two definitions of (j, ¢)-+). Let (j, ¢) : (X, L) -+ (Y, M)
in SET x LOQML.
(1) First definition of (j,¢)-+: LX -+ MY.
(2) Second definition of (j, ¢)-+ : LX -+ MY.

DIAGRAM FOR (f, </»-4
f-4
P(X) - - - , P(Y)
([ </>]) ([</>])
LX , MX LY , MY
~
fi! o? OR o? f( )
These definitions are distinct, but coincide under fairly general conditions
given below in Fundamental Theorem 3.9.
3.5 Lemma (Characterizations of the two definitions of (f, </»-4).

Both definitions of 3.4 yield arrows in POSET. Furthermore, the first defi-
nition of (f, </»-4 : LX -+ MY is equivalent to stipulating
And the second definition is equivalent to stipulating
(f,</»-4(a) == /\{b: fM(([</>])(a») ~ b}
3.6 Definition (Two definitions of (f,</»f--). Let (f,</» : (X,L) -+ (Y,M)

in SET x LOQML.
(1) First definition of (f,</»f-- : LX f- MY.
(f,</»f-- == ft 0 (</>oP) : LX f- LY f- MY
(2) Second definition of (f, </» f-- : LX f- MY.
(f, </»f-- == (</>oP) 0 fJ:i : LX f- MX f- MY

108 S. E. Rodabaugh
DIAGRAM FOR (f, ¢»f-
if-
P(X) . P(Y)
1\ 01 ~( 01
3.7 Lemma (Resolution of the definitions of (f,¢»f-). Both definitions of

3.6 yield arrows in CQML which coincide, and the following are equivalent for
(f, ¢» : (X, L) -+ (Y, M) in SET x LOQML:
(1) (f,¢»f- == it 0 (¢>oP);
(2) (f, ¢»f- == (¢>oP) 0 i M;

(3) (f, ¢»f- (b) == ¢>op 0 b 0 i.
i
X Y
L M
3.8 Convention. A statement in the literals 'X', 'Y', 'f' holds universally iff
it holds V X E ISETI, VY E ISETI, and V f E SET(X, Y). This convention
is used in the following Fundamental Theorem satisfying Criteria 1.12(1,2) for
variable-basis poslat set theories.
3.9 Fundamental Theorem (General poslat set theory with unique

liftings). Let ¢ E LOQML(L, M) and consider the following statements:
(1) ¢op preserves arbitrary 1\;

(2) [¢] preserves arbitrary V;
(4) (I, ¢)-+ -1 (I, ¢)t- universally for at least one definition of (I, ¢)-+;
(5) (I,¢)-+ -1 (I,¢)-+ universally for both definitions of (I,¢)-+;
(6) both definitions of (I, ¢)-+ coincide universally;
(7) at least one definition of (I, ¢-+ preserves arbitrary V universally;

(8) both definitions of (I, ¢)-+ preserve arbitrary V universally;
(9) (I, ¢)t- preserves arbitrary 1\ universally.
Then (1) ¢:} (3) ¢:} (4) ¢:} (5) ¢:} (9); and (1) implies each of (2), (6), (7), (8).
3.10 Corollary (Applications of fundamental theorem). Theorem

3.9(1-9) hold under the following conditions:
(1) L, M are equipped with order-reversing involutions and ¢op preserves such
involutions; i.e. L, M E IDQMLI and ¢op E DQML, where DQML [17]
is the subcategory of CQML of objects equipped with order-reversing
involutions and whose morphisms are CQML morphisms preserving such
involutions. These conditions include all morphisms of CBOOL.
(2) ¢op is a backward (Zadeh) powerset operator; i.e. 3N E ICQMLI,

3W,Z E ISETI, and 3g E SET(W,Z), ¢op == gj:;: NW f- NZ.
(3) ¢ is anyone of 'l/J, * 'l/J, 'l/J* of 7.1. 7.2 of [17].
(4) ¢ is anyone of (t of 9.9(1)(b), (/,* (/ of 9.9(2(b), and (/ of 9.9(3), all of

[18].
(5) ¢ is an isomorphism in LOQML.

110 S. E. Rodabaugh
3.11 Remark. The factorization of (f,¢)+- ala 3.7{1,2) has been studied at
length in [2] under the restriction of 3.1O(1).
3.12 Definition of (f, ¢)-t. If (I) of 3.9 fails to hold, we stipulate (f, ¢)-t in
accordance with 3.4(1).
f
x y
a fL{a) o
L M
[¢]
3.13 Remark. To sum up this section, it follows from Fundamental Theorem

3.9 that we have a generalization of the classical set theory appropriate for
generalizing topology, the classical Stone machinery, measure theory, etc. This
justifies a few terminologies and remarks. First, LX is the (L-fuzzy) powerset
of X, and each member of LX is a{n) (L-fuzzy) subset of.':: (see [6]), which
is crisp if its codomain is contained in {1., T} viewed as the subset of universal
bounds of L. If A c X in the usual sense, then its characteristic function XA is
crisp; this induces the CQML isomorphism "Ix, given previously, between the
usual powerset and the complete sublattice {1., T}X of the fuzzy powerset, and
induces also a categorical isomorphism between SET and the full subcategory
SET x {{1., T} } of SET x LOQML. The members of LX which are constant
maps are called the constant (L-fuzzy) subsets of X and are denoted {g:
O! E L} as stated in Section 2.
4 Powerset operator characterizations of

ground isomorphisms
It is well known that in SET, each isomorphism f is characterized by the prop-
erty: :3 g, g+- = f-t and g-t = f+-. Because of Section 2 and Fundamental
Theorem 3.9 (and Corollary 3.10), this can be generalized to both fixed-basis
and variable-basis grounds. The importance of such results is that they are the
only means to a characterization of fuzzy homeomorphism for the fixed-basis
topology of [5] and the variable-basis topology of [16, 17].
We first state the main result of the section, and then give the three lemmas
needed to prove it which are of importance in their own right; the third lemma
is a well-known schoolboy exercise. En route the classical case is greatly gen-
eralized not only with respect to the main result, but with respect to the first
two supporting lemmas as well.
4.1 Theorem (Characterization of variable-basis ground isomor-

phisms). Let (f, ¢» : (X, L) -+ (Y, M) be a morphism in SET x LOQML
and consider the following statements:
(1) (f, ¢» is an isomorphism in SET x LOQML;

(2) f and ¢>op are both bijections;
(3) f has an inverse f- 1 E SET(Y,X), ¢>op has an inverse (¢>oP)-l E CQML,
(¢>OP)-l = [¢>], (f-l,[¢>]OP)+- = (f,¢>t\ and (f-1,[¢>]OP)--+ = (f,¢»+-.
(4) 3 ! 9 E SET(X, Y), (g, [¢>JoP)+- = (f, ¢»--+, (g, [¢>]OP)--+ = (f, ¢»+-, and
(g, [¢>JoP)--+ -l (g, [¢>]OP)+-;
(5) (f, ¢»--+ is a bijection (and hence a CQML isomorphism);
(6) (f, ¢»+- is a bijection (and hence a CQML isomorphism);
(7) (f, ¢»--+ and (f, ¢»+- are bijections and inverses of each other.
Then the following statements hold:
I. (1) {:> (2) {:> (3) =} (4), (5), (6), and (7) =} (3):
II. All of (1)-(7) are equivalent if ¢>op preserves arbitrary I\.
4.2 Lemma (Fixed-basis characterization of SET isomorphisms).

Let f E SET(X, Y) and L E ILOQMLI. The following are equivalent:
(1) f is an isomorphism;
(2) f has an inverse function f- 1, (f-1)r = fi!, and (f-1)'L = ft;
(3) 3g E SET(Y,X), gr = fi!,g'L = ft;
(4) 3!g E SET(Y,X), gr = ft, g'L = ft;
(5) f'L is a bijection (and hence an isomorphism in CQML);
(6) ft is a bijection (and hence an isomorphism in CQML).
112 S. E. Rodabaugh
4.3 Lemma (Characterization of isomorphisms in LOQML). Let
rf> E LOQML(L, M)
and X be a set, and consider the following statements:
(1) rf> is an isomorphism in LOQML.

(2) rf>0P is a bijection (and hence an isomorphism in LOQML);
(3) (rf>0P) is a bijection (and hence an isomorphism in LOQML);
(4) [rf>] and rf>0P are function inverses of each other;
(5) ([rf>]) and (rf>0P) are function inverses of each other;
(6) [rf>] is a bijection (and hence an isomorphism in LOQML);
(7) ([rf>]) is a bijection (and hence an isomorphism in LOQML).
I. (1) ¢} (2) ¢} (3) ¢} (4) ¢} (5) :::} (6) ¢} (7).

II. All of (1)-(7) are equivalent if rf>0P preserves arbitrary f\.
4.4 Lemma. Let F E SET(Y, Z) and G E SET (X, Y). Then the following
hold:
(1) F and G are bijections:::} FoG is a bijection.

(2) FoG is a bijection and [F is an injection or G is a surjection] :::} F and
G are bijections.
5 Fuzzy powerset operators and fuzzy associa-

tive memories
This section borrows the concepts of fuzzy subsets as points in a cube, fuzzy
systems, fuzzy associative memories, and the motivation for the latter, from
B. Kosko [8,9]. The purpose of this section is to summarize from [16] the
characterization of how close the Zadeh powerset operators come to determining
all fuzzy associative memories.
Throughout this section all underlying sets X, Y, . .. are finite, and we restrict
all lattices L, M, ... to be IT == [0,1]. Note that the powersets ITx, ITY, ... are
order-theoretically isomorphic to finite-dimensional cubes, and may then be
viewed as carrying the standard Euclidean topology. Possible generalizations,

with the finiteness of sets removed and L, M taken as frames or continuous
lattices, are not explored here; these are left for future work. For now, it is
convenient to view fuzzy subsets as points in a finite-dimensional cube (in which
the vertices are the crisp or classical subsets) so that closeness of fuzzy subsets
can be measured using the Euclidean metric or distance formula. We view the
Zadeh powerset operators as transferable back and forth between nX , nY and
niX I, nlYl by means of the lattice isomorphism mentioned above; we do not make
this isomorphism explicit, nor do we make explicit how the powerset operators
are thereby transferred, but leave this to the reader.
5.1 Definition (Fuzzy Systems and FAM's). Let X, Y be finite sets. Then
a fuzzy system with input space X and output space Y is a mapping
F : nx --t nY . And a fuzzy associative memory (FAM) is a fuzzy system
which is continuous w.r.t. the Euclidean topologies on the powersets nX and nY .
5.2 Discussion (Motivation for fuzzy sets and FAM's). The powersets
in 5.1 represent aggregates of attributes of the input and output spaces; i.e.
a E nx represents an attribute of X. Fuzzy systems set up associations between
attributes of X and attributes of Y. If X comprises data on traffic density
and Y comprises data on traffic lights, then a E nx could be the attribute
'heavy' and bE nY could be the attribute 'long duration of green'; and a fuzzy
system could associate 'long duration of green' with 'heavy'-cf. some modern
intersections in which traffic density controls both traffic light activation and
duration. Further, it would seem desirable that traffic density attributes, which
are close as measured by the Euclidean metric, should correspond to durations of
the green traffic light, which are also close as measured by the Euclidean metric.
This desirable trait is simply continuity w.r.t. the usual Euclidean topology
on the fuzzy powersets viewed as cubes. Now it seems that this continuity
would be a feature of a fuzzy system having "associative memory"; and so a
fuzzy associative memory is then a fuzzy system for which continuity is formally
stipulated.
5.3 Convention (V and /\). The binary join and meet operators on n are
mappings from n x n to n, i.e. V, /\ : n2 --t n. But we may view these as
operators from nn to nfor n E N U {O} as follows:
(1) for n = 0, define no to be 0, in which case V is the constant map Q, and /\

is the constant map 1;
(2) for n = 1, V = /\ = idll ;

(3) for n = 2, V, /\ are the usual binary operators;
(4) for n ;:::: 3, V, /\ are the usual binary operators extended via induction and
the associative law.
114 S. E. Rodabaugh
Thus we have defined operators V,I\.: lin --+ 1I for n E N U{O}.
5.4 Lemma. The join and meet operators V, I\. : lin --+ 1I are continuous for
n EN U {O}.
5.5 Theorem (Powerset operators as FAM's). Let I X -+ Y be a

function and ¢ E LOQML(lI,lI).
(1) Each of It and Ir is a FAM.

(2) (f, ¢)~ is a FAM {:} [¢] : 1I --+ 1I is continuous.
(3) (f, ¢)f- is a FAM {:} ¢op : 1I +- 1I is continuous, and the latter holds if ¢op
preserves the order-reversing involution (0:' == 1 - 0:) or arbitrary I\.
Recall from Theorems 2.6A/B(II), 2.8A/B(II), and 2.9II(2) the notions of

a mapping between powersets preserving constants, fuzzy singletons, crisp sub-
sets, partitioning the exponent of its codomain, and/or covering the exponent of
its codomain. The following theorem and corollary are immediate consequences
of Theorems 2.6A/B(II), 2.8A/B(II), 2.9II(2), and 5.5.
5.6 Theorem (FAM's as powerset operators). Let F be a fuzzy system.

Then F preserves arbitrary joins and fuzzy singletons iff F is a forward Zadeh
powerset operator, in which case it is also a FAM. Furthermore, F preserves
arbitrary joins [meets), constants, crisp subsets, and partitions the exponent of
its codomain [covers the exponent of its codomain, resp.] iff F is a backward
Zadeh powerset operator, in which case it is also a FAM.
5.7 Corollary. A FAM is a forward Zadeh powerset operator iff it preserves

arbitrary joins and fuzzy singletons.
5.8 Application. Strong doubts have been expressed in the literature, e.g. [9],
about the relevance of the Zadeh powerset operators in fuzzy systems and fuzzy
associative memories; but such doubts may be erroneously predicated upon the
assumption that powerset operators require knowing a priori the input-output
function underlying the powerset operators. The importance of Theorem 10.6
is that it characterizes those systems which can be redescribed as powerset
operators of induced input-output functions. Thus Theorem 5.6 and Corollary
5.7 can be used in fuzzy logic to precisely identify those systems which cannot
be a posteriori built up from input-output functions, and hence are not built
upon any possible neutral network.
5.9 Question. Are there at least two or three important, empirical exam-
ples of FAMS which are not forward Zadeh powerset operators (as judged by
Theorem 5.6 and Corollary 5.7)?
References
[1] G. D. Birkoff, Lattice Theory, Amer. Math. Soc. Colloq. Publ. XXXV,
third edition (AMS, Providence, RI, 1967).
[2] P. Eklund, Categorical fuzzy topology (Ph.D. Thesis, Abo Akademi
(1986)).
[3] M. A. Erceg, Functions, equivalence relations, quotient spaces, and subsets
in fuzzy set theory, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 3 (1980), 75-92.
[4] J. A. Goguen, L-fuzzy sets, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 18 (1967), 145-174.
[5] U. Hohle and A. Sostak, Axiomatic Foundations of Fixed-Basis Fuzzy
Topology (Chapter 3 in this Volume).
[6] B. Hutton, Products of fuzzy topological spaces, Topology Appl. 11 (1980),

59-67.
[7] P. T. Johnstone, Stone Spaces (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
1982).
[8] B. Kosko, Fuzziness versus probability, International Journal of General
Systems 17 (1990) No. 2-3.
[9] B. Kosko, Neural Networks and Fuzzy Systems (Prentice Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey, 1992).
[10] S. Mac Lane, Categories for the Working Mathematician (Springer-Ver-
lag, Berlin, 1971).
[11] E. G. Manes, Algebraic Theories (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1976).
[12] C. V. Negoita, D. A. Ralescu, Applications of Fuzzy Sets to Systems Anal-
ysis (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1975).
[13] S. E. Rodabaugh, A categorical accommodation of various notions of fuzzy
topology, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 9 (1983), 241-265.
[14] S. E. Rodabaugh, Point-set lattice-theoretic topology, Fuzzy Sets and Sys-

tems 40 (1991), 297-345.
[15] S. E. Rodabaugh, Categorical frameworks for Stone representation theo-
ries, in: Applications of Category Theory to Fuzzy Subsets , S. E. Rod-
abaugh et aI. (eds.) (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 1992).
[16] S. E. Rodabaugh, Powerset operator based foundation for point-set lattice-
theoretic (poslat) fuzzy set theories and topologies, Quaestiones Mathemat-
icae 20(3)(1997), 463-530.
116 s. E. Rodabaugh
[17] S. E. Rodabaugh, Categorial foundations of variable-basis fuzzy topology

(Chapter 4 in this Volume).
[18] S. E. Rodabaugh, Separation axioms: representation theorems, compact-
ness, and compactifications (Chapter 7 in this Volume).
[19] L. A. Zadeh, Fuzzy sets, Information and Control 8 (1965), 338-353.

Introductory Notes To Chapter 3
U. HORLE
The purpose of this section is to understand the conception of spacel and the
role of lattice-valued maps in topology. In particular, we answer the question
to what extent topology is based on classical set theory.
If we choose the approach to topology given by neighborhood systems (cf.
p. 213 in [9]), then it is clear that the algebraic foundation of topology is
determined by the filter monad F = (F, 1],0) (which is a submonad of the
double power set monad 2 (cf. [5, 12, 15])). The situation is as follows: Let
SETF be the Kleisli category (cf. [12, 13]) associated with the filter monad F
- i.e. objects are ordinary sets, but morphisms A : X -, Y are ordinary maps
from X to the set JF(Y) of all filters on Y. Further the composition in SETF is
determined by the clone-composition 0 associated with the filter monad - i.e.
A :X t---+ JF(Y) B : Y t---+ JF(Z)

[B oA](x) = {U ~ Z I {y E Y I U E B(y)} E A(x)} , xEX
In particular, the identity of X in the sense of SETF is the map 1]x : X t---+
JF(X) defined by
1]x(x) = {A~XlxEA} xEX.
In this categorical framework, a neighborhood system on X is an endomorphism

U : X -, X in the sense of SETF satisfying the following axioms:
(i) U C 1]x(x) 'VxEX
(ii) U oU = U (Idempotency)
1 An intuitive description of topological spaces is given by A. Appertj we quote from his
book [3], page 10 : ... 'Pour qu'un ensemble E d'objects de nature quelconque puisse etre
considen\ comme repondant au concept intuitif de spatialite, il est necessaire de s'etre donne
non seulement les elements ou points de l'ensemble E, mais aussi d'avoir precise certaines
relations de proximite ou de situation de ces points les uns par rapport aux autres. C'est
seulement quand ces relations auront ete fixees que l'on pourra dire qu'une topologie est
introduite dans l'ensemble E, ou encore que E est un ensemble topologique.
2In the case of L = {O, I}, the monad TL on page 120 in this Note coincides with the
double power set monad.

118 U. Hable
Moreover, a map cp : Xl t---+ X 2 is continuous w.r.t. given neighborhood

systems Ul on Xl and U2 on X 2 iff the following axiom holds:
( Continuity)
Therefore the algebraic foundations of topology require only a partially ordered

monad over SET, and do not require the full concept of classical set theory -
e.g. in contrast to a wide-spread opinion the explicit formation of pre-images
is not necessary for the definition of coninuity. As we have seen above it is
sufficient to use the clone-compositon and the partial ordering of the underlying
monad.
In order to obtain a deeper understanding of neighborhood systems, we refer
to E.G. Manes' non-deterministic interpretation of monads over a given base
category K (d. Section 3 in Chapter 4 in [12]). We prepare this interpretation
by recollecting the axioms of a monad T = (T, 'TJ, 0) viewed as an algebraic
theory in clone from (d. p. 25 in [12]): T : IKI t---+ IKI is an object function
which assigns to each object X its 'extension' T(X), the component 'TJx of
'TJ is a K-morphism from X to T(X) (so-called insertion-of-the-variables), and
finally for each triple (X, Y, Z) of K-objects X, Y and Z there exists a map
o : H om(Y, T(Z)) x H om(X, T(Y)) t---+ H om(X, T(Z)) (so-called clone-com-
position). All these data are subjected to the following axioms:
(Associativity)
'IjJ : Y t---+ T(Z) ( : X t---+ T(Y)

'TJy 0 ( =( .
The Kleisli category KT associated with T has the same objects as K, but
morphisms from X to Yare K-morphisms from X to the 'extension' T(Y) of Y.
In particular, the identity of X is 'TJx, and the composition is determined by the
clone-composition. After this brief digression we return to the non-deterministic
interpretation of monads.
Following closely Manes' arguments (d. p. 309 in [12]) it is clear that
elements of X are interpreted as pure states (or standard points) of X, and
elements of T (X) are interpreted as fuzzy states (or non-standard points) over
X. Further, every morphism cp : X - r Y of the associated Kleisli catgeory
KT can be understood as a fuzzy morphism assigning to every standard point
of X a non-standard point over Y. Finally 0 plays the role of the composition
of fuzzy morphisms, and the component 'TJx of the natural transformation 'TJ
can be viewed as the representation of standard points of X within the realm
of non-standard points over X.
If we apply this philosophical understanding of monads to the filter monad,
then principal ultrafilters on X serve as the representation of standard points
of X, and filters on X play the role of non-standard points over X. In this
context a neighborhood system U on X is an idempotent, fuzzy endomorphism
of X provided with the additional property that every standard point x of X is
'inside of' its associated non-standard point U(x) over X (d. (i)). In particular,
Introductory notes 119
it is not difficult to see that under the hypothesis of Axiom (i) the idempotentcy
of U guarantees the existence of ' open subsets' - i.e. U can be characterized
by an appropriate subframe (cf. [11]) of the ordinary power set IP(X) of X. We
draw the following conclusions from these observations:
• A topological space is a pair (X,U), where X is a set (more precisely an
object in SETF) and U is a unary fuzzy operation on X 3.
- The axiom (i) reflects the topological idea of 'inside'.
- The axiom (ii) opens the door to the important study of covering
properties - concepts which are completely lattice-theoretic in na-
ture.
• The object function F : ISETI r---t ISETI determines the type of con-
vergence theory which can be associated with neighborhood systems (see
also Section 5 and Section 6 in G. Choquet's paper [4]).
• 2-Valued maps (i.e. characteristic functions) appear exclusively in the
construction of the filter space IF'(X) - the space of all non-standard
points over X.
Since the axioms (i) - (iii) can be rephrased in any partially ordered monad,
the previous conclusions motivate the following
Question 1: Can general topology be based on any partially ordered monad
over a given base category K ?
A partial answer is given in [10]. Here we only ask the more restrictive question:
Can we replace the filter monad by another partially ordered monad over SET
such that the corresponding category of neighborhood systems (resp. topo-
logical spaces) form a topological category over SET? An early attempt in
this direction was performed by A. Appert in his work on (V) spaces ("es-
paces a voisinages" [1, 2]) which originated in M. Frechet's fundamental papers
on neighborhood structures (cf. [6, 7]). In a more modern terminology we
can describe A. Appert's approach as a replacement of the filter monad F by
the semi-filter monad SF (which is also a submonad of the double power set
monad). According to A. Appert, an idempotent endomorphism V : X """'7 X
of the Kleisli category SETsF is called a transitive (generalized) topology on
X iff V satisfies additionally Axiom (i) (cf. p. 12, p. 13 and p. 17 in [3]). By
analogy to the previous considerations it is not difficult to see that transitive
(generalized) topologies can be characterized by complete join-subsemilattices
of the ordinary power set IP(X) of X (cf. p. 19 in [3]); hence a non-trivial study
of covering properties can always be performed in this framework (cf. [2], p. 19
in [3]). The situation changes drastically, if we look at the corresponding con-
vergence theory. Since the supremum of all proper semi-filters on X is again a
3In contrast to A. Appert's mathematical approach to topological spaces (which is based
on contiguity relations (cf. p.ll in [3]) and seems to be inconsistent with his own intuitive
conception), we believe that only the monadic approach to topology (which requires neighbor-
hood systems as a primitive concept) leads to a consistent mathematical model of Appert's
intuitive idea of a topological space (cf. footnote 1).
120 u. Hahle
proper semi-filter on X, every standard point is an adherent point of every non-

standard point (Le. proper semi-filter)j hence the corresponding convergence
theory is trivial. Therefore A. Appert's work on (V) spaces or more general
his book [3] on "Espaces Topologiques Intermediares" co-authored by Ky Fan
motivates the following
Question 2: Can we replace the filter monad by another partially ordered
monad over SET such that
• the corresponding category of neighborhood systems (resp. topological

spaces) form a topological catgeory over SET,
• neighborhood systems can be characterized by complete join-semi-

lattices,
• a non-trivial convergence theory is available.

As the reader will see in Chapter 3 of this volume fixed-basis topology give an
affirmative answer to Question 2. The key idea consists in replacing 2-valued
maps by L-valued maps where L is a fixed, but arbitrary complete lattice. This
approach is accompanied by the insight that every set L induces a monad T L =
(T, 11, 0) over SET - an observation which is hidden in the double power set
monad. In particular, T, 11, 0 are determined by the following formulas
T(X) = where X E ISETI j

11x : X I---t T(X) by [11X(X)](f) = f(x) ,'VxEXj
cp : X I---t L(L Y ) , '!/J : Y I---t L(L Z )
[('!/J 0 cp)(x)](g) = [cp(x)]( ('!/JL)(g)) where g E LZ .
If we impose an isotone, commutative, but not necessarily associative, binary

operation ® on L, then we are in the position to define an interesting submonad
F L of the monad T L such that Question 2 can be answered in the affirmative!
Non-standard points over X w.r.t. FL are L-filters on X (cf. Subsection 6.1
in Chapter 3 of this volume). Moreover, idempotent endomorphisms U : X -,
X in the sense of the Kleisli category SETFL provided with the additional
property
(i') [U(x)](f) < [11x(X)](f) = f(x) 'Vx E X

form the new concept of neighborhood systems - so-called L-neighborhood
systems on X. Further continuity of a map cp : Xl I---t X 2 can be defined by
the following requirement
(iii') (U2 ,cp)(xd < ((11x2'cp)oUI )(xd , 'VxIEXI .
It is not difficult to see that L-neighborhood systems on X can be characterized
by complete join-subsemilattices of LX - so-called L-topologies on X (cf. Sub-
section 6.1 in Chapter 3 of this volume). In particular, the study of compactness
Introductory notes 121
in terms of the Heine-Borel covering property can be performed in this frame-

work (cf. Section 4 in Chapter 70fthis volume). Moreover Subsection 6.4 and
Subsection 7.3 in Chapter 3 of this volume show that a non-trivial convergence
theory is available w.r.t. L-neighborhood systems. All these observations con-
firm the fundamental cognition that the systematic use of lattice-valued maps
opens new fields for general topology and leads to new, interesting, topological
investigations (see e.g. Example 7.1.4 in Chapter 3 of this volume). Hence from
a monadic point of view general topology is not a closed theory. We try to
illustrate this situation by a discussion of an important special case:
Let the underlying lattice L be given by the real unit interval I = [0, 1]
equipped with its usual ordering. Referring to the hypergraph functor (cf.
Remark 7.1.5 in Chapter 3 of this volume) it is not difficult to prove that
every I-neighborhood system on X can be characterized by a complete join-
subsemilattice of the ordinary power set IP'(X x [0, 1[). In this sense we arrive
again at A. Appert's concept of transitive (generalized) topologies. But, if we
choose 0 =J min (e.g. if 0 is given by the arithmetic mean 67 on I), then it
is easy to see that the corresponding convergence theory is fundamentally dif-
ferent from the usual one based on ordinary filters. Therefore, in the setting of
(L,0) = (1,67) the theory of I-neighborhood systems (i.e. of I-topological
spaces) can be viewed as a non-trivial continuation of A. Appert's work on "Es-
paces Topologiques Intermediares" arising from M. Frechet's and W. Sierpinski's
work in the late twenties of this century (cf. [8, 14]).
References
[1] A. Appert, Sur une condition jouant une role important dans la topologie
des espaces abstraits, C.R. Acad. des Sc. 194 (1932), 2277.
[2] A. Appert, Proprietes Des Espaces Abstraits Les Plus Generaux (Hermann,
Paris 1934).
[3] A. Appert and Ky-Fan, Espaces Topologiques Intermediares (Hermann,
Paris 1951).
[4] G. Choquet, Convergences, Ann. Univ. Grenoble Sect. Sci. Math. Phys. 23
(1948), 57-112.
[5] A. Day, Filter monads, continuous lattices and closure systems, Can. J.
Math. 27 (1975), 50-59.
[6] M. Frechet, Sur la notion de voisinage dans les ensembles abstraits, C.R.
Acad des Sc. (Paris) 165 (1917),359-360.
[7] M. Frechet, Sur la notion de voisinage dans les ensembles abstraits, Bulletin
des Sciences Mathematiques, deuxieme serie, 42 (1918), 138-156.
[8] M. Frechet, Les Espaces Abstraits (Gauthier-Villars, Paris 1928, new edition
Gauthier-Villars 1951).
122 U. Hahle
[9] F. Hausdorff, Grundzuge der Mengenlehre (Berlin 1914). (Reprint: Chelsea

Publishing Company, New York 1965).
[10] U. H6hle, Categorical axioms of neighborhood systems, Quaestiones Math-
ematicae 20 (1997), 373-414.
[11] P.T. Johnstone, Stone Spaces (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
1982).
[12] E.G. Manes, Algebraic Theories (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, New York 1976).
[13] H. Schubert, Categories (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, New York 1972).
[14] W. Sierpinski, Intorduction to General Topology (University of Toronto

Press, Toronto 1934). (English translation of the Polish edition: Zarys teorji
mnogosci. Cz~sc druga: Topologja og6lna (Warszawa 1928)).
[15] O. Wyler, Filter space monads, regularity, completions, in: Proceedings of
the Second Pittsburgh International Conference on General Topology 1973.
CHAPTER 3
Axiomatic Foundations Of Fixed-Basis Fuzzy

Topology
U. HORLE AND A.P. SOSTAK
Introd uction
This paper gives the first comprehensive account on various systems of axioms
of fixed-basis, L-fuzzy topological spaces and their corresponding convergence
theory. In general we do not pursue the historical development, but it is our
primary aim to present the state of the art of this field. We focus on the following
problems:
• Which role is played by the idem potency, commutativity or associativity
of the meet operation in L-fuzzy topology?
• Replacing 2 = {a, I} by a fixed complete lattice L, what means openness
(resp. degree of openness) of a given (L-fuzzy) subset? Does there exist
a local characterization of openness - e.g. by neighborhood systems?
• Does there exist a functorial mechanism which permits a change of the

fixed basis L leaving the topological axioms invariant?
• Do there exist non trivial, natural examples of L-fuzzy topological spaces

which bridge to other fields of mathematics?
The first problem was already observed in [45] and leads to a careful analysis of
the underlying lattice-theoretic structure (cf. Section 1). In this context exam-
ples range from complete orthomodular lattices to GL-quantales with square
roots. As the reader will see below, the axioms of L-fuzzy topological (resp.
L-topological) spaces only use a very simple lattice structure (so-called com-
plete quasi-monoidallattices (L,~, 0)) and are not based on commutativity or

124 U. H6hle and A.P. Sostak
distributivity of the "meet operation" I8l over arbitrary joins, while the strength
of the convergence theory seems to depend essentially on idempotency, com-
mutativity and distributivity of I8l over arbitrary, non empty joins. Further,
we emphasize that the entire development of the theory of L-fuzzy topological
spaces (including convergence) does not require the associativity of 18l. This in-
sight underlines the importance of monoidal mean operators in fuzzy topology
(e.g. arithmetic mean in the case of the real unit interval).
The second problem leads to the heart of this paper: We distinguish between
openness and the degree of openness. Openness of a given map 9 : X ~ L
is formulated as a crisp, binary topological information, while the degree of
openness of 9 is represented by an element A E L. Both concepts are presented
in this paper (cf. Section 2 and 3), and their various interrelationships are
investigated extensively in sections 3 - 5 . The crisp notion" openness of g" leads
to the category L-TOP of L-topological spaces (originally called (L-)fuzzy to-
pological spaces by C.L. Chang [10] and J.A. Goguen [24], while now the notion
L-fuzzy topological space is reserved for those topological structures which are
capable to express the degree of openness of a given map g). In the case of GL-
quantales it is surprising to see that strongly stratified L-topologies and strongly
enriched L-fuzzy topologies come to the same thing (cf. Main Result II in
Section 5). Moreover, in the general case of not completely distributive lattices
we give for the first time a complete characterization of L-topological (resp.
L-fuzzy topological) spaces by L-neighborhood (resp. L-fuzzy neighborhood)
systems. This situation leads to a new convergence theory which intrinsically
is based on the identification of "topologies" with "neighborhood systems" (cf.
Sections 6, 8, 9). In the context of GL-monoids with square roots we obtain a
new Tychonoff- Theorem for stratified, L-topological spaces.
The third problem of changing the underlying basis L is a long standing
open problem. The work of B. Hutton [47] and S.E. Rodabaugh [92, 93] can
be viewed as one possible solution which incorporates the effect of change of
basis into the structure of continuous morphisms. In this paper the change of
basis is given functorially and relies on certain Galois connections between the
underlying lattices. In this context it is interesting to see that the axioms of
L-fuzzy topological spaces are formulated in such a way that their compatibility
with Galois connections is immediately apparent - i.e. having some Galois
connection in mind the formations of infima or suprema appear in the right
places.
In view of the fourth problem we present three fundametally different groups
of non trivial examples of L-topological spaces: The first group of examples deals
with the relationship between L-topologies, frames and the Booleanization of
frames. (cf. Subsection 7.1). In particular we discuss the role of the hypergraph
functor and show in the case of spatial locales L that L-topologies on X can
be identified with ordinary topologies on X x pt(L) (cf. 7.1.5). The second
group of examples uses complete MV-algebras (with square roots) as underly-
ing lattice structure and explores the possibility of applying [0, 1]-topologies to
probability theory (cf. Subsections 7.2 and 7.3). A careful study of rigid, strati-
fied L-topologies shows that the space of finitely additive probability measures
Fixed-basis fuzzy topology 125
on X is the Cech-Stone compactification of the discrete space X (cf. 7.3.2,

7.3.11). Finally the third group of examples is based on lower semicontinuous,
lattice-valued maps which are intrinsically related to the concept of changing
the underlying basis. It is interesting to see the way how L-topologies and
M-topologies are related to each other- e.g. if (L,:::;) is a complete Heyting al-
gebra and (~(L),:::;) its Booleanization, then every stratified L-topology induces
a Boolean valued stratified ~(L)-topology. Moreover, stratified and co-stratified
L-topologies can be identified with their Boolean valued counterparts. A further
application of lower semi continuous maps appears in a special relationship link-
ing general topology (or more general probabilistic topologies) with fuzzy topology
(cf. Subsection 7.4).
Before we pass to comments and remarks addressed to each section sepa-
rately, we would like to draw the reader's attention to the fact that all categories
appearing in this paper are topological over SET. Therefore fuzzy topology is
a part of categorical topology. Moreover, the whole body of the presented theory
of fuzzy topological spaces is based at least on non-spatial locales and a fortiori
on not completely distributive, complete lattices l .
The first section presents the necessary lattice-theoretic foundations of the
theory of fuzzy topological spaces. Here we compile some information on quan-
tales with square roots, left-continuous t-norms, complete MV-algebras and
the role of their idempotent elements. For the sake of completeness we also
include the construction of the Booleanization of distributive lattices.
In sections 2 and 3 we lay down the fundamentals of the theory of L-
fuzzy topological and L-topological spaces. We investigate the change of the
underlying basis L and certain functorial relationships between L-topological
and L-fuzzy topological spaces. Subsequently, we study various topological
subcategories of fuzzy topological structures. We introduce strongly enriched
(resp. strongly stratified), enriched (resp. stratified) and weakly enriched (resp.
weakly stratified) L-fuzzy topological (resp. L-topological) spaces which re-
quire certain enrichments of the structure of the underlying lattice (cf. Sections
4 and 5).
Section 6 can be viewed as a first test demonstrating that the axioms of fixed-
basis topology do really work. We develop an appropriate L-filter theory and
show that there exists a non trivial convergence theory for L-topological spaces
which is extremely beautiful on one hand and has non trivial applications on
the other hand - e.g. every Hausdorff separated, S-compact, rigid, stratified,
L-topological space is weakly star-regular (cf. 7.3.9), or pointwise 7r-almost
everywhere converegnce is A-topological (cf. 7.1.4) .
The convergence theory for L-fuzzy topological spaces is more complicated
than the corresponding one for L-topological spaces (cf. Section 8 and 9).
First of all we have to understand the type of fuzziness represented by openness
operators T : LX I---t L. In Section 8 we view T as a characteristic morphism
on the "powerset" LX and develop a convergence theory based on L-fuzzy
1 With regard to the role of completely distributive lattices the reader is referred to Remark
7.1.5.
126 U. Hahle and A.P. Sostak
neighborhood systems which are generated by T by means of the corresponding

L-fuzzy interior operator. In Section 9 we decide to view T as a generalized
characteristic junction, and we construct its corresponding separated subpresheaJ
(cf. Remark 9.1.3, see also Section 6 in [40]). Starting from this local (i.e. sheaf-
theoretic) understanding of lattice-valued maps, we develop a local convergence
theory for weakly extensional L-fuzzy topological spaces which is not merely a
level-wise repetition of convergence in L-topological spaces.
We close this paper with some brief comments on historical aspects related
to this work (cf. Section 10).
Summing up the outline of this paper is as follows:
§1 Lattice-theortic foundations.
§1.1 Quantales.
§1.2 Enriched cqm-Iattices.
§1.3 Complete MV -algebras with square roots and idempotent hulls.
§1.4 Booleanization of bounded distributive lattices.
§2. L-Fuzzy topological spaces.
§3. L-Topological spaces.
§4. Coreflective subcategories of L-FTOP.
§4.1 Extensional, L-fuzzy topologies.
§4.2 Enriched, L-fuzzy topologies.
§4.3 Strongly enriched, L-fuzzy topologies.
§5. Coreflective subcategories of L-TOP.
§5.1 Stratified L-topologies.
§5.2 Strongly stratified L-topologies.
§6. Convergence theory for L-topological spaces and its applications.
§6.1 L-Interior operators and L-neighborhood systems.
§6.2 L-Filter theory.
§6.3 The principle of L-continuous extension.
§6.4 Compactness and stratified L-topological spaces.
§6.5 A level-wise characterization of L-neighborhood axioms.
§7. Examples of L-topological spaces.
§7.1 Case of complete Heyting algebras.
§7.2 Case of complete MV-algebras.
§7.3 Case of complete MV-algebras with square roots and rigid L-topologies.
§7.4 Lower semicontinuous, lattice-valued maps.
§8. Convergence theory for L-fuzzy topological spaces.
§8.1 L-Fuzzy interior operators and L-fuzzy neighborhood systems.
§8.2 Convergence in L-fuzzy topological spaces.
§9. Local convergence theory for weakly extensional L-fuzzy topological spaces.
§9.1 Extensionality and singletons in LX.
§9.2 A representation theory for weakly extensional L-fuzzy topologies.
§9.3 Local L-interior operators.
§9.4 Filter theory on local elements of LX.
§9.5 Hausdorff separation axiom for weakly extensional, L-fuzzy topological
spaces.
§10 Historical comments.
1 Lattice-theoretic foundations.
In this section we present the algebraic and lattice-theoretic foundations re-
quired by the axioms of fixed-basis fuzzy topologies. Familiarity with [6] and
[86] will be helpful.
A cqm-lattice (short for complete quasi-monoidallattice) is a triple (L,:::;, ~)
provided with the following properties
(I) (L,:::;) is a complete lattice where T (resp . ..l) denotes the universal
upper (resp. lower) bound.
(II) is a partially ordered groupoid (d. [6]) -i.e. ~ is a binary
(L,:::;,~)
operation on L satisfying the isotonicity axiom
a1 ~ (31 :::; a2 ~ (32 whenever a1 :::; a2 , (31 :::; (32 .
(III) a < a ~ T a < T~a 'VaEL.
Because of (III) the universal upper bound T is always idempotent w.r.t. ~
in any cqm-lattice. Further, every complete lattice (L,:::;) carries an intrinsic
structure of a cqm-lattice determined by the binary meet operation /\. As a
matter of fact (L,:::;, /\) is always a cqm-lattice.
On partially ordered groupoids there exist at least two fundamental different,
but important conditions forcing Axiom (III):
Remark 1.1 Let (L,:::;) be a complete lattice and (L,:::;,~) be a partially
ordered groupoid.
(a) Let us assume that (£,:::;,~) has a unit (i.e. there exists 1 E £ with
a ~ 1 = 1 ~ a = a). Then Axiom (III) follows from the existence of the unit
and the isotonicity axiom (II). In particular (L,:::;,~) is a cqm-lattice.
(b) If ~ is idempotent (Le. a~a = a), then we again can invoke the isotonicity
axiom and verify (III). Hence the idempotency is another sufficient condition
guaranteeing that (£,:::;,~) is a cqm-lattice .
• The category CQML of cqm-lattices consists of the following data:

Objects are cqm-lattices, and Morphisms <p : (L1' :::;1, ~1) ~ (L2' :::;2, ~2) are
mappings <p : £1 ~ £2 provided with the properties2
(M1) <p preserves arbitrary joins.
(M2) <p(a ~1 (3) = <p(a) ~2 <p((3).
(M3) <p preserves universal upper bounds - i.e. <p(T) = T.
The composition is the usual composition of maps, and the identity of (L,:::;,~)
is the identity map of L. It is not difficult to show that CQML is finitely
complete.
A partially ordered groupoid (L,:::;,~) is called a cl-groupoid (short for
completely lattice-ordered groupoid (d. [6])) iff ~ is distributive over non
empty joins - i.e.
2Because of (MI) and (M3) the universal bounds are fixpoints of <p.
128 U. Hoble and A.P. Sostak
(IV) (V a i)®(3 = V(ai®(3), (3®(V a i) = V((3®ai)'

iEI iEI iEI iEI
A cl-quasi-monoid (short for completely lattice-ordered quasi-monoid) is a

cqm-Iattice which is also a cl-groupoid.
1.1 Quantales.
A triple (L,:s;, &) is called a quantale (cf. [80,86]) iff (L,:s;) is a complete lattice
and
(V) (L, &) is a semigroup,
(VI) & is distributive over arbitrary joins -i.e.
(V a i)&(3 = V (ai&(3) , (3&(V a i) = VU3&ai),
iEI iEI iEI iEI
where V denotes the formation of arbitrary jmns in (L, :s;). Obviously the
universal lower bound 1. (viewed as the join of the empty set) is the zero element
w.r.t. &. Further every quantale is left- and right-residuated - i.e. there exist
binary operations -t£ and -tr on L satisfying the following axioms
In particular -tr and -t£ are determined by
A quantale (L,:s;, &) is commutative iff the underlying semigroup (L, &) is com-
mutative. In general quantales do not have units; therefore the following termi-
nology is important: An element a is right (resp. left) -sided iff a & T :s; a
(resp. T & a :s; a). An element a is strictly right (resp. left) -sided iff
a & T = a, (resp. T & a = a). An element a is strictly two-sided iff a
is strictly right- and left-sided. A quantale is said to be right (resp. left) -sided
iff every element a E L is right (resp. left) -sided. A quantale is strictly right
(resp. left) -sided iff every element in L is strictly right (resp. left) -sided. The
universal upper bound T is the unit of (L, &) iff (L, :S;, &) is strictly two-sided
- i.e. strictly right- and left-sided. A quantale is right (resp. left) -divisible
iff the relation (3 :s; a is equivalent to the existence of an element 'Y E L satis-
fying the relation (3 = a & 'Y (resp. (3 = 'Y & a ). Obviously a right-sided
(resp. left-sided) quantale is right (resp. left)-divisible iff for every inequality
(3 :s; a there exists 'Y E L s.t. (3 = a & 'Y (resp. (3 = 'Y & a). Further we
note that in every right-divisible and right-sided quantale the meet operation
can be expressed by the algebraic operations & and -tr on L
al\(3 a & (a -tr (3) , a,(3EL.
The analogous statement holds for left-divisible and left-sided quantales. A

quantale (L,:s;, &) is called a right Gelfand quantale iff (L,:s;, &) is right-sided
and (L, &) is an idempotent semigroup (cf. [80)). As an immediate consequence

from the idempotency we obtain that every Gelfand quantale is strictly right-
sided and right-symmetric - i.e.
0.& ({3&'Y) = 0.& ("f&{3) Va.,{3,'Y E L (Right-Symmetry) .
Moreover, it is not difficult to see that a Gelfand quantale (L,~, &) is com-
mutative iff the universal upper bound T is the unit w.r.t. & iff & = 1\ .
Hence commutative Gelfand quantales and complete Heyting algebras ([49)) are
the same things.
Example 1.1.1 (a) Let (X,O) be an ordinary topological space. Then the
lattice (O,~) of all open ordinary subsets of X forms a complete Heyting
algebra.
(b) Let A be a non-commutative CO-algebra, R(A) be the lattice of all right-
sided ideals of A, and let & be the usual multiplication of right-sided ideals.
Then (R(A),~, &) is a right Gelfand quantale which is not a complete Heyting
algebra (cf. [80)) .
•
Let Q = (L,~, &) be a strictly right-sided, right-symmetric quantale;
then the subquantale 8(Q) = {T &0. I a. E L} of all strictly two-sided ele-
ments of Q is necessarily a commutative monoid. Further the canonical quantale-
homomorphism j from Q onto 8(Q) is determined by:
j(a.) = T&a. Va.EL .
Lemma 1.1.2 In any strictly right-sided, right-symmetric quantale the follow-

ing relations hold for all a., {3 E L
(i) a. -+l {3 = j(a.) -+l {3, j(a.) -+r j({3) = j(a.) -+l j({3) .
(ii) a. -+r j({3) ~ j(a.) -+r j({3) , j(a. -+r {3) ~ a. -+r {3 .
(iii) {3 -+i (a. -+r 'Y) = ((a.&{3) -+r 'Y.
PROOF. The relations follow immediately from the respective definitions .

•
A quantale (L, ~,&) is called a GL-monoid iff (L, ~,&) is a commutative,
strictly two-sided, divisible quantale (cf. Section 5 in [39)). Typical examples of
GL-monoids are complete Heyting algebras or complete MV -algebras (cf. [4)).
For simplicity we recall here that complete MV-algebras are G L-monoids in
which the law of double negation is valid (cf. Lemma 2.14 in [39)) - i.e.
(a. -+ .1.) -+ .1. a. , Va.EL.

Example 1.1.3 Let (G, S;, +) be a (conditionally) complete i-group - i.e.

(G, S;, +) is a partially ordered commutative group in which for every bounded
subset the supremum and infimum exist (cf. [6]). Further let u be an element of
the positive cone G+ \ {O} of G. Then L = {9 E G lOS; 9 S; u} is a complete
lattice w.r.t. S;. On L we consider the following binary operation defined by
91 * 92 (91 + g2 - u) V 0 V91,g2 E L.
It is not difficult to verify that (L, S;, *) is a complete MV -algebra .
•
Further examples of G L-monoids are given by continuous semigroup structures
on the real unit interval [0,1] satisfying the following boundary conditions
a&l = l&a = 1 , a&O = O&a = O.
In the context of probabilistic metric spaces continuous semigroup operations on

[0,1] satisfying the previous condition are also called continuous t-norms ([99]).
After these preliminaries we are in the position to define the structure of a
right G L-quantale in the following way: A right G L-quantale is a strictly right-
sided and right-symmetric quantale Q = (L, S;, &) satisfying the additional
axioms:
(GL1) (a -+l a) & a Va E L.
(GL2) The subquantale S(Q) = {T & a I a E L} of all strictly

two-sided elements of L is a GL-monoid (w.r.t. &).
Obviously every GL-monoid is a right GL-quantale. Moreover, every right

Gelfand quantale is a right GL-monoid. Indeed, the idempotency of & implies
(GL1), and the fact that all two-sided elements of a right Gelfand quantale form
a complete Heyting algebra (cf. [80]) guarantees the validity of (GL2).
Example 1.1.4 Let M = (L, s;, *) be a GL-monoid and U be a GL-submo-

noid of M - i.e. U is a submonoid of (L, *) and U is closed w.r.t. arbitrary
joins and meets performed in (L, S;). Then U is again a GL-monoid, and the
residuation in U coincides with the restriction of the residuation in L. Moreover
U induces a self-mapping - : L t---+ L by
Va E L.
Evidently, - is a closure operator on L satisfying the following properties:
a*/3=a*/3 ,
Indeed, we infer from
that a :::; 7J -t (0: * 7J) holds; hence a *(3 < 0: * 7J follows. Further we obtain
from the divisibility of M
a 1\ 7J < a * (a -t 7J) < 0: * (a -t (3) < 0: 1\ 7J .

Now we are in the position to define an associative, binary operation on L as
follows:
v0:, (3 E L .
Then it is not difficult to show that & induces the structure of a right G L-
quantale on (L, :::;). In particular, the GL-quantale Q = (L,:::;, &) fulfills the
additional property
(GL3) T & (0: 1\ (T &(3)) (T &0:) 1\ (T &(3) .

Finally, Q is non-commutative if and only if U i= L. In this case there exists
obviously an element 0: E L with T & 0: i= 0: & T .
•
Proposition 1.1.5 Let Q be a right GL-quantale. Then the relation 0: :::;
T & 0: holds for all 0: E L. Moreover, Q is quasi-left-divisible - i.e. for every
pair (0:, (3) E L x L with (3 :::; T & 0: there exists TEL such that T & 0: = (3 .
PROOF. Because of 0: -t( 0: :::; T the first assertion follows immediately
from (GL1). In particular the canonical quantale homomorphism j is a closure
operator on (L, :::;). Referring to Lemma 1.1.2 we observe that the residuation
in the underlying GL-monoid 5(Q) of two-sided elements coincides with the
restictions of -tr or -t(. In the case of (3 :::; j(o:) we now apply Axiom (GL1)
and the divisibility of 5(Q) :
(3 = ((3-t((3)&j((3) = ((3-t((3)&(j(o:)-td((3))&T&o:.
Hence the second assertion is established.
•
Corollary 1.1.6 In any right GL-quantale Q the following relations hold:
(i) (0: -t( (3) & 0: = (3 whenever (3 :::; T & 0: .
(ii) T & (0: -tr (0: & (3)) T & (3 whenever T :::; T & 0: .
(iii) 0: -tr (T & (3) (T & 0:) -tr (T & (3) .
(iv) 0: -tr (3 T & (0: -tr (3) .
PROOF. The relation (i) is equivalent to the quasi-left-divisibility of Q which
is already verified in Proposition 1.1.5. Further the relation (ii) is an immediate
consequence from the quasi-left-divisibility of Q. Finally (iii) and (iv) follow
directly from Lemma 1.1.2 and Proposition 1.1.5.
•
132 U. Hable and A.P. Sostak
1.2 Enriched cqm-lattices.

Sometimes we enrich cqm-Iattices (L, :S:, 181) by an additional, partially ordered,
algebraic structure determined by quantales. For this purpose we fix a complete
lattice (L,:s:) and consider two binary operations 181 and * on L such that the
following conditions hold:
(CQM) (L,:s:,I8I) isacqm-Iattice.

(Q) (L,:s:, *) is a quantale.
(VII) * is dominated by 181 - i.e. for all ai, a2, (31, (32 E L the inequality
holds.
Lemma 1.2.1 Let (L,:S:,*) be a quantale. Then the quadruple (L :S:,I\,*)

satisfies the axioms (I)-(IlI) and (V)-(VII). Moreover, if (L,:s:, *) is a right-
symmetric quantale satisfying the additional property
Va E L
then (L,:s:, *, *) fulfills (I)-(VII) .

•
Referring to a result due to L. Fuchs (cf. [18]) it is easy to see that the
underlying lattice (L,:s:) of a given quantale is not necessarily distributive. In
this context Lemma 1.2.1 means that in the absence of distributivity w.r.t. 1\
there exists a semigroup operation * such that at least Axiom (VI) holds.
In the following consideration we describe a class of quadruples (L,:s:, 181, *)
satisfying (I)-(UI) and (V)-(VII) which is not covered by Lemma 1.2.1. A
natural source for this type of examples are quantales with square roots. We
start with a simple definition.
A quantale (L, :S:, *) has square roots (cf. [39]) iff there exists a unary oper-
ator 8 : L t--r L provided with the properties
(SI) 8(a) * 8(a) a Va E L.
(S2) (3*(3 < a implies (3:S: 8(a).

Since the formation of square roots (Le. the unary operator 8) is uniquely
determined by (SI) and (S2) we write also a 1 / 2 instead of 8(a).
Proposition 1.2.2 (Quantales with Square Roots)

Let (L,:S:, *) be a quantale. Then the following assertions are equivalent
(i) (L,:S:,*) has square roots.
(ii) (L, :S:, *) satisfies the subsequent conditions
(1) 'Va E L 3 f3 E L: a = f3 * f3.

(2) a * f3 ~ (a * a) V (f3 * (3).
Proof. (a) ((i)=>(ii» Property (1) follows immediately from (81). Apply-
ing (82) to "( = (a * a) V (f3 * (3) we obtain a V f3 ~ "(1/2. Now we take the
square w.r.t. * on both sides; hence Property (2) follows from (81) and (VI).
(b) ((ii)=>(i» We define a map 8 : L t----t L by
8(a) = Vp, ELI ,\ *,\ ~ a}
Obviously 8 satisfies (S2). In order to verify (Sl) we proceed as follows: First

we infer from Property (2) and Axiom (VI) : 8 (a) * 8 (a) ~ a. Then we invoke
Property (1) and obtain: 8(a) * 8(a) = a .
•
Example 1.2.3 (Quantales with Square Roots)
(a) Every idempotent quantale Q = (L,~, &) (cf. [86]) has obviously square
roots. Namely, the formation of square roots is given by the identity idL of L.
(b) Any continuous t-norm T (cf. [99)) induces on the real unit interval [0, 1] the
structure of a (commutative) quantale with square roots. Significant, continuous
t-norms are the following ones
Min(o.,f3) = min(a, (3)

Prod(o.,f3) = a·f3
Tm (o.,f3) = max(a + f3 - 1,0)
The formation of square roots w.r.t. Min is given by the identity map of [0, 1],
while square roots w.r.t. Prod are the usual ones, and square roots w.r.t. Tm
are determined by
a+1
= 2
for all a E [0,1]
In this context we remark that every continuous t-norm can be written as an

ordinal sum of Min, Prod and Tm (cf. [60, 83)). Further we note that Min and
Tm playa special role in the field of many-valued logics: Min is used by G6del
in his [O,l]-valued intuitionistic logic, while Tm is the arithmetic conjuction
in Lukasiewicz' [O,l]-valued logic (cf. [17)). In particular, ([0, 1],~, Tm) is a
complete MV-algebra with square roots.
(c) The formation of square roots is preserved under arbitray products; i.e.
products of quantales with square roots are again quantales with square roots .
•
Lemma 1.2.4 Let Q = (L,~, *) be a quantale with square roots. Further Q
satisfies the additional property
'Va,f3 E L
Then the formation of square roots preserves arbitrary, non empty joins -
i. e. for any non empty subset {O:i liE I} of L the relation
(V O:i)1/2 = V (O:i)1/2
iEI iEI
holds.
Proof. Let A = {O:i liE I} be a non empty subset of L. Referring to
Proposition 1.2.2 we conclude from (VI) and (SI)
(V (O:i)1/2) * (V (O:i)1/2) = V O:i

iEI iEI iEI
Now we take on both sides the square roots and apply (SI), (S3) :
..1 1/ 2 V (V (O:i)1/2) = (V O:i)1/2
iEI iEI
Since A is non empty, the inequality ..1 1/ 2 < V (O:i)1/2 holds; hence the
iEI
assertion follows .
•
Example 1.2.5
(a) Let T be one of the fundamental, continuous t-norms - i.e. T = Min or
T = Prod or T = Tm (cf. Example 1.2.3(b)). Then ([0,1],:::;, T) is a quantale
satisfying Axiom (S3). It is not difficult to see that (S3) is not preserved under
ordinal sums (cf. [99]); e.g. let us consider the following continuous t-norm
T 1 / 2 defined by
max(o: + 13 - 1, 1/2) 1/2 :::; 0: , 1/2 :::; 13

{ max(o: + 13 - 1/2, 0) 0: :::; 1/2 , 13 :::; 1/2
min(o:, (3) elsewhere
Then the map 8 : [0, 1]1----t [0,1] determined by
8(0:) = {a+2 1/2 :::; 0: :::; 1

°: :; 0: :;:; 1/2
coincides with the formation of square roots w.r.t. T 1 / 2 • In the case of 0: = 5/8
and 13 = 3/4 we obtain
max(T1 / 2 (8(5/8), 8(3/4)) ,1/4) = 11/16 '" 3/4 = 8(T1/ 2 (5/8,3/4));
hence ([0,1], :::;,T1 / 2 ) does not satisfy (S3).
(b) The axiom (S3) is preserved under products of quantales with square roots.
In particular, there exist non commutative quantales with square roots satisfying
(S3) (cf. (a) and Example 1.2.3).
(c) Every complete MV-algebra with square roots satisfies Axiom (S3) (cf.
Proposition 2.17 in [39]).
•
Remark 1.2.6 (Monoidal Mean Operator) Let Q = (L,~, *) be a quan-
tale with square roots. Then the monoidal mean operator ® on L is given
by
= '10.,(3 E L .
If Q satisfies· Axiom (S3), then Lemma 1.2.4 and Axiom (VI) imply that
(L,~, ®) is an idempotent cl-quasi-monoid. Moreover, if Q is a commuta-
tive quantale, then (L,~, ®, *) fulfills the axioms (I)-(III) and (V)-(VII) .
• Motivated by the previous remark we ask the question: Let us assume
that ® is given by the monoidal mean operator. Does Axiom (VII) force the
commutativity of the underlying quantale?
First we give an axiomatization of the monoidal mean operator:
Proposition 1.2.7 Let (L,~, ®, *) be a quadruple satisfying the axioms

(J)-(JJJ),(V)-(VJI) and the additional axioms
(VIII) (T ® a) * (T ® (3) a ® (3
(IX) (T ® a) *T = T ®a
(X) a ®o. = a (Idempotency)
Then Q = (L,~, *) is a commutative, strictly two-sided quantale. Furthermore
Q has square roots and the monoidal mean operator ® coincides with ®.
Proof. (a) Let us consider an element a E L. Then (III), (VIII) and (IX)
imply that T ® a is strictly two-sided for all a E L. Further the relation
(T ® a) * (T I8l a) = a follows from (VIII) and (X) j hence every element a E L
is strictly two-sided. In order to verify the commutativity of * we proceed as
follows: Because of (III), (VIII) and (IX) the relation
a I8l T = (T I8l a) * (T I8l T) = T I8l a

holds. Now we invoke (VII), (VIII), (X) and obtain:
0.*(3 = (T I8l a) * (T I8l a) * (T I8l (3) * (T ® (3)

= (T ® a) * (T I8l a) * ((318l T) * (T ® (3)
< (T ® a) * ((3 ® a) * (T I8l (3)
= (T I8l a) * (T ® (3) * (T ® a) * (T I8l (3)
< ((3 ® a) * ((3 ® a)
= (T I8l (3) * (T I8l a) * (T I8l (3) * (T ® a)
< (T I8l (3) * ((3 ® a) * (T ® a)
= (T I8l (3) * (T ® (3) * (T I8l a) * (T I8l a)
= (3*0.
(b) In view of (VIII) it is sufficient to show that T i8l 0: is the square root of 0:
w.r.t. *. The axiom (S1) follows immediately from (VIII) and (X) (cf. (a)). In
order to verify (S2) we assume (3 * (3 ::; 0:. Referring again to (VII) and (VIII)
we obtain:
hence the second assertion is verified .

•
Corollary 1.2.8 Let Q = (L,::;, *) be a strictly two-sided quantale having
square roots. Further let ® be the monoidal mean operator on L w.r.t. *.
Then the following assertions are equivalent:
(i) Q is commutative.
(ii) The quadruple (L,::;,®,*) satisfies Axiom (VII).
Proof. (a) Let us assume that Q is commutative. Then the inequality
* (31/2 ::; (0: * (3)1/2 holds for all 0:, (3 E L. Hence Axiom (VII) follows
0: 1/ 2
from the commutativity of *.
(b) Because of 0: 1 / 2 = T ® 0: the implication (ii)==>(i) is an immediate conse-
quence from Proposition 1.2.7.
•
Referring to the previous corollary it is evident that we cannot omit the as-
sumption of the commutativity of the underlying quantale in Remark 1.2.6.
Proposition 1.2.9 Let (L,::;, *) be a strictly two-sided commutative quantale
with square roots satisfying the axiom (83). Further let to be the element of L
determined by: to = (1. 1/ 2 -t 1.) * (1. 1/ 2 -t 1.) . Then the following properties
are valid
(i) (1. 1/ 2 -t 1.) -t 1. 1. 1/ 2
(ii) to -t 1. = (to -t 1.)1/2 . In particular, to -t 1. is idempotent

w.r.t. *.
Moreover, if (L,::;, *) satisfies the divisibility law (i.e. (L,::;, *) is a GL-
monoid), then the following additional property holds
(iii) to = (to -t 1.) -t 1. .
Proof. The inequality 0: ::; (0: -t 1.) -t 1. holds for all 0: E L. In order to
show the converse inequality in (i) we proceed as follows:
Because of 1. 1/ 2 < 1. 1/ 2 -t 1. we obtain:
(1. 1 / 2 -t 1.) -t 1. < 1. 1/ 2 -t 1. ;
hence the relation

«1. 1/ 2 -t 1.) -t 1.) * «1. 1/ 2 -t 1.) -t 1.) <
< (1. 1/2 -t 1.) * «1. 1/ 2 -t 1.) -t 1.) = 1.
follows; i.e. (.1 1/ 2 -+ .1) -+.1 ~ .1 1/ 2 .

Since the formation of square roots preserves the "implication" (cf. Proposition
2.11 in [39]), we obtain from Assertion (i) and Axiom (S3):
[«.1 1/2 -+ .1) * (.1 1/2 -+ .1)) -+ .1]1/2 = (.1 1/ 2 -+ .1) -+ 1. 1 / 2
= (.1 1/ 2 -+ .1) -+ «.1 1 / 2 -+ .1) -+ .1)
«.1 1/ 2 -+.1) * (.1 1/ 2 -+ .1)) -+.1;
hence the assertion (ii) follows.
Referring again to Assertion (i) we derive the following relation from (S3) and
the divisibility of (L, ~ *):
.1 1/2 -+.1 = [(.1 1/ 2 -+ .1) * «.1 1/ 2 -+ .1) -+ .1 1/ 2)] -+ .1
= «.1 1/ 2 -+ .1) -+ .1 1/ 2) -+ «.1 1/ 2 -+ .1) -+ .1)
= [«.1 1/ 2 -+ .1) * (.1 1/ 2 -+ .1)) -+ .1jI/2 -+ .1 1/ 2
= [«(.1 1/ 2 -+ .1) * (.1 1/ 2 -+ .1)) -+ .1) -+ 1.]1/2.
Taking on both sides the squares then the assertion (iii) follows.
•
Definition 1.2.10 (Smoothness and strictness)
Let (L,~, *) be a GL-monoid with square roots. (L,~, *) is called smooth iff
.1 1/ 2 = .1. (L,~,*) is said to be strict iff .1 1/ 2 -+.1 = .1 1/ 2 .
•
It is easy to see that the real unit interval provided with the usual multiplication
Prod is a smooth GL-monoid (cf. Example 1.2.3). Further every complete
Heyting algebra is a smooth G L-monoid.
Proposition 1.2.11 Let (L,:::;, *) be a smooth GL-monoid satisfying (83).
Further let £ be an idempotent element in L w.r.t. *. Then the following
relations are valid:
(i) £1/2 = £ •
(ii) £ -+ .1 is again idempotent w.r.t. *.

Proof. The assertion (i) follows from Axiom (S3) and the smoothness of
(L,~, *). Since the formation of square roots preserves the "implication", we
conclude from assertion (i) and the smoothness of (L,~, *):
(£ -+ .1)1/2 = £1/2 -+ .1 1/2 = £ -+.1 ;
hence the idempotency of £ -+ .1 is verified.

•
Proposition 1.2.12 Let (L,~, *) be a strict GL-monoid. Then for all a E L
the following relation holds:
(a 1 / 2 -+ (a 1 / 2 * .1 1/2)) * (a 1/ 2 -+ (a 1 / 2 * .1 1/2)) = .1 .
Proof. By virtue of the divisibility of (L,:::;, *) we obtain:
.1 1 / 2 * (0: 1 / 2 -+ (0: 1 / 2 * .1 1 / 2 ))
(0: 1 / 2 -+ .1 1 / 2 ) * 0: 1 / 2 * (0: 1 / 2 -+ (0: 1 / 2 * .1 1 / 2 ))
(0: 1 / 2 -+ .1 1 / 2 ) * 0: 1 / 2 * .1 1 / 2 = .1 1 / 2 * .1 1 / 2 .1
i.e. (0: 1 / 2 -+ (0: 1 / 2 * .1 1 / 2 )) < .1 1 / 2 -+.1. Hence the assertion follows from
the strictness of (L,:::;, *) .
•
Under a mild hypothesis we can give a classification of GL-monoids with square
roots as follows:
Theorem 1.2.13 (Classification of GL-monoids)

Let (L,:::;, *) be a GL-monoids with square roots satisfying the additional con-
dition
«.1 1 / 2 -+ .i) * (.1 1 / 2 -+ .i)) V «(.1 1/ 2 -+ .i) * (.1 1 / 2 -+ .i)) -+ .i) T.
Then (L,:::;, *) is either a smooth GL-monoid or a strict GL-monoid or is iso-

morphic to a product of a smooth GL-monoid and a strict GL-monoid. More-
over, the factors of this product are uniquely deterimed up to an isomorphism.
Proof. We put ~o = (..L 1 / 2 -+ ..L)* (..L 1 / 2 -+ ..L). Since ~o -+..L is idem-

potent (cf. Proposition 1.2.9 (ii)), we conclude from the hypothesis that ~o is
also idempotent. Therefore we are in the position to repeat the arguments of
Corollary 2.18, Remark 2.20 and Theorem 2.21 in [39] verbatim .
•
The hypothesis of the previous theorem is satisfied by any G L-monoid with
square roots fulfilling the algebraic strong de Morgan law (cf. Proposition 2.3 in
[39]) - i.e.:
(0: -+;3) V (;3 -+ 0:) T v0:,;3 E L .
At this moment we do not have any example of a strict GL-monoid which is not
an MV -algebra. The following proposition throws some light on this problem:
Proposition 1.2.14 Let (L,:::;, *) be a strict GL-monoid. Then the following

assertions are equivalent:
(i) (0:-+(0:*;3)) = (0:-+.1) v;3 Vo:,;3EL .
(ii) 0:
(iii) (L,:::;,*) is an MV-algebra.

Proof. The implication (i) => (ii) follows from Proposition 1.2.2 and the
strictness of (L, $, *). Since the formation of square roots preserves the "im-
plication" , we conclude from the divisibility law:
((a ~ .1..) ~ .1..)1/2 (a ~ .1..?/2 ~ ((a ~ .1..?/2 * a 1 / 2 )

< .1.. 1/ 2 ~ (.1.. 1/ 2 * a 1/ 2 ) ;
hence (a ~ .1..) ~.1.. = a follows from Assertion (ii) - i.e. (L, $, *) is an

MV-algebra (cf. Subsection 1.1). Finally the assertion (i) holds in any MV-
algebra (cf. Proposition 2.15 in [39]) .
•
We close this subsection with the consideration of pseudo-bisymmetric subsets
of the underlying lattice L.
Definition 1.2.15 Let (L, $, ®, *) be a quadruple satisfying the axioms (1)-

(III) and (V)-(VII). A non empty subset S of L is called pseudo-bisymmetric
in (L, $, ®, *) iff S satisfies the following condition
for all a, "y E S and (3, 8 E L .
•
Proposition 1.2.16 Let (L, $, ®, *) be a quadruple satisfying the axioms (1)-
(III), (V)-(IX) and the additional axiom
Further let .1.. be idempotent w.r.t. ® (i.e . .1.. ®.1.. = .1..), and let (L, $, *) be
right-symmetric. Then L is pseudo-bisymmetric in (L, $, ®, *).
Proof. Because of (VIII) and (XI) the following relation holds:
(a * (3) ® ("'( * 8) = (T ® (a * (3)) * (T ® ("'( * 8)) =
((T ® a)* (T ® (3) * (T ® "y) * (T ® 8)) V((T ® a) * (T ® (3) * (T ® .1..)) V

V ((T ® .1..) * (T ® "y) * (T ® 8)) V((T ® .1..) * (T ® .1..)) .
140 U. Hahle and A.P. Bastak
Now, we apply the right-symmetricity of (L, s;, *), the axiom (VIII) and the
idempotencyof 1. w.r.t. @ and obtain:
«(H /1) @ CY* 6) =
(T @a) * (T @')') * (T @/1) * (T @ 6)) V(T @a) * (T @1.) * (T @ /1)) V
V(T @1.) * (T @')') * (T @6)) V((T @1.) * (T @1.)) =
= (a @')') * (/1 @6)) V(a @1.) * (T @ /1)) V(1. @')') * (T @6)) .
Since the axioms (VIII) and (IX) imply T @/1 = /1 @ T , the assertion follows .
•
Example 1.2.17 (a) Let (L, S;,@,*) be a quadruple provided with the prop-
erties (I)-(III) and (V)-(VII). Further let (L, S;, *) be strictly two-sided. If
1.@T = T@1. = 1., then So = {T,1.} ispseudo-bisymmetricin(L,S;,@,*).
(b) Let (L, S;, *) be a right-symmetric quantale such that T satisfies the fol-
lowing condition
Va E L.
Then (L, S;, *, *) satisfies (I)-(VII) (cf. Lemma 1.2.1). Further it is not difficult
to see that L is pseudo-bisymmetric in (L, S;, *, *).
(c) Let (L, S;, *) be a strictly two-sided, commutative quantale. Further we
assume that (L, S;, *) has square roots such that Axiom (S3) holds. Then in
the case of the monoidal mean operator ® the hypothesis of Proposition 1.2.16
is satisfied (cf. Proposition 1.2.7 and Corollary 1.2.8). Hence L is pseudo-
bisymmetric in (L, S;, ®, *) .
•
Example 1.2.18 (Conditional events)
Let (L, S;, *) be a complete MV -algebra and Lc be the set of all elements
(a, /1) E L x L with a S; /1. Further we introduce two semigroup operations
and a partial ordering on Lc as follows
(a1,/11) j (a2,/12)
(a1,/1d * (a2,/12)
(a1, /1d @ (a2, /12) (a1 * a2 , /11 * /12)
It is not difficult to show that (Lc,j,*) and (Lc,j,@) are commutative
strictly two-sided quantales. Referring to [44] the quantale (Lc, j, ,*) can be
understood as the algebra of conditional events determined by the unconditional
events a E L. Further we observe
«a1,/11) @ (a2,/12)) * «a3,/13) @ (a4,/14)) =
«a1 * a2 * a3 * (4) , «a1 * a2 * /13 * /14) V (a3 * a4 * /11 * /12))) <
«a1, /11) * (a3, /13)) @ (a2, /12) * (a4, /14))
Hence (La, j, 0, *) satisfies the axioms (I) - (VII). Now we consider the embed-
ding £ : L f---+ La determined by the diagonal- i.e. £(a) = (a, a) 'Va E L.
Obviously the restrictions of 0 and * to £(L) x £(L) coincide. It is easy to
show that £ is a quantale morphism in the sense of (La, j, *) and (La, j, 0).
Moreover £ preserves the residuations w.r.t. *, *, 0. Finally we observe
«a,a) 0 (/31,/32)) * «",) 0 «(h, 62)) =

«a *, * /31 * 61) , «a *, * /31 * 62) V (a *, * /32 * 61))) =
«a, a) * (r, ,)) 0 «/31, /32) * (61,62))
hence the range of £ is pseudo-bisymmetric in (La, j, 0, *) .
•
1.3 Complete MV -algebras with square roots and idem-
potent hulls.
Let M = (L,~, *) be a complete MV-algebra with square roots. Then
£0 (..l.l/2 -+ ..l.) * (..l.l/2 -+ ..l.)

is idempotent w.r.t. * (see: Proposition 2.17 in [39]). We notice that smooth
MV-algebras (cf. Definition 1.2.10) and complete Boolean algebras are synony-
mous notions (see: Proposition 2.19 in [39]). Further we recall: M is a strict
MV -algebra iff ..l.l/2 -+ ..l. = ..l.l/2 (iff £0 = ..l.). It is not difficult to see that
Boolean algebras and strict MV -algebras are mutually exclusive concepts.
Since £0 is idempotent, every complete MV -algebra with square roots is either
a Boolean algebra, or a strict MV -algebra, or a product of a Boolean and a
strict MV-algebra (cf. Theorem 1.2.13, Theorem 2.21 in [39]).
Let M be a complete, strict MV-algebra containing at least three elements.
Moreover, let us assume that ..l. and T are the only idempotent elements of
L w.r.t. *. Then M is isomorphic to the real unit interval provided with
Lukasiewicz' arithmetic conjunction Tm (cf. Corollary 6.12 in [39]). Referring
to Example 1.2.3(b) we see immediately that the strict, complete MV-algebra
([0, 1],~, Tm) has square roots.
The relation £ 1\ a = £ * a holds for all a ELand for all idempotent elements
£ E L (cf. Proposition 2.8 in [39]). In particular, £ -+ ..l. is idempotent, when-
ever £ is idempotent.
Moreover the semigroup operation * is always distributive over arbitrary meets
(cf. Theorem 5.2(c) in [39]). Since the "implication" can be expressed by *
and the negation _ -+..l. (cf. Proposition 2.8 in [39]), the following relation is
valid in any complete MV -algebra:
a -+ (V /3i) = V(a -+ /3i) where {/3i liE I} C L.

iEI iEI
Finally in any (complete) MV-algebra the algebraic strong de Morgan's law

holds (cf. Lemma 2.4 and Corollary 2.16 in [39]):
(a -+ (3) V ((3 -+ a) T Va, (3 E L .
Let M = (L,:S;, *) be a complete MV -algebra. The idempotent hull a of

a E L is defined by
/\ {[ ELI a :s; [ and [ * [ = [}

Similarly, we define the idempotent kernel a- of a E L by
v{[ ELI [ :s; a and [ * [ = [}

Since * is distributive over arbitrary meets and joins, it can be shown that
the idempotent hull (resp. kernel) a (resp. d) of a is again idempotent. In
particular, the following relations are valid :3
Vai Vai
iEI iEI
d = (a -+ ..l) -+ ..l
a = (a -+ ..It -+ ..l
a- A an
nEJIi
Proposition 1.3.1 (Properties of idempotent hulls)

Let M = (L,:S;, *) be a complete MV -algebra with square roots. Then the
following assertions hold :
(a) a II (3 = a II ~
(b) If M is strict, then a 1 / 2 * ..l1/2 = a and a 1 / 2 * (31/2 = a V ~.
(c) ..l1/2 II a :s; a 1/ 2 * (31/2

Proof. The inequality a II (3 < a II ~ is obvious. Now we consider an
idempotent element [ with a II (3 < [. Then [ -+ ..l is also idempotent, and
the algebraic strong de Morgan law (cf. Lemma 2.4 and Corollary 2.16 in [39])
implies that the inequality
holds for all n E No Taking into account that the underlying lattice of a complete
MV -algebra is also a complete Brouwerian lattice (i.e. the dual lattice is a
complete Heyting algebra (cf. Theorem 5.2 in [39])) we obtain
[ -+ ..l < t
(a -+ ..l V ((3 -+ ..l t
3 an denotes the n-th power of a w.r.t. *.
hence a 1\ 73 S L follows.
In order to verify Assertion (b) we first observe: ((0: -+ 1.)1/2)" = (0: -+ 1.)";
therefore we obtain
a (0: -+ 1.)1/2 -+ 1.
Since M is strict, the relation
holds; i.e. 0: 1 /2 * 1. 1 / 2 = a. Finally, we notice
a v 73 = 0: 1/2 * 1. 1/ 2 V (31/2 * 1. 1/ 2 S 0: 1/2 * (31/2 S a v 73 .
Finally, since every complete MV -algebra with square roots can be uniquely
decomposed into a product of a Boolean algebra and a strict MV -algebra, the
assertion (c) follows from (b) .
•
Corollary 1.3.2 In any complete MV -algebra with square roots the following
relations are valid
(i) (0: 1\ 73)1/2 * ((31\ a)1/2 (0: 1/2 * (31/2) 1\ a 1\ 73 .
(ii) (0: 1\ ((3 -+ 1.))1/2 * 1. 1/ 2 (0: 1/2 * (31/2) 1\ ((3 -+ 1.) .

0: 1/2 * (31/2 .
Proof. Referring to the introductory remarks at the beginning of this sub-

section it is sufficient to verify the assertion for complete Boolean algebras or
strict MV -algebras.
(a) Let M be a Boolean algebra (i.e. * = 1\). Since every element of L is idem-
potent, the relations (i) - (iii) follow immediately.
(b) In the case of strict MV -algebras we apply Proposition 1.3.1 and obtain
(0:1\((3-+1.))1/2 * 1. 1/ 2 0: 1\ ((3 -+ 1.) = a 1\ (73 -+ 1.)

(a v 73) 1\ (73 -+ 1.)
(0: 1/2 * (31/2) 1\ ((3 -+ 1.) ;
a v 73 = 0: 1/2 * (31/2
hence (ii) and (iii) are verified. Further we observe
i.e. the relation

holds. Therefore we obtain from the distributivity of * over finite meets

(0: 1/ 2 * (31/2) /\ (a?/2 * a 1/ 2) /\ (131/ 2 * (31/2)
(0: 1/ 2 * (31/2) /\ a /\ 73.
Thus the relation (i) is established .

•
1.4 Booleanization of bounded distributive lattices.
Let (L, s" T, J..) be a bounded lattice with the universal upper (resp. lower)
bound T (resp. J..). A non empty subset P of L is said to be a proper prime
filter in (L, s,) iff P satisfies the subsequent conditions:
• T EP.
• o:s,(3,o:EP ==> (3EP.
• 0:,(3 E P ==> o:/\(3EP.
• J.. It' P.
• o:V(3EP ==> o:EPor(3EP.
Referring to the Stone-representation of distributive lattices (cf. [49]) we quote

the following
Lemma 1.4.1 Let (L, s" T, J..) be a bounded, distributive lattice. Then for
every pair (0:, (3) E L x L with 0: i
(3 there exists a proper prime filter P
provided with the property 0: E P , (3 It' P .
Theorem 1.4.2 Let (L, s" T, J..) be a bounded, distributive lattice. Then there
exists a complete Boolean algebra (E, s,) and a map j : L ~ E provided with
the following properties:
(i) j (0:) S, j ((3) ¢:::::} 0: s, (3.
(ii) j is a lattice-homomorphism - Le. j(T) = T, j(J..) = J..,

j (0: V (3) = j (0:) V j ((3) , j (0: /\ (3) = j (0:) /\ j ((3) .
(iii) For all x E E there exists a subset S of L x L such that
x = V{j(o:) /\ (j((3) -+ J..) I (0:, (3) E S}
Moreover the pair (j, E) is uniquely determined by (L, s,) up to an isomor-

phism.
Proof. (a) (Existence) Let Spec(L) be the spectrum of (L,~) - i.e. the
set of all proper prime filters P in (L, ~). We topologize Spec(L) in the usual
way - Le. we consider the topology 'll'p on Spec(L) which is determined by the
following base:
B = {{PESpec(L)loEP,,8¢P} I (0,,8) ELxL} .

It is well known and not difficult to prove that (Spec(L), 'll'p) is a totally dis-
connected, compact, topological space.
Further let A(L) be the u-field of all Borel subsets of Spec(L) (w.r.t. 'll'p),
and let Ll be the u-ideal of all Borel subsets of the first category. Then the
quotient algebra 1$ = A(L)/ Ll is a complete Boolean algebra (cf. Example (C)
in Section 21 in [100]). In particular, the equivalence classes of 1$ are denoted by
[B] where BE A(L). Now we are in the position to define a map j : L t--+ 1$
by
j(o) = [{P E Spec(L) I 0 E P}] 'rioE L .
In the case of 0 ~ ,8 it is easy to see that j(o) ~ j(,8) holds. On the other hand,
if we assume j(o) ~ j(,8), then by definition the set B = {P I0 E P, ,8 ¢ P}
is a set of the first category. Since (Spec(L), 'll'p) is compact, the set B is empty;
hence 0 ~ ,8 follows from Lemma 1.4.1. Therewith Property (i) is established.
Property (ii) is an immediate consequence from the prime filter axioms. In order
to verify (iii) we proceed as follows: First we observe that for every element
[B] E 1$ there exists a 'll'p-open subset U = U {P I0i E P, ,8i ¢ P} such that
iEI
[B] = [U]. Now we refer to the special form of suprema in the algebra of Borel
subsets modulo sets of the first category and obtain (cf. p. 75 in [100]):
iEI iEI
hence (iii) is verified.

(b) (Unicity) Let us consider two complete Booelan algebras 1$1, ~ and two
maps h : L t--+ 1$1 and h : L t--+ ~ such that (h, 1$1) and (h, ~) are
satisfying (i)-(iii). We define a map e : 1$1 -+ ~ by (x E 11):
e(x) = V{h(o) A (h«(3) -+ 1.) 10,,8 E L, j1 (0) A (h (,8) -+ 1.) :5 x}.

It is not difficult to show that e is an isomorphism .
•
Remark 1.4.3 The Booleanization of a distributive, bounded lattice is a com-
plete Boolean algebra (R,~) which satisfies the conditions (i)-(iii) in Theorem
1.4.2. Due to the unicity of 1 we also write R(L) instead of I.
(a) If (L, ~) is a complete Heyting algebra, then the embedding of (L, ~) into its
Booleanization preserves arbitrary joins. In fact, the subsequent set
niP E Spec(L) I V0i E P, 0i ¢ P}

iEI iEI
is a subset of the first category w.r.t. to the usual topology 1l'p on Spec(L).
(b) The dual statement of (a) is also valid: If (L,~) is a complete co-Heyting
algebra (Le. the dual lattice (L, :~:;)OP of (L,~) is a complete Heyting algebra),
then the embedding of (L,~) into its Booleanization preserves arbitrary meets.
Again the following set
iEI iEI
is a subset of the first category in Spec(L).

(c) The situation in (a) and (b) can be tied together to the following theorem
(cf. [19)): A complete lattice (L,~) can be embedded into a complete Boolean
algebra by a complete lattice-homomorphism (Le. by a map preserving arbitrary
meets and arbitrary joins) iff (L,~) is a complete Heyting algebra and co-
Heyting algebra. •
We close Section 1 with the observation that all algebraic operations on L can
be extended pointwise to the set LX of all maps from X to L - e.g.
• f ~ 9 {:::::} f(x) ~ g(x)j

• (f ® g)(x) = f(x) ® g(x)j
• (f * g)(x) = f(x) * g(x)
for all x EX.
Obviously, (LX, ~,®) is again a cqm-lattice, and the join of a subset
{Ji liE J} of LX is given by
(viEI
Ji)(x) = VJi(x)
iEI
VxEX
Finally we use the following notations
lx(x) = T , a ·lx(x) = a , l0"(x) =.1. VxEX
2 L-fuzzy topological spaces.

In the following considerations we always assume that (L,~,®) is a cqm-
lattice (cf. Section 1). If we need more structure, we will state these additional
requirements explicitly.
Definition 2.1 (L-fuzzy topology, LF-continuity)

Let X be a non empty set. An L-fuzzy topology on X is a map T: LX --+ L
satisfying the following axioms:
(01) T(lx) = T
(02) 7(1t) ® 7(12) < 7(1t ® h)

(03) For every subset {Ii liE I} of LX the inequality
iEI iEI
holds.
An L-fuzzy topological space is a pair (X,7) where X is a set and 7 is an
L-fuzzy topology on X. A map cp : X f----t Y is called LF-continuous w.r.t.
the given L-fuzzy topological spaces (X,7) and (Y, S) iff cp satisfies the follow-
ing inequality 4
S(g) < 7(g 0 cp)
for all 9 ELY.
Addition. If X is the empty set, then VlJ = {0}j in this context we regard
the map 7: L0 -t L defined by 7(0) = T as the (unique) L-fuzzy topology
on 0 .
•
Remark 2.2
(a) If X is non-empty, then LX consists at least of two elements. In particular,
the universal lower bound in (LX,~) is given by 10 . Obviously Axiom (03)
implies in the case of the empty set
(01') T.
(b) If we interpret the underlying lattice (L,~) as the set of truth values, then
the value T(I) of an L-fuzzy topology T on X expresses the degree to which
"f is open". By virtue of (01) and (01') the universal bounds of (LX,~) are
always" open" .
•
On the set 'rL(X) of all L-fuzzy topologies on X we introduce a partial
ordering by
Ti ~ 72 ¢:::} Ti (I) ~ 72 (I)
In particular, Ti is called coarser than 72 (resp. 72 is said to be finer than Ti)
iff Ti ~ 72.
Proposition 2.3 ('rdX),~) is a complete lattice.
Proof. Obviously the map 'Tdis : LX f----t L defined by
'Tdi8(1) = T
4 go 'P is denoted sometimes also by 'Pi(g) (cf. Remark 1.1.5 in [93], see also [82]).
148 U. Hahle and A.P. Bostak
is an L-fuzzy topology and the universal upper bound in 'IL(X) w.r.t. ~.

Therefore it is sufficient to verify that the infimum of any non empty family
{7i liE I} of L-fuzzy topologies 7i on X exists. Referring to the isotonicity
of ® the map To : LX t---t L determined by
To(J) 1\ 7i(J)
iEI
is an L-fuzzy topology on X. It is easy to show that To is the infimum of

{7i liE f}.
•
Remark 2.4 (Generation of L-fuzzy topologies)
(a) Let R : LX t---t L be a map; then we consider the set 3n of all L-fuzzy
topologies T on X provided with the following property
(G) R(J) < T(J) for all f E LX .
Obviously the infimum Tn of 3n w.r.t. ~ (cf. 2.3) is again an element of 3n.
In particular Tn is the coarsest L-fuzzy topology on X satisfying (G).
(b) We maintain the notation from (a). A map R : LX t---t L is called a
L-fuzzy subbase of a L -fuzzy topology T iff T = Tn.
•
Proposition 2.5 Let cp : Xl t---t X 2 be a map, 7i be an L-fuzzy topology on
Xi (i=1,2), and let R be a L-fuzzy subbase of 72. Then the following assertions
are equivalent
(i) cp is LF-continuous w.r.t. Ti. and 72.
(ii) R(g):5 Ti.(gocp) VgELx2.
Proof. The implication (i) ==> (ii) is obvious. In order to show (ii) ==> (i)
we consider an L-fuzzy topology 11 on X 2 determined by
11 (g) = Ti.(g 0 cp)

In particular, 11 is the finest L-fuzzy topology on X 2 making cp LF-continuous.
Now we obtain from (ii)
R(g) < 11 (g)

Since R is a L-fuzzy subbase of 72, the assertion (i) follows.
•
The category L-FTOP consists of the following data: Objects are L-fuzzy
topological spaces, and morphisms are LF -continuous maps. The composition
is the usual composition of maps, and the identity of (X, T) is the identity map
idx of X.
Theorem 2.6 Let ~ : L-FTOP -t SET be the forgetful functor. Then L-

FTOP is a topological category over SET w.r.t. ~.
Proof. Because of Proposition 2.5 every co-structured map cp : ~(X, r) ~ Y

has a unique final lift cp : (X, r) ~ (Y, 0"). Further, (L-FTOP, ~) is fibre-
complete (cf. Proposition 2.3). Hence it is sufficient to show that for every
L-fuzzy topological space (Y, S) a map cp : X ~ Y has a unique initial lift
cp : (X, T) ~ (Y,S) (cf. 21.C in [1]). Let us define a map R : LX ~ L by
R(h)
and consider the L-fuzzy topology T on X generated by R (i.e. the coarsest

L-fuzzy topology "containing" R (cf. Remark 2.4)). Then cp is LF-continuous
w.r.t. T and S . In order to show that cp is an initial morphism we consider a
further LF-continuous map 1/J : (Z, P) ~ (Y,S) and a map e : Z ~ X s.t.
the diagram
commutes. From the definition of R and the LF-continuity of 1/J we derive the
following relation
R(h) < P(h 0 e)
Since R is a L-fuzzy subbase of T, we apply Proposition 2.5 and obtain that e

is LF-continuous; i.e. cp is an initial arrow. The uniqueness of the lift follows
from the antisymmetry of the partial ordering ~ "coarser" .
•
Remark 2.7 (Change of basis L)
Let (L i , ~i, @i) (i = 1,2) be a cqm-Iattice and, : L1 -t L2 be a CQML-
morphism. In order to simplify the notation we omit the index attached to the
is meant. Since , is join preserving the right adjoint map

and is given by
,* :
inequality sign ~. It will be clear from the context which inequality relation
L2 -t L1 exists
,*«(3) := v{A E L1 I ,(-\) ~ (3}

Obviously ,*
preserves arbitrary meets and the following relations hold for all
a E L1 and (3,(3' E L2
• ,(r*«(3)) ~ (3, a ~ ,*(r(a));
• ,* «(3) @1 ,* «(3') ~ ,* «(3 @2 (3');

150 u. Hahle and A.P. Sostak
• 'Y(r* (,8)) =,8 iff 'Y is surjective.

Moreover, if (X,7) is an object of L 2-FTOP, then 'Y determines an
L1 -fuzzy topology 1/.(7) on X by
[1/.(7)](1) = 'Y*(7(r ° I))

It is not difficult to see that 1/. gives rise to a functor
We show that r., has a right adjoint functor. For this purpose we distinguish
the following cases:
2.7.1 Let us assume that 'Y: (L 1,:::;, i8l1) t---+ (L2' :::;, i8l2) is a surjective
CQML-morphism.
If S is a L 1-fuzzy topology on X, then S induces a map 8 : L: t---+ L1 by
8(g) V{S(h) I
Further let Zs be the set of all L 2-fuzzy topologies P on X provided with the
property
'Yo 8(g) < P(g)
After these preparations we define a functor (!5., : L 1-FTOP t---+ L 2 -FTOP
as follows: Let (X,S) be an object of L 1-FTOP, then
• (!5.,(X,S) = (X, Ps), where Ps denotes the infimum of Zs w.r.t. ~
(cf. 2.3).
• (!5-y(c,o) = c,o.
In order to show that (!5., preserves" continuity" we consider a morphism
c,o; (X,7) --+ (Y,S) in L 1-FTOP ; then we obtain:
8(g) :::; 7(g ° c,o),
P E Z, ==? PC0c,o) E Zs
Thus Ps(g) :::; P,(go<p) holds for all 9 E L 2Y , i.e, (!5.,(<p) is L2F-continuous.
Further, we observe that for every L 2 -fuzzy topology 7 on X the relation
1/.(7)(g) = 'Y*(7(g)) holds for all 9 E L 2 X . Since 'Y is surjective, we obtain:
7(g) = 'Y ° 'Y* ° 7(g) = 'Y ° 1/.(7) (g)

i.e. Pl£(T) = T. Hence (!5., or., = idL2 -FTOP is established.
In order to verify the universal property we proceed as follows: Let
<p: (X,7) --+ (!5.,(Y,S) be L 2 F-continuous; then we infer from the definition of
Ps that Ps E Zs (cf. 2.4) , i.e. the subsequent relation holds:
'Yo 8(g) :::; Ps(g) :::; 7(g ° <p) for all 9 E L 2 Y .

Now we invoke the definition of S and obtain for all h E L2 y :
S(h) ~ "(* 0 "( 0 S(h) ~ "(* 0 "( 0 Sb 0 h) ~ "(* 0 7b 0 h 0 '1') = [ll(T)](h 0 '1'),
i.e. 'I' : r ,(X, T) f---+ (Y, S) is L 1 F-continuous.

If we put r '1'''' = '1', then we have verified the commutativity of the following
diagram:
i.e. that ~, is right adjoint to r,.

2.7.2 Let "(: (L1,~,01) -+ (L2,~,02) be an embedding - i.e. 0:1 ~ 0:2 if
and only if "((o:t) ~ "((0:2)'
Further let S be a L 1 -fuzzy topology on X . We denote by Os the set of all
L 2 -fuzzy topologies P on X provided with the subsequent property
"( 0 Sb- 1 0 g) < P(g)
Then we define a functor I!:, : L 1 -FTOP f---+ L 2 -FTOP as follows:
• I!:,(X,S) = (X, us) ,where Us is the infimum of Os w.r.t. ~.
It is easy to see that IE, preserves" continuity". Indeed, let us consider an

L 1 F-continuous morphism '1': (X, T) -+ (Y,S) ; then the implication
follows from the inequality
S(g) ~ 7(g 0 '1')
hence 'I' : (X, UT) -+ (Y, us) is L2F-continuous. Moreover, since "( is injective,
we obtain for all 9 E L 2 X with g(X) ~ "((Lt) :
i.e. 7 E 01l(T) ; hence id x : (X, T) -+ (X, U1l(T)) is L2F-continuous. Further,

we consider an L2 F -continuous map 'I' : (X, T) -+ I!:, (Y, S). Because of Us E Os
we obtain for all hELl y
Now we invoke the fact that, is an embedding:
S(h) = ,* 0,0 S(h) ::; ,* 0 T(r 0 h 0 t.p) = [ll(T)](h 0 t.p)

i.e. t.p: (X, 1l(T)) ~ (Y,S) is LIF-continuous. Putting t.p = rt.p' we establish
the commutativity of the following diagram:
Hence the functor <!:-y is right adjoint to r 'Y"
2.7.3 Since every CQML-morphism, can be decomposed into a surjective

CQML-morphism followed by an embedding, we conclude from 2.7.1 and 2.7.2
that r -y has a right adjoint functor .
•
We close this section with a natural example of an L-fuzzy topology which
indicates a close relationship between random topologies and fuzzy topologies.
Example 2.8 ( [O,l]-fuzzy topologies generated by random bases)
Let X be a non empty set, P(X) be the ordinary power set of X, and let II be
a random set on P(X) - i.e. II is a probability measure on P(P(X)) w.r.t. the
a-algebra generated by (cf. [79])
{ {A E P(P(X)) I A E A} I A E P(X) }
If we identify P(P(X)) with {O,lY(X) and consider the ordinary product

topology'fp on P(P(X)) w.r.t. the discrete topology on {O, I}, then II can be
viewed as a regular Borel probability measure.
FUrther we observe that the set SB(X) of all topological bases on X (i.e. the
set of all subsets B of P(X) which are closed under finite intersections) is a
'fp-closed subset of P(P(X)).
A random set II on P(X) is called a random base on X iff the support of
II is contained in SB(X). Due to the additivity of probability measures every
random base II satisfies the condition
II({A I Al E A}) + II({A I A2 E A}) - 1 < II({A I Al nA2 E A}) .

In the following considerations we view [0, 1] as a complete MV -algebra (cf.
Example 1.1.3 in the case G = IR), and consider the case Q9 = * = Tm (cf.
Lemma 1.2.1) where Tm denotes Lukasiewicz arithmetic conjunction (cf. Ex-
ample 1.2.3(b)). Then every random base on X induces a [O,l]-fuzzy topology
f-t : [0, l]X 1----+ [0,1] as follows
/1-(9) = sup { infTm(ai,drr(Ai )) I sup ai' XAi = 9}

iEI iEI
where drr(Ai) := II( {A I Ai E A}). Because of
T m (infTm(ai' drr(Ad) , inf Tm(!3j , drr(Bj ))) <

tEl JEJ
~ inf Tm(Tm(ai, {3j),drr(Ai nBj ))
(i,j)ElxJ
it is not difficult to show that in fact /1- is a [0, IJ-fuzzy topology.

•
3 L-Topological spaces
Let (L,~, 0) be a cqm-Iattice, and X be a non empty set. A subset 7 of LX is
called a L-topolo9Y on X iff 7 satisfies the following conditions
(01) lx,1 0 E 7.
(02) 91,92 E 7 91092 E 7.
(03) {9i liE I} ~ 7 V 9i E 7.

iEI
A L-topolo9ical space is a pair (X, 7) where X is a set and 7 an L-topology on

X.
Example 3.1 (L-topology)

Let (£,~, 181) and (L,~, 0) be cqm-Iattices, and 5)(£, L) be the set of all
CQML-morphisms ip : (£,~, 181) t--+ (L,~, 0). Then every element a E £
induces a map fa : S'J(C, L) t--+ L by
fa(ip) = ip(a) (Evaluation)
Then r-c := {fa Ia E £} is an L-topology on 5)(£, L) .
•
Remark 3.2 (Generation of L-topologies)
(a) On the set ']['L(X) of all L-topologies on X we introduce a partial ordering
determined by the set inclusion ~. It is easy to see that LX is an element of
']['L(X) and the universal upper bound in (']['L(X), ~). In particular, 7dis = LX
is called the discrete L-topology. Since arbitrary intersections of L-topologies
are again L-topologies, we obtain that the pair (']['dX) , ~) is a complete lattice.
The universal lower bound 7ind in (']['dX),~) is said to be the indiscrete L-
topology.
(b) Let {} be a non empty subset of LX; then {} generates an L-topology 7(} in
the following sense
In particular 7 g is the smallest L-topology containing g.

(c) A non empty subset g of LX is called a subbase of an L-topology 7 on X iff
7 = 7g (cf. (b)). Obviously {lx, l0} is a subbase of the indiscrete L-topology
7ind. Hence 7ind is contained in the L-topology {a ·lx Ia E L}.
(d) If X has at least two different elements, then the indiscrete and discrete
L-topologies on X are always different (cf. (c)).
•
Let us consider L-topological spaces (Xl,7d and (X2' 72) ; a map
cP : Xl t---+ X 2 is called L-continuous iff cp fulfills the subsequent property
{ 9 0 cp I9 E 72} ~ 71
In an obvious way L-topological spaces and L-continuous maps form a category
denoted by L-TOP.
Proposition 3.3 Let (Xi ,7i) be a L-topological space (i=1,2), g be a subbase

of 72 and let cp : Xl t---+ X 2 be a map. Then the following assertions are
equivalent
(i) cp is L-continuous.
(ii) {g 0 cp I9 E g} ~ 71
Proof. Since {g E LX, Igo cp E 7l} is an L-topology on X 2 , the assertion

follows from the definition of subbases (cf. 3.2).
•
Theorem 3.4 Let J' : L-TOP t---+ SET be the forgetful functor. Then
(L-TOP,J') is a topological category over SET.
Proof. We can repeat the proof of Theorem 2.6 verbatim, provided we replace
Proposition 2.3, Remark 2.4 and Proposition 2.5 by Remark 3.2 and Proposition
3.3.
•
Since the universal upper bound T in L is idempotent w.r.t. I8i (cf. Axiom
(III)), we observe that every L-fuzzy topology 7 on X induces an L-topology
7T by
7T .- {g E LX I T = 7(g)}
In particular, this situation gives rise to a functor Jt : L-FTOP t---+ L-TOP
in the following sense
Jt(X, n = (X,7T) Jt(cp) = cpo

Theorem 3.5 The functor Jt has a right adjoint functor.
Proof. Let 7 be an L-topology on X ; we denote by 3r the set of all L-fuzzy

topologies 7 on X provided with the property
7(g) T Vg E 7
Further let Sr be the infimum of 3r w.r.t. ~ (cf. 2.3). Obviously Sr E 3r,

and the relation SrT ~ 7 holds - i.e. id x : (X, T) ~ (X,SrT) is LF-
continuous. Further let r.p : (X1,7d ~ (X 2 ,72) be an L-TOP-morphism;
then the L-continuity of r.p implies
7(g 0 r.p) = T
i.e. the implication
holds. Hence r.p : (X 1 ,Srl) ~ (X 2 ,Sr2) is LF-continuous.

Now we are in the position to define a functor Qj : L-TOP ~ L-FTOP
by
Let us consider a L-TOP-morphism r.p : (X, T) ~ Qj(Y, 70) ; then we infer

from the LF-continuity of r.p and the definition of Sro :
i.e. r.p : (X,7r) ~ (Y,70) is L-continuous. Hence we have established the

following universal property
~(X, T)
(Y,70)
i.e. Qj is right adjoint to ~.
••
Every CQML-morphism 'Y : (L1' $1, ®1) ~ (L2' $2, ®2) induces a func-
tor A"( : L 2 -TOP ~ L 1-TOP by
• A"((X,7) = (X,7"() where 7"( = {fELfhofE7}

• A"((r.p) r.p
156 U. Hiihle and A.P. Bostak
In particular, 1:1'Y fills in the following diagram
where ~(X, n = (X,7r) (i = 1,2).
Theorem 3.6 (Change of basis L) 1:1'Y has a right adjoint functor.
Proof. Let us consider a functor 1!'Y : L1-TOP ~ L 2 -TOP defined by

• 1!'Y(X,7) = (X,7 b )) where 7('Y) = h ° f If E 7}
• 1!'Y(ep) = ep .
We observe (7'Y)b) ~ 7; i.e. id x : (X, 7) ~ 1!'Y(I:1'Y(X' 7)) is L 2-continuous.
Let us now consider an L 2-TOP-object (X, 7), an L1-TOP-object (Y,O") and
an L2-continuous map ep : (X, 7) ~ 1!'Y(Y' 0"). In particular, ep satisfies the
condition
"t0goep E 7 vg E 0"
i.e. rep' = ep 1:1'Y(X' 7) ~ (Y,O") is Ll-continuous. Hence we have verified
the following universal property
(Y,O")
••
Remark 3.7 (Relationship between TOP and L-TOP)
Let (L,:::;, ®) be a cqm-Iattice provided with the additonal property
T®..l = ..l®T = ..l

Then {T,..l} is a complete sub-cqm-Iattice of (L, :::;, ®). Further the category
TO P of (ordinary) topological spaces is isomorphic to {T,..l}-TO P. Since
the inclusion map £ : {T,..l} ~ L is a CQML -morphism, we infer from
Theorem 3.6 that L-TOP and TOP are adjoint categories - i.e. form an
adjoint situation w.r.t. 1:1. and 1!•.
•
4 Coreflective subcategories of L-FTOP.

In this section we enrich the underlying cqm-Iattice (L,:::;, ®) by an additional
semigroup operation *. More precisely,we assume that the quadruple
(L,:::;, ®, *) satisfies (I)-(III) and (V)-(VII) (cf. Subsection 1.2). Moreover, we
require that (L,:::;, *) is a strictly right-sided, right-symmetric quantale (cf.
Subsection 1.1) provided with the additional property
(XII) a < T *a Va E L.
Due to the monoidal closed structure we can construct a natural L-valued

equality [ , ] on LX as follows:
[I,g] 1\ (f(x) -7r g(x)) 1\ (g(x) -7r I(x)) ,

"'EX
Because of (XII) we can apply Corollary 1. 1.6 (iv) and obtain [I, g] = T * [I, gJ
- i.e. [I, g] is strictly two-sided for all I, 9 E LX . Moreover, it is not difficult
to verify that [, ] satisfies the following properties:
• [I,g] = T ¢:::} 1= g. (Separation)
• [/,g] = [g,1] (Symmetry)
• [I, g] * [g, h] < [/,h] . ( Transitivity)
• [11,h]®[g1,g2] < [11 ® g1 , h ® g2] .
• AiEl [Ii, gi] < [V iEI Ii, ViEI gil·

A map { : LX -7 L is called extensional iff { is compatible with the natural
L-valued equality, i.e. {fulfills for all I, 9 E LX the relation
(e) (,(f) * [I, gJ ::; (,(g).
For any map { : LX -7 L we can compute its extensional hull ~ (i.e. the
smallest extensional map" containing (''') as follows:
~(f) = V (,(g) * [g,J]

gELX
4.1 Extensional L-fuzzy topologies.

An L-fuzzy topological space (X, T) is called extensional iff 7 is extensional
w.r.t. [,]. The class of all extensional, L-fuzzy topological spaces forms a
full subcategory EL-FTOP of L-FTOP.
Lemma 4.1.1 Let cp : X f----t Y be a map and 7 be an extensional, L-fuzzy
topology on X. Then 8 : L Y f----t L defined by
8(g) = 7(g 0 cp)
is an extensional, L-fuzzy topology on Y.
158 U. Hohle and A.P. Sostak
Proof. The assertion follows immediately from
•
Remark 4.1.2 (Lattice of extensional L-fuzzy topologies)
The discrete, L-fuzzy topology 'Triis (cf. 2.3) is extensional; i.e. 'Triis is the
universal upper bound in the set ErdX) of all extensional, L-fuzzy topologies
on X. Moreover the infimum (w.r.t. ~) of a subset of ErdX) is again exten-
sional. Hence ErdX) is a complete sublattice of ('IdX),~) (cf. 2.3), and the
corresponding embedding preserves arbitrary meets .
•
Theorem 4.1.3 The category EL-FTOP of all extensional, L-fuzzy topologi-
cal spaces is a coreftective subcategory of L-FTOP.
Proof. Let S be an L-fuzzy topology on X and lEs be the set of all extensional,
L-fuzzy topologies T on X with S ~ T. Then the extensional hull S of S is
given by (cf. 4.1.2)
S(J) 1\{T(J) IT E lEs }

If <p : (X 1 ,Sl) ~ (X 2,S2) is LF-continuous, then we observe
From Lemma 4.1.1 and Remark 4.1.2 we conclude that SICO<p) is an element
of lEs2 ; i.e. <p is also LF-continuous w.r.t. Sl and S2.
Now we are in the position to define a functor ~E : L-FTOP ~ EL-FTOP
by
~E(X,S) = (X,S)
It is not difficult to show that ~E is a corefiection of the subcategory EL-FTOP .
••
Corollary 4.1.4 EL-FTOP is a topological subcategor'lf' of L-FTOP.
Proof. The assertion follows immediately from Theorem 2.6, Theorem 4.1.3
and from 21.35 in [1] .
•
Theorem 4.1.5 (Change of basis L)
Let (L i , ~i' Q$)i, *i) be a quadruple satisfying the properties stated at the begin-
ning of Section 4, and let 'J i : ELi-FTOP ~ Li-FTOP be the embedding of
ELi-FTOP into Li-FTOP (i=1,2). Further let 'Y : L1 ~ L2 be a CQML-
morphism provided with the additional property 6
5The definition of a topological subcatgeory is given in [1]
6
i.e. '"Y: (L1,:O:;l *1) I-t (L2' :0:;2, *2) is also a quantale-morphism (cf. [86])
Then there exists a functor r~ : IU2 -FTOP t---t IU1 -FTOP satisfying the
following properties
(i) r~ fills in the subsequent diagram
IU2 -FTOP ...... ~ IU 1 -FTOP

r .,e
(ii) r~ has a right adjoint functor.
Proof. Referring to 4.1.3 and 2.7 it is sufficient to show that the functor r 'Y
preserves the extensionality of L-fuzzy topologies. We maintain the notations
of 2.7. In particular let 'Y* : L2 --+ L1 be the right adjoint of 'Y. Then (QM)
implies
• 'Y(0:1) *2 'Y(0:1 --+r 0:2) < 'Y(0:2)

• 'Y* (fh) *1 'Y* (,82) < 'Y* (,81 *2 ,82)
Further let 7 : L2 x --+ L2 be an extensional, L-fuzzy topology and r be defined
by
r(f) = 'Y. 0 7b 0 f)
Because of 0: ::; 'Y·b(o:» (0: ELI) we obtain:
r(f) *1 [/,1] < r(f) *1 'Y* b([I, 1])) ::; 'Y*(7b 0 f) *2 'Y([I, 1m
< 'Y*(7b 0 f) *2 hoi, 'Y 0 1]) < 'Y*(7b 0 1»
= r(f)
hence r is an extensional map from L1 x to L 1.
•
4.2 Enriched, L-fuzzy topologies.
An L-fuzzy topology is weakly enriched iff 7(0: . Ix) = T for all 0: E L. An
L-fuzzy topology 7 on X is called enriched iff 7 satisfies the subsequent axiom
(R) 7(f) ::; 7(0: * f) 't/o: E L, 't/1 E LX.
Since (L,::;, *) is strictly right-sided, the axiom (01) implies that every en-
riched L-fuzzy topology is weakly enriched.
An (weakly) enriched L-fuzzy topological space is a pair (X, T) where X is
a set and 7 is an (weakly) enriched, L-fuzzy topology on X.
Example 4.2.1
(a) The discrete, L-fuzzy topology 'Tdis is obviously enriched. We show that
there exist enriched, L-fuzzy topologies which are not discrete. For this purpose
we consider a map 7 : LX t---t L defined by
7(f) = (V f(x)) -+r ( /\ f(x))

xEX xEX
Evidently 7 fulfills (01). In order to verify (02) and (03) we proceed as follows:
First we derive from Axiom (VII)
( V (h(x) @12(x))) * (7(h) @7(12)) <
«xEX
V h(x)) * 7(h)) @ «V 12(x)) * 7(12)) <
xEX
xEX
( 1\ h(x)) @ ( 1\ 12(x)) < 1\ (h(x) @ 12 (x))
xEX xEX xEX
- Le. 7(fd @ 7(12) ~ 7(h @ h) Further we observe :
iEI xEX iEI iEI xEX xEX iEI
Le. 1\ 7(li) < T( V li) . Since (L,~, *) is strictly right-sided, the

iEI iEI
relation
7(f) = T 3 a E L : f = a· Ix
holds; Le. 7 is in general not discrete - e.g. 7", 'Tdis, whenever X contains at
least two different elements.
Finally Axiom (R) follows from
(V(a * f(x))) * 7(f) < a * ( /\ f(x)) < /\ (a * f(x))

xEX xEX xEX
i.e. 7 is a non discrete, enriched L-fuzzy topology on X.

(b) Let B be a complete Boolean algebra, and let * = @ = 1\ - Le. the corre-
sponding quadruple is given by (B,~, 1\, 1\). Then every extensionallli-fuzzy
topology 7 is enriched. In fact, if we combine (01) and (01') with the exten-
sionality of 7 (cf. section 4.1), we obtain immediately
T = aV(a-+.l) = [a·Ix,Ix] V [a·Ix,I~d < 7(a·Ix)
Since * and @ coincide, the axiom (R) follows from (02).
Moreover we observe that the indiscrete, extensional, lIi-fuzzy topology 'Tf.;d on
X is given by the following formulae (cf. (a)):
'Tf.;d(h) = ( /\ h(x)) V «V h(x)) -+ .l) = (V h(x)) -+ ( /\ h(x)).

xEX xEX xEX xEX
•
Let RL-FTOP (resp. WRL-FTOP) be the full subcategory of L-FTOP

formed by all enriched (resp. weakly enriched), L-fuzzy topological spaces.
Since the infimum of a family 2( of (weakly) enriched, L-fuzzy topologies is
again (weakly) enriched (here we view 2( as a subset of 'ILCX)), we obtain
immediately
Theorem 4.2.2 RL-FTOP (resp. WRL-FTOP) is a corefiective subcate-

gory of L-FTOP. In particular RL-FTOP (resp. WRL-FTOP) is a topo-
logical subcategory of L-FTOP.
Proposition 4.2.3 The terminal object 1 in WRL-FTOP is simultaneously

an indiscrete and a discrete WRL-FTOP-object. In particular, constant maps
are always WRL-FTOP-morphisms.
Proof. Since the support set of 1 is given by a singleton {-}, it is easy

to see that the indiscrete, weakly enriched L-fuzzy topology and the discrete
(enriched), L-fuzzy topology coincide on n.
•
4.3 Strongly enriched L-fuzzy topologies
We start with the observation that every map ~ : LX r----+ L induces a further
map ],J~ : X r----+ L by
(],J~)(x) = V ~(J) * J(x) '</xEX.

!ELX
If we understand ~ as a "fuzzy system of fuzzy subsets of X", then ],J~ can be

interpreted as the "join of C. The equation ld.~ = ],J~ follows immediately from
the definition of extensional hulls.
An L- fuzzy topology T on X is called strongly enriched if and only if T is

extensional and satisfies the additional axiom:
(6) 1\ (~(J) -+r T(J)) < T(],J~)

!ELX
A strongly enriched, L-juzzy topological space is a pair (X, T) where X is a set

and T is a strongly enriched, L-fuzzy topology on X.
Theorem 4.3.1 Let T : LX -+ L be an extensional, enriched L-Juzzy topology

on X (cf. 4.1 and 4.2). Then the following assertions are equivalent:
(i) T is a strongly enriched, L-fuzzy topology.
(ii) For all extensional maps ~ : LX -+ L with ~ :S T the relation T(],J~) =T

holds.
162 u. Hable and A.P. 80stak
Proof. The implication (i) =:} (ii) is obvious. In order to verify

(ii) =:} (i) we proceed as follows : Let e:
LX -t L be given; then we put
Ke := A/ELX Wf) -tr 7(J)) and define ( : LX -t L by
((J) = e(J) * Ke
Obviously, ( ::::; 7; hence ( ::::; 7 follows from the extensionality of r. Now we
apply assertion (ii) and obtain:
Because ofthe right-symmetry of (L,::::;, *) the inequality Ke ::::; [1.!(,ue] holds;

hence once again we can apply Axiom (XII) and the extensionality of 7 :
Therewith Assertion (i) is verified .

•
Proposition 4.3.2 Let 7 be a strongly enriched, L-fuzzy topology on X. Then
7 fulfills the following properties
(a) 7(7(J) * f) = T
(b) If 7(J) == T, then 7«(H f) == T for all a E L.

(c) If T * T(f) = T(f), then T(f * T(f)) =T.
(d) 7 is an enriched L-fuzzy topology.
Proof. Every element I E LX induces a map 6 : LX t----+ L by
The extensionality of T implies 6 ::::; T. Further we observe (U6)(x) =

a * 7(J) * I(x) 'V x EX; hence Property (a) follows from Theorem 4.3.1.
In order to verify Property (b) we fix a ELand consider I E LX with
7(J) = T. Then we define a map 6 : LX t----+ L by
6(g) = a * [f,g]
and observe (U6)(x) = a * I(x). Using again the extensionality of 7 we
obtain
6(g) < T * [/,g] = 7(J) * [/,g] < 7(g);
hence Property (b) follows also from Theorem 4.3.1.
Now we assume T * 7(J) ::::; 7(J) and consider a map 6 : LX t----+ L
determined by
Since (L,~, *) is right-symmetric and Axiom(XII) holds, we obtain:
6(g) < T * [/,g] * 7(J) = T * 7(J) * (f,g] < 7(g)

hence the extensionality of 7 implies: 6 ~ 7. Using again the right-
symmetry of 7 we observe
(J.l6)(x) = I(x) * 7(J) xEX.
Therefore Property (c) follows from Theorem 4.3.1.

Further the inequality 7(J) ~ [0:*7(J)* I, 0:* J] is an immediate consequence
from the right-symmetry of (L,~, *). Now we combine the properties (a) and
(b) and derive the following relation from Axiom (XII) and the extensionality
of 7:
7(J) < T * [0: * 7(J) * I, 0: * J] =

= 7(0: * 7(J) * J) * [0: * 7(J) * I, 0: * J] <
< 7(0:*J)
hence the axiom n is verified.
•
The full subcategory of all strongly, enriched, L-fuzzy topological spaces is
denoted by SRL-FTOP. Since strong enrichedness is preserved under infima
(of L-fuzzy topologies) we obtain immediately
Theorem 4.3.3 The category SRL-FTOP is a coreftective subcategory 01

RL-FTOP and lEL-FTOP (resp. L-FTOP). In particular SRL-FTOP is
a topological subcategory of RL-FTOP and IU-FTOP (resp. L-FTOP) .
•
Hierarchy:
SRL-FTOP
IU-FTOP
/~RL-FTOP
~/
L-FTOP
Under the hypothesis that the underlying quantale is a right GL-quantale (cf.
Subsection 1.1) we can give an important characterization of strongly enriched,
L-fuzzy topological spaces.
Theorem 4.3.4 Let (L, $, *) be a right GL-quantale. Further let T be an ex-

tensional, L-fuzzy topology on X. Then the following assertions are equivalent:
(i) T is a strongly enriched, L-fuzzy topology.
(ii) T is provided with the properties

(a) "If E LX: T(T(J) * 1) = T.
(b) Va E L: T(J) = T :::::::} T(a * 1) = T.
Proof. The implication (i) :::::::} (ii) follows from Proposition 4.3.2(a) and (b).
In order to verify the implication (ii) :::::::} (i) we proceed as follows:
If { : LX ~ L is an extensional map with { $ T, then the relation
{(J) = (T(J) ~l {(J)) * T(J)

follows from Corollary 1.1.6(i). Now we invoke (ii) and obtain:
T(T(J) * 1) = T and T({(J) * 1) = T
Referring to (03) the relation T( V {(J) * 1) = T follows; hence by virtue of

!ELX
Theorem 4.3.1 the assertion (i) is verified .
•
Theorem 4.3.5 (Change of basis)
Let (L i , $i, ®i, *i) be a quadruple provided with the axioms (I)-(Ill) and (V)-
(VII) (i=1,2). Further let "(: (L 1,$1,®l) f---t (L 2,$2,®2) be aCQML-
morphism provided with Property (QM) (ef. 4.1.5). Then the following asser-
tions are valid
(a) The functor r'"( : L 2 -FTOP ~ L 1 -FTOP (see Remark 2.7) preserves
strongly enriched fuzzy topological spaces, i.e. the following diagram com-
mutes
(b) r'"(ISRL 2-TOP has a right adjoint functor.
Proof. (a) Let T : L: ~ L2 be a strongly enriched, L 2-fuzzy topology on

X. We maintain the notation from 2.7 and 4.1.5. Referring to Theorem 4.1.5 it
is sufficient to show that t fufills Axiom (6). Therefore let us consider a map
{ : Lf f----t L1 with { ~ t; then we define a map { : L: f---t L2 by
{(g) = Vbo{(J)lfELfwithg = "(of}

and observe : ~~ = 'Y 0 (~~) • Further we infer from 'Y('Y. ((3)) :s; (3 (V (3 E L 2 )
~(g) < T(g)

Since T satisfies (6), we obtain
T T',
hence because of Theorem 4.3.1 the xiom (6) holds also for t.
(b) The assertion (b) is a consequence of Assertion (a) and of the fact that
infima of strongly enriched, fuzzy topologies can be computed pointwise .
•
5 Coreflective subcategories of L-TOP
In this section the quadruple (L,:S;, @, *) satisfies (I)-(III), (V)-(VII) (cf. Sub-
section 1.2). Further we assume that (L,:S;, *) is a strictly right-sided, right-
symmetric quantale provided with the additional axiom (XII) (cf. Section 4).
5.1 Stratified L-topologies

An L-topology T on X is weakly stratified iff T fulfills the so-called constants
condition - i.e.
(~O) a ·lx E T Va E L. (Consta nts Condition)
An L-topology on T is said to be stratified iff T is provided with the important
property
(~1) gET, a EL ===> a * gET. (Truncation Condition)
Since (L,:S, *) is strictly right-sided, Axiom (01) implies that every stratified
L-topology is also weakly stratified. More information about the relationship
between weakly stratified and stratified L-topologies can be found in Theorem
5.2.7.
An L-topological space (X, T) is said to be (weakly) stratified iff T is (weakly)
stratified. The full subcategory of all stratified (resp. weakly stratified), L-
topological spaces is denoted by SL-TOP (resp. WSL-TOP). Since the in-
discrete, weakly stratified L-topology Tind on X is given by
Ttnd {a . Ix Ia E L}
all constant morphisms are WSL-TOP-morphisms. Moreover we observe that
the axioms (01),(02),(03), (~O) and (~1) are preserved under arbitrary inter-
section. Therefore we obtain
Theorem 5.1.1 The category SL-TOP (resp. WSL-TOP) is a coreflec-
tive subcategory of L-TOP. In particular, SL-TOP (resp. WSL-TOP) is
a topological subcategory of L-TOP. Moreover SL-TOP is a reflective and
coreflective subcategory of WSL-TOP.
166 U. Wihle and A.P. Sostak
Proof. The first and third assertion are obvious. The second assertion follows
from the first one, Theorem 3.4 and 21.35 in [1].
•
Referring to Section 4.2 we see immediately that the restriction .ltR of the functor
.It to RL-FTOP (cf. Theorem 3.5) factors through SL-TOP :
L-FTOP ~ • L-TOP
1
RL-FTOP ...... ~ SL-TOP
1
~R
Theorem 5.1.2 .ltR : RL-FTOP I---t SL-TOP has a right adjoint functor.
Proof. After some modifications the proof of Theorem 3.5 can be repeated
verbatim.
•
An analogous version of Theorem 5.1.2 holds also for the categories WRL-
FTOP of weakly enriched, L-fuzzy topological spaces and WSL-TOP of
weakly stratified, L-topological spaces.
5.2 Strongly stratified L-topologies

A stratified L-topology T on X (cf. Subsection 5.1) is called strongly stratified
iff T satisfies the additional property7
(~2) h E LX, gET ==> [g, h] *h E T and h * [g, h] E T .
An L-topological space (X, T) is said to be strongly stratified iff T is strongly

stratified.
Lemma 5.2.1 If (L,::;, *) is commutative and has square roots (cf. Subsection
1.2, Proposition 1.2.7, Corollary 1.2.8), then (~2) implies (~1).
Proof. Let 0. 1 / 2 be the square root of a E L. Then the assertion follows from
[g, 0. 1 / 2 * g] * 0.1/ 2 * 9 = a *9
•
Example 5.2.2 Let ([0,1],::;, Prod) be the real unit interval provided with the
ususal ordering::; and the usual multiplication Prod. Obviously the quadruple
([0,1],::;, Min, Prod) satisfies the axioms (I) - (VII) (cf. Lemma 1.2.1, Example
1.2.3(b)). Because of
9 * [g, k] * [g, k] < k * [g, k]

7
[, ] denotes the natural L-valued equality on LX defined at the beginning of Section 4.
we obtain that
TO = {g E [O,I)x I 9 = 1.0 or inf g(x) :j:. OJ.
",EX
is a strongly stratified [0, I)-fuzzy topology TO on X which is not discrete. Re-

ferring to Lemma 7.3.12 we can show that TO is the indiscrete, strongly stratified
[0, I)-topology on X. •
The full subcategory of all strongly stratified, L-topological spaces is denoted

by SSL-TOP. Since the axioms (01), (02), (03), (~1) and (~2) are preserved
under arbitrary intersections, we obtain immediately:
Theorem 5.2.3 The category SSL-TOP is a corefiective subcategory 01 SL-
TOP and L-TOP. In particular SSL-TOP is a topological subcategory 01
SL-TOP and L-TOP.
Lemma 5.2.4 Let (X, n
be a strongly enriched, L-fuzzy topological space, and
let ~ be the functor defined in Theorem 9.5. Then (X, TT) = ~(X, is a n
strongly stratified, L-topological space.
Proof. Referring to 4.3.2 we only have to show that TT satisfies (~2). For
this purpose we fix g E TT and I E LX and consider maps 6 : LX ~ L ,
6 : LX ~ L determined by
6 (h) = [g, J] * [I, h] , 6(h) = [I, h] * [g, J]
Since T is extensional, we obtain from the right-symmetry of (L,::;, *) and
Axiom (XII) :
6(h) :5 T * 6(h) :5 T(h)
~2(h) < T * 6(h) = T * [g,J] * [/,h] < T(h) j
hence (~2) follows from Axiom (6) and the observation
J.J~ = [g,J] *I J.J6 = 1* [g,J]

•
Because of the previous Lemma 5.2.4 the restriction ~SR of ~ to SRL-FTOP
factors through SSL-TOP :
L-FTOP _ _ .It_. L-TOP
r r
SRL-FTOP ........ SSL-TOP
.ltSR
Let SRL-FTOP* be the full subcategory of SRL-FTOP which consists of all

strongly enriched, L-fuzzy topological spaces (X, n
satisfying the additional
axiom
(~3) T * T(f) T(f)

In particular, for every f E LX the element T(f) is strictly two-sided.
Moreover SRL-FTOP* is a corefiective subcategory of SRL-FTOP. The
categories SRL-FTOP* and SRL-FTOP coincide whenever the underlying
quantale is strictly two-sided.
If JlSR denotes the restriction of Jl to SRL-FTOP* , then we can complete
the previous diagram as follows:
L-FTOP _ _ .ft_. L-TOP

i
SRL-FTOP - - SSL-TOP
r
i
.'"
SRL-FTOP*
Theorem 5.2.5 (Main result I)

The category SRL-FTOP* is isomorphic to a coreftective subcategory ofSSL-
TOP of all strongly stratified, L-topological spaces.
Proof. (a) We show that Jlh is an embedding. Let T be a strongly enriched,
L-fuzzy topology on X provided with Property (~3); then we put Jl(X, T) =
(X,7-r). Since T(f) is strictly two-sided for all f E LX , we deduce from
Proposition 4.3.2(c):
T(f) < [f * T(f) ,1] < T * [f * T(f) ,1] <

< V T * [g,1] V [g,1] < T(f);
gErT gErT
hence the relation T(f) = V [g,1] follows - i.e. Jl is injective on

9 ETT
SRL-FTOP* -objects and bijective on HOM-sets of SRL-FTOP* . Therefore
Jl SR is an embedding.
(b) In order to show that Jlh has a right adjoint functor we can repeat the
proof of Theorem 3.5 verbatim provided we make the obvious modifications (cf.
5.1.2) .
•
In the next theorem we give a sufficient condition under which SRL-FTOP*
and SSL-TOP are isomorphic.
Theorem 5.2.6 (Main result II)

Let (L, S;,@) be a cl-quasi-monoid (cf. Section 1) and (L, S;, *) be a GL-
quantale such that (L, S;,@, *) satisfies the compatibility axiom (VII) (cf. Sub-
sections 1.1 and 1.2). Then SRL-FTOP* is isomorphic to SSL-TOP.
Proof. Referring to the proof of the previous Theorem 5.2.5 it is sufficient to

show that itSR is surjective on SRL-FTOP* -objects. Therefore let r be a
strongly stratified L-topology on X; then r induces a map Tr : LX ~ L by
Tr(h) = V [9, h]
gET
(a) First we verify that Tr is a strongly enriched, L-fuzzy topology. (01) follows
immediately from (01). Further, since [ , ] is a L-valued congruence w.r.t. 18l,
we can deduce the subsequent relation from the axioms (IV) and (02) :
=
< V [11 I8l h
g1,g2ET
91 I8l 92]
hence (02) implies (02).

(al) Let us consider a map ~ : LX -+ L with ~ ~ Tr. Referring to Corollary
l.l.6(i), we obtain:
V (Tr(f) -+l ~(f)) * Tr(f) * f(x)

/ELX
= V (Tr(f) -+l ~(f)) * [9, j] * f(x)

/ELX,gET
hence l.J.~ E r follows from (03), (~1) and (~2); i.e. Tr satisfies the assertion (ii)
in Theorem 4.3.l.
(a2) In order to verify (03) we proceed as follows: Since Tr(f) is strictly two-
sided for every f E LX , the extensionality of Tr implies:
V[fj, h] * (/\ Tr(fi» = T * (V(/\ Tr(fi» * [1;,h]) <

JEI iEI JEI iEI
< T * Tr(h) = T(h) .
Now we use the result ofthe previous step (al), the right-symmetry of (L,~, *)
and obtain that (V 1;) * (A T(h») is an element of r. Applying again the
JEI iEI
extensionality of Tr and Axiom (XII) the relation
iEI JEI iEI iEI iEI
follows; hence (03) is verified.

Summing up we conclude from Theorem 4.3.1 that Tr is a strongly enriched,
L-fuzzy topology.
170 U. Hohle and A.P. Bostak
(b) Let h be an element of LX with T,.(h) = T. Then h admits the following

representation
h(x) = h(x) *T = V h(x) * [g, h] xEX

gET
hence we infer from (03) and (~2) :
T,.(h) = T hE T
In particular, }th is surjective on SSL-TOP-objects .

•
If the underlying GL-quantale is commutative (i.e. is a GL-monoid), then
SRL-FTOP and SRL-FTOP· coincide , and SRL-FTOP is isomorphic
to SSL-TOP. Moreover, if the underlying GL-monoid is idempotent - i.e.
is determined by a complete Heyting algebra (cf. Subsection 1.1), then the
following theorem shows that strongly stratified, stratified and weakly stratified
L-topologies are equivalent concepts.
Theorem 5.2.7 Let (L,::;) be a complete Heyting algebra and i8l = * = A

( i.e. (L, ::;,i8l,*) = (L, ::;,A,A)). Further, let T be an L-topology on X. Then
the following assertions are equivalent:
(i) T is weakly stratified
(ii) T is stratified.
(iii) T is strongly stratified.
Proof. The assertion (i) together with (02) imply that T is stratified. Fur-
ther the idempotency of A implies
[g, h] A h = [g, h] A 9
hence every stratified L-topology is also strongly stratified. Finally, Condition

(~1) and Axiom (01) imply (i) .
••
In the case of complete Heyting algebras we conclude from Theorem 5.2.6 and
Theorem 5.2.7 that L-topologies satisfying the Constants Condition (cf. (i) in
5.2.7) and strongly enriched, L-fuzzy topologies are the same things. From a
historical point of view this observation was the fundamental message in [37].
In the case of GL-quantales we summarize the results of this section in the

following commutative diagram:
SRL-FTOP* := SSL-TOP
RL-FTOP /'R~ • SL-TOP
j j
L-FTOP -------Ji------. L-TOP
6 Convergence theory for L-topological spaces

and its applications
In this section the underlying quadruple satisfies the axioms (I)-(VII). In partic-
ular, (L, ~, ®) is a cl-quasi-monoid. Further, we will frequently make use of the
monoidal mean operator (cf. Remark 1.2.6). Therfore, because of Proposition
1.2.7 we assume in addition that (L,~, *) is a commutative, strictly two-sided
quantale. In this context -tr and -tl coincide and are denoted by -t.
6.1 L-Interior operators and L- neighborhood systems

Let X be a set; a map K : LX -t LX is called an L-interior operator iff K
satisfies the following conditions:
(KO) K(lx) = Ix.
(Kl) f ~ 9 ===? K(f) ~ K(g) . (Isotonicity)
(K2) (K(f» ® (K(g» ~ K(f®g) .
(K3) K(f) ~ f·
(K4) K(f) < K(K(f»
Because of Axiom (II) it is easy to see that every L-topology T on X induces
an L-interior operator Kr by
and vice versa every L-interior operator K gives rise to an L-topology TIC on X
defined by
TIC = {g E LX I 9 ~ K(g)}
172 u. Hahle and A.P. Bostak
Obviously the relations JCT/C = JC and rIC... = r hold - i.e. L-interior operators
and L-topologies are equivalent concepts.
An L-interior operator JC is called stratified iff JC satisfies the additional
condition
(K5) 0: * JC(f) < JC(o: * f) v0: E L V I E LX .
Proposition 6.1.1 Let r be an L-topology on X and JC be the corresponding

L-interior operator. Then the following assertions are equivalent
(i) r is stratified.
(ii) JC is stratified.
(iii) JC is compatible with the natural equality [ , ] on LX - i.e.
[h,h] < [JC(h), JC(h)]
Proof. It is not difficult to show that (03) and (~1) are equivalent to (K4) and
(K5)j hence the equivalence (i) ¢::::> (ii) follows. In order to verify (ii) ¢::::> (iii)
we first observe
[h,h] *h < 12 [h,h] * 12 < h

Then we infer from (Kl) and (K5) :
[h,h]*JC(h) < JC(h) [h,h]*JC(h) < JC(ft}

hence [h,h] < [JC(h), JC(h)] follows - i.e. (ii) implies (iii). On the
other hand, if we assume (iii), then we obtain from (Kl):
JC(f) -+ JC(o: * f) j
hence the following relation holds
0: * JC(f) < (JC(f) -+ JC(o: * I)) * JC(f) <

i.e. JC is stratified .
•
Let U : X 1---+ L(L X ) be a mapj then for each p E X the image of p under U
is denoted by JLp. U is said to be an L-neighborhood system on X iff U satisfies
the following axioms
(UO) JLp(lx) = T .
(Ul) h ~ 12 implies JLp(ft} < JLp(h)
(U2) (JLp(h)) i8) (JLp(h)) < JLp(h i8) h) .
(U3) JLp(f) < I(p) .
(U4) Jlp(f) < V{Jlp(h)) I h(q) ::; Jlq(f) Vq EX} .
Proposition 6.1.2 Let K be an L-interior operator on X. Then K induces an

L-neighborhood system U(JC) : X f---t L(LX) by
[K(f)](p)
Proof. The axioms (UO) - (U3) follow immediately from (KO) - (K3). Now
we fix f E LX and put h = K(f). In particular, h(q) = Jl~K.)(f) holds for all
q E X. Referring to (K4) we obtain
hence (U4) follows .

•
Proposition 6.1.3 Let U = (Jlp)PEX be an L-neighborhood system on X.
Then U induces an L-interior operator Ku : LX f---t LX by
[Ku(f)](p) pEX .
Proof. The axioms (KO) - (K3) are evident. Further we derive from (Ul)
and (U4) the following relation
i.e. Ku(f) < Ku (Ku (f)) ; hence (K4) is verified .

•
Referring to the previous propositions 6.1.2 and 6.1.3 it is not difficult to see
that L-interior operators and L-neighborhood systems are equivalent concepts.
Definition 6.1.4 (L-Filters)

Let X be a set; a map II : LX f---t L is called an L-filter on X iff II is provided
with the following properties
(FO) 1I(lx) T
(Fl) h::; 12 :::=} lI(h)::; 11(12) (Isotonicity)
(F2) lI(h) @ 11(12) < lI(h @ h)
(F3) 11(10) = .1
An L-filter II is weakly stratified iff /\ f(x) ::; II (f) for all f E LX. An
xEX
L-filter II is said to be stratified iff II fulfills the further axiom
(F4) 0: * 1I(f) < II((H f) v0: E L, f E LX .

•
Because of (FO) and (Fl) every stratified L-filter is weakly stratified. Moreover,
in the case of ® = * the axiom (F2) implies that weak stratification and
stratification of L-filters are equivalent concepts.
Let U = (/l-P)PEX be an L-neighborhood system. Then every /l-p is an L-filter

on X. In particular, /l-p is called the L-neighborhood filter at the point p.
Theorem 6.1.5 An L-topology is (weakly) stratified iff each L-neighborhood
filter is (weakly) stratified.
Proof. 6.1.1 - 6.1.4
•
6.2 L-Filter theory
Lemma 6.2.1 (a) Every stratified L-filter v (cf. 6.1.4) fulfills the property:
(C) A
zEX
f(x) $ v(l) < «V
zEX
f(x)) -+ 1-) -+ 1- .
(b) Let (L, $, *) be a two-sided, commutative quantale with square roots satis-
fying Axiom (89). Further, let ® be given by the monoidal mean operator (cf.
Remark 1.2.6). Then every stratified L-filter v on X satisfies the following
condition:
(F3*) V(1-1/2 . Ix) 1- 1 / 2
Proof. If we combine (F4) with (FO), (Fl) and (F3), then we obtain
A f(x) < v« A f(x))· Ix) < v(l)
« V f(x)) -+ 1-) * v(l) < v(10)
zEX zEX
1-
zEX
hence (C) follows.

The assertion (b) is an immediate consequence from Condition (C) and Propo-
sition 1.2.9(i) .
•
Let ~h(X) (~L<X)) be the set of all (stratified) L-filters on X. On ~L(X)
we introduce a partial ordering ::;< by
In particular, we use on the set ~L<X) of all stratified L-filters the restriction
of ::;<.
Example 6.2.2 (Smallest stratified L-filter)

Let us consider a map Vo : LX -t L defined by vo(f) = A I(x) .
xEX
Then it is easy to see that Vo is a stratified L-filter on X. Moreover, Lemma
6.2.1 implies that Vo is the smallest element in (jHX) , ~) .
•
An L-filter v is called tight iff v satisfies the following important axiom
(F5) v(o·lx) = 0 for all 0 E L.
Obviously (F5) implies (FO) and (F3). Moreover, if the underlying quantale is
a complete MV-algebra (cf. Subsection 1.1, Subsection 1.3), then Lemma 6.2.1
implies that every stratified L-filter is tight. Moreover, if T is a weakly stratified
L-topology, then because of Axiom (U3) every L-neighborhood filter is tight;
hence tightness of an L-filter is not a filter-theoretically primitive concept in
its own right.
Remark 6.2.3 (T-Filters)

(a) AT-filter is an ordinary subset F of LX provided with the following prop-
erties
(lFO) Ix E F
(lFl) If h E LX s.t. 3 x : F ~ L with
V{x(f)IIEF} = T }
{ , then hEF
x(f) * I(x) :-:; hex) "I IE F , "Ix EX
(Jr2) h, h EF ~ h ® h E F
(lF3) V I(x) = T "I IE F

xEX
Every T -filter F induces a stratified and tight L-filter lip by

(F) lIF(h) = V ( A (f(x) -t hex)))
IEF xEX
In fact, the axiom (F5) (which includes (FO) and (F3)) is an immediate con-
sequence from (lFO) and (lF3). (Fl) holds by definition, and (F2) follows from
(Jr2) and (VII). Finally, we derive the axiom (F4) from the inequality
0* (/3 -t 1') :-:; /3 -t (0 *1').
(b) Every tight L-filter v induces aT-filter F v by F v = {f E LX I v(f) = T} .
On the other hand, if an L-filter v is induced by a T -filter F in the sense of
(a) (Le. v = lip), then the axiom (lFl) gurantees the validity of the following
relation:
FVF = {hELxllIp(h)=T} = F
In this sense T -filters form a subclass of tight and stratified L-filters.
(c) Let Fa be the smallest T -filter - i.e. Fa = {Ix}. Then it is easy to

see that lIFo coincides with the smallest (weakly) stratified L-filter (cf. 6.2.2).
Therefore the smallest T -filter is also the smallest (weakly) stratified L-filter .
•
Comment. It is not difficult to see that the hypothesis in Axiom (lFl) is an
L-valued interpretation of the following formula (31)((f E F) 1\ (f ~ h)).
Moreover, if we view tight L-filters as characteristic morphisms, then Remark
6.2.3(b) shows that the corresponding T -filters can be understood as the cor-
responding subobjects in an appropriate categorical framework.
•
Proposition 6.2.4 (Complete MV-algebras)
(a) Let (L,~, *) be a complete MV -algebra and v be a stratified L-filter on
X. Then the following assertions are equivalent
(i) v is induced by a T -filter F in the sense of formula (.1") .
(ii) a. --+ v(f) < v(a. --+ J) Va. E L, V I E LX .
(b) Let (B,~) be a complete Boolean algebra and ® = * = 1\. Then every
stratified B-filter is induced by a (unique) T -filter. In particular, T -filters and
stratified B-filters are equivalent concepts.
Proof (a) Since * is distributive over arbitrary meets (cf. Theorem 5.2(c)
in [39]), we obtain
a. --+ (V f3i) = V(a. --+ f3i)

iEI iEI
Hence the implication (i) :::::} (ii) follows immeadiately from (.r). In order to
verify (ii) :::::} (i) we proceed as follows: Let v be a stratified L-filter on X
provided with Property (ii). Since the law of double negation is valid in any
MV -algebra, the stratification implies the tightness of v (cf. Lemma 6.2.1) j
hence F /I = {J E LX I v(f) = T} is a T -filter on X. Further we infer from
Property (ii):
v(f) --+ I E F /I
Now we invoke the MV -property of MV -algebras (cf. p. 63 in [39]) and obtain
1\ ((v(f) --+ I(x)) --+ I(x)) = 1\ (v(f) V I(x))

zEX zEX
= v(f) V (1\ I(x)) = v(f)

zEX
hence v is induced by F /I. Therewith the assertion (a) is verified.

(b) Let L = B be a complete Boolean algebra and * = 1\. Referring to As-
sertion (a) it is sufficient to show that every stratified ~filter satisfies Property
(ii). Because of 0: --+ j3 = (0: --+ .1) V j3 we are in the position to derive the
following relation from the stratification:
0: --+ I/(f) = (0: --+ .1) V I/(f) 1/((0: --+ .1) . Ix) V I/(f)
< 1/((0: --+ .1) ·lx V j) 1/(0: --+ j) .
•
Lemma 6.2.5 (Square roots)
Let (L,::;, *) be a commutative quantale with square roots such that Axiom (83)
is satisfied. Further let ® be the monoidal mean operator (cf. Remark 1.2.6,
Corollary 1.2.8). Then the quadruple (L,::;,®,*) fulfills (J)-(VII), and every
stratified L-filter 1/ on X satisfies the following property:
(F6) For every n E N and for every n-tuple (fi)f=l E (LX)n the implication
holds.
Proof. Referring to Remark 1.2.6 the quadruple (L,::;, ®, *) fulfills (I)-(VII).

Further, the recursive application of the formation of square roots leads to the
subsequent notation
Vo:EL,VnEN
(a) We show: (.1 1 / 2" --+ .1) --+ .1 .1 1 / 2 " Vn EN. Because of Proposi-
tion 1.2.9(i) the assertion holds for n = 1. If the assertion holds for an arbitrary
n EN, then we observe:
.1 1 / 2 "+1 (.1 1 / 2 "+1 --+ .1 1/ 2 ) --+ .1 1 / 2
[.1 1 / 2 ,,+1 --+ ((.1 1 / 2 --+.1) --+ .1)]--+ ((.1 1 / 2 --+.1) --+.1)
([(.1 1 / 2 --+ .1) --+ (.1 1 / 2 ,,+1 --+ .1)] * (.1 1 / 2 --+ .1)) --+ .1
> (.1 1 / 2 ,,+1 --+ .1) --+.1 .
Since the converse inequality is trivial, the assertion holds for n +I .
(b) We verify by induction:
(n EN)
In the case n = 1 the assertion follows from (FO) and (F2). Because of
(f1 * ... * f n) 1/2"+1 * (fn+1 )1/2"+1
we infer from (Fl) and(F2)
[1/((f1 * ... * fn)1/2"F/ 2 * [1/((fn+t)1/2")]1/2 < 1/((f1 * ... * fn+d/ 2n + 1

) ;
hence the induction hypothesis and the axioms (FO) and (F2) imply
(v(fd)1/2,,+l *.. .*(v(fn))1/2,,+l *(v(fn+d)1/2,,+1 < v((!I* ... *fn+d/ 2,,+1 .
(c) The assertion follows from the previous parts (a), (b) and Lemma 6.2.1(a) .
•
Theorem 6.2.6 Let (L,~, 18l, *) be a quadruple satisfying (I)-(Ill), (V)-(X)
and the additional axiom
(XI) (a *,8) I8l T = ((a I8l T) * (,8 ® T)) V (.L I8l T) .
(a) Then I8l satisfies Axiom (IV).
(b) Further let F = {Vi liE I} be a family of (stratified) L-filters on X.
If F is provided with the following property
For every finite, non empty subset {h, ... , in} of I and for every}
{ n-tuple (fij )1J=l E (LX)n the implication
k * ... * h, = 1.0 ==} Vi1 (fi1) * ... * Vi" (Ii,,) = .L '
holds.
then F has an upper bound in 3'L(X) (resp. 3'i,(X)).
Proof. Referring to Proposition 1.2.7 we see immediately that (L, ~, *) has

square roots and I8l coincides with the monoidal mean operator ®. Further the
axiom (XI) guarantees that the formation of square roots satisfies Axiom (83);
i.e. (XI) forces the validity of (IV) (cf. Remark 1.2.6).
In order to verify the second assertion we define a map Voo : LX f----t L by
voo(h) = V{Vi1 (IiJ * ... * vinCli,,) In EN, Ii; E LX, 1i1 * ... * fi" ~ h}
and show that Voo is a (stratified) L-filter on X. The axioms (FO) and (Fl)
(resp. (F4)) are evident. (F3) follows from the hypothesis on F. In order to
verify (F2) we proceed as follows: First let us consider the situation
IT K = {i 1 , ... ,in} n {i1, ... ,im} is non empty, then we put

{i1, ... ,ir } = {il, ... ,in}nCK ,
{iI,··· ,i.} = {iI,··· ,im} n CK
where CK means the complement of K. The axiom (82) implies
(1i1 )1/2 * (.L 1/2 . Ix) * (Ii. )1/2 * ... * (Ii" )1/2 < (h 1)1/2 * (h2)1/2
(gil )1/2 * (.L 1/2 . Ix) * (gh)1/2 * ... * (gim )1/2 < (hd 1/ 2 * (h 2)1/2
(6.2.1)
(k)1/2 * ... * (Ji.)1/2 * [((!L1)1/2 * (9ly/2) * ... * ((!LrY/2*
*(9lp)1/2)] * (giY/2 * ... * (g;.)1/2 < (h 1)1/2 * (h 2)1/2
Now we invoke (83), (FO), (F2) and (F3) and obtain
(IIi, (I;,) * ... * lIi n (J;n) )1/2 * (1Ij, {gj,) * ... * IIjm (gjm) ?/2
((IIi, (fi,)?/2 *.L 1/2) * (lIi2(fi2»1/2 * ... * (lli n (fd)1/2 V

((IIj,(gj,»1/2 * .L 1 / 2 ) * (1Ii2(ghW/ 2 * ... * (lIjm(gjm»1/2 V
[(IIi, (J;,»1/2 * ... * (lIdJ;J?/2 *
*((lIl,(!l,)1/2 * (1I£,(gl,»1/2) * ... * ((lIlp(flp»)1/2 * (lI£p(g£p»1/2) *
*(IIj, (Ii,) )1/2 * ... * (lIj, (Ii,) )1/2] <
lIi,((fi,)1/2 * .L 1 / 2 ·lx) * lIi2((fi2)1/2) ... * lIi n ((J;J1/2) V
1Ij,((gj,)1/2 * .L 1 / 2 ·lx) * IIh((gh)1/2) * ... * IIjm((gjm?/2) V
[IIi, ((J;,)1/2) * ... * IId(fiY/2) *
*11£,((f£,)1/2 * (gl,)1/2) * ... * IIlp((flp)1/2 * (glp)1/2)
*IIj, ((gj, )1/2) * ... * IIj, ((gjj/2)] <
Because of (83) the formation of square roots preserves arbitrary non empty
joins; hence (F2) follows from formulae (6.2.1). Finally (FO) and the definition
of 1100 shows that 1100 is an upper bound of :F w.r.t. ~ .
•
Corollary 6.2.7 Let (L, :S, @, *) be a quadruple satisfying (J)-(XJ). A family
{IIi liE I} of stratified L-filters has an upper bound in ~L (X) iff for every finite
subset {i1, ... , in} of I and for every n-tuple
(J;; )'']=1 E (LX)n the following implication holds
Proof. Lemma 6.2.5 and Theorem 6.2.6 .

•
Lemma 6.2.8 Let (L, ::;, @, *) be a quadruple satisfying (J)-(XI). Then for ev-
ery stratified L-filter II there exists a stratified L-filter D provided with the sub-
sequent properties
(i) II ~ D
(ii) D(h) * D(h) < D(h * h) (Submultiplicativity)
Proof. We consider the case lin = II for all n E N. Then the assertion
follows from Lemma 6.2.5 and from the construction of 1100 in the proof of
Theorem 6.2.6.
•
In the next theorem we show that Zorn's Lemma and Axiom (IV) guarantee the
existence of maximal (stratified) L-filters.
Theorem 6.2.9 (Existence of maximal (stratified) L-filters)

(a) The partially ordered set (3'L(X),~) has maximal elements.
(b) The partially ordered set (3'L(X),~) has maximal elements.
Proof. Referring to Zorn's Lemma it is sufficient to show that every chain

C in 3'L(X) (resp. 3'L(X» has an upper bound in 3'L(X) (resp. 3'L(X». For
this purpose let us consider a non empty chain C = {Vi liE I}. We define a
map Voo : LX ......-+ L by
voo(f) = V vi(f)
iEI
It is easy to verify that Voo fulfills (FO), (Fl), (F3) (resp. (F4». The axiom
(F2) follows from (IV) and the linearity of the induced partial ordering on C.
•
A maximal element in (3'L(X),~) (resp. (3'L(X) , ~» is also called an
L-ultrafilter (resp. stratified L-ultrafilter).
Corollary 6.2.10 For every (stratified) L-filter V there exists a (stratified)

L-ultrafilter p, with v ~ p,.
•
In general it is difficult to give an algebraic characterization of the maxi-
mality of (stratified) L-ultrafilters. In the following considerations we present
a solution of this problem in the important case of monoidal mean operators.
Theorem 6.2.11 (Case of complete Heyting algebras)

Let H = (L,~) be a complete Heyting algebra, and let ® = * = !\. Further
let v be a (stratified) L-filter on X. Then the following assertions are equivalent
(i) v is a (stratified) L-ultrafilter.
(ii) v(f) (v(f -+ 1.» -+ 1.
Proof. (a) Because of (F2) and (F3) every L-filter satisfies the condition
(F3') v(f) < «v(f -+ 1.» -+ 1.

In order to verify (i) ===} (ii) it is sufficient to show that the maximality of v
implies
(v(f -+ 1.» -+ 1. < v(f)
For this purpose we fix 9 E LX and define a map v : LX 1----+ L by
v(f) v(f) V (v(g -t 1) 1\ «v(g -t 1-» -t 1-»
Obviously v satisfies (FO), (F1) and (F3). The axiom (F2) follows from the
distributivity of the underlying lattice (L,:::;) and from the subsequent relation
v(l1) 1\ v(12) :::;

(v(l1) 1\ v(12» V (v(g -t 11) 1\ v(g -t h) 1\ «v(g -t 1-» -t 1-» <
v(11 1\ fz)
i.e. v is an L-filter. If v is stratified, then we apply the inequality
and obtain immediately that v is also stratified.- Because of v ~ v the maxi-

mality of v implies v = v; i.e.
(v(g -t 1-» -t 1- < v(g) v(g)
Hence (ii) is verified.

(b) Let i/ be a (stratified) L-filter with v ~ i/; then we infer from (ii) and
(F3'):
ii(f) < (i/(f -t 1-» -t 1- < (v(f -t 1-)) -t 1- v(f) ;
i.e. ii = v. Hence (ii) implies (i) .

•
Remark 6.2.12 (L-Ultrafilters)
Let H = (L,:::;) be a complete Heyting algebra.
(a) Let us assume that (L,:::;) is a chain. Then an L-filter v on X is an L-
ultrafilter iff there exists a maximal filter U in the lattice (LX, :::;) with v = Xu.
(b) If L = B is a complete Boolean algebra, then for every maximal filter U in
the lattice (BX , :::;) the characteristic function Xu is a B-ultrafilter on X .
•
Lemma 6.2.13 (GL-Monoids with square roots)
Let M = (L,:::;, *) be a GL-monoid with square roots satisfying the axiom (83)
and the following condition
Further let @ = ® be the monoidal mean operator (cf. Remark 1.2.6). Then
every stratified L-ultrafilter v fulfills the property:
(F7) v(10 ® 1) = 1- ® v(f) .

Proof. In order to simplify the notation we always denote 0 * 0 by 0 2 . -

Let v be an L-ultrafilter on X. Because of the axiom (F2) the following relation
holds:
Hence we obtain
(v(f))1/2 * (1. 1/ 2 -t v(10 ® g)) ~ (1. 1/ 2 -t v(10 ® I)) * (1. 1/ 2 -t v(10 ® g))
= [(1. 1/ 2 -t v(10 ® 1))1/2 * (1. 1 / 2 -t v(10 ® g))1/2]2 ~
< [1. 1 / 2 -t (v(10 ® I) ® v(10 ® g))]2 < (1. 1 / 2 -t v(10 ® (f ® g)))2
Therefore we can enlarge the L-filter v as follows
ii(f)
where to = (1. 1 / 2 -t 1.)2.

We show that the map ii is again a stratified L-filter on X. The axiom (S3)
and Proposition 1.2.9(ii) imply
(ii(f))1/2 = (v(f)?/2 V «to -t 1.) * (1. 1 / 2 -t v(10 ® I))) V 1. 1 / 2 ;
hence the previous considerations show that ii satisfies (F2). The axioms (FO)
and (F1) are evident, and (F3) holds by definition of ii. The stratification
axiom (F4) follows from the subsequent relation:
0* ii(f)
Now we invoke the maximality of v and obtain:
(to -t 1.) * (1. 1/ 2 -t v(10 ® 1))2 < v(f) (0)

Since v is stratified, we infer from (F1) and Lemma 6.2.1(b): v(10 ® I) ~
1.1/ 2 ; hence the relation
(to -t 1.) * v(10 ® I) < 1. ® v(f)
follows from (0) and the divisibility of (L,~,*). Now we observe to *1. 1 / 2 =
1. ; then we obtain from (S4):
v(f) ® 1. < v(10 ® I) (to -t 1.) * v(10 ® I) < 1. ® v(f) ;
hence (F7) is verified .

•
Theorem 6.2.14 (Characterization of stratified L-ultrafilters)

Let (L,:::;, *) be a GL-monoid with square roots satisfying the axioms (83) and
(84). Further let ® be given by the monoidal mean opemtor ®. Then for every
stmtified L-filter v on X the following assertions are equivalent
(i) v is an L-ultrafilter.
(ii) v(f) = (v(f -t .1» -t .1 vf E LX .
Proof. Let v be a stratified L-filter on X. In order to verify (i) ==> (ii) we
distinguish the following cases:
(a) Let (L,:::;,*) beasmoothGL-monoid(Le . .1 1/ 2 = .1). Then the formation
of square roots is a quantale-automorphism of L. Hence the maximality of v
implies v(f) = (v(f»)1/2 for all f E LX. Then the map v : LX f---t L
defined by
v(f) = v(f) V (v(g -t f) * (v(g -t .1) -t .1»
is again a stratified L-filter on X (d. Proof of Theorem 6.2.11). Applying
again the maximality of v we obtain v(g -t .1) -t.1 :::; v(g). The converse
inequality follows from Lemma 6.2.8 and Axiom (F3). Hence the implication
(i) ==> (ii) is verified in the case of smooth GL-monoids ..
(b) Let (L,:::;, *) be a strict GL-monoid (d. Definition 1.2.10). Because of
Axiom (F2) we can enlarge v as follows:
v(f) «v(g -t .1»1/2 -t v(f ® (g -t .1)))2
We show that the map v is a stratified L-filter on X. The axioms (FO) and
(F1) are obvious. Further we observe
.1 1/ 2 < (v(f»1/2 < (v(g -t .1»1/2 -t v(f ® (g -t .1»
and conclude from (S3) and (F2):
v(fd ® v(h) =
* «v(g -t .1»1/2 -t V(h ® (g -t .1))) =
«v(g»)1/2 -t v(h ® (g -t .1»)
= [«v(g -t .1»1/2 -t v(h ® (g -t .1)))1/2 *
* «v(g -+ .1»1/2 -+ v(h ® (g -t .1)))1/2]2 <
< [(v(g -t .1»1/2 -t (v(h ® (g -+ .1» ® v(h ® (g -t .1)))]2 <
< «v(g -t .1»1/2 -t v«h ® h) ® (g -t .1)))2 = v(h ® h) j
hence v fulfills (F2). The axiom (F3) follows from Axiom (F7) (d. Lemma
6.2.13), the definition of v and Proposition 1.2.12. Since v is stratified, we
obtain:
a * v(f) = [a 1/ 2 * «v(g -t .1»1/2 -+ v(f ® (g -t .1)))]2

< [(v(g -t .1»1/2 -t (a 1/ 2 * v(f ® (g -t .1»W
:::; [(v(g -t .1»1/2 -+ v(a 1/ 2 * (f ® (g -+ .1)))]2 = v(a * f) j
hence ii is also stratified.

Now we invoke the maximality of v and conclude from the definition of ii and
Lemma 6.2.1(b):
v(g -+ ..L) -+ ..L < v(g) .
Since the converse inequality is trivial (see Part (a)), v satisfies the assertion
(ii) .
(c) The axiom (S4) guarantees the decomposition of (L,~, *) into a smooth
GL-monoid and a strict GL-monoid (cf. Theorem 1.2.13). Moreover, if we
put to = (..L 1/2 -+ ..L)2 , then the axiom (84) and Proposition 1.2.9(ii) imply
the idempotency of to. Therefore we can derive the following relation from
the hypothesis (84), the stratification axiom (F4), the idempotency of to and
to-+..L:
v(f) = (to * veto * 1)) V «to -+ ..L) * v«to -+ ..L) * 1)) .

In particular, we observe: Veto ·lx) = to , v«to -+ ..L) ·lx) = to -+..L
(cf.
Proposition 1.2.9(iii), Lemma 6.2.1). Hence the assetion (ii) follows from the
previous parts (a) and (b).
(d) In order to establish the implication (ii) ==? (i) let us consider the situation
v ~ ii. Then Lemma 6.2.8, Axiom (F3) and the assertion (ii) imply:
ii(f) < ii(f -+ ..L) -+ ..L < v(f -+ ..L) -+ ..L < v(f).
Hence v is maximal .
•
Example 6.2.15 (Complete MV-algebras with square roots)
(a) For every element p E X the map op : LX t---+ L defined by
op(f) = 1(P) V I E LX
is a stratified L-ultrafilter on X.
(b) In the case of M = ([O,I],~,Tm) (cf. Example 1.2.3(b), Subsection 1.3)
every finitely additive probability measure oX on X induces a stratified [0,1]-
ultrafilter v>. on X by (cf. Example 6.7 in [41])
v>. (f) = II
x
d>' VIE [O,I]X
and vice versa - i.e. finitely additive probability measures and stratified [0, 1]-
ultrafilters come to the same thing (cf. Example 6.7 in [41]) .
•
Lemma 6.2.16 (~Filter extension) Let (B,~) be a complete Boolean alge-
bra and ® = * = 1\. Further let v be a (stratified) B-filter on X. Then lor every
9 E BX there exists a (stratified) B-filter ii on X provided with the following
properties
(i) v ~ v
(ii) v(g) = v(g)
(iii) (v(g)) -t 1. = v(g -t 1.)
Proof. We fix 9 E lax and define a map v : lax -t lB as follows:
v(f) = v(f) V (v(g V 1) /\ ((v(g)) -t 1.))
It is not difficult to show that v fulfills the desired properties .

•
Theorem 6.2.17 (Boolean case) Let (la,::;) be a complete Boolean algebra
and ® * = = /\.Then every (stratified) la-filter can be written as an infimum
of an appropriate family of (stratified) la-ultrafilters.
Proof. The assertion follows immediately from Lemma 6.2.16 and Corollary
6.2.10 .
•
Proposition 6.2.18 (L-Filter extension w.r.t. strict MV-algebras)
Let (L,::;, *) be a strict MV -algebra and ® be given by the monoidal mean
operator ®. Then for every 9 E LX and for every stratified L-filter v on X
satisfying the axiom
(F7) v(10 ® 1) = 1. ® v(f)
there exists a further stratified L-filter v on X provided with the following

properties:
(i) v ~ v
(ii) v(g) = v(g)
(iii) (v(g)) -t 1. = v(g -t 1.)
Proof. Let v be an L-filter provided with (F7). We fix 9 E LX . Referring to

the part (b) of the proof of Theorem 6.2.14 we can construct a stratified L-filter
v on X as follows:
v(f) ((V(g))1/2 -t v(f ® g)?
Oviously v satisfies (i) and (iii) (cf. Part (b) of the proof of Theorem 6.2.14).
In order to verify (iii) we proceed as follows: Referring to Proposition 2.15 in
[39] (see also Proposition 1.2.14) we conclude from the definition of v:
v(g) = ((v(g)?/2 -t v(g))2

Now we invoke the strictness of (L,:S, *) and obtain the desired property (iii).
•
If we combine Lemma 6.2.16 with Proposition 6.2.18, then in the case of strat-
ified L-filters we can extend the assertion of Theorem 6.2.17 to the realm of
complete MV-algebras with square roots (d. Corollary 7.3. in [41]):
Theorem 6.2.19 (Complete MV-algebras with square roots)

Let (L,:S, *) be a complete MV -algebra with square roots and @ = ® be the
monoidal mean operator. Further let Vo be a stratified L-filter provided with
the property
(F7) vo(10 ® f) = ..1 ® vo(f)
Then there exists a familiy {Vi liE I} of stratified L-ultrafilters Vi such that
Vo (f) 1\ vi(f)
iEI
Proof. Since a complete MV -algebra can uniquely be decomposed into a com-

plete Boolean algebra and a strict MV -algebra (d. Theorem 2.21 in [39); see
also Theorem 1.2.13 and Subsection 1.3), the assertion follows immediately from
Lemma 6.2.16 and Proposition 6.2.18.
•
Discussion. (a) In the Boolean case the axiom (F7) is redundant. Hence ev-
ery stratified lffi-filter can be written as an infimum of an appropriate family
of stratified lffi-ultrafilters (see also Theorem 6.2.17). Furthermore we remark
that there exist lffi-ultrafilters which are not stratified lffi-ultrafilters (cf. Remark
6.2.12 and Proposition 6.2.4).
(b) Let (L,:S,*) be a complete MV-algebra with square roots. Then every
stratified L-filter can be extended to a stratified L-filter satisfying (F7). We
state again this result in Lemma 7.3.5 where we give its full proof.
•
Remark 6.2.20 (Images and inverse images of L-filters)
(a) Let cp : X I----i Y be a map and V a (stratified) L-filter on X. Then
the map cp(v) : L Y I----i L defined by [cp(v))(g) = v(g 0 cp) (g ELY) is a
(stratified) L-filter on Y. In particular, cp(v) is called the image L-filter of V
under cpo If the underlying quadruple (L,:S, ®, *) is given by a GL-monoid with
square roots satisfying (S3) and (S4) , then we conclude from Theorem 6.2.14
that the maximality of stratified L-filters is preserved under the formation of
images - i.e. if v is a stratified L-ultrafilter on X, then cp(v) is again a stratified
L-ultrafilter on Y.
(b) Let cp : X I----i Y be a surjective map and v be a (stratified) L-filter on X.
Then cp-l (v) : LX I----i L defined by
is a (stratified) L-filter on X. In particular, the surjectivity of rp guarantees the

validity of Axiom (F3). rp-l(V) is said to be the inverse image L-filter of v
under rp. Finally, the relation rp(rp-l(v)) = v holds for all surjective maps rp.
•
6.3 The principle of L-continuous extension
In this subsection we only refer to the triple (L,::::;, ®) - Le. all results of
this subsection require only cl-quasi-monoids as an underlying lattice-theoretic
structure.
IT 7 is an L-topology on X, then with every 9 E 7 we can associate a
further element g* E 7 defined as follows:
g* = V{h E 7 I h 181 9 < 10' 181 Ix }
Since 181 is distributive over arbitrary, non empty joins (see Axiom (IV)), we
obtain the important relation
Vg E 7
Definition 6.3.1 (Separation Axioms)

Let (X,7) be an L-topological space. (X,7) is Kolmogoroff separated (Le.
fulfills the To-axiom) iff 7 separates points in X - Le. for every pair (p, q) E
X x X with p::J q there exists 9 E 7 s.t. g(p) ::J g(q). (X,7) is Hausdorff
separated (Le. fulfills the T 2 -axiom) iff for every pair (p, q) E X x X with
p::J q there exists 9 E 7 s.t. g*(p) 181 g(q) 1:. 1.181 T.
•
Definition 6.3.2 (Density and Regularity)
Let (X,7) be an L-topological space. An ordinary subset A of X is said to be
dense in X iff every 9 E 7 satisfies the following implicationS
g(a) ::::; .1 ® T Va E A => g(x)::::; .1181 T V x EX.
An ordinary subset A of X is said to be strictly dense in X iff for all 9 E 7

the subsequent relation holds
g(x) < V{g(a) I a E A} VxEX .
(X,7) is called regular» iff every h E 7 fulfils the following property
h = V{9E7 I g*Vh = Ix}
• BIn the case of ® = 1\ the concept of density coincides with that one proposed by S.E.
Rodabaugh in [?]. Examples of dense subspaces are given in Subsection 7.1.
9In the case of ® = 1\ regularity is synonymous with localic regUlarity (cf. [92]).
Proposition 6.3.3 Let (L, $, 0) be a cl-quasi-monoid provided with the fol-

lowing property
(III* ) T0 Q: $ f3 0 T => Q: $ f3 .
Further let (X,7') be a regular, L-topological space. Then the following asser-
tions are equivalent:
(i) (X,7') is Hausdorff separated.
(ii) (X,7') is Kolmogoroff separated.
Proof. (a) ((i) => (ii)) Let (p, q) be an element of X x X with p =f:. q.
Because of the T 2 -axiom there exists an element 9 E 7' provided with the
property g*(p) 0 g(q) ~ 1. 0 T. Hence g(p) =f:. g(q) follows; i.e. (X,7') is
Kolmogoroff separated.
(b) ((ii) => (i)) Let (p,q) be a pair with p =f:. q. Since (X,7') satisfies the
To-axiom, there exists an element h E 7' with h(p) =f:. h(q). Without loss
of generality we assume h(p) ~ h(q). Further we assume that (X,7') is not
Hausdorff separated. Then we obtain for all 9 E 7' with g* V h = Ix that
the following estimation holds:
T 0 g(p) = (g*(q) 0 g(p)) V (h(q) 0 g(p)) < (1. 0 T) V (h(q) 0 T)
= h(q) 0 T ;
hence g(p) $ h(q) follows from (III)" . Now we apply the regularity of (X, 7')
and obtain h(p) $ h(q) which is a contradiction to the choice of h. Thus
(X,7') is Hausdorff separated .
•
Proposition 6.3.4 Let (X,7') be an L-topological space, A be a strictly dense
subset of X, and let iA : A y X be the inclusion map. Further let (Y,O')
be a Hausdorff separated, L-topological space, and let (ii) is obvious. In order to verify (ii) => (i) we
proceed as follows: We fix x E X and choose an element 9 EO'. Now we invoke
the L-continuity of <p and'I/J, the axiom (02) (cf. Section 3) and the densitiy
of A:
g*(<p(x)) 0 g('I/J(x)) < V
g*(<p(a)) 0 g('I/J(a))
aEA
hence the definition of g* and the assertion (ii) imply:
g*(<p(x)) 0 g('I/J(x)) < 1. 0 T v9 E 0'
Since (Y,O') is Hausdorff separated, the relation <p(x) = 'I/J(x) follows .
•
Theorem 6.3.5 (Principle of continuous extension)

Let (L,~, ®) be a cl-quasi-monoid satisfying the axiom (III*). Further (X, T)
be an L-topological space, (Y,O') be a Hausdorff separated, regular, L-topological
space, and let A be a strictly dense subset of X provided with the initial L-
topology TA w.r.t. the inlusion map iA : A ~ X (cf. Theorem 9.4). Finally
let ep : A t--+ Y be an L-continuous map. Then the following assertions are
equivalent:
(i) There exists an L-continuous map t/J : X t--+ Y with t/J 0 iA = ep;
i.e. ep has an L-continuous extension.
(ii) For every x E X there exists y E Y satisfying the following condition
VhE0'3gET: (1) hey) ~ g(x) , (2) goiA = hoep .
Proof. The implication (i) ==> (ii) follows immediately from the L-continuity
of the extension t/J. In order to verify (ii) ==> (i) we proceed as follows:
(a) Let x be a given point of X. We show that the point y in Assertion (ii) is
uniquely determined by the condition specified in Assertion (ii). Therefore let
us consider the following situation: Let h EO', gl E T, g2 E T be such that
h*(yI) ~ gl(X) , h(Y2) ~ g2(X) , h*oep = gIoiA, hoep = g20iA .

Since A is strictly dense, we conclude from the axiom (02) and the definition of
h*: h*(Yl) ® h(Y2) ~ gl(X) ®g2(X) ~ 1.®T; hence the T2-axiom implies:
Yl = Y2·
(b) Because of the previous part (a) the assertion (ii) determines a map t/J :
X t--+ Y. Since ep is L-continuous, the map t/J is obviously an extension of
ep (see again Part (a)). We show that t/J is L-continuous. For this purpose
we fix h E 0' and consider 9 E 0' with g* V h = Ix. The definition of t/J
(cf. Assertion (ii)) guarantees that for every Xo E X there exists an element
k:eo E T satisfying the following condition:
We show:
VxEX (0)
Referring again to the definition of t/J we observe that for every x E X there
exists an element k E T with
g*(t/J(x)) ~ k(x) , g* 0 ep = k 0 iA
Now we invoke the strict density of A, the axiom (02) and obtain:
<
aEA
= V g*(ep(a)) ® g(ep(a)) ~ 1. ® T .
aEA
Because of g* V h = 1y we conclude from (0)

T ® k",o(x) < h('IjJ(x)) ® T VxEX .
In particular, the axiom (III*) implies: k",o(x) < h('IjJ(x)). Thus we obtain
g('IjJ(x)) < V k",o(x) < h('IjJ(x)) VxEX .
"'oEX
Since 7 is closed w.r.t. arbitrary joins, we conclude from the regularity of

(Y, (1) that h 0 'IjJ is an element of 7 j hence 'IjJ is L-continuous .
•
In the remaining part of this subsection we consider the case ® = ® where
® denotes the monoidal mean operator w.r.t. to a given quantale. Therefore
we assume that a quadruple (L,~, ®, *) is given and satisfies the axioms (I)
- (XI). In particular, (L,~, *) is a strictly two-sided, commutative quantale,
® coincides with the monoidal mean operator ®, and the triple (L,~, ®) is
a cl-quasi-monoid satisfying the additional axiom (III*) (cf. Remark 1.2.6,
Proposition 1.2.7, Corollary 1.2.8). In this context it is interesting to see that
for any L-topological space (X,7) the following relation holds
Theorem 6.3.6 (Characterization of the T2-axiom)

Let (X, 7) be an L-topological space with the corresponding L-neighborhood
system (P,P)PEX. Then the following assertions are equivalent:
(i) (X,7) is Hausdorff separated.
(ii) For every pair (p, q) E X x X with p:l q there exist elements
gl, g2 E 7 provided with the following properties:
gl * g2 = 1.0 .
If in addition (X,7) is stratified, then the following assertions are equivalent

(i) (X,7) is Hausdorff separated.
(iii) For every pair (p, q) E X with p:l q the L-neighborhood filters Jl.P
and Jl.q do not have a common upper bound in the set of all stratified
L-filters on X.
Proof. The equivalence (i) ¢:::::> (ii) follows from the commutativity of ® and
the axioms (III), (VII), (VIII) and (X) - i.e.
Ci,®{3 = (Ci,®T) * ({3®T) < (Ci,*{3)®T, (Ci,®T) * (Ci,®T) = Ci,.
The equivalence (i) ¢:::::> (iii) is an immediate consequence from Corollary 6.2.7
and the L-neighborhood axioms (U3), (U4) .
•
Definition 6.3.7 Let (L,::::;, *) be a commutative, strictly two-sided quantale

with square roots satisfying the condition (S3) (cf. Subsection 1.2). Further
let @ be given by the monoidal mean operator ®. An L-topological space is
called star-regular iff every element h E T fulfills the following condition:
h V{g E T I (g*) -L1 ::::; h}
•
Evidently every regular, L-topological space is star-regular. Morever, Theorem
6.3.5 remains valid, if we replace regularity by star-regularity. For the sake of
completeness we formulate the following
Theorem 6.3.8 (Quantales with square roots)

Let (L,::::;, *) be a commutative, strictly two-sided quantale with square roots
such that Condition (83) is valid. Further, let (X,T) be an L-topological space,
(Y,O") be a Hausdorff separated, star-regular, L-topological space, and let A be
a strictly dense subset of X provided with the initial L-topology TAW. r. t. the
inclusion map iA : A y X. Finally let cp : A 1--7 Y be an L-continuous
map. Then the following assertions are equivalent:
(i) There exists an L-continuous map 1jJ : X 1--7 Y with 1jJ 0 iA cp;
i.e. cp has an L-continuous extension.
YhE0"3gET (1) h(y) ::::; g(x) (2) go iA = h 0 cp .
Proof. In principle we can repeat the proof of Theorem 6.3.5 with obvious
modifications; e.g. the part (a) remains valid, if we replace ® by *. In order to
verify the L-continuity of the extension 1jJ of cp we can argue as follows: Let us
fix h E 0" and choose an element 9 E 0" with (g*) --+..i ::::; h. Then for every
Xo E X there exists an element kxo E T provided with the following properties
We show:
kxo * g* (0')
Referring to Assertion (ii) we choose an element kET depending on x E X
such that
g*(1jJ(x» ::::; k(x) g* 0 cp = k 0 iA
Now we apply the axiom (02), the strict density of A :
kxo(x) ® g*(1jJ(x» < kxo(x) ® k(x) < V g(cp(a» ® g*(cp(a»

aEA
192 u. Hahle and A.P. Bastak
and obtain from Proposition 1.2.2
kxo(x) * g*(1jJ(x)) < kxo(x) * k(x) < V g(<p(a)) * g*(<p(a)) .i',

aEA
hence the relation (0') is verified. Further the choice of 9 and the relation
(0') imply:
g(1jJ(x)) < V kxo(x) < h(1jJ(x)) \:fxEX .

xoEX
We invoke the star-regularity of (Y, a) and conclude from (03) that h 0 1jJ is
an element of r; hence 1jJ is L-continuous.
•
Remark 6.3.9 If we replace strict density by density in 6.3.4, 6.3.5 and 6.3.8,
then an immediate inspection of the respective proofs shows that the assertions
of Proposition 6.3.4, Theorem 6.3.5 and Theorem 6.3.8 remain valid.
•
Remark 6.3.10 Let (L,::;, *) be a complete MV-algebra with square roots.
Then the "negation" in L (i.e. a' = a -+ .i) determines an order reversing
involution on L. In this context star-regularity and Hutton-Reilly-regularity
(cf. [58, 92]' [59, 94]) are equivalent concepts. Further the Hausdorff separa-
tion axiom specified in Definition 6.3.1 implies the Hausdorff separation axiom
formulated by T. Kubiak (cf. [58, 59]). Finally we remark that in the case of
stratified, L-topological spaces (X, r) a subset A is strictly dense in X iff A
is dense in X iff the L-interior of X n CA is empty - i.e. K(l xn CA) = 1.0
where K denotes the L-interior operator corresponding to r.
•
6.4 Compactness and stratified L-topological spaces
Definition 6.4.1 (Adherent point, limit point)
Let (X, r) be a L-topological space and (/1P)PEX be the corresponding L-
neighborhood system (cf. Subsection 6.1). Further let v be an L-filter on X.
(a) A point p E X is called adherent point of v iff there exists a further L-filter
i/ on X provided with the following properties
(i) i/«.1 Q9 T) . Ix) < .1 Q9 T
(ii) /1p ~ i/ , v ~ i/ .
(b) A point p E X is said to be a limit point of v iff /1p ~ v.

•
If an L-filter v has adherent points, then v satisfies necessarily the following

condition
(F8) v((..118i T) ·lx) < ..118i T .
Since in the case of monoidal mean operators (i.e. I8i = ®) the axiom (F3*)
implies (F8), we conclude from Lemma 6.2.1(b) that every stratified L-filter
fulfills (F8). Moreover under the hypothesis of (F8) every limit point is an
adherent point.
Remark 6.4.2 (Adherence map, limit map)
Let (J-tP)PEX be a L-neighborhood system and ~h(X) be the set of all L-filters on
X. Then (J-tP)PEX induces two maps adh : JdX) f----t LX , lim: JL(X) f----t
LX in the following way
[adh(v)](p) = 1\ (J-tp(h) -+ ((v(h -+ ..i)) -+ ..i))
hELX
[lim(v)](p) = 1\ (J-tp(h) -+ v(h))
hE LX
If (L, $, ®, *) is given by a GL-monoid with square roots satisfying (S3) and

(S4), then we conclude from Theorem 6.2.14 that for every stratified L-ultrafilter
v the adherence map adh(v) and the limit map lim(v) coincide .
• A L-topological space (X, T) is called compact iff every L-filter provided with
(F8) has at least one adherent point. A stratified L-topological space (X, T) is
said to be S -compact iff every stratified L-filter has at least one adherent point.
Proposition 6.4.3 (Images of compact L-topological spaces)
Let (X,T) be a compact (S-compact, stratified) L-topological space, (Y,O") be
a (stratified) L-topological space, and let cp : X f----t Y be a surjective, L-
continuous map. Then (Y,O") is compact (S-compact).
Proof. Let v be a (stratified) L-filter on Y, and cp-l(v) be the inverse image
of v under cp (cf. 6.2.20(b». Then cp-l(V) has an adherent point p E X - i.e.
there exists a (stratified) L-filter ii on X with J-tp ~ ii and cp-l(V) ~ ii. Now
we form the corresponding image L-filters (cf. 6.2.20(a» and obtain from the
L-continuity of cp the following relation
J-t",(p) ~ cp(J-tp) ~ cp(ii) , v = cp(cp-l(V)) ~ cp(ii) j
hence cp(p) is an adherent point of v .

•
In the following considerations we do not persue the development of the
general theory of compact L-topological spaceslOj rather we restrict our interest
to stratified L-topological spaces and S-compactness. Further we make the
following General Assumptions
lOIn the case of complete Heyting algebras we refer to [42].
(AI) (L,:S, *) is a GL-manoid with square roots satisfying the axioms (83)
and (84) (cf. Lemma 1.2.4 and Lemma 6.2.13).
(A2) @ is determined by the monoidal mean operator ®.
Lemma 6.4.4 Let v be a stratified L-filter on X and p be a point of X. Fur-

ther let (X, T) be a stratified L-topological space. Then the following assertions
are equivalent
(i) p is an adherent point of v .
(ii) adh(v)(p) T .
Proof. If p is an adherent point of v, then we conclude from the L-filter

axiom (F2) and Property (i) in Definition 6.4.1:
Hence adh(v)(p) = T follows. The implication (ii) ===} (i) is an immediate

consequence of Corollary 6.2.7.
•
Lemma 6.4.5 (T 2 -Axiom and S-compactness) Let (X, T) be a stratified
L-topological space.
(a) (X,T) is Hausdorff separated iff every stratified L-filter on X has at most
one limit point.
(b) (X, T) is S-compact and Hausdorff separated iff every stratified L-ultrafilter
has a unique limit point.
Proof. The assertion (a) follows immediately from Theorem 6.3.6 and Corollary
6.2.7. Further it is not difficult to derive the assertion (b) from Remark 6.4.2,
Lemma 6.4.4 and the previous assertion (a).
•
Theorem 6.4.6 (Compactness in the case of Boolean algebras) 11
Let (L,:S,@, *) be determined by a complete Boolean algebra - i.e. * = @ = 1\
and the law of double negation is valid in lR = (L, :s). A stratified L-topological
space (X, T) is S-compact iff the following version of the so-called Heine-Borel
property holds
For very subfamily {gi liE I} of T with V gi(X) =j:. ..1 Vx E X

iEI
(HB) { there exists a finite subfamily {gi liE H} of {gi liE I} with
1\ (V gi(X)) =j:. ..1 .
xEX iEH
• 11 In the more general case of complete Heyting algebras we refer to Theorem 3.3 in [42J.
Proof. (a) Let v be a stratified L-filter, J,tp be the stratified L-neighborhood

filter of p, and let F v , F ~p be the associated T -filters (cf. 6.2.4(b)). We invoke
Property (F) in 6.2.3 and obtain for all h E LX:
J,tp(h) I\. v(h -t.1) =
V ( /\ (dp(x) -t h(x)) I\. (f(x) -t (h(x) -t.1))) .
(I,dI') E F v xF "1' .,EX
Hence p is an adherent point of v iff for all f E F v and for all dp E F ~p the
relation
V
(dp(x) I\. f(x)) = T
.,EX
holds.
(b) Let (J,tP)PEX be the L-neighborhood system corresponding to T, and let F ~p
be the associated T -filter of J,tp (p E X). Then an element f E LX (i.e. a
L-subset of X) is T-closed
iff J,tp(f -t .1) = f(P) -t .1 'VpEX
iff V (/\ (dp(x) -t (f(x) -t .1))) = f(P) -t .1 'VpEX

dpEF"p .,EX
f(P) 'VpEX .
(c) We show that the condition (HB) is necessary. For this purpose we consider
a subfamily {gi liE I} of T with
'VxEX
We denote by J(J) the set of all finite, non empty, ordinary subsets of J and
assume
/\ (V
gi(X)) = .1 'V HE J(J)
"EX iEH
Then 9 = {gi -t .1 liE I} generates a T -filter F g. In particular the map
v : LX t---t L defined by
v(h) = V (/\ f(x) -t h(x))

JEFg .,EX
is a stratified L-filter on X. Because of Axiom (1Fl) the associated T -filter of v

coincides with Fg (cf. 6.2.3(b)). Since (X,T) is S-compact, v has an adherent
point Po. Referring to the previous parts (a) and (b) we obtain for all HE J(J):
T = /\ (V « /\ (gi(X) -t .1)) I\. d po (x))) =
dpo EF"po .,EX iEH
= /\ (gi(PO) -t .1)
iEH
-i.e. V gi(PO) = ..L which is a contradiction to the hypothesis on {gi liE I} .

iEI
(d) We show that the condition (HB) is sufficient. Therefore let us consider a
stratified L-filter v and its associated T -filter F". Referring to part (b) the
I-closure of f E F" is given by
elf(p) = /\ (V (f(x) 1\ dp(x))) VpEX .

dpEFl'p xEX
Obviously {elf --+ ..L I f E F,,} is a subset of I. Further we obtain from (lF3)
/\ elf(x) --+..L = ..L

xEX
Since F" is directed downwards (cf. (JF'2)), the condition (HB) implies the
existence of a point Po E X with V (elf(po) --+..L) = ..L; hence we obtain
JEFv
1\ elf (Po) = T. Referring to the parts (a) and (b) this means that Po is an
JEFv
adherent point of v .
•
Corollary 6.4.7 Let (L,:::;,@,*) be determined by a complete Boolean algebra
(cf. 6.4·6). Every S-compact, stratified L-topological space (X, I) satisfies the
following condition
Every subfamily {gi liE I} of I with V gi(X) = T Vx E X

iEI
has the property V (1\ ( V gi(X))) = T
HEJ(I) xEX iEH
where J(I) denotes all finite, ordinary subsets of J .
Proof. Let us assume that there exists a subfamily {gi liE J} of I provided
with the subsequent properties
(i) T "Ix E X
(ii) V (1\ ( V gi(X))) -I T .

HEJ(I) xEX iEH
Then we put x 1\ (V ( 1\ (gi(X) --+ ..L))) -I ..L, and the system

HEJ(I) xEX iEH
9 = {(gi --+ ..L) V (x --+ ..L) . Ix liE I} generates aT-filter F g. Let Vg be the
associated stratified L-filter ofF g (cf. 6.2.3(a)). Since (X, I) is S-compact, Vg
has an adherent point Po. Further we use the stratification property of I and
observe that the set 9 consists of I-closed, L-fuzzy subsets. Hence we obtain
(cf. part (a) and (b) of the proof of 6.4.6)
/\ (gi(PO) --+ ..L) V (x --+ ..L) T

iEI
i.e. V 9i(JJo) ~ x -+ ..1. :f:. T which is a contradiction to (i).
•
iEI
One of the main goals of any theory of compactness is to investigate the problem
to which extent the formulation of a Tychonoff-Theorem is possible. Here we
present a version of TychonoJJ's Theorem within the category of stratified L-
topological spaces. As underlying lattice-theoretical structure we only assume a
GL-monoid with square roots satisfying the axioms (S3) and (S4). In particular
the "conjunction-operator" ® is determined by the monoidal mean operator
® (cf. (AI) and (A2)).
Theorem 6.4.8 (Tychonoff Theorem)

Let ~ = {(Xi, Ti) liE I} be a non empty family of stratified L-topological
spaces. Then the following assertions are equivalent
(i) (Xi, Ti) is S-compact for all i E I.

(ii) The L-topological product (Xo, TO) of ~ in the sense of SL-TOP is
S-compact.
Proof. Let Xo be the set-theoretical product of {Xi liE I}, and let IIj be
the projection from Xo onto Xj (j E I). Further let (/JP.)P.EX. be the L-
neighborhood system corresponding to Ti (i E I).
(a) For every p = (Pi)iEI E Xo we define a map /Jp : LXo t----+ L by
/Jp(h) =
= V{/JP'1 (lit) * ... * /JP'n (fd In E N, (fil 0 IIil) * ... * (lin 0 IIiJ ~ h}
and show that (/JP)PEXo is a L-neighborhood system on Xo. The axioms (UO),
(VI) and (V3) are evident. The proof of (V2) is analogous to the verification
of (F2) in the proof of 6.2.6. In order to verify (V4) we proceed as follows: Let
us consider finitely many Ii; E LX'; with IiI Ollil * ... * lin 0 IIin ~ h; then
we infer from (V4)
* ... * /JP' (lin) <

/JP'1 (lit) n
V{/JP'1 (kil ) * ... * /JP' (kin) I ki; (Xi;) ~ /Jx.; (fi;) 'V Xi; E Xi;}
n ~
V{/Jp«kil IIi;} * ... * (kin IIin)) I (kilO IIiJ * ... * (kin IIin )
0 0 0 ~ /J- (h)};
hence (V4) follows also for (/JP)PEXo'

(b) We show (i) => (ii) . For this purpose let v be a stratified L-ultrafilter
on Xo. Since the image L-filter IIj(v) is also a stratified L-ultrafilter on Xj
(cf. 6.2.20(a)), there exists a point Pj E Xj with /Jp; ~ IIj(v). We put
Po = (Pj)jEI. By virtue of the maximality all stratified L-ultrafilter are sub-
multiplicative (cf. 6.2.8); hence the definition of /Jpo implies /Jpo ~ v - i.e. Po
is a limit point of v. Since the stratified product L-topology TO is coarser than
the topology determined by (/LP)PEXo, the assertion (ii) follows.

(c) Since all projections are surjective and L-continuous, the implication
(ii) ==> (i) is an immediate consequence from Proposition 6.4.3 .
••
Theorem 6.4.9 Let J' = {(Xi ,7"i) liE I} be a non empty family of stratified
L-topological spaces. Then the following assertions are equivalent
(i) (Xi ,7"i) is Hausdorff separated for all i E I.

(ii) The L-topological product (Xo,7"o) of J' in the sense of SL-TOP is
Hausdorff separated.
Proof. Since the family {IIi liE I} of projections is a family of L-

continuous maps separating points, the implication (i) ==> (ii) is an immediate
consequence from Theorem 6.3.6. In order to verify (ii) ==> (i) we proceed as
follows: Let (/LP)PEXo be the L-neighborhood system constructed in part (a) of
the proof of 6.4.8. Since the stratified product L-topology is Hausdorff sepa-
rated, we obtain that the stratified L-topology determined by (/LP)PEXo is also
Hausdorff separated. We choose io E I and a pair (Pio, qio) E Xio X Xio with
Pio f; qio' Then there exists a pair (ft, if) E Xo x Xo satisfying the following
condition
Vi f; io
Because of p =f:. if the Hausdorff separation axiom guarantees the existence of
h E LXo provided with the property (cf. Corollary 6.2.7)
/Lp(h) * /Lif(h -t ..L) =f:. ..L
Referring to the construction of /Lp and /Lif we can find finite index sets
{i l , ... , in} , {il, ... ,im} and elements fik E LXik , gil E LXii such that the
following relations hold
lil 0 IIil * ... * h. 0 IIin < h

gil 0 * ... * gim
IIil 0 IIim < h -t ..L
/LPil (lil) * ... * /LPi n (lin) * /Lqil (gil) * ... * /Lqim (gim) = K f; ..L.
If io ¢ {i l , ... ,in} n {il, .. .im} , then we deduce from (U3) and (') that
K = ..L which is impossible; hence io E {i l , ... , i m } n {il, ... ,im}. Now we
are in the position to define 1, 9 E LXio as follows
l(xio) = "k (Pil) * ...... * fin (PiJ * lio (Xio)

'
ik #io
g(Xio) gil (qjl) * ... * gim(qim), *gio(Xio)
... ...
it #io
Because of (') the relation
follows for all pwith IIio(P) = Xio , IIj(P) = IIj(q) = Pj for all j:j; i o. Now
we apply (U3), (Fl), (F4) and obtain
..1 :j; '" < /-LPio (f) * /-Lqio (9) < /-LPio (f) * /-Lqio (f --+ ..1)
By virtue of Theorem 6.3.6 (see also Corollary 6.2.7) the L-topological space
(Xio , TiD) is Hausdorff separated. Hence assertion (i) is verified .
•
As immediate consequence of the previous Theorems 6.4.8 and 6.4.9 we obtain
that in the category of stratified L-topological spaces an arbitrary product of
stratified L-topological spaces is S-compact and Hausdorff separated if and
only if each factor is S-compact and Hausdorff separated.
We close this subsection with a result which can be viewed as a first step
towards a clarification of the relationship between S-compactness and some
type of regularity.
Theorem 6.4.10 (Complete MV-algebras with square roots)

Let (L, $, *) be a complete MV -algebra with square roots, and let (X,T) be a
S -compact, stratified L-topological space. Further let v be a stratified L-filter
on X satisfying the axiom (Fl). If v has a unique adherent point, then v is
convergent.
Proof. Let q be the unique adherent point of v. If /-L is a stratified L-

ultrafilter on X with v ~ /-L, then the S-compactness implies that /-L has a
limit point p. Because of v ~ /-L the point p is also an adherent point of v;
hence p = q. Now we embark on Theorem 6.2.19 and obtain that q is also a
limit point of v .
•
An important application of Theorem 6.4.10 appears in the proof of Theorem
7.3.9.
6.5 A level-wise characterization of L-neighborhood ax-

ioms
Let X be a non empty set, (L, $) a complete lattice and a be an element of
LO := L \ {..l}. The a-level set Ao: of a given L-valued map f : X f---t L is
determined by
Ao: {x E X I a $ f (x) }
The characterization of L-valued maps by their corresponding system of a-level
sets goes back to the early work of C.V. Negoita and D. Ralescu on Fuzzy Set
Theory ([81]). Here we summarize this result as follows:
Lemma 6.5.1 (Negoita-Ralescu)

(a) Let X be a non empty set, j be a L-valued map defined on X, and let
(A")"ELO be the system of a-level sets associated with j. Then (A")"ELO
satisfies the following condition:
(JL1) n
{3EI
A{3 AVI V I C; L, I i= 0 (Left Continuity)
(b) For every system (A")"ELO of subsets A" of X satisfying Axiom (JL1) there
exists a unique L-valued map j such that for each a the subset A" coincides
with the a-level set of j. In particular the following relation holds:
(lL2) j(x) Vx E X
•
The previous lemma shows that L-valued maps and LO-indexed systems of sub-
sets provided with (JL1) are equivalent concepts. In the case of L = {O, I} this
equivalence means the identification of ordinary subsets with their characteristic
functions. Therefore we introduce the following terminology: An L-valued map
defined on X is called a L-subset oj X.
In the following considerations of this subsection we assume that (L,:::;, 181) is a

cl-quasi-monoid (d. Section 1).
Lemma 6.5.2 (Characterization of L-filters by their a-levels)

Let v : LX I---t L be a map (i.e. a L-subset oj LX) and (IF'')''ELO be its cor-
responding system of a-level sets. Then the following assertions are equivalent:
(i) v is an L-filter on X.
(ii) (F" )"ELO fulfills the subsequent properties:
(fO) Ix E F"
(fl) j:::;h,jElF" =} hElF"
a 181 f3i= .L , !I E F" , 12 E IF{3 =} !I 181 12 E F,,®{3 ,

(f2) {
a 18I.L i= .L , j E IF,, =} j 181 10 E IF,,®.i
(f3)
Proof. Referring to Lemma 6.5.1 it is easy to verify the equivalence between

the L-filter axioms (FO), (Fl), (F3) (d. 6.1.4) and the axioms (fO), (fl) and
(f3). The equivalence of (F2) and (f2) is based on Axiom (IV) .
•
Theorem 6.5.3 Let X be a non empty set, (J-tx)xEX be a system of maps J-tx
LX I---t L. Further let (V(x,,,)) )"ELO be the system of a-level sets corresponding
to J-tx' Then the following assertions are equivalent:
(i) U = (J-tZ)ZEX is a L-neigborhood system on X.
(ii) (lU(z,a)) (z,a) E X x LO fulfills the subsequent properties:
(uO) Ix E lU(z,a)
(u1) u::; v, U E lU(z,a) =:> v E lU(z,a) .
(u3) U E lU(z,a) =:> 0:::; u(x)
(u4) Vu E lU(z,a) 3v E lU(z,a): u E lU(y,v(y)) Vy with v(y) =I- 1. .
Proof. In view of Lemma 6.5.2 the conditions (UO) - (U3) are equivalent
to (uO) - (u3). In order to verify also the equivalence between (U4) and (u4) we
proceed as follows:
(a) ((U4)=:>(u4)) Let us consider u E lU(z,a) - i.e. 0: ::; J-tz(u); then we define
a map v : X f---+ L by
v(y) = J-ty(u) Vy E X
Now we apply (Ul) and (U4) and obtain: J-tz(u) ::; J-tz(v) - i.e. v E lU(z,a).
Further
U E lU(y,v(y)) whenever v(y) =I- 1.
holds by definition of v; hence (u4) follows.
(b)((u4)=:>(U4)) According to (lL2) the relation
v{o: E LO I u E lU(z,a) } (+)

holds for all z EX. Now we fix x E X and denote by Mz the set of all
0: E LO with U E lU(z,a) . By virtue of (u4) we choose for every 0: E Mz a map
v E lU(z,a) such that U E lU(y,v(y)) whenever v(y) =I- 1. ; then the relation (+)
implies:
0: < J-tz(v) , v(y) < J-ty(u), Vy EX.
Now we apply again (+) and obtain:
hence (U4) is verified .

•
Remark 6.5.4 (Complete Heyting algebras)

Let (L,~) be a complete Heyting algebra, and let us consider the special case
® = 1\. Then the axioms (fO) - (f3) simply mean that lFa: is a filter in
the sense of the lattice (LX,~) , where ~ is defined pointwise w.r.t. ~.
In this context we can restate the result of Lemma 6.5.2 as follows: L-filters
and LO-index systems of filters of LX satisfying the left continuity condition
(ILl) are equivalent concepts. Moreover, if we extend these considerations to
L-neighborhood systems, then we obtain that L-neighborhood systems can
be characterized by systems (lU(x,a:»(x,a:) EXxLO provided with the following
properties:
• (lU(x,a:) )a:ELO satisfies (ILl) for all x EX.

• lU(x,a:) is a filter of LX for all a E LO .
• (lU(x,a:»(x,a:) E XxLO satisfies (u3) and (u4).

In particular (lU(x,a:»(x,a:)EXXLO is called a neighborhood filter system of L-
subsets of X. Finally, for every L-subset a of X its neighborhood filter Va of
L-subsets of X is determined by:
Va = n{lU(x,a(x)) I a(x) =1= .l}
Then it is not difficult to show that the axioms (ILl), (uO) - (u4) are equivalent
to those axioms of fuzzy neighborhood systems proposed by S.E. Rodabaugh in
[91] (see also Section 4 in [29]) .
•
7 Examples of L-topological spaces
7.1 Case of complete Heyting algebras
Let (L, ~) be a complete Heyting algebra and let us consider the case ® = * = 1\.
Further, let C be a complete lattice and H(C, L) be the set of all frame mor-
phisms cp : C -t L (i.e. cp preserves arbitrary joins and finite meets).Referring
to the evaluation map every element a E C induces a map fa : H(C, L) I---t L
by fa(CP) = cp(a) Then r C := {fa I a E .c} is a L-topology on H(C, L) , and
the pair (H(C, L) , r C ) is a L-topological space (cf. Example 3.1).
Proposition 7.1.1 Let (L,~) be a complete Heyting algebra. Then the follow-
ing assertions are equivalent
(i) For all complete lattices C with H(.c, L) =1= 0 the L-topological space
(H(C, L), r C ) is not stratified.
(ii) The L-topological space (H(L, L), r L ) is not stratified.
(iii) There exist aEL\{T,.l} and cpEH(L,L) such that cp(a) =1= a.
Proof. The implications (i)==?(ii) and (iii)==?(i) are obvious. In order to

verify (ii)==?(iii) we proceed as follows: Since (H(L, L), r L ) is not stratified,
there exists a E L \ {T, ..L} such that
a . 1H(L,L) i- i{3 V{3 E L
hence there exists cp E H(L, L) with cp(a) i- a .

•
If (L,~) contains a prime element a with ..L i- a i- T, then (L,~) satisfies
condition (iii) in 7.1.1. In particular, any complete chain contains enough prime
element. Therefore we emphasize that in contrast to the ideological statement
3.13 in [70] there exist natural, non-stratified L-topological spaces arising quite
canonically in the study of frames (resp. locales; cf. [49]). Obviously, every
subframe £. of L1 (where I denotes an appropriate, non empty index set) can
be identified with an L-topological space (H (£., L), T C ) (for more details see
Section 5 in [93]).
The Booleanization of complete Heyting algebras leads to a further important

class of examples of L-topological spaces.
Example 7.1.2 (Frames and l$-topologies)

Let (L,~) be a complete Heyting algebra and $(L,~) = ($(L),~) its Boolean-
ization (cf. Theorem 1.4.2). Then the embedding j : L t--+ $(L) is a frame-
morphism (cf. Remark 1.4.3(a)). In particular, H(L, $(L)) separates points
in L - i.e. L is frame-isomorphic to the $( L )-topology rL = {ja Ia E L}.
Hence every frame can be identified with a Boolean valued topology. Since in
the Boolean case a non trivial convergence theory is available (cf. Theorem
6.2.17), the reader is invited to pursue the consequences of this fact for the
theory of frames (see also [42, 49]) .
•
Remark 7.1.3 (Dense L-topological subspaces)
(a) Let A be a dense sublocale of B - i.e. there exists a surjective framemor-
phism 6 : B t--+ A provided with the property
6(b) = ..L ==? b = ..L .
Further let (L,~) be a complete Heyting algebra, and let us consider the
case i8l = 1\. Then, according to the above-mentioned construction the lo-
cales A and B generate L-topological spaces of the following form, namely
(H(A,L),r A ) and (H(B,L),rB). Moreover, the surjective framemorphism 6
induces an injective, L-continuous map cpa : H(A,L) t--+ H(B,L) by12
[cpe(p)](b) = po 6(b) VbE B .

12See also Theorem 2.11 in [95].
If A is L-spatial (i.e. the set of all L-valued framemorphisms separates points in

A), then the density of A implies that the range of CPra is a dense, L-topological
subspace of H(B, L) in the sense of Definition 6.3.2.
(b) The situation presented in (a) is realized by the following standard example:
Let B be a locale and B~~ be the sublocale of all regular elements of B (i.e. of
all elements of B satisfying the condition: (b -+ .i) -+.1 = b). It is well known
that B~~ is a complete Boolean algebra and the smallest dense sublocale of B
(cf. [49, 1.13,2.4]). Further we choose B~~ as an underlying complete Boolean
algebra $ and consider the lE-topological space (H(B,$),TB) generated by B.
Due to the special relationship between B and B~~ = $ we can replace the lE-
topological space (H(B~~, $), TB~~) by the singleton space ({-}, $) and consider
the framemorphism cP~~ : B J----t B~~ defined by
cp~~(b) = (b -+ .i) -+ .1 VbE B .
Then it is not difficult to show that {cp~~} is a dense (but in general not strictly
dense) lE-topological subspace of H(B, $) .
•
Example 7.1.4 (Pointwise almost everywhere convergence)
Let (0, M, 11') be an atomless probability space and LO(O, M, 11') be the vector
space of all 7r-almost everywhere defined, real-valued, random variables. Fur-
ther let I o be the a-ideal of all M-measurable 7r-null sets. Then the quotient
algebra A := MjIo is a complete, atomless, weakly a-distribitive Boolean
algebra of countable type (see [100, 50]). In particular, the quotient map from
M to A is denoted by q.
It is well known that there does not exist an ordinary (i.e. 2-)topology T
on LO(O, M, 11') such that the pointwise 7r-almost everywhere convergence is
T-topological - i.e. a sequence ((n)nEN of 7r-almost everywhere defined, real-
valued random variables converges 7r-almost everywhere to ~ iff ((n)nEN is
topologically convergent to ~ w.r.t. a given (2-)topology T. This deficiency
plays an important role in the theory of linear stochastic processes (cf. [3, 38]).
The aim of this example is to show that there exists a stratified A-topology on
LO(O, M, 11') such that pointwise 7r-almost everywhere convergence is actually
A-topological.
Let TR be the usual, ordinary (2-)topology on the real line lit Since TR
satisfies the second count ability axiom, we deduce from the Stone representa-
tion of A that every framemorphism p : TR J----t A can be identified with a
7r-almost everywhere defined, real-valued random variable ~, and vice versa,
every 7r-almost everywhere defined random variable determines a framemor-
phism by: p(U) = q(~-l(U)) VU E TR. According to the above-mentioned
construction it is clear that TR generates an A-topology TTR on LO(O, M, 11')
as follows:
where fu(O = q(C1(U)) .
In particular, (LO(0,M,7r) , TTR) can be viewed as the A-sobrification of the
usual real line (lR.,TR) (cf. [95]). Now we add all constant, A-valued maps
to rTH and arrive at the stratification rRS of rTH - Le. rRS is the smallest
A-topology on LO(O, M, 1T) which contains rTH and all constant maps (see also
Theorem 5.1.1 and Theorem 5.2.7). Referring to Subsection 6.1 and Proposition
6.2.4(b) it is clear that the A-neighborhood system corresponding to rRS can
be identified with a system (lUe)eELO(n,M,1r) of T -(neighborhood)filters lUe.
Referring to Lemma 3.2 in [38] it is not difficult to show that every A-valued
map d(e,~) : LO(O,M,1T) f---t A of the following form
is a A-valued neighborhood of ~ (Le. d(e,~) E lUe), and vice versa for every A-
valued neighborhood de E lUe there exists a sequence (an)nEN with V an =
nEN
T such that the following relation holds:
A sequence «(n)nEN is A-topological convergent iff the corresponding elemen-

= I V ( /\ =
0 0000
tary filter E«(n)nEN) {d E AL (n,M,1r) d«(n» T} is conver-
m=l n=m
gent w.r.t a given A-topology in the sense of Definition 6.4.1(b) where T -filters
are identified with stratified A-filters (cf. Proposition 6.2.4(b». Referring to the
previous construction it is now clear that a sequence «(k)kEN in LO(O, M, 1T)
is A-topological convergent to ~ w.r.t. the stratified A-topology rRS iff
V 1\ q(~-(k)-l(]_~,+~[»)
00 00
= T VnEN
m=lk=m
iff «(k)kEN converges 1T-almost everywhere to ~. For more details on the rela-
tionship between pointwise 7l"-almost everywhere convergence and A-topological
convergence we refer the reader to [38] - e.g. a map T from a metric space
X to LO(O,M,1T) (i.e. a stochastic process T with parameter set X) is A-
continuous13 iff T transfers convergent sequences in X into pointwise 1T-almost
everywhere convergent sequences (in LO(O, M, 1T» .
•
Remark 7.1.5 (Spatial locales and L-stable subsets)
(a) Let (L,::;) be a complete Heyting algebra, pt(L) be the set of all frame
morphisms p : L f---t {1., T} , and let X be a non empty set. A subset G of
X x pt(L) is called L-stable iff G is provided with the following property
V(x,p) E G 3ao E L s.t.
p(ao) = T , q(ao) = 1. Vq E pt(L) with (x, q) ¢ G .
Further every subset G of X x pt(L) induces a map fa : X f---t L by
fa (x) = Via ELI Vq E pt(L) with (x,q) ¢ G : q(a) = 1.}

13See Section 3 and Remark 7.4.13.
If G is L-stable, then we obtain:

G = {(x,p) E X x pt(L) I p(JG(x)) = T}
On the other hand, every map f :X 1---7 L determines an L-stable subset G f
of X x pt(L) by
Gf {(x,p) E X x pt(L) I p(J(x)) = T}
If L is a spatial locale (i.e. pt(L) separates points in L (cf. [49])), then
f Gf (x) = f (x) holds for all x EX. Hence in the case of spatial locales L-
valued maps f : X 1---7 Land L-stable subsets of X x pt(L) are equivalent
concepts. Finally, an ordinary topology 'lI' on X x pt(L) is called L-stable iff
every element G E 'lI' is L-stable.
(b) Let (L,~) be a spatial locale and Q9 = * = 1\. Then L-topologies on
X and L-stable, ordinary topologies on X x pt(L) are equivalent concepts.
In particular, we can introduce a functor 'I : L-TOP 1---7 TOP which is
determined on objects and morphisms as follows (see also [54]):
'I(X, T) (Xxpt(L),'lI'T) where
'It\. = { ((x,p) E X x pt(L) I p(g(x)) = T} gET} ,
cp x idpt(L)
It is not difficult to show that 'I is an embedding functor 14 (cf. [54]). Moreover,
an L-topology T on X is weakly stratified (resp. stratified or strongly stratified
(cf. Theorem 5.2.7)) iff the corresponding ordinary topology ']['T on X x pt(L)
satisfies the following condition
(~*O) {(x,p) E X x pt(L) I p(a) = T} E 'lI'T Va E L.
(c) Since the real unit interval [0,1J is a spatial locale, we conclude from Raney's
Theorem (cf. p. 204/205 in [22]) that every completely distributive lattice
is spatial. Hence, if we restrict exclusively our interest to purely lattice-theoretic
operations (i.e. Q9 = * = 1\), then the previous part (b) shows that the theory
of L-topological spaces can be embedded into the theory of ordinary topological
spaces. We can draw two conclusions from this situation:
• If we insist on Q9 = 1\, then the non trivial part of the theory of L-
topological spaces is based on non-spatial locales L. In order to obtain
a tentative conception of such a theory the reader is referred to Example
7.1.2, Remark 7.1.3 and Example 7.1.4 .
• If we actually prefer completely distributive lattices (or more general spa-
tial locales), then a non trivial theory of L-topological spaces requires
binary operations Q9 =I 1\. The direction of such a theory is illustrated
by the role of the monoidal mean operator and its application to the
theory of rigid L-topological spaces (cf. Subsection 7.3) .
•14In the case of L = [0,1] the functor 'r coincides with the hypergraph functor (cf. [88]).
7.2 Case of complete MV-algebras

The underlying quadruple (L,:S,@,*) satisfies the axioms (I) - (VII). Further
we require that (L,:S, *) is a complete MV -algebra.
A stratified L-topology I on X is called a probabilistic L-topology iff I is
provided with the additional property (cf. [33])
(LP) gEl => a -+ gEl Va E L .
If I is a probabilistic L-topology on X, then the pair (X,I) is said to be
a probabilistic L-topological space. A simple characterization of probabilistic
L-topologies is given in:
Lemma 7.2.1 Let I be a stratified L-topology on X and (/1P)PEX be the corre-
sponding L-neighborhood system. Then the following assertions are equivalent:
(i) I is a probabilistic L-topology .
(ii) a-+/1p(f):S /1p(a-+f) VpEX, Va EL, VfELx .
• Combining Proposition 6.2.4(a) with Lemma 7.2.1 we obtain that every prob-
abilistic L-topology can be characterized by systems of T -filters (cf. Remark
6.2.3). The precise situation is as follows:
Let X be a non empty set, and for every p E X let Up be a non empty subset
of LX. (Up)PEX is called a system of crisp sets of L-valued neighborhoods iff
(Up)PEX satisfies the following conditions (cf. [33])
(Ul/2) Up is aT-filter for all p EX.

(1U3) d E Up => d(P) = T .
(1U4) Vdp E Up 3d* E Up Vq E X 3dq E Uq
dq(x) * d*(q) < dp(x) V x EX.
Let (Up)PEX be a system of crisp sets of L-valued neighborhoods. Then

(Up)PEX induces an L-neighborhood system (/1P)PEX of a probabilistic L-
topology by
/1p(f) V (1\ dp(x) -+ f(x))
dpEUp xEX
Obviously, (/1P)PEX satisfies the axioms (Ul) - (U3). In order to verify (U4)
we first deduce the following relation from Axiom (1U4)
1\ (dp(x) -+ f(x) ) < d*(q) -+ ( V(dq(x) -+ f(x) ))

xEX dqEUq
hence the relation /1p(f) < /1p(/1_(f)) follows - i.e. (U4) holds.
On the other hand, every L-neighborhood system (/1P)PEX of a probabilistic L-
topology determines a system of crisp sets of L-valued neighborhoods (Up)PEX
208 U. Hoble and A.P. Bostak
by
Up = {d E LX I J.£p(d) = T} .
In fact, the axioms (Ul) - (U3) are evident. In order to prove (U4) we choose
an element dp E Up and define a map d* : X f----? L by d*(q) = J.£q(dp).
Because of (U4) the map d* is again an element of Up. Now we fix q E X and
conclude from Lemma 7.2.1 that the map dq : X f----? L defined by
VxEX
is an element of U q • Hence the axiom (U4) follows from the subsequent relation
d*(q) * dq(x) < dp(x) VxEX .
Suming up the previous considerations we state the important fact that proba-
bilistic L-topologies and crisp systems of L-valued neighborhoods are equivalent
concepts. In particular, a map 9 : X f----? L is 'T-open (Le. 9 E 'T) iff for every
p E X there exists an L-valued neighborhood dp of p such that
g(p) * dp(x) < g(x) "Ix E X
Example 7.2.2 (Random Variables) Let (O,rot,IT) be a probability space

and LO (0, rot, IT) be the space of all almost IT-everywhere defined, real valued
random variables. Further we view the real unit interval as a MV-algebra - Le.
we consider the complete MV-algebra ([O,I],~,Tm) (cf. Example 1.2.3(b))
and put ® = min. Then we can introduce on X =
LO(O, rot, IT) a system
(Up)PEX of crisp sets of [0, I)-valued neighborhoods by
Up = {d E [O,I]X I VnEN3mn ENs.t.:
d(x) ~ IT({w E 0llp(w) - x(w)1 ~ _1 }) - .! "Ix EX}.

mn n
The [O,lj-probabilistic topology 'To associated with (Up)PEX is called the ca-
nonical probabilistic topology on LO(O, rot, IT) .
7.3 Case of complete MV-algebras with square roots and

rigid L-topologies
Let (L,~, *) be a complete MV-algebra with square roots (cf. Subsection 1.1,
Example 1.2.5(c), Subsection 1.3), and ® be the monoidal mean operator - Le.
0; ® j3 = 0;1/2 * j31/2
Because of Example 1.2.5(c) and Remark 1.2.6 the quadruple (L,~, ®, *) sat-
isfies the axioms (I) - (VII). Moreover the axioms (VIII)-(XI) (cf. Proposition
1.2.7 and Proposition 1.2.16) are also valid.
Lemma 7.3.1 Let B be an L-topology base on X i.e.

(i) lx, 1.0 E B

(ii) h, h EB ===} h ® h EB
Then T := {ViEI(ai * 9i) I ai E L,9i E B, i E I} is a stratified L-topolo9Y on X.

Proof. Obviously T fulfills (01), (03) and (I:1). Since square roots preserve
arbitrary joins and the relation (a * (3)1/2 = (a 1 / 2 * (31/2) V .1 1/2 holds, we
obtain
(ViEI(ai * 9i)) ® (V jEJ ((3j * Ii)) =
.. ((a· 1 / 2 * 9.1/2) V .1 1/2) * (((3.1/
V (',J)ElxJ" J
2 * f1/2) V .1 1/ 2)
J =
(a·1/2 * (31/2
(V (i,j)ElxJ' J
* 9.• 1/ 2 * f.1/
J
2 )) V
V (ViEI(ai 1/ 2 * 9i 1/ 2 * .1 1/ 2)) V (V jE J((3//2 * f//2 *.1 1/2)) =

* (3//2) * (9i ® Ii)) V
(V(i,j)EIXJ(ai 1 / 2
V (ViEI(a// 2 * (9i ® 1.0)) V (V jE J((3//2 * (lj ® 1.0)))
i.e. fulfills also (02) .
•
T
Example 7.3.2 Let us consider the case (L,::;, *) = ([0,1],::;, Tm) (cf. Ex-
ample 1.2.3(b)); then the monoidal mean operator ® is given by a®(3 = "'tf3
(cf. Remark 1.2.6). Further we denote by JP'(X) the set of all finitely additive
probability measures J.L on X (in particular J.L is defined on the ordinary power
x -
set of X). Then every map f E [0,1] induces a map f : JP'(X) --+ [0,1] by
J.L E JP'(X)
Obviously BIP := {] I f E [0, l]x} is a [O,l]-topology base on JP'(X) and de-

termines according to 7.3.1 a stratified [0, I)-topology TJP on JP'(X). We re-
mark that (JP'(X),TJP) is a stratified, Hausdorff separated, S-compact, [0,1]-
topological space. In fact, if v is a stratified [O,l]-ultrafilter on JP'(X), then v
determines a finitely additive, probability measure Ao on X by (cf. Example
6.2.15(b)):
v(/) Ix fdAo f E [0, l]x
Further, let (J.LP)PEIP(X) be the stratified [O,l]-neighborhood system correspond-
ing to TJP. Then we obtain for any P E JP'(X) (cf. 6.1) :
J.Lp(/) vf E [O,l]X
= V{a*/(p) I a*/::; F} V F E [0, l]IP(X)

We show that Ao = Po is the unique limit point of v. By virtue of the
definition of Po we immediately deduce from the previous relations
v(/) J.Lpo (/) Vf E [O,l]X
J.Lpo(F) < v(F) V FE [O,l]IP(X)

In particular Po is a limit point of /J. In order to verify the uniqueness of Po we

consider a further limit point qo of /J - i.e.
vj E [0, l]x
Because of 1 - j = 1 - J we conclude
VjE[O,I]x
hence qo = Po follows .
•
In the following considerations we show to which extent the previous example
can be viewed as the tech-Stone compactification of the discrete [0,1]-
toplogical space (X, [0, I]X). For this purpose we present a link between the
Hausdorff separation axiom (cf. Subsection 6.3), the S-compactness axiom
(cf. Subsection 6.4) and the weak star-regularity axiom which will be defined in
Definition 7.3.8. First we introduce a subclass of stratified, L-topological spaces:
A stratified L-topology is called rigid iff T satisfies the additional axiom
(~3) gET with 9 ::; .1 1 / 2 . Ix [(.1 1 / 2 ·lx) -t g]2 E T.
A stratified, L-topological spaces (X, T) is said to be rigid iff T is rigid. Since

the axiom (~3) is preserved under arbitrary intersections, the class of rigid,
L-topological spaces forms a coreflexive subcategory of the category SL-TOP
of stratified L-topological spaces.
Referring to Subsection 1.3 we know that every complete MV -algebra (L,::;, *)
contains a prominent, idempotent element [0 where [0 is given as follows:
[0 (.1 1/2 -t .1?
Further there exists a Galois connection on (L,::;) determined by
1
-·a 2· a Va E L.
2
Because of 2· 9 [0' Ix V (([0 -t .1) . Ix * 2· g) we can simplify the

axiom (~3) as follows;
(~3/) gET with g::; ~.(lx) ===} (([o-t.1)·lx) * (2·g) ET.
In the Boolean case (i.e. .1 1 / 2 = .1) the axiom (~3) is redundant. On the
other hand, if the underlying MV -algebra is strict (i.e. .1 1 / 2 = .1 1 / 2 -t .1),
then there exist non trivial rigid L-topologies which form an important subclass
of stratified L-topologies.
A characterization of rigid, stratified L-topologies is given in the following
Lemma 7.3.3 Let T be a stratified L-topology on X and (J,£P)PEX be the cor-

responding L-neighborhood system. Then the following assertions are equivalent
(i) T is rigid.
(ii) For all p E X the L-neighborhood filter J,£p satisfies (F7) .
(iii) Every L-neighborhood filter J,£p satisfies the condition
vf E LX .
Proof. (a) In oder to show (i) ==> (ii) we fix an element f E LX and define
a map 9 : X t---t L by g(p) = J,£p(10 ® f). Then we conclude from (U3)
and (U4) that 9 is an element of T satisfying the condition 9 ::; .1 1 / 2 • Ix.
Referring again to (U3) we infer from Proposition 2.15 in [39] (cf. Proposition
1.2.14):
.1 1/ 2 -+g < l/2 V (.11/2-+.1).lx) .
Hence (£0 -+ .i) . IX) * 2· 9 ::; f follows from Proposition 1.2.2 and the
definition of £0. Because of (~1), (~3) the relation (£0 -+ .i) * (2 . g(p)) ::;
J,£p(f) holds. Further we observe
~ . (2 . a) = a 1\ ~ . T . (0)
Hence Proposition 1.2.9(ii) implies: (to -+.1) * 9 < .1 1 / 2 * (J,£p(f))1/2. On
the other hand we infer from Lemma 6.2.1(b):
£0 * J,£p(10 ® f) < £0 * J,£(.1 1/ 2 . Ix) < £0 * .1 1/ 2 < .1

i.e.
J,£p(10 ® f) < (£0 -+ .i) * J,£p(10 ® f) < .1 ® J,£p(f)
Because of (F2) and (F3) the converse inequality is always valid; hence the
assertion (ii) is verified.
(b) The implication (ii) ==> (iii) is trivial. In order to verify (iii) ==> (i) we
proceed as follows: We choose an element gET with 9 ::; ~. (Ix) and
conclude from (0) and Assertion (iii) that the relation
(£0 -+ .i) * g(p) = (£0 -+ .i) * J,£p(g) < J,£p(2 . g) ® .1
holds for all p EX. Now we apply the idempotency of £0 -+.1 and obtain:
(£0 -+ .i) * 2· g(p) < (£0 -+ .i) * [.1 1 / 2 -+ «£0 -+ .i) * g(P))]2::; J,£p(2' g) .
Because of £0 ·lx ::; 2· 9 the stratification of J,£p implies (cf. Lemma 6.2.1(a)):
£0 ::; J,£p(2· g) ; hence the relation
2· g(P) < £0 V (£0 -+ .i) * (2· g(p)) < J,£p(2 . g)

follows for all p EX; i.e. the assertion (i) is verified .
•
Corollary 7.3.4 Every rigid and stratified L-topology 7 fulfills the following
property
(~4) 9 E7 =} 9 *9 E 7 .
Proof. Let (J-tP)PEX be the L-neighborhood system corresponding to 7, and

let 9 be an element of 7. Since 7 is stratified and rigid, we conclude from
Lemma 7.3.3
g(p) = ::; J-tp((l?/2)
J-tp(g) < .l1/2 -t (.l1/2 * J-tp((g2)1/2))
< .l1/2 -t J-tp(.l1/2 * (g2)1/2) = .l1/2 -t (.l ® J-tp(g2))
= (.l1/2 -t.l) V (J-tp(g2) )1/2
hence the inequality (£0 -t .l) * (g(p))2 ::; J-tp(g2) holds for all p EX. Further
the relation £0 * a £0 * a 2 follows from
£0*a*(a 2 -t.l) < £0*a*(a-t.l 1/ 2) .l.
Therefore we obtain for all p EX:
(g(p))2 (£0 * g(p)) V ((£0 -t .l) * J-tp(l))
< (£0 * J-tp((£o ·l x ) * l)) V ((£0 -t .l) * J-tp(g2)) < J-tp(l);
hence g2 E 7 .
•
Since 0 coincides with the monoidal mean operator ®, we infer from (02) and
(~4) that every rigid, stratified L-topology 7 satisfies the following axiom
(~4') g1 ,g2 E 7 =} g1 * g2 E 7 .
Further a probabilistic L-topology (cf. Subsection 7.2) 7 is rigid iff 7 fulfills

(~4) .
The coreflection (X,i) of a stratified, L-topological space (X,7) in the cate-
gory of all rigid, stratified, L-topological spaces is called the rigid hull of (X, 7) .
If 9't6 (X) denotes the set of all rigid, stratified L-topologies on X, then r is
given by
r = n {7' I 7 ~ 7' , 7' E 9't6(X)} .
The goal of the following considerations is to give an explicit description of the
L-neighborhood system corresponding to r. As a preparation we verify the
following Lemma 7.3.5 : First we define recursively the following operations:
2-(n+l) . a = ~ . (2- n . a) where 2- 1 . a = ~ a .
2n+l'a = 2·(2 n ·a) where 21 ·a 2'a
Lemma 7.3.5 (cf. Lemma 6.2 in [41])
Let II be a stratified L-filter on X. Then the map ii : LX ~ L defined by
ii(f) = 1I(f) V ((£0 -t.l) * (V 2n. (lI(r n . 1)))) f E LX

nEN
is a stratified L-filter satisfying the axiom (F7). In particular, f) is the smallest

L--filter which contains v (i.e. v ~ f)) and fulfills (F7).
Proof. (a) First we quote a list of formulas which are valid for the Galois
connection (~. _, 2· J :
(LO -+ ..1.) * (2 . (2- 1 . a)) = (LO -+ ..1.) * a

(LO -+ ..1.) * (2· a) = (LO -+ ..1.) * (2· «LO -+ ..1.) * a) (00)
a * (2- n .,8) = 2- n . (a 2" *,8)
Further we verify by induction:
(LO -+..1.) * a * (2 n .,8) = (LO -+ ..1.) * (2n. (a 1 / 2 " *,8)) whenever,8 < Tn. T.
In the case of n = 1 we observe:

(L -+ ..1.) * a * (2 .,8) = (LO -+ ..1.) * a * (..1. 1/ 2 -+ ,8)2
= (LO -+..1.) * (..1. 1/ 2 -+..1.) V (a 1/ 2 * (..1. 1/ 2 -+ ,8))f
= (LO -+ ..1.) * (..1. 1/ 2 -+ (a 1 / 2 * ..1. 1/ 2 * (..1. 1/ 2 -+ ,8)))
(LO -+ ..1.) * (2 . (a 1 / 2 * ,8)) .
In order to perform the step from n to n + 1 we proceed as follows:
(to -+ ..1.) * (2n +l . (a 1 / 2,,+1 * ,8)) = (LO -+..1.) * (2n. (2. «a 1 / 2")1/2 *,8)))
= (LO -+..1.) * (2n. (LO -+..1.) * (2. «a 1/ 2")1/2 *,8))))

= (LO -+ ol) * (2n . (LO -+ ol) * a 1 / 2 " * (2 . ,8)) )
= (LO -+ ol) * a * (2n . «LO -+ ol) * (2 . ,8)))
= (LO -+ ..1.) * a * (2 n +l .,8) .
Further we obtain:
(2· a) ® (2 .,8) = (ol 1/2 -+ a) * (ol 1 / 2 -+ ,8)

= (..1. 1 / 4 -+ a 1 / 2 ) * (..1. 1 / 4 -+ ,81/2) f
< 2· (a ®,8) j
hence (2 n . a) ® (2n . ,8) < 2n. (a ®,8) follows by induction. Finally we
note:
(2- n . a) ® (2- n . ,8) = Tn. (a ®,8) .
(b) Let v be a stratified L-filter on X. Because of ® = ® the relation
2- 1 . v(f) ~ v(2- 1 . f) follows immediately from the filter axiom (F2)j hence
we obtain (cf. Part (a)):
214 U. Hohle and A.P. 80stak
(£0 -+ .i) * 11(1) < (£0 -+ .i) * (2· 11(2- 1 • f))

v
We show that is a stratified L-filter. The axioms (FO) and (F1) are obvious.
Since II is stratified, the axioms (F3) follow immediately from Lemma 6.2.1(a)
and the first formula in (<><» (cf. Part (a)). Referring to the formulas quoted
at the end of Part (a) we conclude from (t) that f) also fulfills the filter axiom
(F2). In order to verify the stratification axiom (F4) we proceed as follows (cf.
Part(a)):
0* f)(I) = (0 * 11(1)) V (to -+ .i) * (V 0 * (2n . 1I(2- n . I)))

nEN
= (0 * 11(1)) V (£0 -+ .i) * (V 2n. (01/ 2" * II(Tn . f)))

nEN
< 1I(0*f) V (£0 -+ .i) * (V 2n. 11(0 1/ 2" * (2- n . f)))

nEN
= 1I(0*f) V (£0 -+ .i) * (2n . 1I(2- n . (0 * f))) = V(o*f) .

Further the construction of f) implies: (£0 -+ .i) * (2 . f)) :::; f)(I);f)(2- 1 •
hence f) fulfills the axiom (F7). Referring again to (t) it is easy to verify that
f) is the smallest stratified L-filter which contains II and satisfies (F7) .
•
Proposition 7.3.6 Let (X, r) be a stratified, L-topological space and (fJp)PEX
be the L-neighborhood system corresponding to r. Further let (X, f) be the
rigid hull of (X, r). Then the L-neighborhood system ({t.P)PEX is given by
{t.p(I) = fJp(I) V (£0 -+ .i) * (V 2n. fJp(Tn . f)) '</ I E LX.
nEN
Proof. Referring to Lemma 7.3.3 and Lemma 7.3.5 it is sufficient to show that
({t.P)PEX satisfies the L-neighborhood axioms (V3) and (V4). The axiom (V3)
is obvious. In order to verify (V4) we proceed as follows: If h :::; 2- n . Ix,
then we conclude from the stratification axiom (F4) and the formulas quoted in
Part(a) of the proof of Lemma 7.3.5:
(£0 -+ .i) * (2n . fJp(h)) = (£0 -+ .i) * (2n . fJp (£0 -+ .i) * (2- n . (2n . h)))
= (£0 -+ .i) * (2n . fJp(2- n . (2n . h)))
hence we obtain
{t.p(l) = fJp (fJ_(I)) V (£0 -+ .i) * (V 2n . fJp(fJ_(2- n . I)))
nEN
= fJp (fJ_(I)) V (£0 -+ .i) * (V 2n . fJp(Tn . (2n . fJ _(Tn. f))))

nEN
:::; fJp({t._(l)) V (£0 -+ .i) * (V 2n • fJp(Tn . {t._(I)))

nEN
= {t.p({t._(l))
•
Corollary 7.3.7 Let (X,7") be a S-compact, stratified, L-topological space.
Then the rigid hull of (X,7") is also S-compact.
Proof. Since every stratified L-ultrafilter fulfills Axiom (F7) (cf. Lemma
6.2.13), the assertion follows from Lemma 7.3.5 and Proposition 7.3.6 .
•
Before we define the axiom of weak star-regularity we recall and introduce some
notations: If 7" is an L-topology on X, then for every 1 E LX we define an
element f* E LX by (cf. Subsection 6.3):
r = V{g E 7" I 9 *1 = 10 } .
Obviously f* is an element of 7". In particular, we put 7 .- f* --+ 1. and

view 7 as the 7"-closed hull of I.
Definition 7.3.8 (Weak star-regularity)
A rigid, stratified, L-topological space is called weak star-regular iff every ele-
ment h E 7" satisfies the following relation
h = (V{ 0: * gig E 7", 0: E L, 0: * 9 ~ h}) V

V(LO --+ 1.) * (V {2n . (0: * g) In E N, 9 E 7", 0: E L, 0: *9 ~ 2- n . h} ) .
•
It is clear that every star-regular, rigid, stratified L-topological space is also
weak star-regular. Moreover we are now in the position to prove the important
third main result:
Theorem 7.3.9 (Main result III)
Every Hausdorff separated, S-compact, rigid, stratified, L-topological space
(X,7") is weak star-regular.
Proof. We fix a point p E X and consider the L-neighborhood filter I-'p at p
(w.r.t. 7"). Further, we define a map vp : LX f---t L by
vp(h) = V{ * I-'p(l) I
0: 0: E L, 0: * 7(p) ~ h(P)} h E LX .
(a) We show that vp is a stratified L-filter. The axioms (FO), F(l), (F3) and
(F4) are evident. In order to verify (F2) we proceed as follows: First we show
II ® h < II ®h 'tI II, h E LX . (¢)
If 1 E LX, then the relation LO * (LO * f)0 < f* follows from the stratifi-
cation axiom (I:1)j hence the idempotency of LO implies:
Lo*7 < LO*LO*I ~ Lo*7.

Further we observe: to 1\ 0: to * 0: = to * 0: 2 'if 0: E L (cf. Proof of Corollary

7.3.4); then we obtain:
to * it ® 12 = to * (to * It) * (to * h) < to * (it 1\12)

Therefore, in order to verify (0) it is sufficient to show
(to -+ .L) * it ® 12 < (to -+ .L) * (it ® h) (0')

First we observe:
(to -+ .L) * (.L 1/2 -+ .L) .L 1/ 2 (to -+.L) * .L 1/ 2 ,

(to -+ .L) * ((3 -+ .L)l/2 (to -+ .L) * ((.L ® (3) -+ .L)
(to -+ .L) * ((0: 1/ 2 * (31/2) -+ .L) < (to -+ .L) * (0: 1/ 2 -+ (.L 1/2 -+ .L))
= (to -+ .L) * (0: 1/ 2 -+ .L 1/2)
then we obtain from Proposition 2.15 in [39] (cf. Proposition 1.2.14) and the
divisibility law (cf. Lemma 2.5 in [39]):
(to -+ .L) * ((0: -+ .L) ® ((3 -+ .L))

= (to -+ .L) * [((0: 1/ 2 * (31/2) -+ .L) V (0: 1/ 2 -+ .L 1/2)] * ((.L ® (3) -+ .L)
(to -+ .L) * ((0: ® (3) -+ (.L ® (3)) * ((.L ® (3) -+ .L)
= (to -+ .L) * ((0: ® (3) -+.L) .
Because of Ii®I; ~ (it ®h)* we conclude from the preceding considerations

(to -+ .L) * (it ® h) < (to -+ .L) * ((Ii ® In -+ .L)
= (to -+ .L) * (it ® h)
hence the relation (0') is verified.
Let us now consider the following situation: O:i * Ii < hi (i = 1,2). Since
square roots in MV-algebras satisfy the axiom (S3), we obtain from (0):
(0:1 ®0:2) *~ < (0:1 ® 0:2) * (it ® h) < hI ® h2

(0:1®.L) * (h®lx) < (0:1 ®.L) * (12 ® Ix) < hI ® h2
(0:2 ®.L) * (it ® Ix) < (0:2 ®.L) * (it ® Ix) < hI ® h2
hencetheinequality (O:I*/-Lp(it)) ® (0:2*/-Lp(h)) ~ V p(hl®ft2) follows-Leo

vp satisfies the axiom (F2).
(b) We show that vp has a unique adherent point q = p. Since /-Lp satisfies
the axioms (Fl) and (F4), the construction of vp implies that p is an adherent
point of vp (cf. Defintion 6.4.1(a)). Let q be a further adherent point of vp.
Since the "negation" in (L,~, *) is an involution, we obtain for every gET:
9 -t..l = 9 -t..l . We put g* = V{g' E 71 g' * 9 = 10 } and conclude from

Definition 6.4.1(a) (see also Corollary 6.2.7):
g*(P) * g(q) < /-Lp(g*) * /-Lq(g) < /-Lp(g -t ..l) * /-Lq(g)

< vp(g -t ..l) * /-Lq(g) < ..l .
Since (X, 7) is Hausdorff separated, the points p and q coincide (cf. Theorem
6.3.6).
(c) Let vp be the smallest stratified L-filter which contains vp and satisfies
the axiom (F7) (cf. Lemma 7.3.5). Since 7 is a rigid L-topology (cf. Lemma
7.3.3), we conclude from Part (b) that the point p is the unique adherent point
of vp. Hence the Theorem 6.4.10 implies that p is also the limit point of vp.
(d) The previous argumentation holds for all p EX. Since the unary operation
2· _ preserves arbitrary joins (cf. Subsection 1.3 15 ), we conclude from the
construction of vp that (X,7) is weak star-regular .
•
If we replace star-regularity by weak regularity, then we can generalize Theorem
6.3.8 as follows:
Theorem 7.3.10 (Principle of L-continuous extension)

Let (X,7) be a rigid, stratified, L-topological space, (Y,O") be a Hausdorff sepa-
rated, weak-star-regular, L-topological space, and let A be a dense subset of X
provided with the initial L-topology 7A w.r.t. the inclusion map iA : A y X.
Finally let <p : A f---t Y be an L-continuous map. Then the following asser-
tions are equivalent:
(i) There exists an L-continuous map 'lj; : X f---t Y with 'lj; 0 iA = <p;
i.e. <p has an L-continuous extension.
VhEO""3gE7: (1) h(y) ~ g(x) (2) go iA = h 0 <p •
Proof. In principle we can repeat the proof of Theorem 6.3.8 with obvious
modifications. In order to give an example we restrict our interest to the ver-
ification of the L-continuity of the extension 'lj;; i.e. we show (ii) ===> (i): Let
us fix h E 0" and choose n E No, Q ELand 9 EO". If n = 0 we use
the following convention: 2- 0 . x = 20 . x = x for all x in L. Further we
assume: Q * 9 ~ 2- n . h where 9 = g* -t ..l is the 7-closed hull of g. Then
for every Xo E X there exists an element kxo E 7 provided with the following
properties
We show:
(00)
15Here we use Proposition 2.8, Lemma 2.14, Theorem 5.2(c) and Proposition 2.11 in [39].
218 U. Rohle and A.P. Sostak
Referring to Assertion (ii) we choose an element k E T depending on x E X

such that
g*('IjJ(x)) ::; k(x) , g* 0 r.p = k 0 iA
We apply the axiom (I:4') (resp. (02)), the density of A and obtain:
kxo(x) * g*('IjJ(x)) < V g(r.p(a)) * g*(r.p(a)) = ..L .,

aEA
hence the relation (00) follows. Now we take into account the choice of the
triple (n, 0:, g) and distinguish the following cases:
In the case n = a we conclude from 0: *9 ::; h and the previous relation (00):
o:*g('IjJ(x)) < v
xoEX
0: * kxo(x) < h('IjJ(x)) VxEX .
In the case of 1 ::; n we conclude from 0: *9 ::; 2- n . h:
(to-t..L) * (2 n '(0:*9)) < h.
Further the relation (00) implies: 0: * kxo ::; 2- n . Ix V Xo EX. Since

T is stratified and rigid, (to -t ..L) * (2 n . (0: * kxo )) is an element of T for all
Xo EX. Now we apply again (00) and obtain for all x EX:
< V (to-t..L) * (2 n .(0:*kxo (x)))

xoEX
< h('IjJ(x))
Finally we invoke the weak star-regularity of (Y, IT) and conclude from (03)
that h 0 'IjJ is an element of T; hence 'IjJ is L-continuous .
•
Corollary 7.3.11 Let (L,::;, *) = ([0,1],::;, Tm) be the canonical MV -algebra
structure on [0,1] {cf. Example 1.2.3{b}}. Further let X be a non empty
set, IP'(X) be the set of all finitely additive probability measures on X, and
let (IP'(X),71I') be the Hausdorff separated, S-compact L-topological space con-
structed in Example 7.3.2. If (Y,lT) is an arbitrary, Hausdorff separated, S-
compact, rigid, stratified [0, 1]-topological space, then every map r.p : X ~ Y
has a unique [0, 1]-continuous extension to the rigid hull of (IP'(X),71I') .
Proof. (a) We identify every element x E X with the Dirac measure whose
support coincides with {x} and show that X is dense in IP'(X) w.r.t. the [0,1]-
topology f]p of the rigid hull (IP'(X),f]p) of (IP'(X),71I'). Since every integral can
be estimated as follows:
Ix f d)'" < sup{f(x) Ix E X} V)'" E IP'(X) , V f E [O,I]x ,

we obtain from the definition of 7]p that X is dense in JP(X) w.r.t. 7]p. Hence
Proposition 7.3.6 implies that X is also dense in JP(X) w.r.t. 7iP.
(b) By virtue of Theorem 7.3.9 the [0, I)-topological space (Y, a) is weak star-
regular; hence it is sufficient to verify the assertion (ii) in Theorem 7.3.10. Since
finitely additive probability measures on X and stratified [O,I)-ultrafilters on
X are the same things, every finitely additive probability measure >'0 induces
a stratified ultrafilter on Y by
v(f) = Ix f 0 <pd)"o vf E [O,lt
In particular v is the image [0, I)-filter of ).. under <p (cf. Remark 6.2.20( a)).
Since (Y, a) is S-compact, there exists a point Yo E Y with /.LyO (f) v(f) s
where /.LyO denotes the [0, I)-neighborhood filter at Yo. For every 9 E a we
define a map k : JP(X) ~ [0, I) by
k()") = Ix go <pd)" V)" E JP(X) .
Then k E 7]p C 7iP and the following relations are valid:

g(yo) < k()"o) k(x) = go <p(x) Vx EX .
Hence the assertion (ii) of Theorem 7.3.10 is verified .
•
The previous Corollary 7.3.11 shows that the set (lP(X) , 7]p) of all finitely ad-
ditive probability measures on X is the tech-Stone compactification of
the discrete space X in the category of Hausdorff separated, S-compact, rigid,
stratified, [0, I)-topological spaces. In this sense the real unit interval [0,1) is
the Cech-Stone compactification of the set {a, I} (consisting of two elements).
We finish this subsection with a study of indiscrete, strongly stratified L-

topological spaces. We start from a lemma which is also valid, when the under-
lying algebraic framework only satisfies (I)-(III) and (V)-(VI).
Lemma 7.3.12 Let X be a non-empty set, x E X, '" ELand let T be a subset

of LX provided with (01) and (1:2). Then the map gn : X --7 L defined by
x: y
X r y } where ",2n is the 2n-th power w.r.t. * ,
is an element of T for all n E N
Proof. We verify the assertion by induction over n. First we consider a

map kl : X --7 L determined by
yEX
then we infer from (01) and (~2) that
is an element of T. Further we assume that gn is an element of T. Now we

consider a map kn+1 : X -t L:
yEX
and obtain: [gn, kn+d = K,. By virtue of (~2) gn+1 = [gn, kn+1] * kn+1 is an
element of T .
•
Proposition 7.3.13 Let M = (L,:S, *) be a complete MV-algebra with square
roots and ® be the monoidal mean operator. Then the following assertions are
equivalent
(i) MisastrictMV-algebra-i.e . ..l1/2-t..l = ..l1/2 (cf.1.3).
(ii) The indiscrete and discrete strongly stratified L-topology coincide.
Proof (a) ((i)===>(ii)) If M is strict, then we conclude from Corollary 6.10(ii)

in [39] that for every element K, E L the following relation holds:
Now we invoke Lemma 7.3.12 and obtain from (01), (03) and (~2) that for any
strongly stratified L-topology T and for any K, E L the map 9 : X f---t L defined
by
y = Xo }
Y EX
y =J Xo
is an element of T. By virtue of (03) T is necessarily the discrete L-topology on

X.
(b) ((ii) ===>(i)) If M is not a strict MV-algebra (cf. Subsection 1.3), then
~o (..l1/2 -t ..l) * (..l1/2 -t ..l)

is idempotent w.r.t. * and different from ..l. It is not difficult to show that
is the indiscrete, strongly stratified L-topology on X which is not discrete .

••
The unique Boolean part of a complete MV-algebra M = (L,:5, *) with

square roots is given (up to an isomorphism) by (cf. Section 1.3, Theorem 2.21
in [39])
As an immediate consequence from Propostion 7.3.13 we quote:

Corollary 7.3.14 Let M = (L,:5, *) be a complete MV-algebra with square
roots. Then the categories SSL-TOP and SLb-TOP are isomorphic .
•
7.4 Lower semicontinuous, lattice-valued maps
In this subsection we fix quadruples (L,:5, ®l> *1) and (M,:5, ®2, *2) satisfying
(I)-(VII). Moreover, we assume that (L,:5, *1) and (M,:5, *2) are strictly two-
sided, commutative quantales. Now we fix a map "( : L ~ M provided with
the subsequent properties:
(El) "(: (L,:5, ®d ~ (M, :5, ®2) is a CQML-morphism.
(E2) "(: (L,:5, *1) ~ (M,:5, *2) is a quantale-morphism.
(E3) The range "(L) of "( is a pseudo-bisymmetric subset of Min
(M,:5, ®2, *2) (cf. Definition 1.2.15).
Then we conclude from Theorem 3.6 and Theorem 5.1.1 that the category L-
TOP of L-topological spaces and the category SM-TOP of stratified M-
topological spaces are adjoint to each other. The aim of the following consider-
ations is to give an explicit presentation of this adjoint situation. As the reader
will see below, lower semicontinuous maps playa dominant role in this context.
Definition 7.4.1 Let (X, r) be an L-topological space, and (J.LP)PEX be the
L-neighborhood system corresponding to (X, r). A map 9 : X -t M is called
lower (r,"()-semicontinuous iff 9 satisfies the following condition
g(p) < V "(J.Lp(f)) *2 ( 1\ ("((f(x)) -t g(x)))

JELX :z:EX
where -t denotes the "implication" w.r.t. *2 .

•
Lemma 7.4.2 (Lower semicontinuous regularization)
Let (X, r) be an L-topological space and h : X -t M be an arbitrary map.
The lower (r, ,,()-semicontinuous regularization h of h {i.e. the largest lower
(r,,,()-semicontinuous map 9 with g:5 h) is given by
h(p) = V ,,(J.Lp(f)) *2 ( 1\ ("((f(x)) -t h(x))) 'VpEX .

JELX :z:EX
Proof. Obviously h ~ h, and every lower semicontinuous map 9 with 9 ~ h

is smaller than or equal to h. Therefore it is sufficient to show that h is lower
(r, l' )-semicontinuous. First we observe:
A ('J'(J(x)) ~ h(x)) <
xEX
< A (1'(Jlz(J)) ~ [1'(Jlz(f)) *2 ( A ('J'(J(x)) ~ h(X)))]) <
zEX xEX
< A 1'(Jlz(J)) ~ h(z) .
zEX
Now we invoke the L-neighborhood axiom (U4) (d. Subsection 6.1) and obtain:
h(p) = V 1'(Jlp(J)) *2 ( A ('J'(J(x)) ~ h(x)))

!ELX xEX
< V 1'(Jlp(Jl-(J))) *2 A h(Jlz(J)) ~ h(z))
!ELX zEX
< V 1'(Jlp(k)) *2 ( A ('J'(k(z)) ~ h(z)))
kELX zEX
hence the lower (r, l' )-semicontinuity of h is verified .

•
Proposition 7.4.3 Let (X,r) be an L-topological space, £(r,1') be the set of
all lower (r,1')-semicontinuous maps 9 : X ~ M, and U = (Jlp)PEX be the
L-neighborhood system corresponding to (X,r). Then £(r,1') is a stratified
M -topology and the corresponding M -neighborhood system (lI p)PEX is given by
formulae
lip (h) = h(p) = V (1'(Jlp(J)) *2 (1\ 1'(J(x)) ~ h(x))) .
!ELX xEX
Proof. The axioms (1:1),(01) and (03) are obvious. Further, let us consider
two lower (r, l' )-semicontinuous maps gl, g2. Since the range of l' is pseudo-
bisymmetric in (M,~, Q92, *2), we can derive the following relation from (IV),
(VII) and the L-neighborhood axioms (U2), (U3) (d. Subsection 6.1):
gl(P) ®2 g2(P) = V (
J"j,ELx
V[h(Jlp(Jt}) ®21'(Jlp(!2)))*2
*2(( A 1'(h(x)) ~ gl(X)) ®d A 1'(!2(x)) ~ g2(X)))]
xEX xEX
V[ (1'(Jlp(Jt}) ®21'(Jlp(10 )))*2
A 1'(h(x)) ~gl(X))®2 (A 1'(10(x))
*2(( ~92(X)))]
xEX xEX
V[h(Jlp(10 )) Q921'(Jlp(!2)))*2
*z(( A 1'(10(X)) ~ gl(X)) ®2 ( A 1'(J2(X)) ~ 92(X)))])
xEX xEX
< V (1'(Jlp(J)) *2 ( A 1'(J(x)) ~ (gl(X) ®2 g2(X))))
!ELX xEX
hence g1 @2 g2 is also lower (7" )-semicontinuous - i.e. (02) is verified. Finally

Section 6.1 and Lemma 7.4.2 show that the M-neighborhood filter vp at the
point p E X is determined by
vp(h) = k(p) = V (,(f.Lp(f» *2 ( 1\ ,(f(x» --+ h(x)))

!ELX xEX
• Let ~"( : M-TOP f---t L-TOP and £"( : L-TOP f---t M-TOP be the
functors determined by, according to Section 3 (cf. Theorem 3.6). Further, let
~ : SM-TOP f---t M-TOP be the embedding of SM-TOP into M-TOP
and J's : M-TOP f---t SM-TOP be the coreflector of the category of M-
topological spaces in SM-TOP (cf. Theorem 5.1.1). In particular the action
of J's on objects is given by
J'S(X,7) (X,7S)
where 7S n {(J I (J stratified M -topology on X , 7 ~ (J }
Now we consider the composition w"( == J's a £"( and infer from Theorem 3.6
and Theorem 5.1.1 that
w"( : L-TOP f---t SM-TOP
has a left adjoint which is determined by 6"( = ~"( a ~ : SM-TOP f---t

L-TOP. An explicit description of the range of w"( is given in the following
proposition.
Proposition 7.4.4 (Lower semicontinuous, M-valued maps)

Let (X, T) be an L-topological space and £(7,,) be the set of all lower (7,,)-
semicontinuous maps 9 : X f---t M. Then
(X, £(7,,»
Proof.
(a) Let h : X f---t M be a lower (7,,)-semicontinuous map; we show that h
has the following representation
h(P) V(,(g(P» *2 ( 1\ ,(g(x» --+ h(x») (. )

gET xEX
Theinequality V (rag) *2 ( / \ ,(g(x» --+h(x») ~ h is obvious. Because

gET xEX
of the L-neighborhood axioms (U3) and (U4) the map 9 : X f---t L defined by
g(z) = f.Lz(f) is 7-open and fulfills the inequality 9 ~ f. Now we invoke the
lower (7" )-semicontinuity of h and obtain:
h(p) < V ,(g(P» *2 ( 1\ ,(g(x» --+ h(x»)

gET xEX
hence (.) follows.

(b) Since "( 0 9 is lower (7, ,,()-semicontinuous for all 7-open maps g, the strat-
ified M-topology £(7,"() (cf. Proposition 7.4.3) is always finer than
7"1 = {"( 0 gig E 7} (cf. proof of Theorem 3.6). On the other hand, referring to
(.), it is easy to see that every stratified M -topology a with 7"1 ~ a contains
£( 7, "() ; hence the assertion is verified .
•
It is easy to see that the functor 8"1 : SM-TOP 1---7 L-TOP factors
through SL-TOP (cf. 3.6). Hence the restriction w~ of w'Y to SL-TOP
has a left adjoint functor 8~ : SM-TOP 1---7 SL-TOP. In the following
considerations we describe the range of 8~ .
Definition 7.4.5 (,,(-saturation) A stratified L-topology 7 on X is said to

be "(-saturated iff the implication
"( 0 h = V("( 0 g) *2 ( 1\ ,,((g(x)) -+ "((h(x))) =} hE 7

gET xEX
holds for all h E LX.
Proposition 7.4.6 If"( : L 1---7 M satisfies the additional properties
(i) "( is injective and arbitrary meet preserving,
(ii) "((0:) -+ "((/3) "((0:-+/3) Vo:,/3EL,
then every stratified L-topology is "(-saturated.
Proof. Let 7 be a stratified L-topology and h be an element of LX provided

with the subsequent property
"( 0 h V(("( 0 g) *2 (1\ ,,((g(x)) -+ "((h(x))))

gET xEX
then we apply (i) and (ii) and obtain:
"((h(p)) = "((V (g(p) *2 (1\ g(x) -+ h(x)))) VpEX.

gET xEX
Since "( is injective, we conclude from (03) and (~1) that h is an element of 7
- i.e. 7 is ,,(-saturated .
•
Proposition 7.4.7 The range of 8~ consists of all "(-saturated, stratified L-
topologies.
Proof. (a) Let (X, 7) be a stratified L-topological space such that there exists
a stratified M-topological space (X,O") with 7 == {h E LX I-y 0 h EO"} - i.e.
8~(X, 0") == (X,7). Further let k E LX be provided with the following property
-y 0 k == V((-y 0 h) *2 ( 1\ -y(h(x» -t -y(k(x»»)

hEr xEX
then the relationship between 7 and 0" and the application of (:El) to 0" imply:
-y 0 k E 0" - i.e. k E 7 j hence 7 is -y-saturated.
(b) Let (X,7) be a -y-saturated, stratified L-topological space. We show:
8~(w~(X, 7» == (X,7). Let us consider k E LX such that -y k is lower 0
(7, -y)-semicontinuous. Since 7 is -y-saturated, k is an element of 7j hence the
assertion follows .
•
Corollary 7.4.8 The subcategory S")'L-TOP of all -y-saturated, stratified, L-
topological spaces is isomorphic to a corefiective subcategory of SM-TOP.
Proof. Let w~ be the restriction of w~ to S")'L-TOP. It is not difficult to

show that w~ is an embedding from S")'L-TOP into SM-TOP (cf. Proof of
7.4.7). Since the range of 8~ coincides with S,,),L-TOP (cf. Proposition 7.4.7),
8~ is left adjoint to w~ j hence the assertion follows .
•
We close this subsection with a presentation of four important special cases.
Case A (Probabilistic L-topologies versus M -topologies)

We assume that the underlying quadruple (M,~, 18), *) satisfies the axioms (I)
- (VII) . Further let (L,~, *) be a subquantale of (M,~, *) provided with the
following properties (see also Example 1.2.18):
(i) The canonical embedding L : L f---t M preserves the residuation - i.e.

L(a) -t L«(3) == L(a -t (3) .
(ii) The restriction of 18) to L x L coincides with *.
(iii) (L,~, *) is a complete MV-algebra.
(iv) The range L(L) of Lis pseudo-bisymmetric in (M,~, 18), *).
We conclude from Proposition 7.4.6 and Corollary 7.4.8 that SL-TOP is

isomorphic to a coreflective subcategory of SM-TOP . Moreover is not difficult
to show that the category P L-TOP of probabilistic L-topological spaces is a
coreflective subcategory of SL-TOP. Hence P L-TOP is isomorphic to a core-
flective subcategory of SM-TOP. In particular, every probabilistic L-topology
7 on X can be identified with the set £(7, L) of all lower (7, L)-semicontinuous
226 U. Hahle and A.P. 80stak
maps - Le. with the set of all those mappings 9 X t---+ M satisfying the
following axiom
g(p) < V (/\ ~(d(x)) ~ g(x)) 't/pEX

dE Up ",EX
where Up denotes the set of all L-valued neighborhoods at p w.r.t. 7 (cf.

Subsection 7.2).
If we assume additionally that (M,~) is completely distributive, then we
can show that w, 0 £ : PL-TOP t---+ SM-TOP has a right adjoint functor
where £ denotes the embedding functor from PL-TOP to SL-TOP.
We prepare the proof by three lemmata. First we need some notations: Every
a E M determines a map hOi : M t---+ L by
hOl(f3) = Vp. E LI ~(A) * (3 ~ a} 't/(3EM.
Since ~ preserves arbitrary joins, we obtain: ~(hOl((3)) * (3 ~ a. Moreover, in

the case of L = {T, 1.} the map hOi coincides with the ordinary characteristic
function of the interval [0, a).
Lemma 7.4.9 (Charcterization of lower semicontinuity)
Let (M,~) be a completely distributive, complete lattice and 7 be an L-pro-
babilistic topology on X. Then for every map 9 : X t---+ M the following
assertions are equivalent
(i) 9 is lower (7, ~)-semicontinuous.
(ii) (hOlog)~1.E7 't/aEM.

Proof. (a) ((i) => (ii)) Since (L,~, *) is a MV-algebra, it is sufficient to
show that hOi 0 9 is 7-closed - i.e.
/\ (V hOl(g(x)) * dp(x)) < hOi (g(p)) 't/pEX .

dpEUp "'EX
Since 9 is lower (7, ~)-semicontinuous, we obtain
~( 1\ (V
dpEUp ",EX
hOl(g(x)) * dp(x))) * g(p) <
( 1\ (V ~(hOl(g(x))) H(dp(X)))) * ( V (1\ ~(dp(x)) ~ g(x))) <

dpEU p "'EX dpEU p ",EX
< a ,.
hence the 7-closedness of hOi 0 9 follows from the definition of hOi.

(b) (( ii) => (i)) For every map ~ : Up t---+ X we define an element a~ EM
by
= V ~(dp(~(dp))) ~ g(~(dp))
dpEUp
Because of J ::; ,B -t J the relation hac (g( ~(dp))) = T holds for all dp E Up.
Since hac 0 9 is 7-ciosed (cf. (ii)), we obtain:
1\ (V hac(g(x)) * dp(x)) = T < hac (g(p))

dpEUp xEX
i.e. g(p) ::; ae for all ~ E XU p • Hence the complete distributivity of (M,::;)
implies
g(p) < 1\ ae = V (1\ t(dp(x)) -t g(x))

eEXUp dpEUp xEX
i.e. 9 is lower (7, t)-semicontinuous .

•
As an immediate consequence of the previous lemma we obtain
Lemma 7.4.10 Let (M,::;) be a completely, distributive lattice. Then for every
non empty family {7i liE I} of probabilistic L-topologies on X the following
relation holds:
iEI iEI
•
Now we are in the position to define an object function
{) : ISM-TOPI t-+ IPL- TOPI as follows:
{)(X,7) = (X, Y r )
where Tr n{70 I 70 probabilistic L-topology on X, 7 ~ e(70, t) }
Lemma 7.4.11 Let (M, ::;) be completely distributive. If t.p : (X, 7) t-+ (Y, a)
is a SM -TOP-morphism (in particular t.p is an M -continuous map), then
t.p : {)(X,7) t-+ {)(Y, a) is L-continuous.
Proof. (a) Let 70 be a probabilistic L-topology on X and (Up)PEX be the
system of crisp sets of L-valued neighborhoods corresponding to 70. Further
let t.p(70) be the final L-topology on Y w.r.t. t.p -i.e.
Then t.p(70) is again a probabilistic L-topology on Y and the corresponding

system (Vq)qEY of crisp sets of L-valued neighborhoods is given by16
v cp(p) = {J E L Y I f 0 t.p E Up} = {J E L Y I :3 dE Up : t.p[d] ::; f}

Vq = {J E LY I f(q) = T} where q (j t.p(X)
16",[g] is the L-valued image of the map 9 under", - i.e. (",[g])(y) V{g(x) I ",(x) = y}.
Because of
v
fEV",(p)
(1\
yEY
~(j(y)) -+ g(y)) v (1\ ~('P[dp]('P(x)))
dpEUp xEX
-+ g('P(x)))
v (1\ ~(dp(x)) -+ go 'P(x))

dpEU p xEX
we obtain the important relation £('P(-TO),~) = 'P(£(TO, ~)).

(b) Let 'P be a M-continuous map from (X,T) to (Y,O"). We put TO = IT;
then T ~ £(TO,~) follows from Lemma 7.4.10. Referring to the consideration of
Step (a) we conclude from the M-continuity of 'P that 'P is L-continuous from
'!9(X, T) to '!9(Y, 0") .
•
With regard to the previous lemma the object function '!9 can be completed to
a functor from SM-TOP to PL-TOP in an obvious way.
Theorem 7.4.12 Let (M,~) be a completely distributive lattice. Then the

functor {) is right adjoint to w. 0 £.
Proof. Obviously {) 0 w. 0 £ = idp L-TOP; we show that the following

universal property holds:
w. 0 £(X, TO)
(Y,T)
Since 'P : (X, TO) t---+ {)(Y, T) is L-continuous, we obtain that

'P : w. 0 £(X, TO) t---+ w. 0 £ 0 {)(Y, T) is M-continuous. Now we invoke Lemma
7.4.10 and observe that idy : w. 0 £ 0 {)(Y, T) t---+ (Y, T) is also M -continuous;
hence we can view 'P as a M-continuous morphism from w. O£(X,TO) to (Y,T).
Therewith the assertion is established .
•
We can summarize the preceding considerations as follows:
If (M,~) is completely distributive, then P L-TOP is isomorphic to a core-
flective and reflective subcategory of SM-TOP. In this context a probabilistic
L-topology TO on X is identified with the set of all lower (TO, ~)-semicontinuous
maps 9 : X t---+ M .
Case B (Ordinary topologies versus M -topologies)

We assume that the underlying quadruple (M,~, i8l, *) satisfies the additional
axiom
.1 =.1i8lT Ti8l.1 .
Then we put L = 2 = {.1, T} i obviously the canonical embedding L : 2 t---+
M fulfills the conditions (i) - (iv) in Case A (see also Example 1.2.17(a».
Further, every 2-topology is stratified and is also a probabilistic 2-topologYi
hence the catgeories TOP and P2-TOP = 82-TOP (cf. 3.7) are isomorphic.
We conclude from Case A that TOP is isomorphic to a corefiective subcategory
of 8M-TOP. In particular every ordinary topology 'll' on X can be identified
with the set of all lower 'll'-semicontinuous maps 9 : X t---+ M - i.e. with the
set of all those mappings 9 : X t---+ M satisfying the following axiom
g(p) < V (/\ g(x») 'VpEX

UEU p zEU
where \Up denotes the set of all neighborhoods at p w.r.t. 'll'.

Remark 7.4.13 If we assume in addition that (M,~, *) is a (complete) MV-
algebra, then the set l('ll') of all lower semicontinuous maps 9 : X t---+ M forms
obviously a probabilistic M -topology on X (cf. Subsection 7.2). In fact, if 9 is
lower 'll'-semicontinuous, then for all 0: E M the map 0: --+ 9 is again lower
'll'-semicontinuous. Moreover, the corresponding T -neighborhood filter Up at
the point p E X is given by
Up = {d E LX I d(p) = T} (cf. 7.4.2) .
In particular Up can be viewed as the T -filter which is determined by
{xu I U E \Up}
and the saturation process w.r.t. the K-condition (cf. Axiom (1Fl) in Remark
6.2.3) where \Up is the ordinary neighborhood filter at p w.r.t. 'll' .
• If in addition (M,~) is a completely distributive lattice, then we conclude
from Theorem 7.4.12 (see Case A) that Top is isomorphic to a corefiective and
refiective subcategory of 8M-TOP. In this context, an ordinary topology 'll' on
X is identified with the set of all lower 'll'-semicontinuous maps 9 : X t---+ M .
Case C (Booleanization of L-topologies)

Let (L,~) be a complete Heyting algebra, $(L,~) = ($(L),~) be its Boolean-
ization and j : L t---+ $(L) be the canonical embedding (cf. Theorem 1.4.2).
Further, we consider the setting (L,~, 1\, 1\) and ($(L), 1\, 1\) - i.e. the case
i8l = * = 1\. Since j is a frame-morphism (cf. Remark 1.4.3(a)), we see im-
mediately (cf. Example 1.2.17(b» that j satisfies Condition (E3) (see the be-
ginning of Subsection 7.4). Because of Corollary 7.4.8 the category 8 j L-TOP
of j-saturated, stratified, L-topological spaces is isomorphic to a coreflective

subcategory of stratified, lli(L )-topological spaces. In the following considera-
tions we assume additionally that the binary join operator is distributive over
arbitrary meets- i.e. (L,~) is a complete Heyting and co-Heyting algebra (cf.
Remark 1.4.3(b)). In particular, (L,~) carries a further binary operation c>
determined by
'Va,{3 E L
Definition 7.4.14 (Co-stratification)

Let (L,~) be a complete Heyting and co-Heyting algebra. An L-topology r
on X is said to be co-stratified iff r satisfies the following condition
(~3) 9 C> a E r 'Vg E r, 'Va E L .
•
Proposition 7.4.15 Let (L,~) be a complete Heyting and co-Heyting algebra.
Further let j : L I---t lli(L) be the canonical embedding from L into its
Booleanization lli(L). Then every stratified and co-stratified L-topology r is
j -saturated.
Proof. Since (L, ~) is a complete co-Heyting algebra, the canonical embed-

ding j : L I---t lli(L) is meet preserving (cf. Remark 1.4.3(b)). Hence the left
adjoint map j* of j exists and is given by:
'VK,Elli(L) .
In particular, the following relation

(f C> (3)(x) = f(x) C> (3 = j*(j(f(x)) 1\ (j({3) ~ 1-)) (t)
holds for all f E LX, x E X, {3 E L.
Now let r be a stratified and co-stratified L-topology on X. In order to show
that r is j-saturated we consider an element h E LX with
j0h = V(j 0 g) 1\ ( 1\ j(g(x)) ~ j(h(x)))

gET "'EX
Referring to Property (iii) in Theorem 1.4.2 there exists an index set I provided
with the following properties
{gi liE I} ~ r , {(ai, (3i) liE I} ~ Lx L,

j0h = V (j 0 gi) 1\ j(ai) 1\ (j({3i) ~ 1-)
iEI
Since r is stratified, for each i E I there exists a r-open map Yi E r such that
joh V (j 0 Yi) 1\ (j({3i) ~ 1-) (tt)
iEI
Now we invoke the fact that j is injective (cf. Property (i) in Theorem 1.4.2)
and j. is join preserving; hence the relation
h = V(fJi C> /3i)

iEI
follows from (.) and (•• ). Since T is co-stratified, h is an element of T .

•
As an immediate consequence from the previous considerations we obtain that
every co-stratified and stratified L-topology can be identified with a strati-
fied J( L )-topology. Since in the Boolea n case stratified Iffi---topologies can be
described by neighborhood systems of T -filters (cf. Theorem 6.1.5, Proposi-
tion 6.2.4(b)), the previous statement means that co-stratified and stratified
L-topologies can be characterized by neighborhood systems consisting of crisp
sets of J(L )-valued neighborhoods only.
Example 7.4.16 (Complete chains) Let (L,:::;) be a complete chain; then

(L, :::;) is a complete Heyting and co-Heyting algebra. In particular, the subse-
quent relations are valid:
ac>/3 = { .l,a:::;/3 g C> /3 = g /\ X{.6<g} where g E LX.

a,/3<a
Further we consider the case 0 = *= /\ and choose an element /30 E L with
.1 :j:. /30 :j:. T. Then
T { a . Ix I a E L} U {f E LX If:::; /30 . Ix }
is a co-stratifed and stratified L-topology on X. Moreover there does not exist
an ordinary topology 11' on X such that w,(X,11') = (X, T) - i.e. T is not
topologically generated in the sense of Case B. With regard to the previous
considerations T has systems of neighborhoods which are not 2-valued, but
J(L )-valued .
•
A more interesting example is the following one
Example 7.4.17 Let (L,:::;,*) be astrict MV-algebra(cf. Section 1.3). Then

it is well known that the underlying lattice (L,:::;) is a complete Heyting and
co-Heyting algebra. Besides the natural implication -+ based on the semigroup
operation * we can consider a further implication -, determined by the binary
meet operation /\
a -, /3 = V{,\ ELI a /\,\ :::; /3} a, /3 EL .
Now we define a binary operation E on L by E(a, (3) = (a -, (3) /\ (/3 -, a) .

In particular, E can be viewed as an L-valued equality on L. Further, let TL
be the subset of all maps 9 : L t---t L satisfying the following property
g(a) < 1\ ((E(a,{3) -+.1..) V g({3)) Va E L .

{3EL
It is not difficult to show that 7L is a stratified L-topology on L in the sense

of the quadruple (L,:::;, /\, *). Moreover, 7L is co-stratified. In fact, for every
9 E 7L and every >. E L the relation
(g [> >.)(a) < 1\ ((E(a, {3) -+ .1..) V (g [> >')({3))

{3EL
follows from
g(a) < 1\ ((E(a,{3) -+.1..) V g({3))

{3EL
< (1\ ((E(a, {3) -+ .1..) V (g [> >')(/3))) V>..

{3EL
We show that 7L is not a probabilistic L-topology. The proof is divided into

two steps:
Step 1: Let 9 be an element of 7L and a E L with g(a) = T. Because of the
formula b -+ .1..) V {3 = 'Y -+ b * {3) (cf. Proposition 2.15 in [39]) we obtain
E(a, {3) -+ (E(a, {3) * g({3)) T V{3EL j
i.e. E(a, {3) = E(a, {3) * g({3) V{3 E L. Hence the idempotent kernel (cf.
Subsection 1.3) (g({3))" of g({3) w.r.t. * fulfills the following property
E(a, {3) < (g({3))- V{3 E L
Since (L,:::;, *) is a strict MV-algebra (cf. Subsection 1.3), we obtain that T is

the only idempotent element of L which is larger than .1.. 1 / 2 . Hence we conclude
from the previous considerations:
g(T) = T (0)
Step 2: Because of E( a, {3) /\ {3 :::; a we obtain that the map go : L t---t L
defined by go({3) = {3 -+ .1.. is 7L-open - i.e. go E 7L. Let us assume that 7L
is a probabilistic L-topologyj then for every point a E L there exists an open
L-valued neighborhood da E Va such that (cf. Subsection 7.2)
go(a) * da ({3) < go({3) V {3 E L
In the case of a = .1.. 1 / 2 we obtain from the relation (0) and the strictness of
(L,:::;, *):
.1.. 1 / 2 = gO(.1.. 1/ 2) * T
which is a contradiction to go(T) = ...L. Hence the assumption is false.

We can summarize the previous considerations as follows: Even though TL
cannot be described by L-valued neighborhoods in the sense of Subsection 7.2,
we can identify TL with its Booleanization which offers the possibility to char-
acterize TL by B(L)-valued neighborhoods .
•
Case D (Strict MV-algebras)
Let (L,:::;, *) be a complete, strict MV-algebra (d. Subsection 1.3). Since
([0,1],:::;, Tm) is the initial object in the category of complete, strict MV-algebras
(d. Theorem 6.9 in [39]), there exists an MV -algebra-homomorphism 'Y :
([0,1]' :::;,Tm) t---+ (L,:::;, *). Further, we consider the corresponding monoidal
mean operators on [0,1] and L (Le. the arithmetric mean EE on [0,1] and the
monoidal mean operator ® on L determined by *). Then 'Y : [0, 1] t---+ L
fulfills (EI)-(E3) in the setting given by ([O,I],:::;,EE,Tm) and (L,:::;,®,*) (d.
Example 1.2.I7(c)). Since 'Y is an MV-algebra-homomorphism, 'Y preserves the
implication; hence 'Y satisfies the conditions (i) and (ii) in Proposition 7.4.6.
Therefore we conclude from Proposition 7.4.6, Proposition 7.4.7 and Corollary
7.4.8 that the category S[O, I]-TOP is isomorphic to a coreflective subcategory
ofSL-TOP.
8 Convergence theory for L-fuzzy topological

spaces
In this section the underlying quadruple (L,:::;, ®, *) satisfies the axioms (1)-
(VII). Moreover we assume that (L,:::;, *) is a strictly two-sided, commutative
quantale.
8.1 L-fuzzy interior operators and L-fuzzy neighborhood

systems
Definition 8.1.1 A mapping T : LX xL -t LX is called an L-fuzzy interior
operator on X iff T satisfies the following conditions:
(10) T(Ix,a) = Ix 'Va E L .
(II) T(g,{j) < T(f,a) whenever g:::;j,a:::;{j.
(12) T(f, a) ® T(g, {j) < T(f ® g,a ® {3)
(13) T(f,a) < j
(14) T(f,a) < T(T(f,a),a)
(15) T(f,...L) = j
(16) If 0 f. K ~ L , T(f, a) =r 'Va E K , then T(f, VK) = r·
•
Theorem 8.1.2 Given an L-fuzzy topology 7: LX --t L, the mapping
Ir : LX x L --t LX defined by the equality
is an L-fuzzy interior operator on X. Conversely, given an L- fuzzy interior

operator I : LX x L --t LX , the formula
defines an L-fuzzy topology Tz : LX --t L. Moreover, the equalities TzT = 7

and Irz = I hold. Thus L-fuzzy topologies and L-fuzzy interior operators
come to the same thing.
The proof of Theorem B.1.2 is based on the following sequence of lemmata.
Lemma 8.1.3 Let 7 : LX --t L be a map satisfying Axiom (03). Then the
map Ir : LX x L --t LX defined by
fulfills the following properties:
(B. 1) a < 7(IrU,a)) "fa E L.

(Il) Ir(f,a) < Ir(g, (3) whenever f :::: g and (3 :::: a .
(13) Ir(f,a) < f
(14) Ir(f,a) < Ir(Ir(f, a), a)
(15) Ir(f,1.) = f
(16) If 0 =f. K ~ L , Ir(f, a) = fO "faEK, then Ir(f, VK) = fO .
(B.1') 7(f) = V{a ELI f :::: Ir(f,a)}
Proof. The relation (B.1) follows immediately from Axiom (03), while (Il),
(13) and (15) hold by definition of Ir. Further, (B.1) and the definition of Ir
imply (14). In order to verify (16) we proceed as follows. Let K be a non-empty
subset of L such that the relation
Ir(f,a) fO
holds for all a E K. Referring again to (B.1) we obtain: V K :::: 7(f°) . Now
we invoke again the definition of Ir and the properties (11) and (13):
The converse inequality I-d/, VK) ~ 1° (= Ir(f,a» follows again from

(J1); hence the equality 1° = Ir(f, VK) has been established. Finally, we
infer from (8.1) and (13):
V{a ELI 1 ~ Ir(f,a)} < T(f) .
On the other hand, the definition of Ir implies: 1 = Ir(f, T(f»; hence the
converse inequality
T(f) < V{a ELI 1 ~ Ir(f,a)}
follows. Therewith the relation (8.1') is verified .

•
Lemma 8.1.4 Let I : LX xL -+ LX be a map provided with the properties
(J1), (13), (14), (15) and (16). Then the map Tz : LX -+ L defined by
Tz(f) = V{a ELI 1 ~ I(f,a)}
(8.2) (3 ~ Tz(f) <=? 1 ~ I(f, (3) '</(3 E L
(03) AEI Tz(Ii) < Tz(V iEI Ii)
(8.2') I(f,a) = V{UELXI U ~ I, a~Tz(u)} .
Proof. The implication 1 ~ I(f, (3) ==> (3 ~ Tz(f) holds by definition.

Because of (15) the set {a ELI 1 ~ I(f, a)} is non empty; hence (16) and
(13) imply 1 = I(f, Tz(f» '</1 E LX . Let us now assume (3 ~ Tz(f), then
1 ~ I(f, (3) follows from (J1) ; hence the relation (8.2) is established. In order
to verify (03) we put (3 := AiEl Tz(1i) . Now we invoke (8.2) and (J1) :
iEI iEI iEI
hence (3 ~ Tz (V iE/ Ii) follows from the definition of Tz. Finally, we fix a E L
and put
9 = V{u E LX I U ~ 1 , a ~ Tz(u)}
With regard to (8.2), (J1) and (14) we obtain:
9 ~ I(g, a) ~ I(f, a) a < Tz(I(f, a»
hence the relation 9 = I(f,a) follows; and (8.2') is verified .

•
Proof of Theorem 8.1.2

Referring to the definition of IT and TI we conclude from Lemmata 8.1.3 and
8.1.4 that there exists a bijection between the set of all maps T : LX -+ L
provided with (03) and the set of all maps I : LX x L -+ LX satisfying
(11), (13), (14), (15) and (f6). Therefore Theorem 8.1.2 will be established if we
can verify the equivalences (01) ¢=:} (fO) and (02) ¢=:} (12).
The first equivalence is obvious. In order to verify the second equivalence
we proceed as follows:
(a) Let us assume that I satisfies (12); then we apply Axiom (IV) and obtain
T(j) 0 T(g) V{ex0(31 j ::; I(j,ex) , 9 ::; I(g,(3)}
< Vbl j0g ::; I(j0g,,)} = T(j0g);
hence the L-fuzzy topology corresponding to I fulfills (02) .

(b) We assume that T is provided with (02); then Axiom (IV) implies:
I(j, ex) 0 I(g, (3) =

V{u0vlu,vEL x ,u::;j,v::;g, ex::; T(u) , (3::; T(v)} <
V{wELxlw::; j0g, ex 0(3 ::; T(w)} I(j0g,ex0(3);
hence the L-fuzzy interior operator corresponding to T satisfies (/2).

•
Definition 8.1.5 An L-fuzzy interior operator I : LX x L -+ LX is called
enriched if it satisfies the additional axiom
(IE) I(j * ,x, ex) > I(j, ex) * ,x

•
Proposition 8.1.6 Let T be an L-juzzy topology and I be the corresponding
L- juzzy interior operator. Then T is enriched iff I is enriched.
Proof. Assume that I is enriched and let T( u) 2: ex. Then I( u, ex) =u

and hence
I(u*'x,ex) > I(u,ex)*'x = u*'x
i.e. T(u *'x) 2: ex. Conversely, assume that T is enriched. Then
I(j *'x, ex) V{u E LX I u::; j*,X, T(u) 2: ex}

> V{v *,x I v E LX, v ::; j, T(v) 2: ex}
•
Proposition 8.1.7 I is enriched iff I is compatible with the natural equality

on LX, i.e. if
[f,g] < [I(f,a),I(g,a)]
Proof. If I is enriched, then because of [f, g] *f ::; 9 we get
[f,g]*I(f,a) < I(f*[J,g],a) < I(g, a) .
In a similar way, we conclude that [f, g] * I(g, a) < I(f, a) ; and hence
[f, g] < [I(f, a) , I(g, a)]
Conversely, if I is compatible with the natural equality, then
A < [f, A * J] < [I(f, a), I(A * f, a)] = I(f, a) -+ I(A * f, a)

hence I(A * j, a) :2: I(f, a) * A follows.'
•
Definition 8.1.8 (L-fuzzy neighborhood system)
Let X be a set. A map N : X x LX x L -+ L is called an L- fuzzy neighborhood
system iff N satisfies the following axioms:
(NO) N(x,lx,a) T
(Nl) u::; v, fJ ::; a ===} N(x, u, a) ::; N(x, v, fJ)

(N2) N(x, Ul, a) @N(X,U2,fJ) < N(x, Ul @ U2, a @ fJ)
(N3) N(x, u, a) < u(x) .
(N4) N(x,u,a) < V {N(x,v,a) I v(y) ::; N(y,u,a) Vy E X} .
(N5) N(x, u,.1) = u(x) .
(N6) For any non empty subset {ai liE I} of L the implication holds:
u(x) ::; N(x,u,ai) Vi E I, Vx EX===}

===} u(x) ::; N(x,u, ViErai) Vx E X
•
Proposition 8.1.9 (a) Every L-fuzzy interior operator I : LX x L -+ LX
induces an L- fuzzy neighborhood system N z by
Nz(x,u,a) = [I(u,a)J(x) Vx E X
(b) Every L-fuzzy neighborhood system N : X x LX xL -+ L determines an
L-fuzzy interior operator IN by
[IN(U, a)J(x) = N(x, u, a)

Proof. In order to verify assertion (a) we see immediately that (IO) - (I3)
and (I5) imply (NO) - (N3) and (N5). Further we put:
v(y) = [I(u,a)](y) (=Nz(y,u,a)) 'Vy E X
Referring to (I4) we obtain:
Nz(x,u,a) [I(u,a)](x) < [I(v,a)](x) Nz(x,v,a) ;
hence Axiom (N4) follows. Finally, (N6) is an immediate consequence of (I6)
and (N3). Now we assume that N is an L-fuzzy neighborhood system and
show that IN is an L-fuzzy interior operator. The axioms (IO) - (I3) and
(I5) , (I6) follow immediately from properties (NO) - (N3) and (N5) , (N6) .
Further we put w(y) = N(y,u,a) 'Vy E X. Then we inferfrom (Nl) and (N4):
N(x,u,a) :::; N(x,w,a), hence the inequality IN(u,a) :::; IN(IN(u,a),a) fol-
lows; i.e. Axiom (I4) holds .
•
We conclude from Proposition 8.1.9 that L-fuzzy interior operators and
L-fuzzy neighborhood systems are equivalent concepts. In particular, an
L-fuzzy neighborhood system N is called enriched iff the corresponding L-
fuzzy interior operator is enriched, - i.e. N satisfies the additional axiom
(NE) N(x,u,a) * A:::; N(x,u * A,a) 'Vx E X, 'Vu E LX, 'Va E L .
Finally, it is obvious that the concept of L-fuzzy neighborhood systems offers
the possibility to define "continuity" at each point x EX. Details of this
approach are left to the reader.
We close this subsection with a remark dealing with the impact of the idem-
potency of 181 on the L-fuzzy interior (resp. neighborhood) axioms.
Remark 8.1.10 (Idempontency of 0)
(a) We assume that 0 fulfills Axiom (X), - i.e. 181 is idempotent, but not nec-
essarily associative. Then every L-fuzzy interior operator I determines an
L-interior operator Ka for each a E L as follows:
Ka(f) = I(f, a)
Moreover, every L-fuzzy neighborhood system N induces an L-neighborhood
system for all a E L by
Ua = (J.t~a)pEX where J.t~a): LX I---t L , J.t~a)(f) = N(p,j,a) .
(b) Now we assume that 0 is not only idempotent, but also T acts as a unity
w.r.t. 181; then we obtain
a/\(3 = (a/\(3) 181 (a/\(3) < a0(3 < a/\(3 ,
i.e. 0 and /\ coincide. Under the hypothesis of (11) (resp. (Nl» we can make
the following observations:
• Axiom (12) is equivalent to

(12*) T(u,a)/\T(v,a) < T(u/\v,a) Va E L
• Axiom (N2) is equivalent to

(N2*) N(x, u, a) /\ N(x, v, a) < N(x, u /\ v, a) Va E L
Further, if K (resp. U = (J.Lp)PEX) is an L-interior operator (resp.

L-neighborhood system), then TIC (resp. N u ) defined by TIC(f,a) = K(f)
(resp. Nu(x,J,a) = J.Lx(f» Va E L, is an L-fuzzy interior operator (resp.
L-fuzzy neighborhood system).
•
8.2 Convergence in L-fuzzy topological spaces
Definition 8.2.1 (L-Fuzzy filter)
A map F: LX x L -+ L is called an L-Juzzy filter on X iff F is provided with
(FFO) F(1x,a) = T
(FF1) u::; v, /3::; a ===> F(u,a)::; F(v,/3)
(FF2) F(u,a)®F(v,/3) < F(u®v,a®/3)
(FF3) F(1.0' a) 1.
•
Remark 8.2.2
(a) Let F be a L-fuzzy filter on X. Then the map 1/ : LX ~ L defined by
I/(f) = F(f,1.) is a L-filter on X.
(b) Every L-filter 1/ on X induces an L-fuzzy filter Fv by Fv (f, a) = I/(f)
for all a E L.
(c) Let N be a L-fuzzy neighborhood system on X. Then the map
N x : LX x L ~ L defined by Nx(u,a) = N(x,u,a) is a L-fuzzy filter on
X. In particular, N x is called the L-Juzzy neighborhood filter at x.
•
On the set llllL(X) of all L-fuzzy filters on X we introduce a partial ordering
~ as follows:
F1 ~ F2 {:=} F 1(u,a)::; F 2(u,a) Va E L, Vu E LX .
Referring to Remark 8.2.2(a) and (b) it is easy to see that every L-fuzzy fil-
ter is dominated by an L-filter in the sense of ~. Moreover, by virtue of
Zorn's Lemma (~~dX), :0 has maximal elements. It is not difficult to show

that every maximal L-fuzzy filter can be identified with an L-ultrafilter - i.e.
for every maximal L-fuzzy filter U there exists an L-ultrafilter p, such that
U(f,o) = p,(f) V f E LX.
Definition 8.2.3 (Limit point) Let N be an L-fuzzy neighborhood system
and :F be an L-fuzzy filter on X. An element Xo is called a limit point of :F
iff Nxo j :F where Nxo is the L-fuzzy neighborhood filter at Xo .
•
In the sense of the previous definition the convergence theory of L-topolo-
gical spaces can be extended to L-fuzzy topological spaces. Details of this
theory are left to the reader.
9 Local convergence theory for weakly exsten-

sional L-fuzzy topological spaces
The aim of this section is to investigate the role of idempotent elements in the
convergence theory for L-fuzzy topological spaces 17 • The key idea is to under-
stand L-fuzzy topologies T : LX f---t L as generalized characteristic functions.
Hence this approach requires that T satisfies a certain type of extensionality
condition. In order to give a preparation and motivation for the general set-
ting we start with a brief overview on the extensionality and classification of
L-valued maps defined on LX.
9.1 Extensionality and singletons in LX

Lemma 9.1.1 Let (L,~) be a complete Heyting algebra, and let us consider
the case 0 = * = A. Further let T : LX f---t L be a map. Then the following
assertions are equivalent
(i) T is extensional w.r.t. the natural equality [ , ] on LX.
(ii) 0 ~ A (T(f) --t T( oAf)) A (T( oAf) --t T(f)) V (0, f) E L x LX .
/ELx
Proof. In view of Section 4 the implication (i) => (ii) is obvious. The
converse implication (ii) => (i) follows from the subsequent relation
fA [f,g] = 9 A [f,g] Vf,gE LX .
•
Let (L,~, *) be a GL-monoid - i.e. a commutative strictly two-sided quan-
tale provided with the additional property (cf. Subsection 1.1):
17With regard to general aBpects the reader is referred to Section 8.
'1(0.,(3) ELwith(3:::;o. 3-yELs.t.(3 = o.*-y. (Divisibility)

The divisibility implies that for all a ELand for all idempotent elements £ E L
(w.r.t. *) the relation £ * a = £ /\ a holds (cf. 1.3).
An extentional map s : LX f---+ L is called a singleton in LX iff S is
provided with the additional property
s(f) * (JE(s) ~ s(g)) < [J, g] (Singleton Condition)
where JE(s) := V{s(x) Ix E X} is interpreted as the extent to which sexists.
The type of the following singletons is of special interest:
It is not difficult to show that s(l,o:) is a singleton in LX. In particular, we

view s(l,o:) as the restriction of 1 to the domain represented by o.. In this
sense we understand s(l,o:) as a local element of LX induced by (f, a), and we
denote s(l,o:) by 1 1 o.. Obviously, 1 1 a is not uniquely determined by the
pair (f, a) as the following lemma demonstrates:
Lemma 9.1.2 Let * be distributive over arbitary meets in (L, :::;). Then for
all (f, a), (g, (3) E LX x L the following equivalence holds
11o.=g1(3 ¢:::} o.=(3,o./\1=o./\g

where 0. is the idempotent hull of a w.r.t * (cf. 1.3). In particular, for every
local element 1 1 a of LX there exists a unique (ordinary) element 10 E LX
provided with the following conditions
10 (x) :::; 0. 'V x E X 110. = 1010.

Proof. Let us consider the situation 1 1 a = 9 1 (3 ; then for all h E LX
the relation
o.*[J,h] = .B*[g,hj
holds. Hence a = (3 and a = a * [1 , g] follows. Since * is distributive over
arbitrary meets, we obtain that
Ap,g]* .. ·*[1,g],
nEN .
n times
is idempotent; hence a is smaller than or equal to the idempotent kernel of
[1 , g] - or the other way around, the idempontent hull 0. of a is smaller than
or equal to [1, g]. Now we invoke the definition of [ , ] and obtain 0.* 1 :::; g,
0. * 9 :::; 1 ; hence 0. /\ 1 = 0. /\ 9 follows from the idempotency of 0.. On the
other hand, if 0. /\ 1 = 0. /\ 9 , then it is not difficult to show that 0. :::; [1, g] ;
hence the divisibility of (L, :::;, *) implies a :::; a * [1, g]; and therewith the
first assertion is verified. In order to establish the second assertion we put
10 = 0. /\ 1 and observe 0. :::; [10, 1] . Further details of this proof are left
to the reader .
•
242 U. Hiihle and A.P. Sostak
Remark 9.1.3 (Classification of L-valued maps in LX) 18

Let T : LX t---t L be an extensional map and 6(7) be the set of all singletons
of type s(J,a) with S(J,a) (h) :::; T(h) Vh E LX . Then the extensionality of
T implies
T(h) V
{s(J,a) (h) I s(J,a) E 6(7)}
Now we apply Lemma 9.1.2 and obtain that r can be identified with the set
of all pairs (f, a) E LX x L with a :::; T(f) , f:::; 0 . In particular,
the value a is interpreted as the domain of the local element (f, a) (cf. Lemma
9.2.1). Finally, the set
(101 = {f E LX I a :::; T(f) , f :::; o}
is called the a-section of T .
•
In the following considerations of Section 9 we restrict the structure of the
underlying lattice L and make the following
General Assumptions. Let (L,:::;, 18), *) always be a quadruple satisfying the
axioms (I) - (VII) . We assume the divisibility of (L,:::;, *) and the existence of
idempotent hulls (i.e. for every element a E L there exists (w.r.t. *) a smallest
idempotent element 0 which is greater than or equal to a). Moreover, we
require the following compatibility axioms between the formation of idempotent
hulls, the meet operation A and the given, binary operation 18):
(XIII) aAfj = oAfj
(XIV) 0-7.1. is idempotent w.r.t. * for all a E L
(XV) (a A fj) 18) (/3 A 0) = (a 18) /3) A 0 A fj
(XVI) ol8)fj = 0.18)/3
(XVII) 0.18)/3 < (0 A fj) V (fj -7 .i.)
In the case of 18) = * = A every complete Heyting algebra (L,:::;) fulfills the
above axioms (cf. Lemma 1.2.1). Moreover, if (L,:::;,*) is a complete MV-
algebra with square roots, then we conclude from Subsection 1.3 that either
(L,:::;, A, *) or (L,:::;, ®, *) satisfies the axioms (I) - (VII), (X), (XIII) - (XVII)
18Further details on the classification of extensional lattice-valued maps can be found in
[40]
where ® denotes the monoidal mean operator (cf. Remark 1.2.6 and Corollary
1.2.8). In particular, in the later case the axioms (XIII), (XV) - (XVII) follow
immediately from Proposition 1.3.1 and Corollary 1.3.2.
Lemma 9.1.4 Let £ be an idempotent element of L w.r.t. *. Then the rela-
tion
(XVIII) £ A (a ® (3) = (£ A a) ® (£ A (3)
holds for all a, {3 E L .
Proof. Let £ be idempotent w.r.t *j then we deduce from (II), (VII), (X)
and the divisibility axiom:
£ A (a ® (3) =
= (£ A a) ® (£ A (3) < (a ® (3) A £
Hence the assertion follows .
•
As a preparation for the concept of local L-interior operators we first specify a
representation theory for L-fuzzy topologies.
9.2 A representation theory for weakly extensional

L-fuzzy topologies
Let T : LX ~ L be a map. We fix a E L j in accordance with Remark 9.1.3
the so-called a-section of T is given by
= {f E LX Ia ~ T(f), f(x) ~ a 'v' x EX}

Further, T is called weakly exentional iff T satisfies the following condition
The inequality }
£ ~ 1\ (T(f) --+ T(£ A f)) A (T(£ A f) --+ T(f)) (WE)
/ELX
holds for all idempotent elements £ EL (w.r.t. *) .
If J.. and T are the only idempotent elements in L (w.r.t. *), then the condition
(WE) is redundant - Le. every map T is weakly extensional. In this context
a-sections and a-cuts of T coincide for all a E L \ {J..}. On the other hand, if
every element of L is idempotent (Le. ® = * = A), then weak extensionality
and extensionality are equivalent concepts (cf. Lemma 9.1.1). In particular,
U TOt is the support of the "subpresheaf" corresponding to T (cf. Remark
OtEL
9.1.3, Example 6.6 in [40]).
Lemma 9.2.1 Let T : LX ~ L be a weakly extensional map. Then the cor-
responding system (TOt)OtEL of a-sections is provided with the following proper-
ties
(i) a, f3 E L with f3 :::; a, 1 E To ==> 1 1\ 73 E T{3 (WR)
IfhELX, {ailiEI} ~ Lwithhl\'Oi ETa. 'ViEI'}

(ii) (we)
then h 1\ (V ai) E TV'EIO.
iEI
(iii) T(f) = V{a E LI 11\'0 ETa}
Proof. In the following considerations we frequently use the fact
Further we observe that the equivalence
h 1\ a E To ¢::::> a:::; T(h) 'V hE LX
follows from (WE). Therefore (i) and (ii) are a direct consequence of the defini-
tion of a-sections and the weak extensionality of T. In order to verify (iii) we
first infer from (We) :
on the other hand 1 1\ T(f) E holds; hence (iii) is established .

•
TT(I)
Comment. The condition (WR) describes the operation of the restiction map
from the a-section to the f3-section. In contrast to (WR) the condition (We)
can be understood as a kind of continuity condition .
•
Lemma 9.2.2 Let (To)oEL be a system 01 subsets To ~ {f E LXI! :::; a}
satisfying (WR) and (We). Then the map T : LX t-+ L defined by
is weakly extensional, and for every a E L the a-section of T coincides with

To·
Proof. An immediate application of (We) leads to the relation
(T(h)) 1\ h E TT(h)
Further let L be an idempotent element of L (w.r.t. *).

(a) Referring to (WR) and (XIII) we obtain:
L 1\ T(h) 1\ (L 1\ h) = (L 1\ T(h)) 1\ h E T,I\T(h)

hence the inequality £1\ 7(h) ::; 7(£ 1\ h) follows from the definition of 7.
(b) Referring again to (WR) and (XIII) we make the observation:
(£ 1\ 7(£ 1\ h)) 1\ h = (7(£ 1\ h) 1\ h 1\ £ E T t II T(tllh)
hence we obtain £ 1\ 7(£ 1\ h) ::; 7(h) .

(c) From (a) and (b) we conclude that 7 is weakly extensional. Moreover, by
definition of 7 the subset TOt is contained in the a-section correspondin~ to 7.
On the other hand, if 1 is an element of an a-section corresponding to 7, then
we infer from (WR) and ('):
1 = a 1\ 1 = a 1\ (7(f) 1\ f) E TOt
hence every element of an a-section is also an element of TOt. Therewith the

second part of the assertion is established .
•
From Lemma 9.2.1 and Lemma 9.2.2 we conclude that weakly extensional maps
7 : LX f----t L and systems (TOt)OtEL of subsets TOt of {I E LX II::; a} provided
with (WR) and (We) come to the same thing.
Proposition 9.2.3 (Weakly extensional, L-fuzzy topologies)

Let 7 : LX f----t L be a weakly extensional map and (TOt)OtEL be the system 01
a-sections corresponding to 7.
(a) 7 satisfies (01) iff
(Vl*) Ix E TT
(b) 7 satisfies (02) iff (TOt)OtEL fulfills the condition
(02*) hl\a E TOt , kl\{3 E Tf3 ==> (a I8i (3) 1\ (hl8ik) E TOt®f3
(c) 7 satisfies (03) iff (TOt)OtEL fulfills the condition
(03*) {gi liE I} ~ TOt ==> V gi E TOt

iEI
Proof. Referring to 9.2.1 and 9.2.2 it is easy to verify (a) - (c) .

•
Lemma 9.2.4 Let 1 be an L-fuzzy topology on X and Ir be the L-fuzzy

interior corresponding to I. Then the following assertions are equivalent
(i) 1 is weakly extensional.
(ii) For all a E L the equivalence
h = Ir(h, a) ¢::=> h /\ a Ir(h /\ a, a)
holds.
Proof. By the definition of Ir the subsequent relations hold
h = Ir(h, a) < I(h)

h/\a = Ir(h /\ a, a) < I(a /\ h)
hence (i) implies (ii).

In order to verify (ii)~(i) we proceed as follows: Referring to Lemma 9.2.1 it
is sufficient to verify (WR) and (WC). Let us assume
a < l(f) , f < a , 13 < a
then the relations
f , Ir(f, a)
follow from the definition of Ir and (Il), (I3) and (14). Now we apply (ii):
= Ir(f, a) /\ /3 Ir(/3 /\ Ir(f, a) , 13)

< Ir(/3 /\ f , 13)
-i.e. 13 < 1(/3 /\ f) . Therewith (WR) is verified.

Let us now assume
Vi E 1
We invoke (ii) and (16) and obtain the following relations
h Ir(h, ai) ViE 1 , h = Ir(h, Vai)

iEf
iEf iEf iEf
hence (WC) is established .

•
9.3 Local L-interior operators

Referring to the subsection 9.1 we understand a pair (f, a) E LX x L as a
local element of LX with domain a. Keeping this interpretation in mind we are
now going to introduce interior operators as self-mappings of the set of all local
elements of LX.
Definition 9.3.1 (Local L-interior operator)
A map Int : LX x L I---t LX is called a local L-interior operator on X if and
only if Int satisfies the following axioms:
(JO) Int(lx, T) Ix
(31) (J ~ a, J ~ h ~ 7J /\ Int(f, a) < Int(h, (J)
(32) Int(f, a) ® Int(h, (J) < Int(f ® h, a ® (J)
(33) Int(f, a) < a /\ J .
(34) Int(f, a) < Int(Int(f, a), a) .
(J5) (a ® .1 /\ Int(f, a)) ® (a ® .1 /\ h) < Int(f ® h, a ®.1) .
(36) ai /\ h = Int(h, ai) 'V i E I ~ V ai /\ h = Int(h, V ai) .

iEI iEI
•
An obvious consequence of (30),(Jl) and (33) is the property
(30') Int(lx, a) a· Ix .
Further we infer from (31),(J3) and (34)
(34') h /\ a = Int(f, a) ~ h /\ a = Int(h, a) = Int(a /\ h, a)
Proposition 9.3.2 Let T : LX I---t L be a weakly extensional, L-Juzzy topol-
ogy on X and ('TO:)O:EL be the corresponding system oj a-sections. Then the
map Intr : LX x L I---t LX defined by
Intr(f, a) = V{g E 'To: Ig ~ j} J E LX, a EL
is a local L-interior operator. In particular, the relation

'To: = {h E LX Ih ~ Intr(h, a) } (')
holds Jor all a E L.
248 u. Hahle and A.P. Bostak
Proof. (a) As an immediate consequence from (03) (cf. Proposition 9.2.3(c))

we obtain Intr(j, a) E T ct ; hence relation (.) holds. In particular, the axiom
(J4) follows.
(b) Because of 9.2.3(a) Axiom (JO) is valid. Further (J1) follows from (WR) (cf.
9.2.1(i)) and the definition of Intr. Further, (J3) holds again by definition.
Now we invoke Axiom (XVI) and obtain:
Intr(j, a) ® Intr(h, (3) < a ® 7J = a ® f3

i.e. (J2) follows from (02) (cf. 9.2.3(b)). In order to verify (J5) we proceed
as follows: First we put 9 = Intr(j, a) ; then 9 = a 1\ 9 E T ct • Since
h 1\ 1. = 10 E T.L, Proposition 9.2.3(b) implies a ® 1. 1\ (g ® h) E Tct®.L;
hence we obtain from Lemma 9.1.4 and the definition of Intr:
< Intr(g ® h, a ® 1.)

< Intr(j ® h, a ® 1.)
Therewith (J5) is established.
Finally, it is easy to see that (J6) is equivalent to (We) .
•
Proposition 9.3.3 Let Int : LX x L I---t LX be a local L-interior operator
on X. Then the system (Tct)ctEL defined by
T ct = {J E LX I f ~ Int(j,a)}
is a system of a-sections of a weakly extensional, L-fuzzy topology TInt.
Proof. (a) First we show that (Tct)ctEL fulfills (WR) and (We). Let us
assume f E Tct ; then (J1) implies:
7J 1\ f < 73 1\ Int(j, a) < Int(j, (3) whenever f3 ~ a
i.e. f3 1\ f E T{j; hence (WR) is verified. Further, we consider h E LX and a
subset {ai liE I} of L with h 1\ ai E T cti ViE 1. Then the definition of T ct,
and (J3) imply
Vi E I
Now we invoke (J6) and obtain: h 1\ V ai E TViEI ct, ; hence (We) follows.
iEI
(b) Referring to Proposition 9.2.3 it is sufficient to prove (01*) - (03*).
Obviously (JO) implies (01*). In order to verify (02*) we proceed as follows:
Let us assume a 1\ hE T ct 7J 1\ k E T{j - i.e.
a 1\ h = Int(h, a) , 73 1\ k = Int(k, (3)
Step 1 : From (J1) we infer:
a 1\ 7J 1\ h < Int(h, a 1\ 7J) , a 1\ 73 1\ k < Int(k, f3 1\ a) .
Now we invoke (XV), (XVIII), (J2) and obtain:
a/\~ /\ (h®k) < Int(h, a /\ m® Int(k, {3 /\ a)

< Int((h ® k), (a /\~) ® ({3/\ a»
= Int((h ® k), (a ® {3) /\ (a /\ ~»
Referring to (X), (XIII), (XV) and (XVI) we note
(a ® {3) /\ (a /\ {3) = ((a /\~) ® ({3/\ a) = a /\ ~
hence the relation
(a ® {3) /\ a /\ {3 /\ (h ® k) = Int((h ® k), ((a ® {3) /\ (a /\~)))
holds.
Step 2 : We apply again (JI) and obtain from the idempotency of ~ -t .l
(cf. Axiom (XIV»:
a /\ (~ -t .l) /\ h ::; Int(h, a /\ (~ -t .l))
Further the axioms (II) and (X) imply (a /\ (~ -t .l)) ®.l ::; a /\ (~ -t .l) ;
hence we infer from (J5) :
(a /\ ({3 -t .l» ®.l /\ (h ® k) =

((a /\ ({3 -t .l» ®.l /\ a /\ (~ -t .l) /\ h) ® ((a /\ ({3 -t .l)) ®.l /\ k) <
((a /\ ({3 -t .l)) ®.l /\ Int(h, a /\ (~ -t .l») ® ((a /\ ({3 -t .l» ®.l /\ k <
Int(h ® k, (a /\ (73 -+ .l» ®..L)
Now we apply again (XIV), (XVIII) and observe:
(a ® {3) /\ (73 -t .l) = (a /\ (~ -t .l» ® .l
hence the following inequality holds:
(a ® {3) /\ ({3 -t .l) /\ (h ® k) < Int(h ® k, (a ® {3) /\ (~ -t .l»
Step 3 : Now we combine the results from Step 1 and Step 2 and apply the
axioms (J3), (J6) and (XVII) :
a®{3/\ (h®k) = (;@73 /\ (a v~) /\ (h ® k)
= (a ® f3) /\ ((a /\ {3) V ({3 -t .l» /\ (h ® k)
= Int((h ® k), ((a ® {3) /\ ((a /\~) V (~ -t .l»»
= Int(h ® k , a ® {3)
i.e. a. ® (3 /\ (h ® k) ET0I.®f3. Therewith (02*) is verified.

(c) Let {gi liE I} be a subset of TOI. ; then gi = Int(gi' a.) '</ iE/. Because of
(31) the inequality
V
gi < Int(V gi, a.)
iEI iEI
follows - i.e. V gi E TOI.; hence (03*) is verified.
•
iEI
Remark 9.3.4 (Role of the axiom (35»

(a) In the case of ® = /\ the axiom (35) is redundant.
(b) Let us consider the MV-algebra ([0,1]' :::;,Tm ) (cf. Example 1.2.3(b)) and
the monoidal mean operator ® determined by Tm (cf. Remark 1.2.6). Obvi-
ously, ® coincides with the arithmetic mean (cf. Example 1.2.3(b)). Then the
axiom (35) is equivalent to
Int(J, a.) ® k < '</0.=10.
•
In the subsequent propositions 9.3.5 and 9.3.6 we investigate some aspects
of the relationship between L-fuzzy interior operators and local L-interior op-
erators.
Proposition 9.3.5 Let I be an L-Juzzy interior operator on X satisfying the
additional axiom
(/7) h = I(h, a.) <==> h /\ 0. = I(h /\ 0., a.) '</0. E L .
Then Int : LX x L f---t LX defined by
Int(J' a.) 0. /\ I(J' a.) , a. E L
is a local L-interior operator on X.
Proof. The axioms (30) and (31) follow immediately from (/0) and (11).
Further we infer from (II), (XVI) and (/2)
(0. /\ I(J, a.)) ® (/3 /\ I(g, (3)) < (0. ® /3) /\ (I(J, a.) ® I(g, (3))
< (a. ® (3) /\ I(J ® g, a. ® (3) ;
hence (32) is verified. The axiom (33) is a direct consequence from (/3). Because
of (/3), (/4) and (/7) we obtain:
Int(J, a.) = 0. /\ I(J' a.) = 0. /\ I(I(J' a.) , a.)
= 0./\ I(o./\I(J,o.) , a.) = Int(Int(J,o.))
hence (34) is also verified. Further the axiom (35) follows immediately from
(15), (12) and (XVIII). Finally (36) is a direct consequence of (/6) and (/7).
•
Proposition 9.3.6 Let Int be a local L-interior operator. Then the map I :
LX x L ~ L defined by
I(f, a) = (a -+ Int(f, a)) A f
is an L-fuzzy interior operator provided with Property (17).
Proof. We show that I satisfies (10) - (17). The axiom (10) is obvious.
Referring to (II) we obtain in the case of (3 ~ a and f ~ g:
{3 * I(f, a) = ({3 * (a -+ Int(f, a))) A f
< {3 A Int(f, a) ~ Int(g, (3)
hence (11) follows. The verification of (12) is divided into three steps:
Step 1: We show:
(a ® (3) A (a A (3) * (I(f, a) ® I(g, (3)) ~
~ Int«I(f, a) ® I(g, (3)) , «a ® (3) A a A {3))

Referring to (X), (XIII), (XV), (XVI) and (JI) - (J4) we obtain:
(a ® (3) A (a A (3) * (I(f, a) ® I(g, (3)) =

(a A {3) * (I(f, a) ® I(g, (3)) ~
({3AInt(Int(f,a),a)) ® ('OAInt(Int(g,(3),(3)) <
Int(I(f, a) , a A {3) ® Int(I(g, (3) , (3 A a) <
Int(I(f, a) ® I(g, (3) , «a A {3) ® «(3 A a))) =
Int(I(f, a) ® I(g, (3) , «a ® (3) A a A {3))
Step 2: We show
«a®,8)A(,8-+.i)) * (Z(f,a)®Z(g,,8)) <
~ Znt(I(f, a) ® Z(g, (3) , «a ® (3) A ({3 -+ .i)))
Because of (X), (XIV) and (XVIII) the relation
(a ® (3) A «(3 -+ .i) = (a A (,8 -+ .i)) ®.i < a A ({3 -+ 1,)

holds. Then we infer from (JI), (J3) - (J5):
(a ® (3) A «(3 -+.i) * (I(f,a) ®I(g,(3)) <

«(a A «(3 -+ .1)) ® .i) A Int(Int(f,a) a)) ®
® «(a A «(3 -+ .1)) ® .i) A I(g,(3)) ~
«(a A «(3 -+ .i)) ®.i) A Int(I(f, a), (a A ({3 -+ .i)))) ®
® «(a A «(3 -+.i)) ®.1) A I(g, (3)) ~
Int(I(f, a) ® I(g, (3) , «a ® (3) A ({3 -+.1)) .

Step 3: Since Axiom (XVII) implies
a®f3 = (a ® f3) " ((a" f3) v (f3 -+ .i))

= (a" /3) v (a" (f3 -+ .i)) ® .i
we conclude from Step 1, Step 2, (31) and (36):
a ® f3 * (I(f, a) ® I(g, f3))

< Int(I(f, a) ® I(g, f3) , a ® f3)
< Int(f ® g, a ® f3) ;
hence (/2) follows.

Further (13) and (IS) hold by the definition of I. Now we apply (31), (33) and
(34) and obtain:
I(f,a) = (a -+ Int(f, a)) " f

< (a -+ Int(Int(f, a), a)) " f
< (a -+ Int(I(f, a), a)) " (a -+ Int(Int(f, a), a)) " f
= (a -+ Int(I(f,a),a)) "I(f,a)
= I(I(f,a),a)
hence (14) is established.

In order to verify (16) let us consider f, r E LX with the following property:
Then we obtain:
r :5 f,
Now we apply (34') and (36) :
Int(r, Vai) = (Vai) " r

iEI iEI
i.e.
iEI
hence (16) is verified.
Because of the definition of I we infer from (33) and (34) :
I(f, a) =f {=} Int(f, a) = a" f {=}
{=} Int(a" f, a) = a" f {=} I(a" f , a) = a" f

hence (17) follows .
•
Referring to 9.3.2 and 9.3.3 it is easy to see that weakly extensional, L-fuzzy
topologies and local L-interior operators come to the same thing. Moreover, a
weakly extensional, L-fuzzy topology T is enriched if and only if the corre-
sponding local L-interior operator Intr is enriched - i.e. Intr satisfies the
axiom (IE) for all a E L.
By analogy to subsection 8.1 local L-interior operators admit a characterization
by local L-neighborhood systems in a sense which is explained below.
Definition 9.3.7 (Local L-fuzzy neighborhood system)

Let X be a set. A map IJ1 : X x LX x L -+ L is called a local L-neighborhood
system iff IJ1 satisfies the following axioms:
(1J10) lJ1(x, lx, T) = T, Vx EX.

(lJ1l) u ~ v, (3 ~ a ~ 7J /\ lJ1(x, u, a) ~ lJ1(x, v, (3)
(1J12) lJ1(x,ul,a) ®1J1(X,U2,(3) < IJ1(X,Ul ®u2,a®(3)
(1J13) lJ1(x,u,a) < u(x)/\Q
(1J14) lJ1(x,u,a) < V {1J1(x,v,a) I v(y) ~ lJ1(y,u,a) Vy E X} .

(1J15) (a®..L/\IJ1(x,u,a)) ® (a®..L/\v(x)) < lJ1(x,u®v,a®..L)
(1J16) Qi/\U(X) ~ lJ1(x,u,ai)ViEI,VxEX ~
~ u(X) /\ Vai < lJ1(x,u, Vai) Vx E X

iEI iEI
•
An obvious modification of 8.1.9 leads to the following
Proposition 9.3.8 Every local, L-interior operator Int can be identified with
a local, L-neighborhood system IJ1 and vice versa. In particular the relationship
between Int and IJ1 is determined by
lJ1(x, u, a) = [Int(j, a)](x)
9.4 Filter theory on local elements of LX

In this subsection we are going to adjust the concept of L-fuzzy filters to the
situation given in the previous subsection.
Definition 9.4.1 (Localized, L-fuzzy filters) A map :F : LX xL -+ L is

called a localized, L-fuzzy filter on X iff :F has the following properties:
(:FO) :F(lx, a) =Q Va E L .
(.1'1) u~v,(3~a ~ :F(u,a)/\7J < :F(v, (3) .

(.1"2) .1"(u,a)®.1"(v,{3) < .1"(u®v,a®{3) .

(.1"3) .1"(10,0.) 1.
A localized, L-fuzzy filter .1" is called enriched if.1" satisfies the additional axiom
(.1"4) (.1"(u,a)) *A < .1"(u * A, 0.) Va E L, VA E L .
•
Caution. In general a localized, L-fuzzy filter is not an L-fuzzy filter. This is
only true, if T and 1. are the only idempotent elements in L (w.r.t. *).
•
Remark 9.4.2 (a) Let v be an L-filter on Xj then.1"v: LX xL -+ L defined
by
Q 1\ v(l) V f E LX , Va E L
is a localized, L-fuzzy filter on X. Moreover, if 1)1 is a local L-neighborhood
system on X, then for every x E X the map I)1z : LX x L -+ L determined by
I)1z (1,0.) l)1(x, f, 0.)
is a localized, L-fuzzy filter on X. In particular, I)1z is called the localized,

L-fuzzy neighborhood filter at the point x.
(c) Let us consider the case of ® = 1\ . Then under the hypothesis of (.1"1) the
axiom (.1"2) can be replaced by
(.1"2*) .1"(u, 0.) 1\ F(v, 0.) < F(u 1\ v, 0.) Va E L.
(d) As an immediate corollary of the previous considerations we obtain that

a weakly extensional, L-fuzzy topology T is enriched iff all localized, L-fuzzy
neighborhood filters are enriched.
•
Lemma 9.4.3 Every enriched localized, L-fuzzy filter .1" fulfills the following
property
Q 1\ ( 1\ f(x)) ~
(C) { zEX Va E L
<
The arguments of the proof of 6.2.1 can be repeated more or less verbatim.
•
Let .1".1"L(X) (resp . .1".1"!(X) ) be the set of all (resp. enriched) localized,
L-fuzzy filters on X. On .1".1"L(X) (resp . .1".1"!(X) ) we can introduce a partial
ordering ~ as follows:
As a direct consequence of Lemma 9.4.3 we obtain that the smallest en-

riched localized, L-fuzzy filter in FFt(X) coincides with the smallest stratified
L-filter (cf. Remark 9.4.2 (a».
Proposition 9.4.4 (Strict MV -algebras)
Let M = (L,~,*) be a strict (complete) MV-algebra with square roots and
® be the monoidal mean operator (cf. 1.2.6). Further let F be an enriched,
localized, L-fuzzy filter on X. Then F satisfies the following property:
(F5) {vn EN, (fi)f=1 E (LX)n, (O:i)f=1 E Ln the implication
/1 * ... * fn = 10 ::::} F(/1,O:I) * ... * F(fn,O:n) = 1. holds.
Proof. (a) Let 0: be an element of L. We recall that the m-th power and
2n-th root of 0: are defined recursively as follows:
=
hence we obtain
(o?/2,,+1 )2"
=
In particular the relation (0: 1 / 2")2"-1 0: 1 / 2 holds for all n E N.
Therefore we can derive from (83) the following important relation
((1.1/2")2"-1)1/2 = (1. 1/ 2"+1)2"-1
Now we are in the position to verify by induction upon n :

(1. 1/ 2")2" -1 --t 1. = 1. 1/ 2"
Because of the strictness of (L,~, *) the previous formula holds for n = 1.

We assume the validity of (*) for n, and take square roots on both sides:
=
Applying again the strictness we substitute 1.1/ 2 by 1. 1/ 2 --t 1. and obtain:
=
= (1.1/ 2,,+1)2,,+1_1
hence (*) holds also for n + 1.

(b) Since the idempotent kernel (1. 1/ 2") of 1. 1/ 2" coincides with 1., we
conclude from Subsection 1.3 : 1. 1/ 2" --t 1. = T. Hence the relation
(1.1/2" )n T Vn E N
follows from (*) .
(c) Let F be an enriched, localized, L-fuzzy filter. We verify by induction

upon n:
(00)
Case 1: (n = 1) The relation
(:F(II,a1))1/2 = (:F(II, 0.1))1/2 * (:F(lx, T))1/2 < :F(II 1/2,0.1 1/ 2 )
follows from (:FO) and (:F2).
Case 2: (Induction step) Now we assume that (00) holds for some n E N.
Because of
and
«I1 * ... * 1n)1/270)1/2 * (In+1 )1/2 70 + 1

~
(I1 * ... * 1n * 1n+1 )1/270+1
we infer from (:Fl), (:F2) and (**) :
70 + 1 1/2 70 + 1 70 + 1
:F«II * ... * In+l) 1/2 , (ad * ... * (an+d 1/2 ) >
1/2 70 1/2 1/270 1/2
:F(((II * ... * In) ) * «(fn+l) ) ,
«adW * ... * (a n )1/27O)1/2 * «an+d/ 27O )1/2) >
70 1/2 70
[:F«II * ... * In) 1/2 , (ad * ... * (an) 1/270 )] 1/2 *
* [:F«(fn+l) 1/270 ,(an +l)1/2n)]1/2
Now we invoke the induction hypothesis and obtain:
hence relation (00) is established.

(d) Let us consider (fi)f=1 E (LX)n with II * ... * In = 10 . Then we infer
from formulae (00) (cf. Step (c)):
Since :F is enriched, the relation

1. 1/2 70
=
follows from (**) and Lemma 9.4.3. Hence we obtain:
Taking the 2n -th power on both sides, F(h, (1) * ... * F(fn, an) = .1
follows.
•
Corollary 9.4.5 Let (L,::;, *) be a complete MV -algebra with square roots,
and ® be the corresponding, monoidal mean operator. Then every enriched,
localized, L-fuzzy filter satisfies (F5).
Proof. In the Boolean case L = E it is easy to see that every (enriched)

local, Iffi-fuzzy filter fulfills (F5). Since every MV -algebra with square roots
can be uniquely decomposed into a Boolean algebra and a strict MV -algebra
(cf. Subsection 1.3), the assertion follows from Proposition 9.4.4.
•
Corollary 9.4.6 Let (L,::;, *) be a strict (complete) MV -algebra without non-
trivial idempotent elements {i.e. L = [0,1] and * = Tm (see Example 1.2.3)).
Further let ® be the monoidal (i.e. arithmetic) mean operator. Then for every
enriched, localized L- fuzzy filter F there exists a stratified L- filter ii on X such
that
F(f, a) ::; ii(f) for all a E L .
Proof . Since T is the only idempotent element in L being different from

.1, we obtain that any enriched, localized L-fuzzy filter F induces a family
F = {va I a E L \ {.l} } of stratified, L-filters as follows:
Va (f) = F(f, a) whenever a:j:..l
Because of Proposition 9.4.4 (see (F5)) F satisfies the hypothesis of Theorem

6.2.6(b). Hence there exists a stratified L-filter which dominates F.
•
Theorem 9.4.7 Let (L,::;,*) be a complete MV-algebra with square roots,
and ® be the corresponding monoidal mean operator. Further let FF =
= {Fi liE I} be a family of enriched, localized, L-fuzzy filters on X provided
with the following property
For every finite, non empty subset {iI, ... , in} of I and
(~) { for all (/;j ).7=1 E (LX)n, (aij ).7=1 E Ln the implication
/;1 * ... * /;n = 10 ===? Fil (h , ail) * ... * Fin (fin' ai n) =.1
holds .
Then FF has an upper bound in FF[(X) .

Proof. We define a map Foo : LX xL I---t L by

Foo(h,x) = Vf"/\. (Fil(k,ail) * ... * Fdfin,aiJ
3 n E I'll, ai; E L, Ii; E LX, ail * ... * ain ~ x, k * ... * fin ~ h}
(a) We show that Foo is an enriched, localized, L-fuzzy filter on X. The axioms
(FO) and (F4) are evident. The hypothesis guarantees the validity of (F3).
The axiom (Fl) follows from
73 /\. Fi; (Ii; , ai; ) < Fi; (fi; ,ai; /\. (3)
In order to verify (F2) we first observe:
(x /\. (Fil (k, ail) * ... * Fin (lin, ai n)))1/2 =
= [x/\. ((Fil(lillail))1/2* ... *(Fdlin,ain))1/2j V 1.1/ 2
1. 1/2 * (Fil (gill (3il) )1/2 = (Fil (1.0, xI) )1/2 * (Fil (gill {3il ))1/2 <
< Fil ((giY/2 * (1. 1/ 2 . Ix) , xi/2 * (3:(2) ;
1. 1 / 2 /\. X2 < Xl ® X2 (see: Proposition 1.3.1(c))
Therefore we are in the position to transfer that strategy developed for the
verification of (F2) in 6.2.6 to the present case. Since this proof is extremely
technical, we leave the details to the reader.
(b) Because of (FO) the enriched, localized, L-fuzzy filter Foo is an upper
bound of FF .
•
An immediate consequence from Corollary 9.4.5 and Theorem 9.4.7 is the
following
Proposition 9.4.8 Let (L,~, *) be a complete MV -algebra with square roots
and ® be the corresponding monoidal mean operator. Then a family FF of
enriched, localized, L-fuzzy filters on X has an upper bound in FFf (X) if and
only if FF satisfies Condition (j) in 9.4.7.
9.5 Hausdorff separation axiom for weakly extensional, L-

fuzzy topological spaces
Let 7 be an (enriched) weakly extensional, L-fuzzy topology on X and 1)1 be
the local L-neighborhood system corresponding to T An (enriched) localized,
L-fuzzy filter F on X converges to Xo E X (i.e. Xo is a limit point of F) w.r.t.
7 if and only if the following relation holds:
l)1(xo, f, a) < F(f, a) V (f, a) E LX x L
An (enriched) weakly extensional, L-fuzzy topological space (X, is called n
Hausdorff separated if and only if every (enriched) localized, L-fuzzy filter has
at most one limit point.
Proposition 9.5.1 (Complete MV-algebras with square roots)

Let (L, ~, *) be a complete MV -algebra with square roots and ® be the cor-
responding monoidal mean operator. Further let T be a weakly extensional,
enriched L-fuzzy topology on X and IJ1 be the local L-neighborhood system cor-
responding to r.
Then (X, T) is Hausdorff separated if and only if for every
pair (Xl, X2) E X x X with Xl i= X2 the set {IJ1X1 , IJ1x2 } consisting of localized,
L-fuzzy neighborhood filters at Xl and X2 does not satisfy the condition (~) in
9·4·7.
Proof. The assertion follows immediately from Lemma 9.2.4, Proposition

9.3.5, Proposition 9.3.8, Remark 9.4.2(a) and Proposition 9.4.8 .
•
We emphasize that in the spirit of subsection 6.4 a general development of a
local convergence theory for weakly extensional, L-fuzzy topological spaces is
possible. Details of this theory are left to the reader. In particular we do not
touch the links between convergence in L-topological spaces and weakly exten-
sional, L-fuzzy topological spaces. What is more important is the observation
that due to the characterization of weakly extensional, L-fuzzy topologies by
local L-neighborhood systems (cf. 9.2 and 9.3) an intrinsic local convergence
theory is always available.
10 Historical comments 19
10.1 L-topologies, stratified L-topologies

In the case of a complete Heyting algebras L (i.e. ® = * = /\) the axioms of
L-topological spaces and the concept of L-continuity trace back to the works of
C.L. Chang [10] and J.A.Goguen [24]. Actually, C.L. Chang is using the real
unit interval (i.e. L = I = [0,1]) while J.A. Goguen, referring to cl-monoids
indeed relies on complete Heyting algebras. The fact that the constant maps
between L-topological spaces are not necessarily continuous induces R. Lowen
[64] to modify the axioms of L-topologies: he replaces Axiom (01) by a stronger
requirement that all constant maps Q: : X -+ L are always open. Thus Lowen's
work is placed in the category of (weakly) stratified I-topological spaces where
I = [0,1].
19The aim of this section is to present some information about investigations done in Fuzzy
Topology, more or less directly related to the topic of our work. Having neither the possibility,
nor the intention to give here a comprehensive survey and analysis of the subject on the whole
we proceed from the following two criteria when mentioning a paper in these Comments:
its importance for and closedness to the main trend of our work, and the priority of the
corresponding publication. Note also that some essential comments of historical nature have
been already made at appropriate places in the main text.
10.2 L-interior operators, L-neighborhood structure

L-interior operators (in case of completely distributive, complete lattices) first
appear in B.Hutton's paper [46] on normality in L-topological spaces.
In the case of the Heyting algebra L = [0,1] early concepts of various L-
neighborhood structures of L-topological spaces are contained in papers written
by C.K. Wong [117], R.H. Warren [114, 115], Pu Paoming and Liu Yingming
[84], S. Gottwald [25], C. De Mitri and E. Pascali [12], E.E. Kerre and P.L. Ottoy
[52]. In the more general setting of completely distributive, complete lattices
L-neighborhood structures of L-topological spaces are discussed by S.E. Rod-
abaugh [91], Wang Guojun [112], Zhao Xiadong [119] and some other (mainly
Chinese) authors. Note also that under certain assumptions Chapter 5 in this
volume ([43]) is specially devoted to the characterization of L-topologies by
L-valued neighborhoods.
10.3 Convergence in L-topologies

In the papers on Fuzzy Topology one can find several different approaches to
the study of convergence in L-topological spaces.
In the case of L = [0,1] the research of convergence structures in the frame-
work of L-topologies by means of L-nets has been initiated by Pu Paoming and
Liu Yingming [84, 61]. Later on, M.Macho Stadler and M.A. de Prada Vicente
(see e.g. [74, 75]) and some other researchers have worked in this direction. The
L-net convergence structure in the case of completely distributive, complete
lattices has been studied by Liu Yingming and Luo Maokang [63].
Convergence theory on the basis of prefilters (i.e. certain subsets of LX,
cf. e.g. [7]) is initiated by R. Lowen [67] in case of stratified [O,l]-topologies
and later extended by R. Warren [116] to arbitrary [O,l]-topologies. Certain
contributions to the investigation of prefilter convergence in [0, l]-topologies
have been done by A. Katsaras [51], M.Macho Stadler and M.A.de Prada Vicente
[76] and some other authors. In [68] the relations between net convergence and
prefilter convergence in [0, l]-topologies have been studied. B. Hutton [47] is the
first one to apply prefilter convergence to the study of L-topologies in case of
arbitrary completely distributive, complete lattices L. In the absence of complete
distributivity of L certain prefilters (actually I-filters, cf. also the definition of
T-filters in 6.2.3) have been used by U. H6hle [30] (cf. also [36]) to develop a
convergence theory for Boolean valued topologies (Ja-topologies). Among other
things, this approach has important applications to Probability Theory.
Under different lattice-theoretic assumptions on the lattice L convergence
on the basis of L-filters (d. Definition 6.1.4.) is studied in a series of papers
by P. Eklund and W. Giihler (see e.g. [13, 14, 15]). In the case of complete
MV-algebras the theory of L-filters is initiated by U. H6hle [41]. Recently this
theory has been continued by J. Gutierrez Garcia, 1. Mardones Perez and M.
Burton (see e.g. [26]). In particular, in the case of GL-monoids they investigate
carefully various relations between different kinds of lattice-valued filters (see
also Section 2 in Chapter 5 of this volume).
10.4 Topological properties of L-topological spaces

10.4.1 Compactness in L-topological spaces
The compactness property being one of the central topological concepts, natu-
rally drew attention of almost everyone interested in Fuzzy Topology. Of the
numerous papers considering analogues of compactness in the context of L-
topological spaces (usually under the assumption of complete distributivity of
=
the lattice L) we shall mention here the papers by C.L. Chang [10) (L [0,1)),
R. Lowen [64) (stratified [0, I)-topologies), J.A. Goguen [24], T.E. Gantner, R.C.
Steinlage and R.H. Warren [20), B. Hutton [47], S.E. Rodabaugh [92), J.J. Chad-
wick [8) (L = [0,1)), T. Kubiak [57], Wang Guojun [113) and Zhao Dongsheng
[120) (L-net approach to compactness in L-topological spaces). A concept of
T-compactness for [0, I)-topologies, where T is a fixed t-norm on [0,1]' is con-
sidered in [111). A. Sostak [103, 107) in his study of compactness properties
although referring to L-fuzzy topological spaces, actually reduces the topic to
the case of L-topologies by considering corresponding a-cuts. Compactness in
probabilistic topological spaces and related problems are studied in [31). A na-
tion of compactness for non-completely distributive Boolean valued topologies
has been developed by U. Hohle [35).
For more information on different approaches to the concept of compactness
in L-topological spaces the reader is referred for instance to the following papers
[57, 92, 94, 104).
10.4.2 Separation in L-topological spaces

Many authors devote themselves to the problem of finding appropriate defi-
nitions of separation properties (in particular, Hausdorff-type separation ax-
ioms) for L-topological spaces. Among the early works dealing with this prob-
lem we shall mention here papers by Pu Paoming and Liu Yingming [84, 85],
R.Srivastava, S.N.Lal and A.K. Srivastava [108, 109], W. Kotze ("separation"
of disjoint [0, I)-points - i.e. [0, I]-subsets with one-point supports, by disjoint
open [O,I]-subsets), U. Hohle [36] (a very weak Hausdorff-type separation prop-
erty in Boolean-valued topologies), M. Sarkar [97, 98), D. Adnadjevic [2) ("sepa-
ration" of distinct L-points by L-neighborhoods (in [97] and in [2] L = [0,1])), B.
Hutton and 1. Reilly [48] (a purely lattice-theoretic approach), S.E. Rodabaugh
[87,88) (an a-level type approach), R. Lowen and P. Wuyts [118) (an approach
based on prefilters), A. Sostak [104) (a spectral approach, L = [0,1)), Liu Ying-
ming and Luo Maokang [62] (an approach using so called remote neighborhoods
[112)).
Separation properties of regularity type have been studied by M. Sarkar
[97, 98), D. Adnadjevic [2), B. Hutton and 1. Reilly [48], S.R. Malghan and S.S.
Benchalli [77).
For more information concerning different schemes of separation axioms, in
particular, concerning different definitions of Hausdorffness and regularity in
L-topological spaces the reader is referred for instance to the following papers
[48, 58, 59, 89, 92, 94, 104].
10.4.3 Extending continuous functions

The problem of extending continuous functions from a subset A in an L-to-
pological space X to the whole space X has two essentially different settings:
the existence of a continuous extension under assumption that A is a closed
subset of X and the existence of a continuous extension under assumption that
A is a dense subset of X (the second one is the so called Extension Principle).
Chapter 6 in this Volume is devoted to the first one of these problems (see [59]);
this paper contains also the relevant and quite extensive bibliography on this
subject.
On the other hand, as far as we know, the second problem in its general
setting is considered in our paper (see Section 6.3) for the first time. In the
special case when the function is defined on a dense subset of a Boolean valued
topological space and takes its values in a (probabilistic) Boolean valued uniform
space, the Extension Principle has been established by U. Hohle [33] (see also
[36]).
10.5 Probabilistic L-topologies

The axioms of probabilistic L-topologies are introduced by U. Hohle [30, 31,
33, 34] in order to provide probabilistic metric spaces [99] with appropriate
L-topological structures (cf. also [43]). In the same papers mentioned above
foundations of the theory of probabilistic L-topologies have been developed. In
particular, characterizations of probabilistic L-topologies by means of closure
operators and by means of systems of crisp sets of L-valued neighborhoods
have been obtained here.
10.6 [0,1 ]-topologies on spaces of probability measures

[O,l]-topologies on spaces of probability measures on the Borel a-algebra of a
separable metric space have been considered by R. Lowen [69] - see also the
construction of the L-real interval by Hutton [46] and the construction of the
L-realline by T.E. Gantner, R.C. Steinlage and R.H. Warren [20].
10.7 L-fuzzy topological spaces

The axioms of L-fuzzy topological spaces and the corresponding concept of LF-
continuity (in case of a complete Heyting algebra L) go back to A. Sostak [101]
(L = [0,1]), [103, 104]. Similar ideas appear also in U. Hohle [32], G. Gerla [21]
and T. Kubiak [55].
Characterization of L-fuzzy topologies by means of L-fuzzy interior operators
and L-fuzzy closure operators is given in [11] (in case L = [0,1]) and in [107]
(in case of completely distributive, complete lattices L endowed with an order
reversing involution). A characterization of [O,l]-fuzzy topologies by means
of certain [O,l]-fuzzy neighborhood systems is obtained in [105]. In [106] the
([O,l]-net ) convergence structure of [0, l]-fuzzy topologies has been studied.
10.8 The use of "enriched" lattices

J .A. Goguen [24] was, probably, the first one who felt the necessity to enrich
the structure of the underlying lattice L with an additional, binary operation
* in order to get a deeper insight into the subject of Fuzzy Topology and to
develop the corresponding adequate theory of L-topological spaces. However,
proceeding from a cl-monoid (L,~, 1\, V, *) J.A. Goguen's theory actually relies
only on the structure of the underlying complete Heyting algebra and does not
derive great benefit from those possibilities provided by the additionally given
monoidal operation *.
On the other hand, already in the late seventies, U. Hohle's investigations in
the field of Fuzzy Topology rely essentially on complete lattices enriched with
additional, binary operation(s). In particular, complete lattices L equipped with
two additional commutative semigroup operations * and ® form the "environ-
ment" where the theory of (fuzzy) probabilistic topologies has been developed
(see [30, 31, 33, 34]).
In order to understand the imporlance of enriching the underlying lattice
with additional, algebraic structure(s) the reader is also referred to Remark
7.1.5 and the next subsection.
10.9 Role of algebraic properties of the meet operator in

the theory of L-topologies
The investigation of the role of idempotency, commutativity and associativity
played by the meet operator is first conducted in the authors' paper [45] and
it leads to a replacement of complete Heyting algebras by GL-monoids with
square roots. In this context the equivalence between strongly enriched L-fuzzy
topologies and strongly stratified L-topologies (cf. Theorem 5.2.6) has already
been proved in [45] (which uses a different terminology).
10.10 Categorical aspects of Fuzzy Topology. Functors

between categories of L- (fuzzy) topological spaces
Efforts of many authors have been directed to the problem to establish essential
categorical relations between different categories of L-(fuzzy) topology as well
as between categories of L-(fuzzy) topological spaces and the category TOP of
topological spaces: see e.g. [88] and [104] which give a survey on some earlier
attempts in this direction. Here we shall linger on some aspects of this problem
which are most closely related to our work.
10.10.1 In the special case L = [0,1] the functor w. (= w) : TOP --+ L-TOP
appears for the first time in R. Lowen's paper [64]. In particular, w is de-
fined to be the functor which assigns to each topological space (X, T) the
[0,1]-topological space (X, £(T)) where £(T) denotes the set of all lower T-
semicontinuous mappings from X to [0,1] (cf. Case B in Subsection 7.4). Gen-
eralizing the concept of lower T-semicontinuity to the case of L-valued maps,
264 u. Hable and A.P. Sostak
T. Kubiak [57] extends the functor w to the general setting given by complete
lattices L. In the case of completely distributive lattices T. Kubiak's definition
becomes equivalent to the one accepted in Subsection 7.4. If L is a complete
MV-algebra, then the range of the functor w, is contained in the category of
probabilistic L-topological spaces (cf. Remark 7.4.13).
10.10.2 The fact that w has a right adjoint is first established by R. Lowen,
P. Wuyts and E. Lowen in the case of the real unit interval (cf. [73]). Later
on, T. Kubiak [57] extends this result to the scope of completely distributive
lattices. A careful analysis of T. Kubiak's arguments (cf. Remark 3.7 in [57])
shows that by virtue of Kubiak's definition of w this result holds even true in a
more general lattice-theoretic context.
10.10.3 The functor ~, used in the study of the adjoint situation between
TOP and L-TOP (see Subsection 3.7) essentially traces back to H.W. Martin's
paper [78] (in case L = [0,1]). Later analogous functors have been used by
various authors studying different problems in Fuzzy Topology - see e.g. the
functor Gx. in S.E. Rodabaugh's paper [90] which investigates topological and
algebraic properties of L-fuzzy real lines.
10.10.4 The hypergraph functor 9 from L-TOP to TOP has been introduced
(independently) by E.S. Santos [96] and R. Lowen [66] in the case of L = [0,1],
and later it has been systematically used in the study of relations between these
categories - see e.g. [54, 87, 88]. It is an interesting and remakable fact that
the hypergraph functor is even definable in the case in which the underlying
complete lattice L is given by a spatial locale (see e.g. [54] or Subsection 7.1.5).
10.10.5 Investigation of reflectivity and coreflectivity of some subcategories of
the category L-TOP has been conducted in a series of papers by H. Herrlich,
R. Lowen and P. Wuyts; see e.g. [27, 71, 72].
10.10.6 Coreflective subcategories of the category [0, 1]-FTOP of [0, l]-fuzzy
topological spaces are studied by A. Sostak [102]. In particular, the coreflectivity
of the subcategory [0, 1]-TOP in [0, 1]-FTOP has been established here.
10.10.7 In the case of complete Heyting algebras U. H6hle [37] proved the
equivalence between strongly stratified L-topologies and weakly stratified L-
topologies (cf. Theorem 5.2.7) as a by-product of the identification of stratified
L-topological spaces with topological space objects in the topos of L-valued sets
(cf. [110]).
References
[1] J. Adamek, H. Herrlich and G.E.Strecker, Abstract and Concrete Categories
(John Wiley & Sons, New York 1990).
[2] D. Adnadjevic, Separation properties of F -spaces, Mat. Vesnik 6 (1982),
1-8.
[3] A. Badrikian, Seminaire sur les Fonctions Aleatoires Lineaires et Mesures

Cylindriques, Lecture Notes in Mathematics 139 (Springer-Verlag, Berlin,
Heidelberg, New York, 1970).
[4] L.P. Belluce, Semi-simple and complete MV-algebras, Algebra Universalis

29 (1992), 1-9.
[5] _ _ , a-Complete MV-algebras, in : U. Hohle and E.P. Klement, Eds.,

Nonclassical Logics and Their Applications to Fuzzy Subset, 7-21 (Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Boston, 1995).
[6] G. Birkhoff, Lattice Theory, Amer. Math. Soc. Colloquium Publications,

third edition (Amer. Math. Soc., RI, 1973).
[7] N. Bourbaki, General Topology, Part I (Addison Wesley, Reading, MA,

1966).
[8] J.J. Chadwick, A general form of compactness in fuzzy topological spaces,

J. Math. Anal. Appl. 162 (1991),92-110.
[9] C.C. Chang, Algebraic analysis of many valued logics, Trans. Amer. Math.
Soc. 88 (1958), 467-490.
[10] C.L. Chang, Fuzzy topological spaces, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 24 (1968), 182-
190.
[11] K.C. Chattopadhyay, S.K. Samanta, Fuzzy topology: fuzzy closure, fuzzy
compactness and fuzzy connectedness, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 54 (1993),
207-212.
[12] C. De Mitri, E. Pascali, Characterization of fuzzy topologies from neigh-

bourhoods of fuzzy points, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 93 (1983), 324-327.
[13] P. Eklund, W. Gabler, Basic notions for fuzzy topology I, Fuzzy Sets and
Systems 26 (1988), 333-356.
[14] P. Eklund, W. Giihler, Contributions to fuzzy convergence, Math. Res. 87
(1992), 118-123.
[15] P. Eklund, W. Gabler, Fuzzy filter functor and convergence, In: S.E. Rod-
abaugh et al., Eds., Application of Category Theory to Fuzzy Subsets, 109-
136.(Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dodrecht, Boston 1992).
[16] J.C. Fodor, Contrapositive symmetry of fuzzy implications (Technical Re-

port 1993/1, Eotvos Lorand University, Budapest 1993).
[17] O. Frink, New algebras of logic, Amer. Math. Monthly 45 (1938), 210-219.
[18] L. Fuchs, Uber Ideale arithmetischer Ringe, Commentarii Math. Helv. 23

(1949), 334-341.
266 u. Hahle and A.P. Sastak
[19] N. Funayama, Imbedding infinitely distributive lattices completely isomor-

phic into Boolean algebras, Nagoya Math. 15 (1959), 71-8l.
[20] T.E. Gantner, R.C. Steinlage, R.H. Warren, Compactness in fuzzy topolog-
ical spaces, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 62 (1978), 547-562.
[21] G. Gerla, Generalized fuzzy points, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 120 (1986), 761-
768.
[22] G. Gierz, K.H. Hofmann, K. Keimel, J.D. Lawson, M. Mislove, D.S. Scott,
A Compendium of Continuous Lattices (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, New York
1980).
[23] J.A. Goguen, L-Fuzzy sets, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 18 (1967), 145-174.
[24] _ _ , The fuzzy Tychonoff theorem, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 43 (1973),
734-742.
[25] S. Gottwald, Fuzzy points and local properties of fuzzy topological spaces,
Fuzzy Sets and Systems 5 (1981), 199-20l.
[26] J. Gutierrez Garcia, I. Mardones Perez and M. Burton, The relationship

between different filter notions on a GL-monoid (to appear in J. Math.
Anal. Appl.).
[27] H. Herrlich, R. Lowen, On simultaneously reflective and co reflective sub-

constructs, In: Proceedings of the SoCAT 94 (On the occasion of the 60th
birthday of Guillaume Briimmer), Capetown, 1998 (to appear).
[28] H. Herrlich and G.E. Strecker, Category Theory (Allyn and Bacon, Boston
1973).
[29] P. Hamburg and L. Florescu, Topological structures in fuzzy lattices, J.
Math. Anal. Appl. 101 (1984),475-490.
[30] U. Hohle, Probabilistische Topologien, Manuscripta Math. 26 (1978), 223-
245.
[31] _ _ , Probabilistisch kompakte L-unscharfe Mengen,
[32] _ _ , Uppersemicontinuous fuzzy sets and applications, J. Math. Anal.

Appl. 78 (1980), 659-673.
[33] _ _ , Probabilistic topologies induced by L-fuzzy uniformities,
Manuscripta Math. 38 (1982), 289-323.
[34] _ _ , Probabilistic metrization of fuzzy topologies Fuzzy Sets and Sys-
tems 8 (1982), 63-69.
[35] _ _ , Compact ~-fuzzy topological spaces, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 13
(1984), 113-150.
[36] ___ , G-Fuzzy topologies on algebraic structures, J. Math. Anal. Appl.

108 (1985), 113-150.
[37] _ _ , Fuzzy topologies and topological space objects in a topos, Fuzzy Sets
and Systems 19 (1986), 299-304.
[38] ___ , Almost everywhere convergence and Boolean-valued topologies,

Supplemento ai Rendiconti del Circolo Matematico di Palermo, Serie II
29 (1992), 215-227.
[39] _ _ , Commutative, residuated f-monoids, in : U. Hohle and E.P. Kle-

ment, Eds., Nonclassical Logics and Their Applications to Fuzzy Subsets,
53-106 (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Boston 1995).
[40] ___ , Presheaves over GL-monoids, in : U. Hohle and E.P. Klement,

Eds., Nonclassical Logics and Their Applications to Fuzzy Subsets, 127-
157 (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht , Boston 1995).
[41] _ _ , MV -Algebra valued filter theory, Questiones Math. 19 (1996), 23-

46.
[42] ___ , Locales and L-topologies, in : Hans-E. Porst, Ed., Categorical

Methods in Algebra and Topology - A collection of papers in honour of Horst
Herrlich, Mathematik-Arbeitspapiere 48, 223-250 (Universitat Bremen,
September 1997).
[43] ___ , Characterization of L-topologies by L-valued neighborhoods, (in

this Volume).
[44] U. Hohle and S. Weber, On conditioning operators (Chapter 12 in this

Volume).
[45] U. Hohle and A.P. Sostak, A general theory of fuzzy topological spaces,
Fuzzy Sets and Systems 73 (1995), 131-149.
[46] B. Hutton, Normality in fuzzy topological spaces, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 50
(1975), 74-79.
[47] _ _ , Products of fuzzy topological spaces, Topology Appl. 11 (1980),

59-67.
[48] B. Hutton, I. Reilly, Separation axioms in fuzzy topological spaces, Fuzzy

Sets and Systems 3 (1980),93-104.
[49] P.T. Johnstone, Stone Spaces (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

1982).
[50] D.A. Kappos, Probability Algebras and Stochastic Spaces (Academic Press,
New York, London, 1969).
268 U. Hable and A.P. Bostak
[51] A.K. Katsaras, Convergence of fuzzy filters in fuzzy topological spaces, Bull.
Math. Soc. Sci. Math. Roum. 27 (1983) 131-137.
[52] E.E. Kerre, P.L. Ottoy, On the different notions of neighbourhoods in fuzzy
topological spaces, Simon Steven 61:2 (1987), 131-145.
[53] W. Kotze, Quasi-coincidence and quasi-juzzy Hausdorff, J. Math. Anal.

Appl. 116 (1986), 465-472.
[54] W. Kotze and T. Kubiak, Fuzzy topologies of Scott continuous functions

and their relation to the hypergraph functor, Questiones Mathematicae 15
(1992),175-187.
[55] T. Kubiak, On Fuzzy Topologies (PhD Thesis, Adam Mickiewicz University

Poznan (Poland) 1985).
[56] _ _ , Extending continuous L-real junctions, Math. Japonica 31 (1986),

875-887.
[57] ___ , The topological modification of the L-fuzzy unit interval, in : S.E.
Rodabaugh et al., Eds., Applications of Category Theory to Fuzzy Subsets,
[58] _ _ , On L-Tychonoff spaces, FUzzy Sets and Systems 73 (1995), 25-53.
[59] ___ , Separation axioms: Extending of mappings and embeddings of

spaces (Chapter 6 in this Volume).
[60] C.H. Ling, Representation of associative junctions, Publ. Math. Debrecen
12 (1965), 189-212.
[61] Liu Yingming, On fuzzy convergence classes, FUzzy Sets and Systems 30
(1989),47-51.
[62] Liu Yingming, Luo Maokang Fuzzy Stone-Cech type compactifications,
FUzzy Sets and Systems 33 (1989), 355 - 372.
[63] Liu Yingming, Luo Maokang On convergence classes in L-juzzy topological

spaces, In: IFSA'97 Prague Proceedings, vol. II, 58 - 63 (Prague, 1997).
[64] R. Lowen, Fuzzy topological spaces and juzzy compactness, J. Math. Anal.
App. 56 (1976), 621-633.
[65] ___ , Initial and final fuzzy topologies and the fuzzy Tychonoff Theorem,
J. Math. Anal. Appl. 58 (1977), 11-21.
[66] ___ , A comparison of different compactness notions in juzzy topological
spaces, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 64 (1978), 446-454.
[67] ___ , Convergence in fuzzy topological spaces, Genaral Topology and

Appl. 10 (1979), 147-160.
[68] ___ , The relation between filter and net convergence in fuzzy topological
spaces, Fuzzy Mathematics 3 (4) (1983),41-52.
[69] ___ , On the existence of natural fuzzy topologies on spaces of probability

measures, Math. Nachr. 115 (1984),33-57.
[70] R. Lowen and P. Wuyts, Concerning the constants in fuzzy topology, J.

Math. Anal. Appl. 129 (1988), 256-268.
[71] R. Lowen and P. Wuyts, Stable subconstructs ofFTS I, J. Fuzzy Math. 1
(1993), 475-489.
[72] R. Lowen and P. Wuyts, Stable subconstructs of FTS II, J. Fuzzy Sets
and Systems 76 (1995), 169-189.
[73] R. Lowen, P. Wuyts and E. Lowen, On the reflectiveness and coreflective-
ness of subcategories in FTS, Math. Nachrichten 141 (1989), 55-65.
[74] M. Macho Stadler, M.A. de Prada Vicente, Fuzzy t-net theory Fuzzy Sets
and Systems 37 (1990), 225-235.
[75] M. Macho Stadler, M.A. de Prada Vicente, On N-convergence of fuzzy nets
Fuzzy Sets and Systems 51 (1992),203-217.
[76] M. Macho Stadler, M.A. de Prada Vicente, t-prefilter theory Fuzzy Sets
and Systems 38 (1990), 115-124.
[77] S.R. Malghan, S.S. Benchalli, On fuzzy topological spaces, Glasnik Matem-
aticki 16 (1981), 313-325.
[78] H. W. Martin, Weakly induced fuzzy topological spaces, J. Math. Anal. Appl.
78 (1980), 634-639.
[79] G. Matheron, Random Sets and Integral Geometry (Wiley, New York, Lon-
don 1975).
[80] C.J. Mulvey and M. Nawaz, Quantales: Quantal sets, in : U. Hahle and
E.P. Klement, Eds., Nonclassical Logics and Their Applications to Fuzzy
Subsets, 159-217 (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Boston 1995).
[81] C.V. Negoita and D. Ralescu, Representation theorems for fuzzy concepts,
Kybernetes 4 (1975), 169-174.
[82] ___ , Application of Fuzzy Sets to System Analysis (Johm Wiley & Sons,
New York 1975).
[83] A.B. Paalman de Miranda, Topological Semigroups (Amsterdam: Math.

Centrum 1964).
[84] Pu Paoming, Liu Yingming, Fuzzy topology I: Neighborhood structure of a

fuzzy point, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 76 (1980), 571-599.
[85] Pu Paoming, Liu Yingming, Fuzzy topology II: Product and quotient spaces,
J. Math. Anal. Appl. 77 (1980), 20-37.
[86] K.1. Rosenthal, Quantales and Their Applications, Pitman Research Notes
in mathematics 234 (Longman, Burnt Mill, Harlow 1990).
[87] S.E. Rodabaugh, The Hausdorff separation axiom for fuzzy topological
spaces, Topology and Appl. 11 (1980), 319-334.
[88] ___ , A categorical accomodation of various notions of fuzzy topology,
[89] ___ , Separation axioms and the fuzzy real lines Fuzzy sets and Systems
11 (1983),163-183.
[90] ___ , Complete fuzzy topological hyperfields and fuzzy multiplication,
[91] ___ , A theory of fuzzy uniformities with applications to the fuzzy real
line, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 129 (1988),37-70.
[92] _ _ , Point-set lattice-theoretic topology, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 40
(1991), 297-345.
[93] ___ , Categorical frameworks for Stone representation theories, in : S.E.
Rodabaugh et al., Eds., Applications of Category Theory to Fuzzy Subsets,
[94] ___ , Applications of localic separation axioms, compactness axioms,
representations and compactifications to poslat topological spaces, Fuzzy
Sets and Systems 73 (1995), 55-87.
[95] ___ , Separation axioms: Representation theorems, compactness, and
compactifications (Chapter 7 in this Volume).
[96] E.S. Santos, Topology versus fuzzy topology, (Preprint, Youngstwon State
University, Youngstwon, Ohio, 1977).
[97] M. Sarkar, On fuzzy topological spaces, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 79 (1981),
384-394.
[98] M. Sarkar, On L-fuzzy topological spaces, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 84 (1981),
431-442.
[99] B. Schweizer and A. Sklar, Probabilistic Metric Spaces (North Holland, New
York 1983).
[100] R. Sikorski, Boolean Algebras, third edition (Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg,
New York, Berlin, 1969).
[101] A.P. Sostak, On a fuzzy topological structure, Suppl. Rend. Circ. Matern.
Palermo2 Ser II 11 (1985),89-103.
[102) A. Sostak, Co reflexivity in the categories of fuzzy topology, In: Continuous

Functions on Topological Spaces, Latvian Univ. Publ., Riga, Latvia - 1986
,159-165 (in Russian).
[103) ___ , On compactness and connectedness degrees of fuzzy sets in fuzzy
topological spaces, in : General Topology and its relations to Modern Anal-
ysis and Algebra (Proc. Sixth Prague Top. Symp. 1986), Ed. Z. Frolik,
519-532 (Heldermann Verlag, Berlin 1988).
[104) ___ , Two decades of fuzzy topology: Basic ideas, notions and results,
Russian Math. Surveys 44 (1989), 125-186.
[105) A. Sostak, On the neighbourhood structure of a fuzzy topological space, Zb.

Radova Univ. Nis, Ser Math. 4 (1990), 7-14.
[106) A. Sostak, On the convergence structure of a fuzzy topological space, In:

2nd International Conference of the Balcanic Union of Fuzzy Systems and
Artificial Intelligence, BUFSA, Trabson, Turkey. 1992. - Extended Ab-
stracts - pp. 146 - 149.
[107) A. Sostak Basic structures of fuzzy topology, J. of Math. Sciences 78, N 6

(1996), 662-701.
[108) R. Srivastava, S.N. Lal, A.K. Srivastava, Fuzzy Hausdorff topological

[109) R. Srivastava, A.K. Srivastava, On fuzzy Hausdorff concepts, Fuzzy Sets

and Syst. 17 (1985), 67-71.
[110) L.N. Stout, Topological space objects in a topos II: f.-Completeness and
f.-Cocompleteness, Manuscripta math. 17 (1975), 1-14.
[111) E. Tsiporkova, B. De Baets, T-compactness in separated fuzzy topological

spaces, Tatra Mountains Mathematical Publications 12 Fuzzy Sets: Theory
and Appl. (1997),99-112.
[112) Wang Guojun, Topological molecular lattices, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 47
(1992),351-376.
[113) Wang Guojun, A new fuzzy compactness defined by fuzzy nets, J. Math.
Anal. Appl. 94 (1983), 1-23.
[114) R. Warren, Neighborhoods, bases and continuity in fuzzy topological spaces,

Rocky Mountain J. Math. 8 (1978),459-470.
[115) ___ , Fuzzy topologies, characterized by neighborhood bases Rocky

Mountain J. Math. 9 (1979), 761-764.
[116J - - - , Convergence in fuzzy topology Rocky Mountain J. Math. 13

(1983), 31-36.
[117] C.K. Wong, Fuzzy points and local properties in fuzzy topology, J. Math.
Anal. Appl. 46 (1974),316-328.
[118] P.Wuyts, R. Lowen, On separation axioms in fuzzy topological spaces,

fuzzy neighborhood spaces and fuzzy uniform spaces, J. Math. Anal. Appl.,
93 (1983),27-41.
[119] Zhao Xiaodong, Local property, normality and uniformity in fuzzy topo-
logical spaces, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 127 (1987), 285-298.
[120] Zhao Dongsheng, The N -compactness in L-fuzzy topological spaces, J.

Math. Anal. Appl., 108 (1987), 64-79.
CHAPTER 4
Categorical Foundations Of
Variable-Basis Fuzzy Topology
s. E. RODABAUGH
Introduction
This chapter lays categorical foundations for topology and fuzzy topology in
which the basis of a space--the lattice of membership values-is allowed to
change from one object to another within the same category (the basis of a space
being distinguished from the basis of the topology of a space). It is the goal of
this chapter to create foundations which answer all the following questions in
the affirmative:
(1) Are there categories for variable-basis topology or variable-basis fuzzy
topology which are topological over their ground (or base) categories?
topology which cohere or unite all known canonical examples of point-set
lattice-theoretic (or poslat) spaces, even when they are based on differ-
ent lattices of membership values? For example, is there a single cate-
gory containing all the fuzzy real lines {JR(L) : L E IDQMLI} [12,24,39,
62, 69] and in which fuzzy real lines with different underlying bases may
be "compared" by "homeomorphisms" or "non-homeomorphic continuous
morphisms" (where DQML is defined in 1.3.2 below)?
topology which cohere or unite known, important fixed-basis categories
for topology or fuzzy topology as subcategories within a single category?
topology which make no essential use of algebraic notions such as associa-
tivity, commutivity, and idempotency of the traditional meet operation?
(Cf. introduction of [23].)

274 s. E. Rodabaugh
The question of change-of-basis between fixed-basis categories by functors

is solved in [23]; and that solution becomes a special case of our solution once
their fixed-basis categories are mapped into the supercategories studied in this
chapter (d la (3) above). But the above questions concern the internalizing of
change-of-basis within a single category.
Restated, the four questions above may be thought of as comprising three
boundary conditions for the theory constructed in this chapter: (1) is the
topological condition, (2,3) are the unification/coherence conditions, and
(4) is the non-algebraic condition.
This chapter and the companion chapter [23] of U. H6hle and A. Sostak to-
gether give a definitive, conclusive answer to the question posed to this author
many years ago by M. E. Rudin [71]: is fuzzy topology really topological or is
it part of algebra? Categorically, fuzzy topology is certainly topological-each
category for fuzzy topology in this Handbook is topological; with respect to
the algebraic properties of associativity, commutivity, and idempotency of "in-
tersection", fuzzy topology is non-algebraic; and hence fuzzy topology is more
topological, and less algebraic, than traditional Hausdorff spaces and algebraic
topology! (Indeed, it is fuzzy topology which reveals that the topological char-
acter of ordinary topology is non-algebraic w.r.t. intersection).
The outline of this chapter is as follows:
§1. Preliminary discussion and motivation

1.1. History of variable-basis thinking
1.2. Categorical motivation for variable-basis theories
1.3. Mathematical preliminaries and foundations
§2. Ground categories SET x C and SET x Lei>
2.1. Definitions of SET x C and SET x Lei>
2.2. Categorical properties of SET x C and SET x Lei>
§3. Topological categories for variable-basis topology and fuzzy topology
3.1. Definitions of C-TOP and C-FTOP with examples of objects
3.2. Subbasic continuities and final structures in C-TOP and C-FTOP
3.3. C-TOP and C-FTOP are topological over SET x C
3.4. Categorical consequences of topological and fibre-smallness
§4. Topological categories for internalized change-of-basis
4.1. LrTOP and endomorphism saturated topologies
4.2. LrFTOP and endomorphism saturated fuzzy topologies
4.3. LrTOP and LrFTOP are topological over SET x Lei>
4.4. Categorical consequences of topological and fibre-smallness
§5. Categorical isomorphisms and embeddings
Variable-basis fuzzy topology 275
5.1. Homeomorphisms, fuzzy homeomorphisms, and categorical isomor-

phisms
5.2. Subspaces, initial structures, and initial morphisms
5.3. Topological, fuzzy topological, and categorical embeddings
§6. Unification of topology and fuzzy topology by C-TOP and C-FTOP
6.1. Roster of subcategories
6.2. Functorial embeddings onto subcategories
6.3. Topological subcategories
§7. Unification of canonical examples by C-TOP and C-FTOP
7.1. Fuzzy real lines and unit intervals
7.2. Generated (weakly-stratified) spaces
7.3. (Co-fuzzy) dual real lines and unit intervals
7.4. Soberifications of spaces with different underlying bases
§8. Acknowledgements
1 Preliminary discussion and motivation

It is the specific purpose of this section to motivate variable-basis foundations-
and the questions posed above in the chapter introduction-from the historical
and categorical perspectives, and then give needed mathematical preliminaries.
1.1 History of variable-basis thinking

There have historically been two distinct streams of thought which have pro-
moted variable-basis thinking in fuzzy sets, one stream internal to fuzzy sets
and the other external to fuzzy sets, and early on neither stream was aware of
the other. In this subsection we summarize these two streams and their eventual
merger in the theory being developed in this chapter.
In 1965, the famous paper [81] of L.A. Zadeh based fuzzy sets on the unit
intervalll, with the associated powerset and powerset operators as follows: a :
X -+ II is an ll-subset of X, llx is the ll-powerset of X, and f : X -+ Y induces
powerset operators of the form:
H-+ : llx -+ llY by A-+(a)(y) = V a(x)

!(x) = y
276 S. E. Rodabaugh
(See the author's earlier chapter in this volume concerning powerset operators
[67]). And in 1968, C. L. Chang [2] proposed an "ll-topology" based on Zadeh's
set theory in which an object of the shape (X, r) is an ll-topological space with
r closed under arbitrary V and finite 1\, and a morphism 1 : (X, r) -t (Y,O') is
a mapping 1 : X -t Y satisfying (1n+-) 10' : r +- 0'. Such a topological theory
is called a fixed-basis theory: the lattice-theoretic basis, the unit interval,
is held fixed for all objects of Chang's (implicitly defined) categoryj and the
implicit endomorphism of II in each morphism is fixed at the identity mapping
idn of II (cf. Subsection 6.2 below).
Almost simultaneous with Chang's historic paper was the seminal paper
[15] of J. A. Goguen in 1967 which proposed a "multi-basis" approach to fuzzy
sets, replacing the unit interval II with a complete lattice (ordered semigroup)
Lj in fact, Goguen proposed a family of separate, fixed-basis fuzzy set theories
generally related only by the fact that their bases came from the same category of
lattices. If L was such a lattice, then an L-subset of X was a mapping a : X -t L
and the L-powerset was LX. (In this context we should mention that Goguen
pioneered the use of the term "base" or "basis" for the underlying lattice L,
a usage that continues today.) Now in the last section [15] Goguen sketched
some functorial relationships between separate fuzzy set theories with different
bases, further developing his multi-basis approach, but did not reconcile these
theories into one category or variable-basis frameworkj and a similar multi-basis
approach obtains in [23] for fixed-basis fuzzy topology [23].
Thus it was inevitable that Goguen's own proposal for fuzzy topology [16],
based on lattices other than the unit interval, created a family of separate, fixed-
basis topological theories whose bases came from the same category of lattices.
Given such a lattice L, an L-topological space is a pair (X, r) with r C LX
closed under arbitrary V and finite 1\, and a(n) (L-)continuous morphism
1: (X, r) -t (Y,O') satisfying (11:)10' : r +- 0', where 11: is defined formally as
in the Chang case. Such spaces were also called (L-)Chang-Goguen topologi-
cal spaces. In modern usage, the terms L-subset, L-powerset, L-topological
space or L-Chang-Goguen topological space, and L-continuous mor-
phism only require L to be a complete lattice or complete quasi-monoidallat-
tice (see [23] or Subsection 1.3.2 below) leading to a family of categories each of
the form L-TOP.
It is this author's conjecture that Goguen's multi-basis approach did not
progress at that time to a variable-basis category because the needed powerset
operators had not yet been developed, i.e. there was no way to determine
continuiuty (using backward operator) and homeomorphisms (using forward and
backward operators). So the variable-basis potential of [15] remained unfulfilled
until the 1980's, a fulfillment we will describe after considering the parallel
development of localic theory.
A frame is a complete lattice satisfying the first infinite distributive law
of finite meets over arbitrary joins, a frame morphism is a mapping between
frames preserving arbitrary joins and finite meets, and the ensuing category is
denoted FRM. The category LOC of locales is the opposite (or dual) category
of FRM, i.e. LOC = FRMop; which means that a locale is a frame, and the
morphisms of LOC and FRM are in a bijection such that I E LOC(A, B) ¢:?
r p E FRM(B, A). Part ofthe motivation behind locales is that if (X, T), (Y, S)
are topological spaces and I : (X, T) -+ (Y, S) is continuous, then T, S are

locales and (its) op : T -+ S is a localic morphism from T to S.
It turns out that many locales may be viewed simply as classical topologies
without underlying sets of points. But for reasons that will be clear in Section
6 below, the category LOC is in reality a variable-basis category of singleton
topological spaces in which a given locale "is" the basis of membership values of
the overlying topological space and a given localic morphism "is" a backward
powerset operator.
If fuzzy theorists had known of locales, then the variable-basis approach
could have had an earlier resolution. Localic theory was being developed in the
1960's and 1970's-e.g. see [3, 4, 10, 14, 27, 28, 51]-and was given a coherent
statement by P. T. Johnstone in [28]; but this development was largely unknown
to fuzzy theorists until Johnstone's book.
Turning back to the fuzzy community, the first attempt to describe a topo-
logical theory, which could be said to be variable-basis, was B. Hutton's fun-
damental 1980 paper [25] in which a formally point-free theory was developed
that is remarkably similar to localic theory. Noting that L-topological spaces
(X, r), (Y, a) and a continuous morphism I : (X, r) -+ (Y, a) induce objects
and a morphism of the form (f/:)DP : (LX,r) -+ (LY,a) with I/: : LX f- L Y
and r ::) (f/:) -t (a), and observing that LX need not be isomorphic to L Y ,
Hutton introduced a category HTOP (our designation) having objects of the
form (L, r) and morphisms of the form ¢ : (L, r) -+ (M, a), where r c L is
closed under arbitrary V and finite /\ and ¢op : L f- M has the property that
r::) (¢OP)-t(a). As in the localic case, Section 6 shows that HTOP is really a
variable-basis category of singleton topological spaces.
What is missing from our synopsis in the preceding paragraph is an explicit
description of the properties of the lattices being used for bases and of the
morphisms between them. Another sense in which Hutton was a pioneer is
that he was the first worker in fuzzy sets to separate out the description of the
ground category over which he was building his topological theory. Let HUT
(our designation) have as objects those lattices (called Hutton algebras) which
are complete, completely distributive (in the strong sense), and equipped with
an order-reversing involution, and have as morphisms those mappings which
preserve arbitrary joins and the involution (and hence arbitrary meets as well);
and let FUZLAT (Hutton's designation) be HUTOP. Then in the preceding
paragraph the bases (i.e. the "L", "M") are objects of FUZLAT (called fuzzy
lattices), and the morphisms between them are FUZLAT morphisms. See the
formal definition of Hutton's approach in Subsection 6.1 below.
There are two important threads left to weave. Soon after [25] there ap-
peared [53] in which this author constructed the first variable-basis category for
topology in which the underlying sets of the spaces are non-singletons, i.e. have
unrestricted cardinality: objects are of the form (X, L, r), where r is a topol-
278 S. E. Rodabaugh
ogy on (X, L )-Le. T is an L-topology on X, and morphisms are of the form

(f,¢), where f is a mapping between sets and ¢ is a dual morphism between
bases-see Section 3 below. Thus, in such a theory, both the underlying set
was allowed to change (as in a fixed-basis theory) and the basis was allowed to
change (as in the localic or Hutton theory). In [53], this author gave the needed
backward powerset operator for continuity, but only described his ground cat-
egory implicitly. Further, [53] formally required complete distributivity and
order-reversing involutions of the underlying lattices, the latter being retained
in hopes that at this abstract level closed fuzzy subsets would somehow play an
important role.
The first explicit description of this author's ground was given by P. Eklund
in papers [5, 6] taken from his Ph.D. dissertation [7], in which Eklund also
began the first study of the categorical properties of variable-basis topology, thus
initiating categorical fuzzy topology. While Hutton was to the first to separately
describe a ground category vis-a-vis the overlying topological framework, it was
Eklund who first formalized the notion of ground category in fuzzy topology
(e.g. see [5]).
Influenced by Eklund and by localic theory, especially by the book of John-
stone (op. cit.), this author began to refine the ground categories for variable-
basis topology in two basic ways: firstly by removing restrictions-relaxing the
requirements of order-reversing involution (for locales do not have such invo-
lutions, and neither will the bases of their fuzzy sober space representations),
complete distributivity (locales generate singleton spaces with underlying bases
which have only the first infinite distributive law), and then any distributivity
whatsoever (the classical representation theory for locales makes no essential
use of distributivity)-so that by the end of [53, 56, 61, 62, 64, 65], the only re-
quirements were completeness (of the base lattice) and preservation of arbitrary
joins and finite meets (by the base morphisms); and secondly by giving rigorous
developments and justifications of forward and backward powerset operators
for both fixed-basis and variable-basis ground categories ([62, 64], especially
[66]). Out of these refinements come the new categories SFRM and SLOC of
semiframes and semilocales (see Subsection 1.3 below).
The second and last thread is the notion of fuzzy topology as defined by
A. Sostak in [75, 78] in which the topology is a fuzzy subset of the L-powerset
having certain properties. This notion was motivated by an early paper of U.
H6hle [19] in which the topology was a fuzzy subset of the classical powerset. All
these theories are fixed-basis (L-)fuzzy topological theories. A refinement of this
approach, with bases taken from CQML (complete quasi-monoidal lattices-
Subsubsection 1.3.2 below), is thoroughly developed elsewhere in this volume
[23] leading to fixed-basis categories of the form L-FTOP, and is also distin-
guished by the non-algebraic character of the multiplication or "intersection"
endued from the underlying objects of CQML (see also [22] in this regard).
l.From the above paragraphs comes a three-fold historical motivation for this
chapter:
(1) Construct ground categories for variable-basis topology in the manner of

[64] but with bases from CQML, i.e. make "non-algebraic" grounds for
variable-basis topology.
(2) Construct categorical frameworks for variable-basis fuzzy topology which
incorporates the fixed-basis categories of the extant literature, especially
[23] of this volume, thus marrying this author's variable-basis approach to
fuzzy topologies in the sense of Hohle/Sostak.
(3) Explicitly place the constructions of (1) and (2) upon the powerset oper-
ator foundation detailed in [66] and summarized in [67].
1.2 Categorical motivation for variable-basis theories

The categorical motivation for variable-basis theories in topology is three-fold:
(1) For each C y LOQML == CQMVP, provide a single categorical frame-

work C-TOP or C-FTOP (Subsection 3.1) for all canonical examples
residing in fixed-basis frameworks with bases from IC!. As an exam-
ple, let C = DQMLoP (Subsubsection 1.3.2 below); then for each L E
IDQMLoPI, there is the fuzzy real line R(L) [12,62] and fuzzy unit inter-
val ][ (L) [24, 39] as canonical objects in the fixed-basis category L-TOP.
A variable-basis category for topology of the form DQMLoP-TOP should
allow a comparison of two fuzzy real lines with different bases in the sense
of morphisms between them. An expected result should be: R( L 1 ) is cat-
egorically isomorphic to R(L 2 ) iff L1 is order-isomorphic to L 2 • We note
that only in a variable-basis category is the question of such comparisons
well-posed.
(2) For each C y LOQML, provide a single categorical framework C-TOP
or C-FTOP for all fixed-basis frameworks with bases from Ic!. As an
example, let C = LOC; then VL E LOC, L-TOP should be embeddable
as a subcategory of LOC-TOP, and L-FTOP should be embeddable
as a subcategory of LOC-FTOP. An even more strategic "subcategory"
example: a variable-basis category of the form LOC-TOP should be a
supercategory (up to functorial embeddings) of both classical categories
TOP and LOC, and as such LOC-TOP would be the first such cohering
of TOP with LOC.
(3) For each C y LOQML, provide categorical frameworks C-TOP and C-
FTOP for variable-basis theories which are topological over their ground
categories in the sense of [1]. This will not only assure that these frame-
works have good properties whenever their grounds have good properties,
but that they behave categorically like classical topological frameworks
such as TOP, UNIF, etc; and this means, from a categorical point of
view, one is doing topology whenever one is doing variable-basis topology
and fuzzy topology.
280 S. E. Rodabaugh
It follows that the categorical justification of variable-basis theories for topol-

ogy and fuzzy topology will therefore also be three-fold:
(1) Internal justification-that from within resting on the cohering of sim-

ilar canonical examples having different bases. See Section 7 below, based
partly on Section 5 below.
(2) External justification-that from without resting on the framework in

question cohering fixed-basis frameworks and dissimiliar categories (such
as TOP and LaC). See Section 6 below.
(3) Categorical justification-that from without resting on the framework
in question being topological over its ground category. See Sections 3 and
4 below.
When variable-basis theories are constructed and justified (Sections 3, 6, 7),

and fixed-basis theories are embedded in these variable-basis theories (Section
6), a new understanding of fixed-basis theories emerges: not only does a fixed-
basis approach fix a base lattice, but it also fixes the identity mapping as the
endomorphism for that lattice. This raises the question of fixing a base lattice
and fixing a base endomorphism other than the identity mapping. And such a
question leads unavoidably to categories of endomorphism-saturated spaces
and their distinctive grounds, categories best studied by adapting techniques
from the pure variable-basis setting. Categories of endomorphism-saturated
spaces are defined, justified by examples, and justified as topological over their
grounds in Section 4.
Finally, this chapter complements the companion chapter [23]: the fixed-
basis categories of that chapter embed into the variable-basis categories of this
chapter, and the proofs of topological in that chapter can be recovered by ap-
plying these embeddings to the proofs of topological in this chapter.
1.3 Mathematical preliminaries and foundations

It is the purpose of this subsection to give those mathematical preliminaries
underlying the preceding two subsections and needed in subsequent sections.
1.3.0. Adjunction of categories. Let F : C --+ D and G : C +-- D be

functors. We say F is left-adjoint to G iff the following two criteria are satisfied:
(1) Lifting/Continuity criterion:
VA E ICI, 31]: A --+ GF(A), VB E IDI, Vf : A --+ G(B),
3! 7: F(A) --+ B, f = G(f) 01]

In diagram form, we have the following "Major Diagram":
MAJOR DIAGRAM: LIFTING/CONTINUITY
c D
V A (1) F(A)
VI (4) o :3!] (5)

(6)
G(B) GF(A) VB (3)

GCl)
(2) Naturality criterion:

VI: Al -+ A2 in C, F(f) = (or =) TJA2 01
where the "=" option allows F to only be defined initially on objects, in

which (1) and "=" will stipulate an action of F on morphisms such that
F -1 G. In daigram form, we have the following "Minor Diagram":
MINOR DIAGRAM (ASSUMING MAJOR DIAGRAM)
1
Al A2 F(Ad
TJA,
j 0
j "" j ! ""
01
GF(A I ) • GF(A 2) F(A 2)

GF( TJA 2 0 1)
~ F(f) = (or =) TJ A2 0 1
We also say that G is right-adjoint to F or that (F, G) is an adjunction, or

we may write F -1 G. The map TJ is the unit of the adjunction; and the dual
282 S. E. Rodabaugh
D morphism c of 'f/ in the duals of the above statements is the counit of the
adjunction. If both 'f/ and c are isomorphisms in their respective categories, then
(F, G) is an equivalence (of categories).
The foregoing definition is reworded from [48] and is used repeatedly in

Section 6. If it is instantiated with two posets viewed as categories and two
order-preserving maps viewed as functors, then this definition reduces to saying
that ide ~ G 0 F and FoG ~ idn.
We also need the following statement of the Adjoint Functor Theorem re-
ferred to in Lemma 1.3.2 below and used repeatedly throughout this chapter.
Theorem (Adjoint Functor Functor (AFT). Let f E SET(L,M), where

L, M E IPOSETI, L has arbitrary V, and f preserves V. Then
f E POSET(L, M) and 3! 9 E POSET(M, L) such that f -l g. This 9 preserves
all arbitrary 1\ existing in M and is given by
g(b) = V{a E L : f(a) ~ b}
The proof may be found in [28]; and we note the dual of this statement holds
and is also designated Adjoint Functor Theorem (AFT).
1.3.1 Discussion (Definition of a topological category). We first give a

short and concise definition from [1].
Short Definition. Category A is topological w.r.t. category X and

functor V : A -+ X iff each V -structured source in X has a unique, initial V-
lift in A. We may also say that A is topological over X w.r.t. functor V. If
the category X and the functor V are understood, we say A is (a) topological
(category) .
We now midrash this short definition into a longer definition to make it

absolutely clear what is the intention of [1] in this definition W.r. t. each of the
terms "V -structured source", "V -lift", "initial", and "unique".
Long Definition. Let categories A and X be given, as well as a functor

V : A -+ X, and let X E lXI, Aj E IAI, and h : X -+ V(Aj) in X, where
j E J for some indexing set J. Then (X, fj : X -+ V (Aj»J is a V-structured
source. Category A is topological w.r.t. category X and functor V iff
for each such V -structured source all the following hold:
(1) V-lift: 3X E IAI, 3 (Jj : X -+ Aj) J in A, V(X) = X, V (Jj) =k

(2) Initial V -lift: Given (X, f~ : X -+ Aj t in A from (1), then

'rI (y, aj : Y -+ Aj) in A with Y == V (Y) and 9j == V(aj), 'rIh: Y -+ X
in X with 9j = f; 0 h in X, 3! h :Y -+ X in A with h = V(h) and
aj = jj 0 h in A.
(3) Unique initial V-lift. Given (X, jj : X -+ Aj Lsatisfying (1) and (2),
and given (X, I; : X -+ Aj)J satisfying (1) and (2), X = X and jj = k
Interpretation of Long Definition. Let categories A and X and functor V
be given such that the following hold:
(1) Each object of A is of the form (X, S), where X E IXI and S is a struc-
ture on X, where (X,S) = (X,S) ¢:} X = X, S = S.
(2) Each morphism of A is a morphism of X satisfying some stipulated prop-
erty P in this sense: f E A «Xl, Sl), (X2' S2)) means f E X (Xl. X 2) and
/ satisfies property P.
(3) V : A -+ X is a forgetful functor in the usual sense: VeX, S) = X,
V(f) = f. This implies that the composition of A is formally that of X.
Then A is topological w.r.t. X and functor V iff the relevant parts of the Long
Definition read as follows (modulo labeling):
• V-Structured source: (X, Ii : X -+ V (Xj,Sj))J'

• V-Lift: 3 S on X, (X, S) E IAI and each Ii satisfies P.
• Initial V-lift: 'rI «Y, T), 9j : (Y, T) -+ (Xj, Sj)) J in IAI, 'rIh : Y -+ X in
X,
('rIj E J, 9j = Ii 0 h in X) => (h satisfies P)
• Unique, initial V-lift: 'rIS on X, (X, S) E IAI ,
'rI (I; : (X,S) -+ (Xj,Sj))J
in A,
(X,S), (I;: (X,S) -+ (Xj,Sj))J)
is another initial V-lift for the original V-source, S = S.
If A is topological over SET w.r.t. the usual forgetful functor V, then A is
called a topological construct [1].
Proposition. If F : A -+ B and G : X -+ Y are isomorphisms of categories

and V : A -+ X is a functor, then A is topological over X w.r.t. V iff B is
topological over Y w.r.t. Go V 0 F-l.
284 s. E. Rodabaugh
1.3.2. Lattice-theoretic foundations. Each of the following categories de-

fined below is either concrete over SET or SETop, in which case the composi-
tion and identities of each of the following categories is from SET or SEToP.
The categories FRM, LOC, and HUT were defined in Subsection 1.1 above.
Throughout this chapter, the lower [upper] bounds of a complete lattice are
denoted ..L [T, respectively].
Definition (Semiframes and semilocales). The category SFRM of semi-
frames comprises complete lattices and morphisms preserving arbitrary joins
and finite meets; and the category SLOC of semilocales is SFRMoP. Note
that FRM [LOC] is a full, isomorphism closed category of SFRM [SLOC].
Definition (DeMorgan lattices/algebras). The category DMRG com-

prises all complete lattices having an order-reversing involution or deMorgan
complementation, called complete deMorgan lattices (or algebras), and
morphisms preserving arbitrary joins and all involutes (and hence arbitrary
meets)-said objects have the minimum axioms needed to guarantee that both
deMorgan laws hold, justifying their name. The lack of any required distribu-
tivity is justified by DMRG including many natural and important examples.
The lattice of closed linear subspaces of Hilbert space is a complete deMorgan
algebra in our sense, but is non-distributive for dim ~ 2 (cf. Open Question X
of [72]); actually, such lattices are objects in ORTHODMRG, the full subcat-
egory of DMRG in which the deMorgan complementation is also an orthocom-
plementation. Easier examples of non-distributive deMorgan lattices include
the symmetric, five-point diamond (which is in DMRG - ORTHODMRG)
and the symmetric, six-point diamond (which is in ORTHODMRG).
DMRG [DMRGoP] is an isomorphism closed subcategory of SFRM [SLOC],

as is HUT [FUZLAT] defined in Subsection 1.1 above of DMRG [DMRGoP];
analogous statements hold for the category CBOOL [CBOOLOP] of complete
Boolean algebras and [duals] with arbitrary V and arbitrary A preserving maps.
Definition (Complete quasi-monoidallattices). The category CQML of

complete quasi-monoidal lattices comprises the following data (cf. [23]),
where composition and identities are taken from SET:
(1) Objects: Complete lattices L equipped with a binary operation or tensor

product @ : L x L -+ L satisfying:
(a) @ is isotone in both arguments,

(b) T @ T = T, where T is the upper bound of the lattice L.
(2) Morphisms: All SET morphisms, between the above objects, which
preserve @ and T and arbitrary V.
CQML.L is the full subcategory of CQML for which in each object the iden-
tities 1. ® 1. = 1.,1. ® T = T, T ® 1. = 1. hold, where 1. is the lower bound of
the lattice.
Definition (Localic quasi-monoidal lattices). The category LOQML is

the dual of CQML, i.e. LOQML = CQMLOP j and LOQML.L = CQMLi.
The prefix "localic" is used to indicated the dual category consistent with the
usage of LOC and SLOC. The objects of LOQML, SLOC, and LOC all
"are" singleton spaces according to Subsection 6.2 and topologies according to
Subsection 7.4.
Definition (DeMorgan quasi-monoidal lattices). The category DQML
is the subcategory of CQML in which each object is additionally equipped
with an order-reversing involution and each morphism additionally preserves
the involution.
Definition (Categories L, L¢, and Lc). Given L E ILOQMLI, the category

L has L as its sole object and idL from LOQML as its sole morphismj and the
category L¢ has L as its sole object, ifJ E LOQML (L, L) as its sole morphism,
composition as ifJ 0 ifJ = ifJ, and identity morphism for L is ifJ. Note that Lq, is a
subcategory of LOQML iff ifJop = idL, in which case L¢ = L. The reasons for
L¢ and for using duals will emerge in Sections 2-4. If C ~ LOQML, then Lc
is the category having L as its sole object and C(L,L) as its morphisms.
Proposition. Each of SFRM and FRM embeds into CQML as full iso-
morphism closed subcategories by assigning to each (L,~, V, 1\, 1., T) the quasi-
monoidallattice (L,~,v,I\,1.,T,®), where ® is defined by restricting 1\ to
two arguments. Each of DMRG, CBOOL, and HUT embeds similarly into
CQML, as well as SLOC, LOC, CBOOLop, DMRGop, and FUZLAT into
LOQML. Similar results hold for DMRG, CBOOL, and HUT w.r.t. DQML
and for CBOOLop, DMRGop, and FUZLAT w.r.t. DQMLoP.
The following lemmas about lattice and CQML morphisms are extremely
useful throughout this chapter and make reference to the adjoint functor theo-
rem which, together with other adjunction issues, is given in 1.3.0 above. Lemma
7.A of Section 7 uses, and gives extensions of, these lemmas for DQML mor-
phisms.
Lemma (Order-embeddings). Let L, M be lattices and j : L -* M be a

function. Then j is an order-isomorphism of L with j-f (L) (i.e. a: ~ {3 iff
j (a:) ~ j ({3)) if either of the following hold:
(1) j is injective and preserves finite Vj
(2) j is injective and preserves finite 1\.

286 s. E. Rodabaugh
Lemma (Properties of right adjoints). Let 'lji : L +- M be given in CQML.

Then there exists by the adjoint functor theorem for partial-order preserving
maps (AFT) a right-adjoint 'lji* : L -+ M having the following properties:
(1) 'lji*(a) = V{(3 EM: 'lji«(3) :::; a}.
(2) 'lji('lji*(a» :::; a, 'lji*('lji«(3» ::::: (3.
(3) 'lji* is a right [left] inverse of 'lji iff'lji is surjective [injective], i.e.
'lji ('lji* (a» =a {:} 'lji surjective, 'lji* ('lji (a» = a {:} 'lji injective
(4) 'lji* preserves arbitrary /\, and hence is order-preserving;
(5) 'lji* is submultiplicative, i.e. 'lji* (a) 0 'lji*«(3) :::; 'lji* (a 0 (3).
Proof. (1,2,4) are immediate consequences of AFT or its proof. Now (3) follows
from (2), and (5) follows from (1) and the properties of'lji. We note (3,5) are
observed in the companion chapter [23]. D
1.3.3 Powerset operator foundations. We give the powerset operators,

developed and justified in detail in [66] and extended in [67], which are specif-
ically needed in this chapter. Let I E SET (X, Y), L, M E ICQMLI, ¢J E
LOQML(L, M), and P(X), P(Y), LX , MY be the classical powerset of X,
the classical powerset of Y, the L-powerset of X, and the M -powerset of Y,
respectively. Then the following powerset operators are defined:
l-t: P(X) -+ P(Y) by 1-t(A)= {J(x) E Y: x E A}

I~ : P(X) +- P(Y) by I~(B) = {x EX: I(x) E B}
h-t : LX -+ L Y by IJ:(a)(y) = V a(x)

f(x)=y
Ii : LX +- L Y by li(b) =b 0 I
*¢J : L -+ M in POSET by *¢J(a) = 1\ {(3 EM: a :::; ¢J0P«(3)}
(*¢J): LX -+ MX, (*¢J): L Y -+ MY by (*¢J)(a) = *¢Joa

(¢J0P) : LX +- MX, (¢J0P) : L Y +- MY by (¢J0P)(b) = ¢J0p 0 b
(f,¢J)-t : LX -+ MY by (f,¢J)-t = (*¢J) 0 h-t
(f, ¢J)~ : LX +- MY by (f, ¢J)~ = Ii 0 (¢J0P)
These powerset operators link the ground categories constructed in Section
2 with the topological categories constructed in Sections 3 and 4.
Notation (Constant fuzzy subsets). Constant members of LX are denoted

g, where 0: E L is the sole value taken by this fuzzy subset. E.g. ~ is that fuzzy
subset which takes only the value ..l.
The following lemma is proved in [67] for Q9 :::: 1\ and is used repeatedly
throughout this chapter.
Lemma. (f, ¢»~ preserves Q9, I, and arbitrary V·
2 Ground categories SET x C and SET x L¢>

Concrete categories, such as found in classical algebra and topology, rest on
what [5, 7] calls "ground categories" or what [1] calls "base categories". The
topological theories being created in fuzzy sets are determined by certain data,
including the following: the ground (or base) category for a set theory, the pow-
erset operators of the ground category, the forgetful functor from the category
for "topology" into the ground category, and the particular structure carried by
the objects of the category for "topology" and preserved by the morphisms of
that category.
Variable-basis topology and fuzzy topology require grounds which are prod-
ucts of two categories: the first category, which in this chapter will always
be SET, carries "point-set" information, and the second category, which in
this chapter will always be a subcategory C of the category LOQML, carries
"lattice-theoretic" information. These grounds, and the topology built on such
grounds, are said to be point-set lattice-theoretic or poslat (see Section 3
below).
For clarity of terminology, we shall not use the term "base category", but
rather the term ground category or simply ground. The avoidance of the
term "base category" stems from our need to have a label for the objects of
category C carrying the lattice-theoretic information-an object L of C is called
a base since the L(-fuzzy) powerset of a set X is of the form LX-and our desire
to avoid using the word "base" in too many different ways, since it will also be
used of the base of a topology or fuzzy topology.
As shown in [1], if a category can be shown "topological" over its ground
w.r.t. a forgetful functor, then that category essentially behaves (relative to
its ground) as TOP (relative to SET) and inherits many nice properties from
the ground (providing that ground itself has nice properties ab initio). In the
next section we show that all categories for variable-basis topology and and
variable-basis fuzzy topology are topological over their grounds with the ex-
pected forgetful functor.
288 S. E. Rodabaugh
Therefore, it is the primary goal of this section is to define grounds of the

form SET x C, where C is a subcategory of LOQML, and discuss the categor-
ical properties of these grounds. Since SET is well-known, discussion of ground
categorical properties essentially reduces to understanding the categorical prop-
erties of C.
2.1 Definitions of SET x C and SET x L.p
2.1.1 Definition. Let C be a subcategory of LOQML. The ground category

SET x C comprises the following data:
(1) Objects. (X, L), where X E ISETI and L E ICJ. The object (X, L) is a
(ground) set.
(2) Morphisms. (f,cp): (X,L) -+ (Y,M), where f: X -+ Y in SET,
cp : L -+ M in C. The morphism (f, cp) is (ground) function.
(3) Composition. Component-wise in the respective categories.
(4) Identities. Component-wise in the respective categories, i.e. id(x,L) =

(idx,id L).
2.1.2 Definition. Let C be a subcategory of LOQML, L E ICJ, and cp E

C(L, L). The ground category SET x L¢ (1.3.2) comprises the following
data:
(1) Objects. (X,L), where X E ISETI. The object (X,L) is a (ground)

set.
(2) Morphisms. (f,cp) : (X,L) -+ (Y,L), where f : X -+ Y in SET. The
morphism (f, cp) is (ground) function.
(3) Composition. (f, cp) 0 (g, cp) = (f 0 g, cp), where the composition in the
first component is in SET.
(4) Identities. id(x,L) = (idx,cp), where the identity in the first component
is in SET.
2.1.3 Definition (Ground equalities). In SET x C, (X, L) = (Y, M) iff

X = Y and L = M, and (f, cp) = (g, 'ljJ) iff they have the same domain and
codomain, f = 9 and cp = 'ljJ. Equality of objects and morphisms is defined
similarly in SET x L¢ by requiring equality in SET of the first components.
2.1.4 Remark (Powerset operators). For (f, ifJ) : (X, L) ~ (Y, M) in

SET x C or SET x Lt,f>, the forward powerset operator (f, ifJ)-+ : LX ~ MY of
1.3.3 can be rewritten
and the backward powerset operator (f, ifJ)+- : LX t- MY of 1.3.3 can be rewrit-
ten
2.1.5 Notation. If a set [lattice) is clear in context, then its identity mapping
in SET [C) may be simply written as id. In particular we use the following
notation: SET x L = SET X Lid. (See the sixth definition of 1.3.2 above.)
2.1.6 Theorem. Let C be a subcategory of LOQML, L E ICI, and ifJ E

C(L, L). The following hold:
(1) SET x C is a category.
(2) SET x Lt,f> is a category.
(3) The objects and morphisms of SET x Lt,f> are objects and morphisms,
respectively, of SET x C.
(4) SET x Lt,f> is a subcategory of SET xC¢} ifJ = id ¢} SET x Lt,f> =

SET x L.
(5) If ifJ op preserves arbitrary /I" then *ifJ -I ifJop and (f, ifJ)-+ -I (f, ifJ)+- , in
which case (f, ifJ)-+ preserves arbitrary V and (f, ifJ)+- preserves arbitrary
f\. It is also the case that (f,ifJ)+- preserves arbitrary V.
(6) (f,ifJ) is an isomorphism in SET xC¢} j, ifJ are isomorphisms in SET,
C, respectively ¢} j, ifJ are bijections.
(7) (f, ifJ) is an isomorphism in SET x Lt,f> ¢} j is a bijection. Hence (f, id) is
an isomorphism in SET xL¢} j is a bijection.
Proof. Statements (1-3,6-7) are trivial; statement (4) is straightforward; and

see [66) for details of (5). 0
2.1. 7 Remark.
(1) Categories of the form SET x C provide a ground for variable-basis topol-
ogy and variable-basis fuzzy topology. See Section 3.
290 s. E. Rodabaugh
(2) As an application of (1), let LLOQML be the subcategory of LOQML

whose single object is L in ILOQMLI and whose morphisms comprise
LOQML(L, L). Then the ground SET x LLOQML underlies variable-
basis fuzzy topology in which the basis is fixed even though the basis
morphisms are not fixed. More generally we can define SET x Lc for
C ~ LOQML. See 1.3.2 and Section 6.
(3) Categories of the form SET x Lt/> provide ground categories for internal-
ized change-of-basis topology and fuzzy topology, Le. topologies invariant
under a fixed endomorphism ifJ of L. See 1.3.2 and Section 4.
(4) Categories of the form SET x L provide ground categories for both fixed-
basis topology and fixed-basis fuzzy topology in the sense of [23], in which
case the functions, or ground morphisms, are often written f instead of
(I, ifJ)· See 1.3.2 and Section 6 below.
There are categorical isomorphisms between internalized change-of-basis set

theories on one hand and fixed-basis set theories on the other; and these isomor-
phisms bridge the formal breach of 2.1.6(4) between variable-basis and internal-
ized change-of-basis for the cases ifJ =I- id. In fact, internalized change-of-basis set
theories may always be viewed (up to functorial embeddings or isomorphisms)
as both classical theories and subcategories of variable-basis set theories, as is
seen in the next result.
2.1.8 Proposition. Let C be a subcategory of LOQML, L E IGI, and ifJ E

C(L,L).
(1) The functor F : SET -+ SET x L, given by F(X) = (X, L), F(I) =
(I, id), is an isomorphism.
(2) The functor F : SET x Lt/> -+ SET x L, given by F(X,L) = (X,L),
F(I, ifJ) = (I, id), is an isomorphism embedding SET x Lt/> onto a subcat-
egory of SET x C.
Proof. Straightforward. 0
2.1.9 Remark.
(1) Even though SET, SET x L, and SET x Lt/> are all isomorphic, we main-
tain these distinct notations for the following reasons:
(a) The syntax of the morphisms is different-I vis-a-vis (I, id) vis-a-vis
(I, ifJ)·
(b) The associated powerset operators, Le. the underlying monadic struc-
ture, are mathematically different- 1--+, r- vis-a-vis (I, id)--+ ,
(I, id)+- (essentially Ii!, It) vis-a-vis (I, ifJ)--+ , (I, ifJ)+- (see 1.3.3).
(c) The topological theories based on these ground categories are differ-
ent due to (1,2) above-see (2-4) below and Sections 3, 4, 6 of this
chapter.
(2) The F of 2.1.8(1) is an isomorphism between SET and SET x L which

weakens with each known lifting to TOP and an overlying topological
category in Sections 3, 4, and 6. More precisely, using the functorial
embeddings of Subsection 6.2, we have:
(a) when F is lifted to G x , it remains an isomorphism iff L = {J.., T};

otherwise it need only have a right adjoint;
(b) when F is lifted to the functor WL (for L a continuous lattice [34,
40]), it becomes an epicorefiection; and
(c) when F is lifted to the a-level functor Fo" only under certain lattice-
theoretic conditions does it have a right adjoint.
(3) The F of 2.1.8,(2) is an isomorphism between SET x L.p and SET x L

which weakens when lifted to overlying topological categories-more pre-
cisely, when topological categories are built in Sections 3, 4, and 6 upon
SET x L.p and SET x L, the isomorphism lifts via the forgetful functor
to an isocorefiective adjunction which is not a categorical equivalence.
(4) We make two conclusions from (1-3). First, categorical properties of

SET x L.p are the same as SET, and this has pleasant consequences for
topological theories which are either internalized change-of-basis or fixed-
basis (see Subsection 6.3). Second, topological theories based on these
grounds are categorically significant and different vis-a-vis TOP.
2.1.10 Discussion (Ground categories and disjoint sum categories). It

is possible to interpret internalized change-of-basis ground categories with the
same base as summands in the sum category of SET with itself in the sense
of [17, IIIA.lO]. To make this precise, let C be a subcategory of LOQML
and L E Ic!. Then we construct the sum category of SET with itself over the
indexing set C(L, L) as follows: put
SET.p == SETx (L,t/J) 3:! SET
and then take the disjoint sum category
II SET.p
.pEC(L,L)
in which composition is given by
(f,t/J) 0 (g,t/J) = (f og,t/J) ¢> t/J = t/J

292 S. E. Rodabaugh
Then it follows that this sum contains each internalized change-of-basis ground
as a subcategoryj and so this sum provides a common ground for the endomor-
phism-saturated topological categories of Section 4 and Subsection 6.2. On the
other hand, the sum category is rather meagre in good properties.
2.2 Categorical properties of SET x C and SET x L</>

As stated in the Section introduction,the properties of the variable-basis grounds
of the previous Subsection are essentially determined by the properties of the
category Cj and since C is a (full) subcategory of LOQML, its properties will
be dual to that of the concrete (over SET) category coP. Furthermore, as a
consequence of Remark 2.1.9(3), the properties of each internalized change-of-
basis ground SET x Lq, is completely known-they are exactly the properties
of SET. Therefore this Subsection shall focus primarily on the categorical prop-
erties of variable-basis grounds.
The categorical properties of greatest interest are those which lift from a
ground to an overlying topological category (cf. Theorem 21.16 of [1]). Such
properties include both the following and some of the associated limits and
colimits important in their own right (e.g. products, co-equalizers):
(co )completeness
(regular, extremally) (co-)well-poweredness
(regular, (Epi, Mono-Source)) factorizability
(co )separators
To avoid repetition below, we emphasize that C is a subcategory of LOQML.

The gist of the next two results is the rough intuition that some categorical
properties based on factoring and equality (e.g. products) are both preserved
and reflected by the operation of taking a product category.
2.2.1 Lemma. Let IljEJ Ej be a product of categories (Ej)jEJ' and let P

be any of the following categorical properties: products, coproducts, equalizers,
coequalizers, initial obejects, terminal objects. Then IljEJ E j has P iff Vj E
J, E j has P.
Proof. The proof is quite straightforward. For illustration we prove a particular

property for the case IJI = 2, leaving the general case and other properties to
the reader. We prove:
(e, v) equalizes (f, ifJ) and (g, 'ljJ) iff e equalizes f, 9 and v equalizes ifJ, 'ljJ
For necessity, note that since (f, ifJ) 0 (e, v) = (g, 'ljJ) 0 (e, v), then foe = go e
and ifJ 0 v = 'ljJ 0 v. Now if el equalizes f,g, and VI equalizes ifJ,'ljJ, then (e/,v l )
equalizes (f,ifJ),(g,'ljJ)j in which case there is a unique (h,p) factoring (e/,v l )
through (e, v). But then h factors el through e, and p factors Vi through v. And
if Ii also factors e l through e, and p also factors Vi through v, then it follows that
(Ii, p)factors (e l , nl) through (e, v) ; in which case it follows that (Ii, p) = (h, p),
i.e. Ii = h, P = p. This completes the proof of necessity for equalizers.
Sufficiency for equalizers follows by reversing the above argumentation. 0
2.2.2 Corollary. f1 jE J E j is [co]complete iff Vj E J, E j is [co]complete.
2.2.3 Lemma.
(1) f1 jEJ E j has [co]separators => Vj E J, E j has [co]separators.
(2) Vj E J, E j is connected and has [co]separators => f1 jE J Ej has

[co]separators.
Proof. We give the separator proof for the case IJI = 2; the general case and
coseparator proof are left to the reader. For (1), let (Z, N) be a separator in
the product category, WLOG let j, 9 : X -+ Y be a pair of distinct morphisms
in the first category, let L be an object in the second category, and ¢> let be a
morphism from L to L in the second category (e.g. ¢> = id). Then (I, ¢», (g, ¢» :
(X, L) -+ (Y, L) is a pair of distinct morphisms in the product category. So
3(h,p): (Z,N) -+ (X,L), (I,¢»o(h,p)::j:. (g,¢»o(h,p), which means (loh,¢>o
p) ::j:. (g 0 h, ¢> 0 p), i.e. j 0 h ::j:. go h. It follows that Z is a separator in the first
category. A similar argument shows N is a separator in the second category.
For sufficiency, we use the notation of necessity and let Z be a separator in
the first category, N be a separator in the second category, and let (I, ¢» , (g, 'I/J) :
(X, L) -+ (Y, M) be distinct morphisms in the product category. Suppose j ::j:. 9
in the first category. Invoke connectedness to obtain p : N -+ L in the second
category, and invoke the existence of separators to obtain a separation h : Z -+
X in the first category. Then j 0 h ::j:. go h, and so (I, ¢» 0 (h, p) ::j:. (g, 'I/J) 0 (h, p).
This shows that (Z, N) is a separator in the product category in this case. The
case when ¢> ::j:. 'I/J proceeds analogously by appealing to connectedness in the first
category and separators in the second category. The case when j ::j:. g, ¢> ::j:. 'I/J
appeals only to separators in the factor categories. D
2.2.4 Example. Concerning separators, the condition of connectedness in

2.2.3(2) is nonsuperfiuous as can be seen by a standard example: letting El =
SET = E 2, each factor category has separators and coseparators, but is not
connected; yet SET x SET does not have separators [1, 7.15(3)]. On the other
hand, letting El = four element Boolean algebra = E 2, each factor as a category
has separators [1, 7.18(6)] and is not connected (because of the two incompara-
ble elements); yet the product category El x E2 as a partially-ordered set has
separators.
2.2.5 Lemma. The following hold:

294 s. E. Rodabaugh
(1) LOC, FUZLAT, and L (1.3.2) are complete and cocomplete.

(2) LOQML, SLOC, CLATop, DMRGop, and CBOOLop are cocomplete.
Proof. For (1), see [28] for LOC and [25] for FUZLAT; cocompleteness in (2)
follows from the completeness of the concrete duals, which is done coordinate-
wise. 0
2.2.6 Theorem (Categorical properties of SET x C and SET x L",). Let

C be a subcategory of LOQML.
(1) The ground SET x Cis:
(a) Complete and cocomplete if C = LOC, FUZLAT, or L.

(b) Cocomplete if C = LOQML, SLOC, CLATop, DMRGop, or
CBOOLoP.
(2) If L E ICI, and if; E C(L,L), then the ground SET x L", has the follow-
ing properties: completeness, cocompleteness, well-poweredness, co-well-
poweredness, (Epi, Mono-Source) factorizability, separators, and cosepa-
rators.
Proof. For (1), Lemmas 2.2.1, 2.2.3, 2.2.5; and for (2), Remark 2.1.9(3). 0
3 Topological categories for variable-basis topo-

logy and fuzzy topology
For each C a subcategory of LOQML, we define categorical frameworks for
variable-basis topology and fuzzy topology over a ground category of the form
SET x C. These frameworks are justified externally in that they are shown
to be topological over their ground w.r.t. the expected forgetful functor. En
route we define notions of subbase and prove the crucial equivalence of subbasic
continuity with continuity. We conclude the section by indicating some of the
categorical consequences resulting from these frameworks being topological and
fibre-small.
From a philosophical point of view, this section generalizes previous develop-
ments of variable-basis topology in that bases are now supplied from the richer
and more general category CQML, and it extends the fuzzy topology approach
of [23] by synthesizing it with the variable-basis approach of this author. In
this connection, Prof. H6hle is especially thanked both for his encouragement
to make this synthesis and for his suggestions thereto.
What both variable-basis topology and variable-basis fuzzy topology have
in common is that they share the same ground categories. In particular, this
means we put a topology or fuzzy topology on a ground object of the form (X, L)
which is literally a point-set lattice-theoretic object. Thus we may sequens
call these approaches to topology point-set lattice-theoretic, or poslat for
short [62], and speak of poslat topology, poslat fuzzy topology, etc. For
convenience, we sometimes distinguish the topology case in this chapter from
the fuzzy topology case by calling one poslat and the other fuzzy, though the
latter is actually poslat fuzzy.
Finally, we remind the reader that the internal justification of these frame-
works via unification of canonical examples is taken up in Section 7.
3.1 Definitions of C-TOP and C-FTOP with examples of

objects
The categorical frameworks detailed below rest on a base or ground category of
the form SET x C, where C is a subcategory of the category LOQML. Often
C is taken to be SLOC or LOC (Proposition 1.3.2). While fixed-basis topology
and fuzzy topology allow the change of both the underlying set and the topology,
the frameworks below additionally permit the change of the underlying basis or
lattice/monoid of membership values.
3.1.1. Definition (The category C-TOP). Let C be a subcategory of LO-

QML. The category C-TOP comprises the following data:
(1) Objects. Objects are ordered triples (X, L, r) satisfying the following
axioms:
(a) Ground axiom. (X,L) E ISET x q.

(b) Topological axiom. r c LX is closed under ® and arbitrary V and
contains I, i.e. the inclusion map r '-+ LX is a CQML morphism.
(X, L, r) is a (poslat) topological space, r is a (poslat) topology
on the (ground) set (X, L), and v E r is a (fuzzy) open subset of
(X,L).
(c) Equality of objects. (X,L,r) = (Y,M,u) ¢:} (X,L) = (Y,M) in
SET x C (2.1.3) and r = u as subsets of LX == MY.
(2) Morphisms. Morphisms are ordered pairs
(f,</J) : (X,L,r) -+ (Y,M,u)
called continuous (morphisms), satisfying the following axioms:
(a) Ground axiom.

(f,</J): (X,L) -+ (Y,M)
is a morphism in SET x C.
296 s. E. Rodabaugh
(b) Continuity axiom. (f, fjJ)+- : LX +- MY maps u into r, i.e.

(f,fjJ)~: r +- u.
(c) Equality of morphisms. As in SET x C (2.1.3).
(3) Composition. As in SET x C.

(4) Identity morphisms. Given (X,L,r), id(x,L,T) = (idx,idL) (or (id,id)
for short).
3.1.2. Proposition. Let C be a subcategory of LOQML. Then C-TOP is a

concrete category over SET x C.
Proof. The main point to be checked is composition, and the proof is substan-
tially no different than that of [53]; but we give it a modern statement using
powerset operators. The reader can check (using 1.3.3 or [62]) that
from which the preservation of continuity by composition immediately follows.

o
3.1.3. Definition (The category C-FTOP). Let C be a subcategory of

LOQML. The category C-FTOP comprises the following data:
(1) Objects. Objects are ordered triples (X, L, T) satisfying the following
axioms:
(a) Ground axiom. (X, L) E ISET x CI.

(b) Fuzzy topological axiom. T: LX -+ L is a mapping satisfying:
(i) 'v'indexing set J, 'v' {Uj : j E J} c LX,
(ii) 'v' indexing set J with IJI = 2, 'v' {Uj : j E J} c LX,
(iii) r(I) = T.
(c) Equality of objects. (X,L, T) = (Y,M,S) ¢:} (X,L) = (Y,M) in
SET x C (2.1.1) and T = S as SET mappings from LX =: MY to
L=:M.
Such objects are (poslat) fuzzy topological spaces and r is a (poslat)

fuzzy topology on the (ground) set (X,L).
(2) Morphisms. Morphisms are ordered pairs
(I,</l): (X,L,T) ~ (Y,M,S)
called fuzzy continuous (morphisms), satisfying the following axioms:
(a) Ground axiom.

(I,</l): (X,L) ~ (Y,M)
is a morphism in SET x C.
(b) Fuzzy continuity axiom. r 0 (I, </l)+- ~ </lop 0 S on MY.
(c) Equality of morphisms. As in SET x C (2.1.1).
(3) Composition. As in SET x C.
(4) Identities. As in SET x C.
3.1.3.1. Proposition (Alternate fuzzy continuity axiom). On MY the

following holds:
where </l. comes from Lemma 1.3.2 and is a shorthand for (</l0P)* .
Proof. For necessity, apply </l. to both sides, invoking its preservation of order
(Lemma 1.3.2(4» and the fact that </l. 0 </lop;::: idM (Lemma 1.3.2(2»; and for
suficiency, apply </lop to both sides, invoking its preservation of order (since it is
a CQML morphism) and the fact that </lop 0 </l. ~ idL. 0
3.1.3.2. Remark. The form of the fuzzy continuity axiom given in 3.1.3.1 is
closer to the intuitive meaning of fuzzy continuity-the degree of openness of the
"preimage" of a fuzzy subset of the codomain is as great as the degree of open-
ness of that fuzzy subset; the intuition behind the axiom as given in 3.1.3(2)(b)
involves comparing degrees of openness of a fuzzy subset in each of two "secret"
r
fuzzy topological spaces, namely (Y, L, 0 (I, </l)+-) and (Y, L, </lop 0 S). What
recommends both forms is technical convenience; either one shall be used in
this chapter without necessarily being referenced. The reader should note the
r
left side </l* 0 0 (I, </l)+- of 3.1.3.1 in fundamental to 3.2.12 of Subsection 3.2, a
result that ultimately lays the foundation for C-FTOP being topological over
SET x C in Subsection 3.3.
3.1.4. Proposition. Let C be a subcategory of LOQML. Then C-FTOP is

a concrete category over SET x C.
298 s. E. Rodabaugh
Proof. We only check the composition of morphisms. Let the following mor-
phisms be given:
(f, </J) : (X, L, Ti) -+ (Y, M, 12), (g, 'l/J) : (Y, M, 12) -+ (Z, N, 13)
Then the following holds, using the displayed line of 3.1.2 above, and justifies
that (g 0 j, 'l/J 0 </J) is a (continuous) morphism:
Ti 0 (g 0 j, 'l/J 0 </J)'- = Ti 0 (f, </J)'- 0 (g, 'l/J)'-

> </J0P 012 0 (g.'l/J)'-
> </J0P 0 'l/J0p 0 13
> ('l/Jo</J)OPo13 D
3.1.5. Remarks and Examples. Let L E ILOQMLI.
(1) Each L-topological space (X, r), as discussed in Subsection 1.1, when
written in the form (X,L,r), is an object in LOQML-TOP. And each
L-continuous morphism j can be rewritten as the morphism (f, id) in
LOQML-TOP. Restated, each category L-TOP of [23] can be rewritten
as the subcategory L-TOP of LOQML-TOP, since it is the subcategory
C-TOP with C = L (Subsection 1.3.2 above). See Subsection 6.2 other
functorial embeddings into LOQML-TOP. By these remarks, a treasure
trove of specific examples sit inside LOQML-TOP which are discussed
at greater length in Section 7. These examples include:
(a) The fuzzy real lines ~(L) [12] and fuzzy unit intervals Il(L) [24],
where L E IDMQLI, can be rewritten as (~(L),L,r (L)) and
(][(L),L,r(L) (][(L))), respectively; and their co-fuzzy duals [59] can
be written as (~,L,co-r (L)) and (Il,L,co-r(L)). See Subsections 7.1
and 7.3 below.
(b) The L-sober topological spaces of the form (Lpt(A) , «h)-+ (A)),
where
A,L E ICQMLI, Lpt(A) = CQML(A,L)
and
<tiL: A -+ LLpt(A) by <tiL(a)(p) = p(a)
may rewritten in the form
(Lpt(A),L, (<tiL)-+ (A))
Such spaces play a fundamental role in the representation and com-

pactification theories for fixed-basis topology when the lattice-theo-
retic base is an object in FRM, as well as a fundamental role in
compactification theories for variable-basis topology for all objects
of LOC-TOP. It should be noted that for all presently known L,

including L = IT, none of these spaces have any constant maps in
their topologies other than :b and I. This guarantees that no gen-
eral framework for fixed-basis topology can be a c-category over its
ground categorYi and this confirms that the definition of topologi-
cal category in [1] is "correct". As an application, we conclude that
FTS, contrary to its extensive promotion in [42-44] and also in E.
Lowen and R. Lowen of [70], cannot be a general framework for ][-
topology. Results and detailed proofs and applications are given in
[56-57, 64-65, 68] and Subsection 7.4 below.
(c) The generated stratified L-topological spaces of the form (X, WL(~))
-where (X,~) E ITOPI and WL(~) = TOP((X,~),(L,SUP(L)))
-may be rewritten (X, L, wd~)). The restricitive case L = ][ is
found in [42], but the general case for L E ISFRMI is found in [39].
(2) Each L-fuzzy topological space (X, 7), as defined in [23] and written in the
form (X, L, 7), is an object in LOQML-FTOP. And each L-fuzzy con-
tinuous morphism f can be rewritten as the morphism (f, id) in LOQML-
FTOP. Restated, each category L-FTOP of [23] can be rewritten as the
subcategory L-FTOP of LOQML-TOP since it is the subcategory C-
FTOP with C = L (Subsection 1.3.2 above). See Section 6.2 for other
functorial embeddings into LOQML-FTOP.
(3) We have expressed the axioms of variable-basis fuzzy topology explicitly in
terms of functional inequalities and powerset operators, thus rooting this
theory directly into the foundations of [66-67]. This will be our approach
throughout this chapter.
(4) Note a fourth condition obtains from 3.1.3(1)(b): I(:b) = T. This follows
from choosing the indexing set J to be empty in (i), so that T :5 I(:b).
(5) If ® is chosen as /\, then 3.1.3(1)(b)(ii) reads as
V finite indexing set J, V {Uj : j E J}, /\ jEJ I( Uj) :5 1(/\ jEJ Uj)
and implies I(T) = T (by choosing J empty), which then obviates (iii).
Thus in a semi-locale, only 3.1.3(1)(b)(i,ii) are needed.
3.2 Subbasic continuities and final structures in C-TOP

and C-FTOP
We develop subbases and subbasic continuity first for the variable-basis topology
case and then extend this development to the variable-basis fuzzy topology case.
En route we show the existence of final structures and conclude with some
canonical examples of continuous morphisms.
300 S. E. Rodabaugh
The importance of this subsection is that it is the foundation stone of much

of this chapter, especially the proofs in the next subsection that C-TOP and
C-FTOP are topological over the ground SET x C.
3.2.1. Proposition. Let C be a subcategory of LOQML and let (X,L) E

ISET x CI. Then the following hold:
(1) The collection
T = {T C LX: T is a topology on (X,L)}
is a complete lattice ordered by inclusion.
(2) Va C LX, :3 a smallest topology on (X, L) containing a, namely
Proof. (1) follows from the fact that T is small and complete with respect to
arbitrary intersections; and (2) follows from (the proof of) (1). D
3.2.2. Definition (Subbase and base). Let (X, L, T) E IC-TOPI. Then a

is a subbase [,8 is a base] of T if T is the smallest topology on (X, L) containing
a [if each member of T is a join of some sub collection of ,8, resp.], in which case
we write T = ((a)) [T = (,8), resp]. The existence of ((a)) is guaranteed by
3.2.1(2) above. These notions originally stem from [79] for the fixed-basis case
with L = IT.
Note that to have a subbase a induce a topology T via a base ,8 d la classical

topology, the underlying lattice L must satisfy the first infinite distributive law
of ~ over arbitrary V; e.g. this will be the case if L E ILOCI and ~ = 1\
(restricted to finitely many arguments), in which case an open subset can be
represented as a suprema of finite infima of subbasic open sets. If is a a subbase
for T, and,8 is a base for T induced from by taking finite products (via ~), then
we write T = (,8) and ,8 = (a). If one bypasses a base and goes "directly" from
a subbase to a topology, infinite distributivity may not be needed-as seen in
the following definitions and results, in which case we write T = ((a)) without
presuming there exists a base ,8 with either T = (,8) or ,8 = (a).
3.2.3. Definition (Join of topologies). If {Ti};EI is a collection of topologies
on (X, L) E ISET xCi, then ViE ITi is the topology ((U iE1 Ti)) on (X, L)
having UiEI Ti as its subbase.
3.2.4. Definition (Subbasic and co-subbasic continuity). Let (f, ¢) :

(X, L) -+ (Y, M) in SET x C, and let T be a topology on (X, L) and ((a))
[(,8)] be a topology on (Y,M) with subbase a [base ,8, resp.]. We say (f,¢)
is subbasic continuous [basic continuous) from (X,L,T) to (Y,M, ((u)))

[(Y, M, ((3)), resp.) iff
(f, </J)j; : T t- u [(f, </J)jp : T t- (3, resp.)
and (f, </J) is co-subbasic continuous [co-basic continuous) from

(Y,M,((u))) [(Y,M,((3), resp.] to (X,L,T) iff
(f, </J)j:; : u t- T [(f, </J)~ : (3 t- T, resp.)
3.2.5. Theorem (Final structures and morphisms for topology). Let

C be a subcategory of LOQML, let (f, </J) : (X, L) --t (Y, M) in SET x C, and
let T be a topology on (X,L). Then the following hold:
(1) T(j,t/J) == {v E MY : (f, </J)+-(v) E T} is a topology on (Y, M)j
(2) (f, </J) : (X, L, T) --t (Y, M, T(j,t/J») is continuousj

(3) (f, </J) : (X, L, T) --t (Y, M, f) is continuous ¢:} f C T(j,t/J)j
(4) T(j,t/J) =
V{ (f,f </J)C MY: (Y,M,f) E IC-TOPI,
E C-TOP «X, L, T), (Y, M, f»
}
(5) (f,</J) : (X,L,T) --t (Y,M,T(j,t/J») is a final morphism in C-TOPj

(6) (f, </J) : (X, L, T) --t (Y, M, f) is a final morphism in C-TOP ¢:} f = T(j,t/J)'
Proof. Ad (1). The reader can verify that Lemma 1.3.3 and the fact T is a
topology on (X, L) imply that T(j,t/J) is a topology on (Y, M).
Ad (2). This is immediate from the definition of T(f,t/J)'
Ad (3). C<=) is obvious from (2) and the definiiton of continuity applied to
(f,</J) w.r.t. T(j,t/J)' For (=», let a continuous (f,</J): (X,L,T) --t (Y,M,f) be
given. Then \:Iv E f, (f,</J)+-(v) E T. This implies v E T(j,t/J) , so f C T(f,t/J)'
Ad (4). This is immediate from (3) and (4) using 3.2.3 (cf. Proposition
3.2.1(1».
Ad (5). To show (f, </J) is final, we must verify the following:
\:I(Z, N, T*) E IC-TOPI, \:I(g, 1/;) E (SET x C) «Y, M), (Z, N» ,
(g,1/;) 0 (f, </J) E C-TOP «X, L, T), (Z, N, T*» =>

(g,1/;) E C-TOP (Y,M,T(j,t/J»),(Z,N,T*))
So let all antecedents be instantiated and let v E T*. Then
302 s. E. Rodabaugh
by the continuity of (g, 'ljJ) 0 (f, ¢). But by (1) we have (g, 'ljJ)+- (v) E 7(1,"'). Thus
(g,'ljJ) is continuous and (f,¢) is final as claimed.
Ad (6). Sufficiency comes from (5). As for necessity, let (f, ¢) be a final
morphism in C-TOP. Since (f, ¢) is assumed in C-TOP«X, L, 7), (Y, M, f)),
it is continuous; and so by (3) we have f C 7(1,,,,). To apply the finality of
(f, ¢) using the notation of the proof of (5), put Z = Y, N = M, f = 7(1,"')'
and (g, 'ljJ) = (id, id). Note (g, 'ljJ) 0 (f, ¢) = (f, ¢) is continuous from (X, L, 7)
to (Y, M, 7(1,,,,») by (2). Now finality applies to say that (id, id) : (Y, M, f) --t
(Y,M,7(1,"'») is continuous. This implies that 7(1,"') C f. So f = 7(1,,,,). 0
3.2.6. Theorem (Equivalence of subbasic continuity with continuity).

Let C be a subcategory of LOQML, let (f, ¢) : (X, L) --t (Y, M) in SET x C,
let 71 be a topology on (X,L) with 71 = «(31) and 71 = «a1)), and let 72 be
a topology on (Y, M) with 72 = «(32) and 72 = «a2)) (where it is not assumed
that (3i = (ai)). Then the following are equivalent:
(1) (f,¢): (X,L,71) --t (Y,M,72) is continuous.

(2) (f, ¢) : (X, L, 71) --t (Y, M, 72) is basic continuous.
(3) (f, ¢) : (X, L, 71) --t (Y, M, 72) is subbasic continuous.
And (1-3) are implied by each of the following:
(4) (f,¢): (X,L,7d --t (Y,M,72) is co-basic continuous.

(5) (f, ¢) : (X, L, 71) --t (Y, M, 72) is co-subbasic continuous.
Proof. (1) :::} (2) 1\ (3) is immediate, (4) V (5) :::} (1) is trivial, and (1) {= (2)
follows from (f,¢)+- preserving arbitrary V. As for (1) {= (3), the assumption
of (3), 3.2.4, and 3.2.5(1) imply that a2 C 7(1,,,,). Now the definition of sub-
base (3.2.2) implies that 72 C 7(1,,,,). Apply 3.2.5(3) to conclude that (f,¢) is
continuous. 0
3.2.7. Remark. Theorem 3.2.6(1-3) stems from the special case for
C = SLOC given in [56, 66] and proved in detail in [39].
We turn now to the variable-basis fuzzy topology case. While there are
parallels to the topology case, sub basic and final structures in the fuzzy topology
case require deeper work and rest ultimately on the Adjoint Functor Theorem
(AFT); and this changes the presentation significantly from that for the topology
case.
3.2.8. Proposition. Let C be a subcategory of LOQML and let (X,L) E

ISET x q. Then the following hold:
(1) The collection
T = {r E L(L X) : T is a fuzzy topology on (X, L)}
is a complete lattice with the ordering ~ of L(LX)j in fact, it is a complete

sub-meet-semilattice of L(LX), i.e. closed under the 1\ of L(LX).
(2) \:18 E L(LX), :3 a smallest fuzzy topology on (X, L) dominating 8, namely
I\{T E T: 8 ~ T}
Proof. (1) is proved in detail in the companion chapter [23]j and (2) follows
from (1). 0
3.2.9. Definition (Fuzzy subbases and fuzzy bases). Let 8 be a fuzzy

sub collection in LX, i.e. 8 : LX -+ L is a function with no other presumed
properties. Then the fuzzy topology Is generated from fuzzy subbasis 8
is given by:
Is = 1\ {T: LX -+ LIT is a fuzzy topology on (X, L), 8 ~ T}
We are assured by 3.2.6 that this topology is well-defined. Alternatively, we

write Is = «8)). If the only topology under consideration is the one generated
by 8, then we drop the subscript and write T = «8)) in analogy with the
topology case above. If a fuzzy topology T = «8)) has subbase 8, and 8
satisfies fuzzy topological axiom 3.1.3(1)(b)(i), i.e.
\:I indexing set J, \:I{Uj: j E J} c LX, 1\ 8(uj) ~ 8

jEJ
(V
jEJ
Uj)
then we say 8 is a (fuzzy) base for T and write T = (8). The reader should
compare this with 3.2.2.
3.2.10. Definition (Join of fuzzy topologies). Let {7jEJ} be a collec-

tion of fuzzy topologies on a set (X, L). Then Vj E J7j is the fuzzy toplogy
«V j E J7j)) on (X,L), where the left join symbol is part of the notation be-
ing defined, and the right join symbol refers to the join of the subset {7jEJ} of
mappings in the lattice L(LX). Because of 3.2.8 above, there is no harm from
this abuse of notation.
3.2.11. Definition (Fuzzy subbasic and co-subbasic continuity). These

definitions are analogous to 3.2.4, except the defining conditions now read:
304 S. E. Rodabaugh
• fuzzy subbasic continuity: 70 (I, ifJ)+- ~ ifJop oS on MY (S is subbase

of codomain of (I, ifJ)),
• fuzzy basic continuity: 7 0 (I, ifJ)+- ~ ifJop 0 B on MY (B is base of
codomain of (I, ifJ)),
• fuzzy co-subbasic continuity: So (I, ifJ)+- ~ ifJop 07 on MY (S is
subbase of domain of (I, ifJ)),
• fuzzy co-basic continuity: B 0 (I, ifJ) +- ~ ifJ op 0 7 on MY (B is base of
domain of (I, ifJ))·
Each of these can be reformulated ala 3.1.3.1 above.
3.2.12. Theorem (Final structures and morphisms for fuzzy topology).

Let C be a subcategory of LOQML, let (I, ifJ) : (X, L) --+ (Y, M) in SET x C,
let ifJ* == (ifJoP) be the right adjoint of ifJ op : L +- M guaranteed by Lemma 1.3.2,
and let 7 be a fuzzy topology on (X, L). Then the following hold:
(1) T(/,q,) == ifJ* 0 7 0 (I, ifJ)+- is a fuzzy topology on (Y, M);

(2) (I, ifJ) : (X, L, T) --+ (Y, M, T(/,q,») is fuzzy continuous;
(3) (I,ifJ) : (X,L, T) --+ (Y,M, 7") is fuzzy continuous ¢:} 7" ::; T(/,q,);
(4) T(/,q,) =
V{ 7" E M(M (Y,M, 7") E IC-FTOPI,

Y
) :
(I,ifJ) E C-FTOP «X,L, T), (Y,M, 7"))

}
(5) (I, ifJ) : (X, L, T) --+ (Y, M, T(/,q,») is a final morphism in C-FTOP;
(6) (I,ifJ) : (X,L, T) --+ (Y,M, 7") is a final morphism in C-FTOP ¢:} 7" =
T(/,q,) .
Proof. Ad (1). Using 1.3.3 and Lemma 1.3.2 (4,5), we check the fuzzy topo-
logical axioms of 3.1.3(b) as follows, where the 0-axiom requires IJI = 2:
1\ T(/,q,) (Uj) = 1\ ifJ* (7(1,ifJ)+- (Uj))

jEJ jEJ
= O· (~ T(""')~ (U;»)
< O· (r (~ (""')~ (U;») )
= ¢. (T(f'¢)~ t~ U;))
= Ti/,., ( VU;)
jEJ
® 7(1,<1» (Uj) = ®¢>* (7(f,¢»f- (Uj))

jEJ jEJ
< ,,' (~T(M))~ (U;))

< ,,+ (~ (M)~ (U;)) )
= ,,' (r(f,,,)~ (~U;))
= Ti/,., ( ®
jEJ
U;)
7(1,<1» (I) = ¢>* (7(f,¢»f- (I))
= I
Note the last computation rests on I being the meet over the empty set, ¢>*
preserving arbitrary /\ and hence I, and (f, ¢»+- preserving I (1.3.3).
Ad (2). From Lemma 1.3.2 (2) we have that
¢>op 0 ¢>* ::; idL
which inplies that
70 (f, ¢»f- ~ ¢>op 0 ¢>* 070 (f, ¢»f-
= ¢>op 0 7(,,<1»
This verifies that (f,¢» : (X,L, T) -+ (Y,M, 7(,,<1») is fuzzy continuous.
Ad (3). For (=», let (f,¢» : (X,L,T) -+ (Y,M,7") be fuzzy continuous.
Then we have
7 0 (f, ¢»f- ~ ¢>op 0 7"
Whence Lemma 1.3.2 (2,4) it follows that
7(,,<1» = ¢>* 070 (f, ¢»f-
> ¢>* 0 ¢>op 0 7"
> 7"
306 S. E. Rodabaugh
For (-¢::), let 71\ ::; T(I,<I»' Since (1,4» : (X, L, T) --t (Y, M, T(I,<I») is fuzzy
continuous from (2), we have
To (I, 4»t- > 4>0P 0 T(I,<I»

> 4>0P 0 T/\
Ad (4). This follows from (3) and (4) together with 3.2.lO.
Ad(5). To show (1,4» : (X, L, T) --t (Y, M, 'Tr",<I») is final, we must verify
the following:
'1(Z, N, 7*) E IC-FTOPI, '1(g, 'lj;) E (SET xC) «Y, M), (Z, N)),
(g, 'lj;) 0 (1,4» E C-FTOP «X, L, T), (Z, N, 7*)) =}
(g, 'lj;) E C-FTOP (Y, M, 'Tr",<I»), (Z, N, 7*))

Letting all antecedents be instantiated, we have from the continuity of (g, 'lj;) 0
(1,4» and the facts (g 0 J, 'lj; 0 4»t- = (I, 4»t- 0 (g, 'lj;)t- and ('lj; 0 4>tP = 4>0P o'lj;°P
that
To (I, 4»t- 0 (g, 'lj;)t- 2: 4>0P 0 'lj;0P 0 T*
Now from the definition of 'Tr",<I»' Lemma 1.3.2 (4), and Lemma 1.3.2 (2), in
that order, it follows
4>* 0 To (I, 4»t- 0 (g, 'lj;)t-

> 4>* 0 4>0P 0 'lj;0P 0 T*
> 'lj;0P 0 T*
Ad (6). Sufficiency comes from (5). As for necessity, let (1,4» : (X, L, T) --t
(Y, M, T/\) be final in C-FTOP. Since (1,4» is presumed fuzzy continuous, we
have from (3) that T/\ ::; 'Tr",<I»' To apply the finality of (1,4» using the notation
of the proof of (5), put Z = Y, N = M, 7* = 'Tr",<I»' and (g,'lj;) = (id,id). Note
(g, 'lj;) 0 (I, 4» = (1,4» is fuzzy continuous from (X, L, T) to (Y, M, 'Tr",<I») by (2).
Now finality applies to say that (id,id) : (Y,M, T/\) --t (Y,M, 'Tr",<I») is fuzzy
continuous, and this implies
T/\ = T/\ 0 (id, id) t-

> idop 0 'Tr",<I»
= 'Tr",<I»
Thus T/\ = 'Tr",<I»' 0
3.2.13. Theorem (Equivalence of fuzzy subbasic continuity with fuzzy

continuity). Let C be a subcategory of LOQML, let (1,4» : (X, L) --t (Y, M)
in SET x C, let Ii be a fuzzy topology on (X, L) with Ii = (B 1 ) and Ii =
«Sl))' and let 12 be a fuzzy topology on (Y, M) with 12 = (B 2) and 12 = «S2))'
Then the following are equivalent:
(1) (/, </» : (X, L, 7i) -+ (Y, M, 72) is fuzzy continuous.

(2) (/, </» : (X, L, 7i) -+ (Y, M, 72) is fuzzy basic continuous.
(3) (/, </» : (X, L, 7i) -+ (Y, M, 72) is fuzzy subbasic continuous.
And (1-3) are implied by each of the following:
(4) (/, </» : (X, L, 7i) -+ (Y, M, 72) is fuzzy co-basic continuous.
(5) (/, </» : (X, L, 7i) -+ (Y, M, 72) is fuzzy co-sub basic continuous.
Proof. (1) => (3). 7i 0 (/, </»t- 2': ¢op 072 2': ¢op 0 S2 since S2 ::; 72.
(1) ~ (3). The fuzzy subbasic continuity of (/, ¢) gives
7i 0 (/, ¢)t- 2': ¢op 0 S2
And applying the definition of (7i)U,q,) from 3.2.12(1), Lemma 1.3.2(4), and
Lemma 1.3.2(2), in that order, yields
¢* o7i 0 (/, ¢)t-
> ¢* 0 ¢op 0 S2
> S2
Now the definition of fuzzy subbase (3.2.9) implies that (7i)U,q,) 2': 72. We now
apply 3.2.12(3) to conclude that (/, ¢) is fuzzy continuous.
(1) ~ (5). 7i 0 (/,¢)t- 2': Sl 0 (/,¢)t- 2': ¢op 0 72 since 7i 2': Sl.
(1) => (2), (1) ~ (2), (1) ~ (4). Respective consequences of (1) => (3),
(1) ~ (3), (1) ~ (5) since each fuzzy base is a fuzzy subbase. 0
3.2.14. Canonical examples of morphisms. Let L E IDMRGI be totally

ordered.
(1) Let the fuzzy real line JR(L) be equipped both with the standard L-
topology 7 (L) [12] and with fuzzy addition Ef), and let JR(L) x JR(L) be
equipped with the standard (Goguen-Wong) L-product topology 7 (L) x
7 (L) (see [16, 80]). Then each proof that
(Ef), id) : (JR(L) x JR(L) , L, 7 (L) x 7 (L)) -+ (JR(L) , L, 7 (L))

is jointly (poslat) continuous is based on showing (Ef), id) is subbasic con-
tinuous, and the proof that
(@,id) : (JR(L) x JR(L) , L, 7 (L) x 7 (L)) -+ (JR(L) , L, 7 (L))

is jointly (poslat) continuous is based on showing (@,id) is subbasic con-
tinuous. See [55] or its references for the hypergraph proofs for (Ef), id) and
(@, id), respectively.
308 S. E. Rodabaugh
(2) Let the classical real line IR be equipped with the standard L-topology co-
r (L)-the co-fuzzy dual topology [59] induced on IR from IR(L)-and let
IR x IR be equipped with the standard (Goguen-Wong) L-product topology
co-r (L) X co-r (L). Then three of the four known proofs that classical
addition
(+, id) : (IR x lR, L, co-r (L) x co-r (L)) --t (lR, L, co-r (L))
is jointly (poslat) continuous are based on showing (+, id) is subbasic

continuous, and two of the three known proofs that classical multiplication
(., id) : (IR x lR, L, COTL x COTL) --t (lR, L, co-r (L))
is jointly (poslat) continuous are based on showing (., id) is subbasic con-
tinuous. See [59-60] for details.
(3) If ¢ E DMRGoP(L, L) and the G", functor of Subsection 4.1 is applied to
each object of the previous examples, then each of (EB,¢),(®,¢),(+,¢),
(.,¢) is respectively jointly (poslat) continuous. If ¢ E Auto(L), then
each of (+, ¢), (., ¢) is respectively jointly (poslat) continuous between
the objects as originally given in (3)-this follows from Proposition 9.25
of [66].
3.3 C-TOP and C-FTOP are topological over SET xC

This subsection builds directly on Subsections 1.3, 3.1, and especially 3.2. We
use the Interpretation of the Long Definition of 1.3.1. In particular, the forgetful
functors
V : C - TOP --t SET x C, V : C - FTOP --t SET x C
in this subsection have the following shape:
V(X, L, r) = (X, L) or V(X, L, n = (X, L), V(f, ¢) = (f, ¢)

Then a V -structured source from variable-basis topology looks like
and a V-structured source from variable-basis fuzzy topology looks like
It is our task to show that each V -structured source from one of these categories
has a unique initial V-lift from that category. We first prove the C-TOP case,
and then extend the argument to the deeper C-FTOP case.
3.3.1. Lemma (V-Lift). Let ((X,L), (li,<Pi) : (X,L) ~ (Xi,Li,Ti)))r be a

V-structured source in SET x C from C-TOP. There is a topology T on (X,L)
such that each (Ii, <Pi) : (X, L, T) ~ (Xi, L i , Ti) is continuous.
Proof. From 3.2.3, put
T = V((Ii, <Pi)+-r-+ (Ti) = ((U iE1 ((fi,<Pi)+-)-+ (Ti»))

iEI
where ((Ii, <Pi)+-)-+ is the classical forward powerset operator of the fuzzy back-
ward operator (Ii, <Pi)+-. Then by 3.2.1 and 3.2.2, T is a topology on (X,L).
Each (Ii, <Pi) is co-subbasic continuous by 3.2.4, and hence by 3.2.6(5) is contin-
uous. 0
3.3.2. Lemma (Initial V-lift). ((X, L, T), (Ii, <Pi) : (X, L, T) ~ (Xi, Li, Ti»)r
is an initial V-lift of the V-structured source of 3.3.1, where T is given in the
proof of 3.3.1.
Proof. Let ((X,L,v), (gi,'tfJi) : (X,L,v) ~ (Xi,Li,Ti»)r be another V-lift of

the V-structured source of 3.3.1, and let (h,<p): (X,L) ~ (X,L) be a ground
morphism such that
Then (h, <p)+- 0 (Ii, <Pi)+- = (gi, 'tfJi)+-. For the subbasic continuity of
(h,<p) : (X,L,v) ~ (X,L,T)
let
v E UiE1 ((/i,<Pi)+-)-+(Ti)
Then 3i E I, 3u E Ti, (/i,<Pi)+-(U) = Vj and so
Hence (h, <p) is subbasic continuous, and so is continuous by 3.2.6. 0
3.3.3. Lemma (Unique initial V-lift).
is the unique V-initial lift of the V-structured source of 3.3.1, where T is given
in the proof of 3.3.1.
Proof. Let ((X,L,v), (gi,'tfJi) : (X,L,v) ~ (Xi, Li,Ti)))r be another V-initial

lift. Then we must show that v = T. Since both constructions are lifts, it follows
immediately that
310 s. E. Rodabaugh
Let (h,¢» : (X,L) -+ (X,L) by h = idx,'l/J = idL. Then using the initial
properties of each lift, we have (h, ¢» must be continuous, both from (X, L, v)
to (X,L,T) ,and from (X,L,T) to (X,L,v)j the former implies T C v, and the
latter implies VeT. So V = T. 0
3.3.4. Theorem. For each subcategory C of LOQML, the category C-TOP

is topological over SET x C with respect to the forgetful functor V.
Proof. Conjoin 3.3.1, 3.3.2, 3.3.3, and Interpretation of Definition 1.3.1. 0
We turn now to the C-FTOP case.
3.3.5. Lemma (V-Lift). Let ((X, L), (Ii, ¢>i) : (X, L) -+ (Xi, L i , T;)))J be a
V-structured source in SET x C from C-FTOP. There is a fuzzy topology T
on (X, L) such that each (Ii, ¢>i) : (X, L, T) -+ (Xi, L i , T;) is fuzzy continuous.
Proof. Construct a map S : LX -+ L by defining S at a E LX as follows:
where b E ((Ii,¢>i)t-t-({a}) means (Ii,¢>i)t-(b) = a, i.e. ((Ii,¢>i)t-)t- is the

classsical backward powerset operator of the fuzzy backward powerset operator
-see 1.3.3. Put T = ((S)).
We now verify that each (Ii, ¢>i) is fuzzy co-subbasic continuousj it will then
follow by 3.2.13(5) that (Ii, ¢>i) is fuzzy continuous. And to do this, we must
verify that So (Ii, ¢>i) ~ ¢>? 0 T; on Lfi. Let b E Lfi and put a = (Ii, ¢>i)t- (b).
Then a E LX and it follows that ((Ii, ¢>i)t-)t- (a) f. 0 (since this particular b is
in ((Ii, ¢>i)t-)t- (a)). We therefore have that
= v
iEI. bE((ji .;)+- (a»+-
¢>? (T;(b))
> ¢>? (Ti(b))

from which it follows that So (Ii, ¢>i) ~ ¢>? 0 T; on Lfi. This concludes the
proof. 0
3.3.6. Lemma (Initial V-lift).
is a V -initial lift of the V -structured source of 3.3.5, where T is given in the

proof of 3.3.5.
Proof. Let U be a topology on (X, L); Vi E I, let (gi, '¢i) fuzzy continuous from
(X, L,U) to (Xi, L i , Ti), and let (h, '¢) : (X, L) -+ (X, L) be a ground morphism
such that
Vi E I, (hcf>i) 0 (h,'¢) = (9i,'¢i) in SET x C (*)
The goal is to show that (h, '¢) : (X, L, v) -+ (X, L, T) is fuzzy continuous
by showing (h, '¢) is fuzzy subbasic continuous and then invoking 3.2.13(3) of
Subsection 3.2 to conclude (h, '¢) is fuzzy continuous. Restated, our goal is to
verify on LX the inequality
U 0 (h,'¢)T- ~ '¢op oS
where we recall S is the subbase for T created in the proof of 3.3.5.

First, we observe from the fuzzy continuity of each (gi, '¢i) that on Lf' there
obtains the inequality
U 0 (gi, '¢i)T- ~ '¢? 0 Ti (**)
And we observe that the identities of (*) above imply
Vi E I, cf>i o'¢ = '¢i, '¢op 0 cf>? = '¢?, (h, '¢)T- 0 (h cf>i)T- = (gi, '¢i)T- (***)
Second, the map '¢oP : L +- L has a right adjoint '¢* : L -+ L with the properties
listed in Lemma 1.3.2. Our intermediate goal is to verify on LX the following
inequality:
(****)
To verify (****), we write LX as a disjoint union A U0 B, where A and Bare
defined as follows:
a E A<=>:3 i E I, ((h cf>i)T-)T- (a) =f. 0
B = LX-A
Note on B the inequality (****) holds trivially since SIB = ~IB' To show that
(****) holds on A, let a E A and let i E I such that ((fi, cf>i)T-)T- (a) =f. 0. Then
:3b ELf·, b E ((hcf>i)T-)T- (a). Using Lemma 1.3.2(2), the definition of S,
(**), and (***) yields this sequence of cogitations:
Uo (h,'¢)T-o (fi,cf>i)T- ~ ,¢oPocf>?oTi,
'¢* 0 U 0 (h, '¢)T- 0 (fi, cf>i)T- ~ cf>? 0 Ti,
'¢* (U ((h, '¢)T- ((h cf>i)T- (b)))) ~ cf>? (Ti (b)),
'¢* (U (h, '¢)T- (a)) '¢* (U ((h, '¢)T- ((h cf>i)T- (b))))
> V cf>? (Ti (b))
iEI, bE((f.,¢;)+-)+-(a)
S(a)
312 S. E. Roda.ba.ugh
This completes the proof of (****) on LX.

To finish the proof of the lemma, we invoke the last sentence of 3.2.10 (ala
3.1.3.1) to obtain:
U 0 (h,'I/J)t- ~ 'l/J0P 0 S
This concludes the proof of the fuzzy subbasic continuity of (h, 'I/J), the fuzzy
continuity of (h, 'I/J) (3.2.13), and hence the lemma. 0
3.3.7. Remark (Alternate finish to proof of 3.3.6). Given that (****)

is established in the proof of 3.3.6, we have from 3.2.12(1) that (****) may be
rewritten as
7(h,'I/J) ~ S
Then it follows from 3.2.8 and 3.2.9 that 7(h,'I/J) ~ T, which implies from 3.2.12(3)
that (h, 'I/J) is fuzzy continuous, finishing the proof of 3.3.6. Of course, this is
really the proof of 3.2.13((1) {::: (3)) in disguise.
3.3.8. Lemma (Unique initial V-lift).
((X, L, T), (fi, rPi) : (X, L, T) -+ (Xi, L i , 7i))h
is the unique initial V-lift of the V-structured source of 3.3.5, where T is given
in the proof of 3.3.5.
Proof. Let ((X, L,U), (gi, 'l/Ji) : (X, L,U) -+ (Xi, L i , 7i))h be another V-initial
lift. Then we must show that U = T and Vi E I, (9i, 'l/Ji) = (fi, rPi). Since both
constructions are lifts, it follows immediately that
= V(fi, rPi) = V(gi, 'l/Ji) = (gi, 'l/Ji)

(J;, rPi)
Let (h,'I/J) : (X,L) -+ (X,L) by h = idx,'I/J = idL. Then using the initial prop-
erties of each lift, we have (h, 'I/J) must be fuzzy continuous, both from ((X, L,U)
to (X, L, T) and from (X, L, T) to (X, L,U). These two fuzzy continuities yield
on LX the following inequalities:
But (h,'I/J)t- = idLx, 'l/J0P = idL. So these inequalities on LX reduce to
U ~ T, T ~ U
Hence U = T, and the initial V-lift of 3.3.5 is unique. 0
3.3.9. Theorem. For each subcategory C of LOQML, the category C-FTOP

is topological over SET x C with respect to the forgetful functor V.
Proof. Conjoin 3.3.5, 3.3.6, 3.3.8, and Interpretation of Definition 1.3.1. 0

3.3.10 Corollary (Applications to fixed-basis topology and fuzzy topol-

ogy). For each L E ICQMLI, each of L-TOP and L-FTOP is topological
over SET x L.
Proof. Apply 3.3.4 and 3.3.9 with C = L. 0
This corollary, filtered through Proposition 1.3.1 and the functorial embed-
dings of Section 6 below, gives an alternate proof that the categories L-TOP
and L-FTOP studied in [23] are topological over SET.
3.4 Categorical consequences of topological and fibre-

smallness
3.4.1. Lemma. Let C a subcategory of LOQML. Then each object of C-
TOP and C-FTOP is fibre-small over SET x C; in fact, each fibre is a com-
plete lattice.
Proof. Given a ground object (X,L), its fibre comprises all spaces of the
form (X, L, r) or the form (X, L, 7), and so is in a bijection with all topologies
r C LX or all fuzzy topologies T : LX -t L. Hence this fibre may be regarded
as a subclass of the set P (LX) or the set L(LX), and so is a set, the condition
for fibre-smallness. That it is a complete lattice follows from 3.2.1 or 3.2.8 (by
dualizing the ordering of 3.2.1/3.2.8). 0
3.4.2. Theorem. Let C be a subcategory of LOQML. Then the following

properties or statements hold for C-TOP and C-FTOP over SET x C w.r.t.
the appropriate forgetful functor V.
(1) Initial completeness-each V-structured source has a unique initial V-lift.
(2) Final completeness-each V-structured sink has a unique final V-lift.
(3) Discrete structures-each object in SET x C has a discrete V-lift.
(4) Indiscrete structures-each object in SET x C has an indiscrete V-lift.
(5) V is faithful and possesses both a left adjoint-the discrete functor-

and a right adjoint-the indiscrete functor; and both adjoints are full
embeddings.
Proof. Conjoin Section 21 of [1] with Theorems 3.3.4 and 3.3.9. 0

314 S. E. Rodabaugh
3.4.3. Theorem. The following properties or statements hold for C-TOP and
C-FTOP over SET x C w.r.t. the appropriate forgetful functor V and the
specified subcategory C of LOQML.
(1) Completeness and co completeness for C = LOC and FUZLAT.

(2) Co completeness for
C = LOQML, SLOC, CLATop, DMRGop, CBOOLop
(3) Completeness, cocompleteness, well-poweredness, co-well-poweredness,

(Epi, Extremal Mono-Source)-category, regular factorizations, separators,
coseparators for C = L (for L E ICQMLj).
Proof. Conjoin Theorems 2.2.6, 3.3.4, and 3.3.9 with Section 21 of [1]. 0
4 Topological categories for internalized change-

of-basis
4.1 L</>-TOP and endomorphism-saturated spaces
The variable-basis or change-of-basis approach enriches topology both respect
to objects and morphisms; in particular, even the morphisms are enriched when
the base of objects is fixed, providing the base has endomorphisms other than
the identity-see the subcategory C-TOP(L) in Subsection 6.1 below. In this
subsection, we show how a fixed base with endomorphisms other than the iden-
tity can be used to enrich objects, specifically the topologies of objects. This
enrichment of topologies differs from stratification (Subsection 6.2), generates
"free" objects from old objects, yields a "saturation" functor, and embeds into
fixed-basis topology of the same base.
This approach is called internalized change-of-basis topology, and it
rests on the ground category SET x L", (2.1.2). The reader should note the
contrast with fixed-basis topology: in that setting both the base is fixed and
the endomorphism on that base is fixed at the identity. Further related ideas
are found in [56, 62, 66]. We close this subsection with a substantial list of
natural and canonical examples.
4.1.1. Definition (Endomorphism-saturated spaces). Let L E ICQMLI

and ¢> E LOQML(L, L). The notation L",-TOP comprises the following data:
(1) Objects: Each object is of the form (X, L, T), with L fixed, satisfying:
(a) Ground axiom. (X,L) E ISET x L",I;

(b) Topological axiom. (X, L, 7) E IL-TOPI (see 3.1.5(6)) for L-
TOP);
(c) 4>-Saturation Axiom. Vb E LX, bE 7 ¢} (¢OP)(b) E 7 (see 1.3.4 for
(¢OP) ).
Each such object is called a 4>-saturated topological space (see 4.1.5

below).
(2) Morphisms: Each morphism is of the form (f, ¢), with ¢fixed, satisfying:
(a) Ground axiom. (f, ¢) E SET xL",;

(b) Continuity axiom. (f,¢) E LOQML-TOP.
(3) Composition: as in SET xL",.

(4) Identities: as in SET xL",.
4.1.2. Proposition. L",-TOP is a concrete category over the ground category

SET xL",.
4.1.3. Remark. Note that L",-TOP is a subcategory of LOQML-TOP if

¢ = idL, in which case it is L-TOP and isomorphic to the category L-TOP
discussed in [23]. The precise relationship between the identity case and the
non-identity case, i.e. idL vis-a-vis ¢, is given in the adjunction of the next
result.
4.1.4. Theorem (4)-Saturation adjunction F ., G",). Let L E ICQMLI

and ¢ E LOQML(L, L). Then the following hold:
(1) V(X,L,7) E ILOQML-TOPI, 3 a smallest topology 7",::> 7, (X,L,7",) E

IL",-TOPI·
(2) There is a morphism-invertible [53], categorical isomorphism F of L",-
TOP onto a full subcategory of L-FTOP, namely
F(X,L,7) = (X,L,7), F(f,¢) = (f,id)

(3) There is a full, object-onto (hence dense) functor G", of L-FTOP onto
L",-TOP defined by:
(4) (F, G",) is an adjunction; and F ., G", is an isocorefiection, but need not
be an adjunction even if L = [ == [0,1], and so F ., G", need not be an
equivalence.
316 S. E. Rodabaugh
Proof. See Theorem 9.22 of [66] for the case L E ISFRMI and ifi E SLOC(L, L)
-all details of proof carryover without alteration; cf. 2.1.8 above. 0
4.1.5. Remark. The functor Gq, saturates or enriches a topological space by

adding to its topology r all the change-of-basis "shifts" or "mutations" by ifi op
of the open sets in r; this justifies the label "saturated" in 4.1.1 for the objects
of Lq,-TOP. Since the functor F of 4.1.4(2) is essentially an inclusion, the
adjunction F --l Gq, of 4.1.4(4) suggests calling Gq, the </J-saturation functor.
There is a well-established tradition of saturation operations in fuzzy topology:
the stratification functor G k [56, 62] of Subsection 6.2 is motivated by [42];
the translation-closed saturations of [18, 20]; and the soberification functors for
both fixed and variable basis topology [56, 57, 62, 64, 65]. It is important to
understand the relationship between saturation operations: every translation-
closed space is stratified, no stratified space is sober if the underlying base has
an endomorphism other than the identity [62, 64], and the relationship between
stratification and </J-saturation is partly understood [66] and summarized below.
4.1.6. Question.
(1) Are there natural or even canonical objects in Lq,-TOP?

(2) What is the relationship between ifi-saturation and soberification?
4.1. 7. Theorem (Catalogue of examples / Answer to 4.1.6). Let

L E ICQMLI and ifi E LOQML(L,L). Then the following statements hold:
(1) Each space of the form (X, L, LX) is in Lq,-TOP.
(2) Each space of the form (X, L, {.q : a E L}) is in Lq,-TOP.
(3) For each space (X, L, r), Gq,(X, L, r) is in Lq,-TOP. In particular, if
L E IDMRGI and ifi E DMRGoP(L, L), then Gq,(JR(L)), G¢(lR, ccrr(L)) ,
Gq,(H(L)), and Gq,(H,ccrr(L)) are in Lq,-TOP. (Cf. [12,24,39,62] and
Subsections 7.1 and 7.3 below).
(4) Let L E IDMRG n FRMI and ifi E Auto(L). Then (lR, ccrr(L)) and
(H,ccrr(L)) are in Lq,-TOP.
(5) If (X, L, r) is So and ifi-saturated, then its soberification
(Lpt(r),L, ('ht-+(r))
is in Lq,-TOP and if (X, L, r) is sober and </J-saturated, then
is a morphism in L¢-TOP. (Cf. Subsection 7.4).

Varia.ble-basis fuzzy topology 317
Proof. See [66] for the case L E ISFRMI and t/J E SLOC(L, L)-all details of
proof carryover without alteration. 0
4.1.8. Remark. From 4.1.7(3), we have other natural forms of the fuzzy real
line, the dual real line, the fuzzy unit interval, and the dual unit interval-
namely their endo-saturated forms. Also see Subsection 5.1 for results concern-
ing categorical isomorphisms in LeI>-TOP.
4.2 L-FTOP and endomorphism-saturated fuzzy topolo-

gies
This Subsection brings the notion of internalized change-of-basis over from Sub-
section 4.1 to the objects and morphisms of C-FTOP, and in so doing makes
reconciliation between the internalized change-of-basis concept and the notion
of fixed-basis fuzzy topology as developed in [23]. The ground category in this
Subsection is of the same form as that for Subsection 4.1, namely SET x Lei>,
where L E ICQMLI and t/J E LOQML(L, L).
4.2.1. Definition. (Endomorphism-saturated fuzzy spaces). Let

L E ICQMLI and t/J E LOQML(L, L). The category LeI>-FTOP comprises
the following data:
(1) Objects. Each object is of the form (X, L, n, with L fixed, satisfying:
(a) Ground axiom. (X, L) E ISET x LeI>l.
(b) Fuzzy topological axiom. (X,L, n
E IL-FTOPI.
(c) <f>-Saturation axiom. 'rI object (X, L, n,
T = To (t/J0P) on LX.
Each such object is called a <f>-saturated fuzzy topological spaces (see
4.2.7 below).
(2) Morphisms. Each morphism is of the form
(f, t/J) : (X, L, n --+ (Y, L, S)

with t/J fixed, satisfying:
(a) Ground axiom. (f, t/J) E SET x Lei>'

(b) Fuzzy continuity axiom. To (f, t/J) t- ~ S on LY.
Each such morphism is said to be fuzzy continuous.
(3) Composition. As in SET x Lei>'

(4) Identities. As in SET x Lei>'
318 S. E. Rodabaugh
4.2.2. Proposition. L",-FTOP is a concrete category over the ground cate-

gory SET x L", (2.1.2).
Proof. That the identity morphism (id, ¢) is fuzzy continuous follows immedi-
ately since
To (id, ¢)f- = To (¢OP) = T
(In fact, this shows the identity morphism to be a categorical isomorphism.)
Now let continuous morphisms
be given. The proof of the continuity of (90/, ¢) divides into two remarks.
First, we claim the identity
Ti. 0 (g 0 /, ¢)f- = Ti. 0 (J, ¢)f- 0 (9, ¢)f-

holds on LX: for if b E LX, then
follows from 4.2.1(1)(c) and implies the claimed identity. Second, it follows from
the continuities of (J, ¢), (9, ¢) and this identity that
Ti. 0 (g 0 /, ¢)f- = Ti. 0 (J, ¢)f- 0 (9, ¢)f- ~ 72 0 (9, ¢)f- ~ 73
where the last equality comes from 4.2.1(1)(c). Thus (90/, ¢) is continuous.
o
4.2.3. Remark. Note that L",-FTOP is a subcategory of LOQML-FTOP if

¢ = idL, in which case it is precisely the subcategory Lid-FTOP == L-FTOP
and is isomorphic to L-FTOP studied in [23]. The precise relationship between
the identity case and the non-identity case, i.e. idL vis-a-vis ¢, is given in the
adjunction of 4.2.6 below. We return to this question after first answering an
easier question.
4.2.4. Question. What is the precise relationship between the L",-TOP and
L",-FTOP?
4.2.5. Proposition (Answer to 4.2.4). Let (X, L, r) E IC-TOPI and let

(J,¢) E C-TOP. Then (1) ¢} (2) and (3) ¢} (4), where:
(1) (X, L, r) E IL",-TOPI ;

(2) (X,L,Xr) E IL",-FTOPI, where Xr: LX -+ L with coker (Xr) = r;
(3) (J, ¢) E L",-TOP ((X, L, r), (Y, L, 0"));
(4) (f,¢) E L¢-FTOP «X,L,Xr)' (Y,L,Xu)).
Proof. (1) =} (2). Xr(b) = T <=> bET <=> (¢OP)(b) E T <=> Xr«(¢OP)(b)) = T.
(3) =} (4). Let (f,¢): (X,L,T) -+ (Y,L,a) in Lq,-TOP. Then we note
Xu(v) =T =} v Ea =} (f,¢)f- (v) E T =} Xr «(f,¢)f- (v)) =T

which implies Xr 0 (f, ¢)f- ;::: Xu on LX, i.e. (f, ¢) E L¢-FTOP.
(1) '¢= (2), (3) '¢= (4). Reorder the steps of the proofs above. 0
4.2.6. Theorem (Extension of F -j G¢ to fuzzy topology). Let
¢ E LOQML(L,L)
(1) For each (X,L), the set of ¢-saturated fuzzy topologies on (X,L) forms
a complete lattice under the partial order of L(LX). Hence, for each
(X, L, I) in LOQML-FTOP, there is a smallest fuzzy topology T¢ ;::: T
such that (X, L, I) is an object in L¢-FTOP.
(2) There is a morphism-invertible categorical isomorphism F of Lq,-FTOP

onto a full subcategory of L-FTOP namely
F(X, L, I) = (X, L, I), F(f, ¢) = (f, id)
(3) There is a full, object-onto (hence dense) functor G¢ of L-FTOP onto

Lq,-FTOP defined by:
(4) (F,G¢) is an adjunction, and F -j G¢ is an isocoreflection; but (G¢,F)

need not be an adjunction even if L = IT == [0,1] and ¢ EAuto(L), and so
F -j G¢ need not be an equivalence.
Proof. Ad (1). Consider a sub collection ('0 : j E J} of if>-saturated fuzzy

topologies on (X, L). We verify that I\j '0 is a if>-saturated fuzzy topology on
(X, L). That I\j'0 is a fuzzy topology on (X, L) is already established (3.2.8(1)
above). It remains to show that it is if>-saturated. Since each '0 is if>-saturated,
it follows
320 S. E. Rodabaugh
whence follows
/\ 7; = /\(7; 0 (¢OP)) = /\dgej7; 0 (¢OP)

j j
Ad (2). All the claims boil down to showing that (I, ¢) : (X, L, T) ~
(Y, L, a) is fuzzy continuous iff (I, id) : (X, L, T) ~ (Y, L, a) is fuzzy continuous,
i.e.
To (I, ¢)+-- '? a ¢:} To (j, id)+-- '? a
Now from the identity of 4.1.1(1)(c) comes the following:
To (¢OP 0 b 0 1) = To ((¢OP 0 (b 0 1)) = To (b 01)

which implies the identity
T 0 (j, id)+-- = To (I, ¢)+--

and hence our claims.
Ad(3). It follows immediately from (1) that G", sends objects to ¢-saturated
objects. So the main issue is whether the fuzzy continuity of (j, id) implies that
of (I, ¢). We proceed in three steps, letting (j, id) be fuzzy continuous.
Step 1. (11)",0 (j,¢)+-- = (11)",0 (j,id)+--.

Proof Since (11)", is ¢-saturated, the proof is immediate from the identity of
4.1.1(1)(c), as was done in Ad (2) above.
Step 2. (11)",0 (j,id)+-- is a </J-saturated fuzzy topology on (X2,L).

Proof. Using the ¢-saturation of (11)"" we note:
( (11)",0 (I, id)+--) (¢OP 0 b) (11)", (id 0 (¢OP 0 b) 01)

(11)", (¢OP 0 (b 01))
= (11)",(b o 1)
= (11)", (id 0 b 01)
( (11)",0 (j, id)+--) (b)
Step 3. (11)",0 (j, ¢)+-- '? (12)",; hence (j, ¢) is fuzzy continuous.
Proof. Using the properties of ¢-saturated fuzzy topologies, the previous two
steps, the fuzzy continuity of (I, id), and the definition of ¢-saturated fuzzy
topologies, we make the following two arguments which prove this step and
complete the proof of (3):
(11)",0 (j, ¢)+-- (11)",0 (j, id)+--

> 11 0 (j, id)+--
> 12,
(71)q, 0 (f,r/J)+- ~ (72)q,
Ad (4). The negative claims of (4) follow from 4.1.4(4) followed by 4.2.5.
Thus we need only verify F -1 Gq,. As indicated in 1.3.4, we divide the work
into verifying continuity and naturality criteria.
Continuity Criterion. We must verify the following statement:
V (X,L, T) E ILq,-FTOPI, :3 (1], r/J) E Lq,-FTOP ((X,L, T), Gq,F(X, L, T)),
V(Y,L,S) E IL-FTOPI, V(f,r/J) E Lq,-FTOP ((X,L, T), Gq,(Y, L,S)) ,

:3!(f,r/J)EL-FTOP(F(X,L,T)-+(Y,L,S)), (f,r/J) = Gq,(f,r/J) o (1],r/J).
Let (X,L,T) be given. Then we note Tq, = T, so that Gq,F(X,L,T) =
(X, L, T). Choose 1] = id; then (id, r/J) is fuzzy continuous J!!.2). Now given
(f, r/J) as specified above, choose (f, r/J) = (f, id). Clearly Gq,(f, r/J) = (f, r/J) is the
unique ground morphism giving the required factorization. One issue remains:
given the fuzzy continuity of (f,r/J) : (X,L, T) -+ (Y,M,Sq,), verify the fuzzy
continuity of (f, id) : (X, L, T) -+ (Y, M, S) . But this follows immediately using
the identity from Ad (2) above:
To (f,id)+- = To (f,r/J)+- ~ Sq, ~ S
Naturality Criterion. The issue is whether (id,r/J) 0 (f,r/J) = F(f,r/J), where the
bar operator is taken from the previous paragraph. But each side is trivially
(I, id).
This completes the proof of 4.2.6. 0
4.2.7. Remark. The justifications for the label "r/>-saturated" and calling
Gq, the r/>-saturation functor are analogous to those given in 4.1.5 and will not
be repeated. The intuition for r/>-saturated fuzzy topological spaces is rather
different from that for r/J-saturated topological spaces-the latter enriches the
topology with translations by r/J0P of all open sets, while the former enriches
the fuzzy topology with commutative triangular diagrams; of course, in the
setting of Subsection 4.1, these two notions coincide via 4.2.5. There is no
relationship between this type of saturation and the stratification of [23J-this
is a consequence of 4.1.5 and 4.2.5. Also note the examples of 4.1.7 carryover
immediately to the fuzzy topological frameworks of this subsection if we apply
4.2.5 together with the answer to the following question.
4.2.8. Question. What is the precise relationship between the Gq, of 4.1.4(3)
and the Gq, of this 4.2.6(3)7
322 S. E. Rodabaugh
4.2.9. Theorem (Answer to 4.2.8). Let L E ICQMLI, </> E LOQML(L,L),

and (X, L, r) E IL-TOPI. Then on LX the following holds:
(Xr)", = X(r¢)
where the left-hand side uses the ¢i-saturation operation of this Subsection, and
the right-hand side uses that of Subsection 4.1.
Proof. For the direction, the proof of 4.2.5(1,2) shows that (Xr)", is ¢i-saturated
in the sense of this Subsection, and so (Xr)", ~ X(r¢) obtains by definition of
G", in the fuzzy topology case. The reverse direction requires more work.
Step 1. Let S be a </>-saturated fuzzy topology on (X, L) in the sense of this

Subsection. Then coker (S) is a </>-saturated topology on (X, L) in the sense of
Subsection 4.1. It will then follow that coker (Xr)", is a </>-saturated topology
on (X,L) in the sense of Subsection 4.1.
Proof. To see coker (S) is closed under arbitrary joins and binary products, let
{uo,}.:l< C coker (S); note each S (u a ) = 1 and
S ( yua) ~ 0 (ua) S = T,
S(Ua Q$)U/3) ~S(Ua)Q$)S(U/3) ~TQ$)T= 1

As for being ¢i-saturated, the steps are essentially those of 4.2.5(1,2).
Step 2. coker (X r ) '" ::> r.

Proof. (Xr)", ~ Xr =} coker (Xr)",) ::> coker (Xr) = r.
Step 3. (Xr)", ~ X(r¢)·

Proof. From the previous steps and the definition of r", from Subsection 4.1
follows
This completes the proof of the theorem. 0
4.3 L.p-TOP and L</>-FTOP are topological over SET x L</>

4.3.1. Theorem. For each L E ICQMLI and each endomorphism </> E
LOQML(L, L), the category L",-TOP is topological over SET x L", with re-
spect to the forgetful functor V : Lq,-TOP -+ SET x L", given by
V(X,L,r) = (X,L), V(f,</» = (f,</»

Proof. It suffices to indicate modifications to the proofs of the analogues of

3.3.1-3.3.3 needed for this theorem-the statements of these analogues and the
details of their proofs not addressed below are left to the reader.
In the proof of 3.3.1, given the V-structured source ((X,L), (Ii, 4» : (X,L) ~
(Xi,L,Ti»)J, put T on (X,L) by
T = G", (V
iEI
((Ii, idLt-r-+ (Ti»)
Note that each (li,idL) is continuous w.r.t. the topology

ViE I ((li,idL)+--)-+ h)
which the proof of 3.3.1 would construct if L were held fixed and the endo-
morphism 4> of L fixed at idL. It now follows from 4.1.4(3), and the fact that
(Ii, 4» = G",(1i, idL ), that each (Ii, 4» is continuous w.r.t. T.
To modify the proof of 3.3.2, let v be a </>-saturated topology on (X, L)
making each (gi,4» continuous, and let (h,4» : (X, L) ~ (X, L) be a ground
morphism in SET x L",- such that
Using 4.1.4(2), we have that

(Ii, idL) = F(li, 4», (gi, idL) = F(gi, 4»
and hence that each of (Ii, idd, (gi, idL) is continuous. Since in SET x L we
have
(Ii, idL) 0 (h, idL) = (gi, idL)
we apply the argument of 3.3.2 with C = L to conclude that (h, idL ) is contin-
uous w.r.t. the topology Vi E I ((Ii, 4»+--)-+ (Ti). Since (h,4» = G",(h,idL), we
now apply 4.1.4(3) to conclude that (h,4» is continuous w.r.t. T.
The proof of 3.3.3 needs no modification other than to assume all spaces are
</>-saturated. 0
4.3.2. Theorem. For each L E ICQMLI and each endomorphism 4> E

LOQML(L,L), the category Lq,-FTOP is topological over SET x L", with
respect to the forgetful functor V : L",-FTOP ~ SET x L", given by
V(X, L, n = (X, L), V (I, 4» = (1,4»
Proof. Analogous to the proof of 4.3.1, we only give modifications of the proofs
of 3.3.5, 3.3.6, and 3.3.8.
In the proof of 3.3.5, given the V-structured source ((X, L), (Ii, 4» : (X, L) ~
(Xi, L, Ti)))I, put S on LX by defining S at each a E LX as follows:
V (Ti(b» , 3iEI, ((Ii,idL)+--)+--({a})tf0
S(a) ={ iEI, bE((J;,idLl.l+-)+-({a})
Vi E I, ((li,idL)+--)+-- ({a}) =0
324 S. E. Rodabaugh
Apply G", of 4.2.6(3) and set
7 = G", ((8»)
By the argument of 3.3.5, each (/i,idL) is fuzzy continuous w.r.t. ((8». Since
(/i, ¢» = G",(/i, idL), it follows from 4.2.6(3) that (Ii, ¢» is fuzzy continuous
w.r.t. the fuzzy topology T
To modify the proof of 3.3.6, let U be a <jrsaturated fuzzy topology on
(X, L) making each (gi, ¢» fuzzy continuous, and let (h, ¢» : (X, L) -+ (X, L) be
a ground morphism in SET x L", such that
Using 4.2.6(2), we have that
and hence that each of (/i, idL ), (gi, idL ) is continuous. Since in SET x L we
have
(Ii, idL) 0 (h, idL ) = (gi, idL )
we apply the argument of 3.3.6 with C = L to conclude that (h, idL) is fuzzy
continuous w.r.t. the fuzzy topology ((8». Since (h, ¢» = G",(h, idL), we now
apply 4.2.6(3) to conclude that (h, ¢» is fuzzy continuous w.r.t. 7 == G", (((8») .
The proof of 3.3.8 needs no modification other than to assume all spaces are
<jrsaturated. 0
4.3.3. Corollary. 'tiL E ICQMLI , L-TOP and L-FTOP of [23] are topolog-
ical over SET.
Proof. Note from Subsection 6.2 that L-TOP ~ L-TOP ~ Lid-TOP and L-
FTOP ~ L-FTOP ~ Lid-FTOP. Now apply Proposition 1.3.1, 2.1.9(1), 4.3.1,
and 4.3.2 above. 0
4.4 Categorical consequences of topological and fibre-

smallness
4.4.1. Lemma. Let L E ICQMLI and ¢> E LOQML(L, L). Then L",-TOP
and L",-FTOP are fibre-small over SET xL",.
Proof. See proof of 3.4.1. 0
4.4.2. Theorem. Let L E ICQMLI and ¢> E LOQML(L, L). Then the follow-
ing properties or statements hold for L",-TOP and L",-FTOP over SET x L",
w.r.t. the appropriate forgetful functor V:
(1) All properties and statements listed in 3.4.2(1-5) above, including initial
and final completeness and discrete and indiscrete structures.
(2) All the properties listed in 3.4.3(3) above: completeness, co-completeness,

well-poweredness, co-well-poweredness, (Epi, Extremal Mono-Source)-ca-
tegory, regular factorizations, separators, and co-separators.
Proof. Modify the proofs of 3.4.2 and 3.4.3 using 2.1.9(1), 4.3.1, and 4.3.2. 0
5 Categorical isomorphisms and embeddings

This section defines and characterizes isomorphisms and embeddings in C-
TOP, C-FTOP, L",-TOP, and L",-FTOP. The applications of these results
are widespread: some have already appeared in 4.1.4(4) and 4.2.6(4) above; and
they will be appealed to repeatedly throughout Section 7 and show this section
is foundational to the internal justification of the categories presented in this
chapter. Further applications include the following: this section charaterizes
the categorical embeddings of L-TOP and L-FTOP (5.3.9); and these charac-
terizations are fundamental for the fixed-basis compactification reflectors [65].
Throughout this section C is a subcategory of LOQML, L E ICQMLI, and
¢ E LOQML(L,L).
5.1 Homeomorphisms, fuzzy homeomorphisms, and cate-

gorical isomorphisms
5.1.1. Definition (Homeomorphisms and open maps). Let (J, ¢) :
(X, L) -+ (Y, M) in SET x C. Then (J, ¢) is a homeomorphism in C-TOP
from (X, L, r) to (Y, M, u) if each of f and ¢op is bijective and each of (J, ¢)
and (J-l, (*¢)OP) is continuous; and (J, ¢) is open in C-TOP from (X, L, r)
to (Y,M,u) if (J,¢)~ : r -+ u. (See 1.3.3 for powerset operators, including *¢
and (J, ¢)~.)
5.1.2. Theorem (Topological isomorphisms). Let (J, ¢) : (X, L) -+ (Y, M)

be a ground morphism in SET x C. Then the following are equivalent:
(1) (J,¢): (X,L,r) -+ (Y,M,u) is a homeomorphism in C-TOP.
(2) (J,¢) : (X,L,r) -+ (Y,M,u) is a categorical isomorphism in C-TOP.
(3) (J, ¢) : (X, L, r) -+ (Y, M, u) is both open and continuous in C-TOP.

326 S. E. Rodabaugh
(4) Both (I, </» : (X, L, r) -+ (Y, M, u) and
(rl, (</>OP)-lrp) : (X,L,r) ~ (Y,M,u)
are continuous.
Proof. This result occurs in [66]; its proof is a straightforward consequence of

the definitions of composition of ground morphisms, continuity, and powerset
operators (see 1.3.3). 0
5.1.3. Definition (Fuzzy homeomorphisms and fuzzy open maps). Let

(I, </» : (X, L) -+ (Y, M) in SET x C. Then (I, </» is a fuzzy homeomor-
phism in C-FTOP from (X, L, T) to (Y, M, S) if each of 1 and </>op is bijective
and each of (I, </» and (1-\ (*</»OP) is fuzzy continuous; and (I, </» is fuzzy
open in C-FTOP from (X, L, T) to (Y, M, S) if *</> 0 7 ::; So (I, </»-+ on LX.
5.1.4. Theorem (Fuzzy topological isomorphisms). Let
(I, </» : (X, L) -+ (Y, M)
be a ground morphism in SET x C. Then the following are equivalent:
(1) (I, </» : (X, L, T) -+ (Y, M,S) is a fuzzy homeomorphism in C-FTOP.
(2) (I, </» : (X, L, T) -+ (Y, M, S) is a categorical isomorphism in C-FTOP.

(3) (I, </» : (X, L, T) -+ (Y, M, S) is both fuzzy open and fuzzy continuous in
C-FTOP.
(4) (I,</» : (X,L, T) -+ (Y,M,S) and (1-1, (</>oP)-lrp) : (X,L, T) ~

(Y, M, S) are continuous.
(5) (1,</»: (X,L,T) -+ (Y,M,S) satisfies

70 (I, </»t- = </>op 0 S on MY
(6) (1,</»: (X,L, T) -+ (Y,M,S) satisfies
*</>07 = So (1,</»-+ on LX
Proof. We first show the equivlence of (5) with (6), and then indicate how
these are equivalent to each of (1)-(4).
(5) {:} (6). First note that for a ground isomorphism (I, </», we have *</> =
(</>oP)-1 and (1,</»-+ = «(I, </»t-)-\see [66,67]). Second, observe now that the
equations of (5) and (6) are equivalent using these inverses.
«5) V (6)) ¢:} (1). For necessity, to show (1,4» is a fuzzy homeomorphism,
we must show both (1,4» and (1-1, (*4>tP) are fuzzy continuous, i.e. show both
the following inequalities hold:
70 (I,4»+- ~ 4>oP o S on MY, So (r1,(*4»OP)+- ~ *4>070nLx
The first is immediate from (5). Now, note that (1,4» being a ground isomor-
phism implies that (1-1, (*4»OP)+- = (I,4»-t (see [66, 67]), so that (5) via (6)
implies the second inequality. For sufficiency, we assume the two inequalities
displayed above. We also assume f, 4>0P are bijections. Using * 4> = (4)0P) -1 and
(I,4»-t = «(1,4»+-)-1, we obtain from the first assumed inequality
*4>07 ~ So (I,4»-t
and from the second assumed inequality
So (I,4»-t ~ *4>07
the both of which imply (6). Hence (5) is also obtained (by the equivalence of
(5) with (6)).
(1) ¢:} (2) ¢:} (3) ¢:} (4). These are similar and left to the reader. 0
5.1.5. Definition (Homeomorphisms and fuzzy homeomorphisms in

Lq,-TOP and L",-FTOP). Let (1,4» : (X,L) --+ (Y,M) in SET x L",. Then
(1,4» is a homeomorphism in L",-TOP from (X, L, r) to (Y, M, u) if f is
bijective and each of (1,4» and (1-1,4» is continuous; (1,4» is a fuzzy home-
omorphism in L",-FTOP from (X, L, T) to (Y, M, S) if f is bijective and each
of (1,4» and (1-1,4» is fuzzy continuous; and (1,4» is open [fuzzy open] if
(1-1,4» is continuous [fuzzy continuous].
5.1.6. Theorem (Topological isomorphisms in LrTOP). Let (1,4»

(X,L) --+ (Y,L) be a ground morphism in SET x L",. Then the following are
equivalent:
(1) (1,4»: (X,L,r) --+ (Y,L,u) is a homeomorphism in LrTOP.

(2) (1,4»: (X,L,r) --+ (Y,L,u) is a categorical isomorphism in L",-TOP.
(3) (1,4»: (X,L,r) --+ (Y,L,u) is both open and continuous in LrTOP.
Proof. Similar to that of 5.1.2. 0
5.1.7. Theorem (Fuzzy topological isomorphisms in L",-FTOP).

Let (1,4» : (X, L) --+ (Y, L) be a ground morphism in SET x L",. Then the
following are equivalent:
(1) (1,4» : (X,L, T) --+ (Y,M,S) is a fuzzy homeomorphism in LrFTOP.

328 S. E. Rodabaugh
(2) (f, ¢» : (X, L, T) -+ (Y, M, S) is a categorical isomorphism in Lq,-FTOP.
(3) (f, ¢» : (X, L, T) -+ (Y, M, S) is both fuzzy open and fuzzy continuous in
Lq,-FTOP.
(4) (f,¢»: (X,L,T) -+ (Y,M,S) satisfies
To (f,¢»;- = SonL Y
(5) (f,¢»: (X,L,T) -+ (Y,M,S) satisfies

T = So (r\¢»;- on LX
Proof. (1) ¢} (3) is trivial, and (1) ¢} (2) is straightforward using the composi-
tion of morphisms in L4>-FTOP. We turn to the other implications, first noting
from [66, 67] that for a bijection f, we have
(J-I)~ = (ft)-I
and second noting that T, S are ¢>-saturated fuzzy topologies, so that

T = To (¢>oP) on LX, S =S 0 (¢>oP) on L Y
(4) ¢} (5). We prove necessity; sufficiency essentially reverses the steps of
necessity. Assuming (4), we obtain (5) in this way:
To (f, ¢»;- = S,
To (¢>oP) 0 ft = s,
To (¢>oP) = S 0 (J-I)~,
T = S 0 (¢>oP) 0 (J-I)~,
T = So (J-I, ¢»;-
(1) ¢} (4). We prove necessity, leaving sufficiency to the reader. Assuming
(1) is equivalent to assuming the following two inequalities:
To(f,¢»;-?S, So(rl,¢»;-?T
The second inequality leads to this sequence of steps:
So (¢>oP) 0 (J-I) ~ ? T,
So (¢>oP) ? Toft.
S ? To (¢>oP) ft,
0
s? To (f, ¢»;-
Now this last inequality together with the first inequality from above yield (4).
(1) ¢} (5). Analogous proof to that for (1) ¢} (4). 0
5.2 Subspaces, initial structures, and initial morphisms

Throughout this subsection C is a subcategory of LOQML. In this subsec-
tion we determine the initial structures and initial morphisms for C-TOP,
C-FTOP, L",-TOP, and L",-FTOP. Of course, initial structures in these cat-
egories are guaranteed by their being topological over their respective grounds
(Subsections 3.3, 3.4, 4.3)j but our present purpose is to apply this theory via
this subsection to characterize embed dings in the next subsection.
5.2.1. Theorem (Initial structures and initial morphisms of C-TOP

and Lq,-TOP). Let (f, ¢) : (X, L) -+ (Y, M) be a ground morphism in
SET x C, a be a topology on (Y, M),
~ == {{r I (f,¢) : (X,L,r) -+ (Y,M,a) is continuous in C-TOP}}
and
r" == ((f, ¢t-)-+ (a)
where ((f,¢)+-)-+ is the classical forward operator of the fuzzy backward oper-
ator (f, ¢)+- (1.3.3). Then the following hold:
(1) r" is a topology on (X,L)j
(4) r" = 1\ C;Sj

(5) ((X, L, r,,), (f, ¢) : (X, L, r,,) -+ (Y, M, a)) is the unique initial V-lift of
((X,L) , (f,¢) : (X,L) -+ V(Y,M,a)) , where V : C-TOP -+ SET x C
is the forgetful functor of Subsection 3.3.
(6) (f, ¢) : (X, L, r,,) -+ (Y, M, a) is an initial morphism in C-TOP.
(7) (f, ¢) : (X, L, r) -+ (Y, M, a) is an initial morphism in C-TOP <=> r = r"
All of (1-7) hold if the following replacements are made: SET x C by

SET xL"" M by L, C-TOP by L",-TOP, r" by G", (r,,) (where G", is given
in Subsection 4.1), "topology" by "ifJ-saturated topology", and "Subsection 3.3"
by "Subsection 4.3" .
Proof. Ad (1-4). (1) is a straightforward consequence of Lemma 1.3.3, (2) is

immediate, (3) is a restatement of the definition of continuity, and (4) is clear
from (2,3).
Ad (5). It follows from the proof of Theorem 3.3.4 that the topology on
(X, L) giving the unique initial lift is {{((f, ¢)+-)-+ (a)). But this topology must
be r" by (1) and the definition of subbase.
330 S. E. Rodabaugh
Ad (6). Note that (I, ¢) : (X, L, Tt,,) -+ (Y, M, 0') is a morphism by (2). For
initiality, let (g,'l/J): (Z,N,v) -+ (X,L,Tt,,) such that (I,¢)o(g,'l/J) is continuous,
and let U ETA' Then 3v E T, U = (I,¢)t-- (v) and
(g,'l/J)t-- (u) = (g,'l/J)t-- ((I,¢)t-- (v)) = ((I,¢) 0 (g,'l/J))t-- (v) E v
Ad (7). Sufficiency is (6). For necessity, suppose that (I, ¢) : (X, L, r) -+

(Y,M,O') is initial. Choose (Z,N,v) = (X,L,TA) and (g,'l/J) = (id,id). Then
(I,¢) 0 (g,'l/J) = (I,¢) as ground morphisms, and the latter is continuous by
(2) above. Now initiality applies to say that (g, 'l/J) is continuous, which forces
T eTA' For the reverse containment, we note that (I, ¢) being initial in C-
TOP includes its being a morphism in C-TOP. So (I,¢) is continuous, which
implies by (3) that T :::> TA' Hence T = TA.
The proofs of (1-7) in the endo-saturated case are analogous to the proofs
given above. 0
5.2.2. Definition (Subspaces in C-TOP). Let (X, L, T) E IC-TOPI and

A C X. Then the subspace (A,L,TIA) is defined by putting
TIA = {uIA:UET}.
This notion stems from [79] and is necessary for compactification theories in
fixed-basis topology [65] as well as for determining embeddings.
5.2.3. Proposition. Let (X,L) E ISET x q and let A C X. Then the

powerset operator (<-+, ¢)t-- : LA +- LX is the fuzzy subset restriction operator,
i.e.
(<-+, ¢)t--(b) = ¢oP 0 bl A
For ¢op = id, (<-+,id)t--(b) = biA'
Proof. The point-wise computation is straightforward from 1.3.3. 0
5.2.4. Corollary (Subspaces and initial morphisms in C-TOP and

Lq,-TOP). Let (X, L, T) E IC-TOPI and A C X. Then the following hold:
(1) TIA is a topology on (A,L);

(2) (<-+, id) : (A, L, v) -+ (X, L, T) is continuous in C-TOP ¢:} v :::> TI A;
(3) TI A = /\ {v I (<-+, id) : (A, L, v) -+ (X, L, T) is continuous in C-TOP} ;
(4) ((A,L,TIA) , (<-+,id): (A,L,TIA) -+ (X,L,T)) is the unique initial V-lift

of ((A, L), (<-+, id) : (A, L) -+ V(X, L, T)) , where V is the appropriate for-
getful functor.
(5) (<-+,id) : (A,L,v) -+ (X,L,T) is an initial morphism in C-TOP ¢:} v =
TIA'
All of (1-5) hold if the following replacements are made: C-TOP by L,p-TOP,
71 A by G,p (11 A) , "topology" by "¢>-saturated topology", and ('-t, id) by ('-t, ¢).
Proof. Apply 5.2.1-5.2.3. 0
Initial morphisms and subspaces comprise a more delicate issue for variable-
basis fuzzy topology than for variable-basis topology. In the next theorem,
we retain the format of 5.2.1 in order to facilitate comparisons between these
theorems.
5.2.5. Theorem (Initial structures and initial morphisms of C-FTOP

and Lq,-FTOP). Let (I, ¢) : (X,L) -+ (Y,M) be a ground morphism in
SET x C, S be a topology on (Y, M),
~ == {T I (I,¢) : (X,L, T) -+ (Y,M,S) is fuzzy continuous in C-FTOP}

S*: LX -+ L by
S*(a) = v
and
7,.. == ((S*))
(1) 7,.. is a fuzzy topology on (X, L)j

(2) 7,.. E ~j
(3) T E ~ {::} T? 7,..j
(4) 7,.. = A~j

(5) ((X, L, 7,..), (I, ¢) : (X, L, 7,..) -+ (Y, M, S)) is the unique initial V-lift of
((X, L), (I, ¢) : (X, L) -+ V(Y, M, S)) , where
V : C - FTOP -+ SET x C
is the forgetful functor of Subsection 3.3j
(6) (I, ¢) : (X, L, 7,..) -+ (Y, M, S) is an initial morphism in C-TOPj
(7) (I, ¢) : (X, L, T) -+ (Y, M, S) is an initial morphism in C-TOP {::} T =

7,...
All of (1-7) hold if the following replacements are made: SET x C by

SET x L,p, M by L, C-FTOP by L,p-FTOP, ((S*)) by G,p (((S*))) (where
G,p is given in Subsection 4.1), "fuzzy topology" by "¢>-saturated fuzzy topol-
ogy" , and "Subsection 3.3" by "Subsection 4.3" .
332 S. E. Rodabaugh
Proof. Ad (1). Immediate from 3.2.8 and 3.2.9.

Ad (2). The proof that S· 0 (I, cp)<- 2:: cpop 0 S is essentially that of 3.3.5
above. Hence (I,cp) is fuzzy co-subbasic continuous. Now 3.2.13(4) applies to
say (I, cp) is fuzzy continuous. It follows 1A E <;S.
Ad (3). From (2) it follows that 1A 0 (I,cp)<- 2:: cpop 0 S. For sufficiency,
suppose T 2:: 1A. Then To (I, cp)<- 2:: cpop 0 S, so T E <;S. Now for necessity,
suppose T E <;S, let a E LX, and fix b E MY such that a = (I, cp)<- (b). Since
To (I, cp)<- 2:: cpop 0 S, we have
T(a) = T ((I, cp)<- (b)) 2:: cpop (S (b))
Since this is true for each b such that a = (I, cp)<- (b), we have
T(a) 2:: v cpop (S (b)) = S·(a)
It follows that T 2:: T/\.

Ad (4). This is immediate from (2,3).
Ad (5). This is a corollary of the proofs of 3.3.5-3.3.9: in this case there is
only one arrow in our V -structured source, and this simplifies the subbase of
the proof of 3.3.5 to S· as defined in the statement of the theorem.
Ad (6). Note that (I, cp) : (X, L, 1A) ---+ (Y, M, S) is a morphism by (2). For
initiality, let (g,7/J) : (Z,N,U) ---+ (X,L,1A) such that (I,cp) 0 (g,7/J) is fuzzy
continuous, and recall the alternate fuzzy continuity axiom of Lemma 3.1.3.l.
From the fuzzy continuiuty of the composition we have
which implies that
and hence that

7/J* oU 0 (g,7/J)<- 2:: 1A
Invoking 3.1.3.1 now yields the continuity of (g, 7/J).
Ad (7). Sufficiency is immediate from (6). For necessity, we first note that
the fuzzy continuity of (I, cp) from initiality implies via (3) that T 2:: 1A. Now
to further apply initiality, let (g,7/J) : (Z,N,U) ---+ (X,L,1A) be given with
(Z, N, U) = (X, L, 1A) and (g,7/J) = (id, id). Then (I, cp) 0 (g, 7/J) is fuzzy contin-
uous, so initiality implies the fuzzy continuity of (id, id), which gives
1A 0 (id, id)<- 2:: id 0 T

This forces 1A 2:: T. So 1A = T.
The proofs of (1-7) in the endo-saturated case are analogous to the proofs
given above. 0
5.2.6. Definition (Fuzzy subspaces in C-FTOP). Let
(X, L, n E IC-FTOPI
and A c X. Then the fuzzy subspace (A, L, 7jA) is defined by putting
7jA = ((S))
where S : LA -+ L by
S(a) = v
bIA=a,bELX
T(b)
This is the fuzzy topological counterpart to 5.2.2 above.
5.2.7. Corollary (Subspaces and initial morphisms in C-FTOP and

L",-FTOP). Let (X, L, n
E IC-FTOP I and A c X. Then the following hold:
(1) 7j A is a fuzzy topology on (A, L)j

(2) (<---+-, id) : (A, L, U) -+ (X, L, n is fuzzy continuous in C-FTOP ¢}
U ~ 7jAj
(3) 7jA =
(<---+-,id): (A,L,U) -+ (X,L, n }
1\ { UisI fuzzy continuous in C-FTOP
(4) ((A,L,7jA) , (<---+-,id): (A,L, 7jA) -+ (X,L, n) is the unique initial V-

lift of «A, L), (<---+-, id) : (A, L) -+ V(X, L, n) , where V is the appropriate
forgetful functor.
(5) (<---+-, id) : (A, L, U) -+ (X, L, n is an initial morphism in C-FTOP ¢}
U = 7jA'
All of (1-5) hold if the following replacements are made: C-FTOP by
L",-FTOP, 7j A by G", (7j A), "fuzzy topology" by "t/rsaturated fuzzy topol-
ogy", and (<---+-, id) by (<---+-, ifJ).
Proof. Apply 5.2.3, 5.2.5, and 5.2.6. 0
5.3 Topological, fuzzy topological, and categorical em-

beddings
In this subsection we bring together Subsections 5.1 and 5.2 to characterize the
embeddings in C-TOP and C-FTOP (and hence L",-TOP and L",-FTOP).
Throughout, C is a subcategory of LOQML and L", is the category determined
from L E ICQMLI and ifJ E LOQML(L,L).
334 S. E. Rodabaugh
5.3.1. Definition (Restricted functions). Let f : X -+ Y be a function.

Then flf-+(x) : X -+ f-'t(X) is the function given by flf-+(X) (x) = f(x). It is
the restriction of f to its range.
5.3.2. Definition (Topological and fuzzy topological embeddings). Let

(f, cp) : (X, L) -+ (Y, M) be a ground morphism in SET x C, 'T be a topology,
and T be a fuzzy topology on (X, L), and eJ be a topology and S be a fuzzy
topology on (Y, M).
(1) (f,cp): (X,L,'T) -+ (X,M,eJ) is a topological embedding in C-TOP if
(Jlf-+(X),CP): (X,L,'T) -+ (J-'t(X),M,eJ/f-+(x))

is a homeomorphism in C-TOP in the sense of 5.1.1, where eJl f-+(X) is
the subspace topology in the sense of 5.2.2.
(2) (f, cp) : (X, L, T) -+ (X, M, S) is a fuzzy topological embedding in
C-FTOP if
is a homeomorphism in C-FTOP in the sense of 5.1.3, where S/f-+(X) is

the subspace topology in the sense of 5.2.6.
A topological embedding of L",-TOP is a topological embedding of C-TOP
contained in Lrp-TOPj and a fuzzy topological embedding of Lrp-FTOP is
a topological embedding of C-FTOP contained in L4>-FTOP.
5.3.3. Definition (Categorical embeddings [1]). Let A and X be categories

and V : A -+ X a functor. Then f E A is a categorical embedding over X
w.r.t. V iff f is an initial morphism in A-see [1] and the proof of 5.2.1(6)-and
a monomorphism in X. In the case of the categories C-TOP, C-FTOP, L",-
TOP, and Lrp-FTOP, we simply say (f, cp) is a categorical embedding if the
previous sentence is satisfied over the appropriate ground w.r.t. the appropriate
forgetful functor.
5.3.4. Lemma (Backward powerset operators of restricted morphi-

sms). Let (f,cp) : (X,L) -+ (Y,M) be a ground morphism and let b E MY.
Then
Proof. Given y E Y, the computation is straightforward:
cpOP (blf-->(X) (Jlf-->(X) (y)))

cpop (b(f (y))
(f, cp)~(b)(y) 0
5.3.5. Theorem. Each topological embedding is a morphism in C-TOP, and

each fuzzy topological embedding is a morphism in C-FTOP. More generally, a
ground morphism (f, ifJ) is [fuzzy] continuous iff the restricted ground morphism
(J1/-+(X),ifJ) is [fuzzy] continuous.
Proof. If (f,ifJ) : (X,L,r) -+ (Y,M,u) be a topological embedding in C-TOP.

Then (J1/-+(X),ifJ) : (X,L,r) -+ (Y,M,ul/-+(X)) is continuous; and now 5.3.4
yields immediately that
v E u => (f,ifJ)+-(v) = (J1I-+(X),ifJ)+- (vlI-+(X)) Er
This establishes that continuity of (JI /-+(X), ifJ) implies continuity of (f, ifJ). The
converse direction follows similarly from 5.3.4.
As for the fuzzy topological case, let (f, ifJ) : (X, L, 7) -+ (Y, M, S) be a
fuzzy topological embedding in C-FTOP, which implies that (J1/-+(X),ifJ) :
(X, L, 7) -+ (Y, M, SI / .... (X)) is fuzzy continuous, i.e. that
r 0 (JII-+(X), ifJ) +- ~ ifJ op 0 SI /-+(X)

It is our purpose to show that T 0 (f, ifJ) +- ~ ifJ op 0 S on MY. Letting b E MY,
recalling the definition of the fuzzy subspace topology (5.2.6), and applying 5.3.4
yield:
r((f,ifJ)+- (b)) = T ((JIJ-+(X),ifJ)+- (bl/-+(X)))

> ifJ op (SI /-+(X) (bl / .... (X)))
> .p" ("~(X)Y.,,~,.) S(C»)

> ifJoP(S(b))
This establishes that continuity of (J1I-+(X),ifJ~ implies that of (f,ifJ). For the
converse direction, fix b E MY and let e EM such that el/-+(X) = bl/ .... (X).
Then
T((JII .... (X),ifJ)+- (bl/ .... (X))) = T((JII-+(X),ifJ)+- (ell-+(x)))

= T((f,ifJ)+- (e))
> ifJ op (S (e))
l.From this it follows that
v ifJ OP (S (e))
336 S. E. Rodabaugh
To finish the proof, we observe from the foregoing and 1.3.2(2) that
¢* 0 To (lIJ-+(X),¢)t- ~ Subbase of SIJ-+(X)

that ¢* 0 To (II J-+(X), ¢) t- is a fuzzy topology on (f--+(X), M) , and hence from
5.2.6 that
¢* 0 To (II J-+(X), ¢) t- ~ SI J.... (X)
We now invoke 3.1.3.1. 0
5.3.6. Theorem (Embeddings in C-TOP). The following are equivalent in

C-TOP:
(1) (I,¢) : (X,L,r) --+ (Y,M,u) is a topological embedding;

(2) (I, ¢) : (X, L, r) --+ (Y, M, u) is a categorical embedding and ¢ is a retrac-
tion in C;
(3) (f, ¢) : (X, L, r) --+ (Y, M, u) is a categorical embedding and ¢ is a regular
epi in C.
Proof. (1) => (2). Given 5.3.5, we must show (f, ¢) is both mono in SET x C
and initial in C-TOP. Combining 5.1.1 and 5.3.2, each of II J .... (X) and ¢op are
bijections and hence monos in SET. It then follows, using the compositions of
C, COP, and SET x C, that (f, ¢) is a mono in SET x C. To show initiality
of (f,¢), let (Z,N,v) be a topological space and (g,'If;) : (Z,N) --+ (X,L) be
a morphism in SET x C such that (f,if» 0 (g,'If;) : (Z,N,v) --+ (Y,M,u) is
continuous; we must now show that (g,'If;) : (Z,N,v) --+ (X,L,r) is continuous.
Let v E r; we show that (g, 'If;)t-(v) E v. Using the fact that (l1J .... (X), ¢) is
a homeomorphism, 3 U E u such that (II J-+ (X), if» --+ (v) = ulJ-+ (X). Applying
5.3.4 yields
v = (lIJ .... (X),¢)t- (lIJ .... (X)'¢)--+ (v) = (lIJ .... (X)'¢)t- (uIJ-+(X)) = (f,¢)t-(u)
and applying continuity of (f, if» 0 (g, 'If;) yields
Finally, ¢oP is a bijection in SET => ¢op is an isomorphism in cop => if> is an
isomorphism in C, and so ¢ is a retraction in C.
(1) {: (2). Since (f, if» is a monomorphism in SET x C, it follows that I is a
mono in SET and ¢ is a mono in C. Hence I is injective; and since if> is assumed
a retraction in C, we have ¢ is an iso in C and hence if>0P is a bijection To apply
the initiality of (f, if» , we make the following choices for a space (Z, N, v) and
a ground morphism (g,1/1): (Z,N) --+ (X,L):
Z = 1--+ (X), N = M, v = uIJ .... (X)' 9 = (lIJ .... (X))-l , 1/1 = (¢OP)-lfP
To prove (f, ¢) 0 (g, t/J) : (Z, N, v) ~ (Y, M, u) is continuous, let v E u and

z E Z. Observe
t/J0P (¢OP (v (f (g (z))))) = (¢OP)-l (¢OP (v (J (r 1 (z»)))) = v(z)
so that
(g,t/J)f-(f,¢)f-(v) = vI 1-+ (X) = v E ul/-+(X)
This shows (f, ¢) 0 (g, t/J) is continuous. Initiality of (f, ¢) now implies that (g, t/J)
is continuous, which means that (JI/-+(X), ¢) is an open morphism in C-TOP
(5.1.1). Since (f,¢) is assumed a morphism in C-TOP, i.e. is continuous, it
follows from 5.3.5 that (JI/-+(X), ¢) is continuous. We conclude from 5.1.1 that
(JI/-+(X),¢) is a homeomorphism and from 5.3.2 that (f,¢) is a topological
embedding.
(2) ¢:} (3). This is immediate since ¢ is a mono in C for each of (2) and (3).
o
5.3.7. Theorem (Embeddings in C-FTOP). The following are equivalent

in C-FTOP:
(1) (f, ¢) : (X, L, T) ~ (Y, M, S) is a fuzzy topological embedding;
(2) (f, ¢) : (X, L, T) ~ (Y, M, S) is a categorical embedding and ¢ is a re-
traction in C;
(3) (f, ¢) : (X, L, T) ~ (Y, M, S) is a categorical embedding and ¢ is a regular
epi in C.
Proof. The proof of (2) ¢:} (3) is just as for 5.3.6; and the ground issues of
monomorphism in (1) ~ (2) and (1) {:: (2) are also just as for 5.3.6. It remains
to show initiality of (f, ¢) in (1) => (2) and that (f, ¢) is a topological embedding
in (1) {:: (2) .
(1) => (2). To show initiality of (f, ¢), let (Z, N,U) be a fuzzy topological
space and (g,t/J) : (Z,N) ~ (X,L) be a morphism in SET x C such that
(f,¢) 0 (g,t/J) : (Z,N,U) ~ (Y,M,S) is fuzzy continuous; we must now show
that (g,t/J) : (Z,N,U) ~ (X,L, T) is continuous, i.e. on LX we must show
U 0 (g, t/J)f- ~ t/J0P 0 T
Let b E LX; then using the fact that (JII-+(X),¢) is a fuzzy homeomorphism,
let C E MY such that
(JII-+(X),¢)-+ (b) = cl/-+(X)
First, using 5.3.4 and the fuzzy continuity of (f, ¢) 0 (g, t/J) , we observe
(U 0 (g, t/J)f-)(b) = (U 0 (g, t/J)f- 0 (JII-+ (X), ¢) f- 0 (JII-+(X) , ¢) -+) (b)
= (U 0 (g, t/J)f- 0 (JI/-+(X), ¢) f-) (cl/-+ (X))
= (U 0 (g, t/J)f- 0 (f, ¢)f-) (c)
> (t/J0P 0 ¢op 0 S) (c)

338 S. E. Rodabaugh
Second, using the preceding observation and letting c E MY range freely such
that (Ilf-+(X)'¢)~ (b) = clf-+(X), we observe
(U 0 (g, 1/1)+--) (b) ~
which implies via Lemma 1.3.2.1 that
v S (c)
Third, using the preceding observation, 3.2.12(1), and 5.2.6, and letting b range
freely, we observe
which implies via Lemma 1.3.2.1 that
U 0 (g, 1/1)+-- ~ 1/1op 0 ¢op 0 SI f-+(X) 0 (II f-+(X), ¢) ~
Fourth, using the preceding observation, invoking that (II f-+ (X), ¢) is a fuzzy
homeomorphism, and applying 5.1.4(5), we observe
U 0 (g,1/1)+-- 2: 1/1op 0 'T 0 (f,¢)+-- 0 (Ilf-+(X)'¢)~
Fifth, applying (the proof) of 5.1.2((3) {:} (4)), we observe
((I,¢)+-- 0 (Ilf-+(X)'¢)~) (b) =

((I,¢)+-- 0 ((Ilf-+(X))-l, ((¢OP)-lfP)~) (b) =
¢Opo(¢OP)-lobo(Ilf-+(X))-loj = b
l.From the preceding two observations, we have on LX that
This completes the proof of the fuzzy continuity of (g, 1/1).

(1) ~ (2). We are to prove (I, ¢) is a topological embedding. Note (I, ¢) is
assumed amorphism in C-FTOP, i.e. continuous; so by 5.3.5, (Ilf-+(X),¢) is
continuous. To show (II f-+(X), ¢) is an open morphism in C-FTOP, we apply
the initiality of (I, ¢) by making the following choices for a space (Z, N, U) and
a ground morphism (g, 1/1) : (Z, N) --+ (X, L) :
Z = j~(X), N = M, U = Slf-+(X), 9 = (Ilf-+(x)f 1 , 1/1 = ((¢OP)-lfP

To prove (I, ¢J) 0 (g, 'Ij;) : (Z, N,U) -+ (Y, M, S) is continuous, we must show that
on MY that the following inequality holds:
U 0 (g, 'Ij;)f- 0 (I, ¢J)f- ;::: 'lj;DP 0 ¢JDp 0 S
The right-hand side reduces to S. Fixing b E MY and letting z E Z, we have

f ((JI/-+(X)r 1 (z)) = z. This implies
which in turn implies via 5.2.6 that
(U 0 (g, 'Ij;)f- 0 (I, ¢J)f-) (b) = U (b)

= Slf-+(X) (b)
> V S (c)
> S (b)
It follows that (I, ¢J) 0 (g, 'Ij;) is fuzzy continuous. Applying the initiality of (I, ¢J)
yields the fuzzy continuity of (g, 'Ij;) , which implies ((JI f-+ (X)) -1 , ( ¢JDP) -1 ) DP)
is fuzzy continuous. We conclude from 5.1.3 that (Jlf-+(X),¢J) is a fuzzy home-
omorphism, and hence from 5.3.2 that (I, ¢J) is a fuzzy topological embedding.
o
5.3.8A. Theorem (Embeddings in Lq,-TOP). The following are equivalent

in Lq,-TOP:
(1) (I, ¢J) : (X, L, 1') -+ (Y, L, 0') is a topological embedding;
(2) (I,¢J): (X,L,1') -+ (Y,L,O') is a categorical embedding;
5.3.8B. Theorem (Embeddings in Lq,-FTOP). The following are equivalent

in Lq,-FTOP:
(1) (I, ¢J) : (X, L, n -+ (Y, L, S) is a fuzzy topological embedding;

(2) (I, ¢J) : (X, L, n -+ (Y, L, S) is a categorical embedding;
Proof. The proof of 5.3.8A is essentially contained that of 5.3.6 and is left
to the reader. And the proof of 5.3.8B is essentially contained in 5.3.7, except
that at the appropriate step, appeal is not made to 3.2.12(1), but rather to its
extension to the endo-saturated implicit in the proof of 4.3.2 via the Gq, functor;
and this extension and the proof of 5.3.8B is aliso left to the reader. 0
340 s. E. Rodabaugh
5.3.9. Corollary (Embeddings in L-TOP and L-FTOP). In L-TOP and

L-FTOP the topological embeddings and the categorical embeddings are the
same if "topological embedding" means "homeomorphism onto subspace of the
range".
Proof. Apply 5.3.8 and the functorial embeddings of Section 6.2. 0
5.3.10 Remark. The characterizations of 5.3.9 for fixed-basis topology provide

a link between categorical and topological compactifications, and therefore they
play a fundamental role in the development of compactification reflectors for
fixed-basis topology when the lattice-theoretic base is a frame [65].
6 Unification of topology and fuzzy topology by

C-TOP and C-FTOP
For C '-+ LOQML, each of C-TOP and C-FTOP has a rich infrastructure
of subcategories. Detailing this infrastructure provides an important justifica-
tion of variable-basis theories as pointed out in Subsection 1.2. There are four
important aspects of this justification, all related to the poslat construction of
these variable-basis categories (see the term poslat at the beginning of Sections
2 and 3):
(1) A poslat variable-basis theory brings coherence to fixed-basis theories. For

example, C-TOP provides, up to functorial embedding, a single super-
category unifying all the following categories:
(a) the well-known category TOP;

(b) VL E C, the fixed-basis category L-TOP, i.e. all the "Chang-
Goguen" categories;
(c) VL E C, the fixed-basis category L-TOP k , i.e. all the "Lowen"
categories;
(d) VL E C,V¢J E C(L,L), the endo-saturated category L<t>-TOP, i.e.
all the internalized change-of-basis categories.
In a similar vein, C-FTOP provides, up to functorial embeddings, a single

supercategory for TOP, C-TOP, and each L-FTOP (for L E lCD, i.e.
all the H6hle-Sostak categories of [23].
(2) A poslat variable-basis theory re-incorporates lattice-based theories of

topology back into a point-set context, thus mitigating traditional crit-
icisms of these approaches from the point-set topology community (see
[63]). For example, if LOC y C, then C-TOP provides, up to functorial

embedding, a single supercategory unifying all the following categories:
(a) the classical category LOC for point-free topology;

(b) the category C-HTOP, the "Hutton" category for point-free (fuzzy)
topology (6.1.4 infra);
(c) the category C as a generalized categrory for "point-free" (fuzzy)
topology.
As a particular illustration, it appears that LOC-TOP (choosing

C = LOC) is the "smallest" supercategory, up to functorial embeddings,
of both TOP and LOC; i.e. LOC-TOP = "TOP V LOC".
(3) A poslat variable-basis theory enriches topology and fuzzy topology espe-
cially with respect to morphisms, even when the lattice-theoretic base is
fixed. In particular, it enriches TOP with respect to both objects and
morphisms (see Remark 6.2.2(1)). As for the enrichment of morphisms
for base larger than {.l, T}, say L = H, let IR (H) be the fuzzy real line
based on the unit interval [12, 24, 39, 69]; then the category C-TOP
(with C = LOQML) provides at least IIRI more (continuous) morphisms
from IR(H) to IR(H) than can exist in H-TOP (or any L-TOP with Hy L).
This will follow from Subsections 6.2 and 7.1 since H has (at least) IIRI
many non-identity endomorphisms in LOQML each of which induces a
morphism from IR(H) to IR(H); while in H-TOP as embedded in LOQML-
TOP, the only permissible morphisms from IR (H) to IR (H) require the
identity morphism on H.
(4) A variable-basis theory, if topological over its ground, immediately gen-
erates more topological frameworks from those subcategories which are
defined by properties preserved by the meet operation of the fibre over a
ground object (6.3.1). For example, C-TOP is topological w.r.t.
SET x C and V : C-TOP -+ SET x C (3.3); and if WIDGET be a
subcategory of C-TOP defined by the topologies of its objects being
"widgets", and if in P (LX), the powerset of the fibre of an object, "wid-
n
get ness" is preserved under arbitrary or /\, then WIDGET would be a
topological category w.r.t. SET x C and the restricted forgetful functor
VJWIDGET' Furthermore, any category which would embed into C-TOP
onto WIDGET would also be topological w.r.t. its ground and the ap-
propriate modification of the restricted forgetful functor by the embedding
using (an extension of) Proposition 1.3.1. All subcategories in 6.1, as well
as those embedding into C-TOP or C-FTOP in 6.2, are in this way
topological over their grounds-these include L-TOP and L-FTOP for
each L E ICQMLI, thus implying as corollaries all proofs of topological
given in the companion chapter [23].
It is the purpose of this section to make explicit the justification of C-TOP

and C-FTOP outlined above. In the first subsection, we catalog the important
342 S. E. Rodabaugh
subcategories of C-TOP and C-FTOP, define explicitly the Hutton approach

to topology, and then define our extension of the Hutton approach to fuzzy
topology. The second subsection provides the embeddings and adjunctions onto
subcategories of C-TOP and C-FTOP, and the third section makes explicit
the argument for these subcategories being topological. In many cases, we cite
previous papers along these lines; and we also cite the analysis of subcategories
of fixed-basis theories in [23].
Throughout this section C ~ LOQML and L E ICI, unless indicated oth-
erwise. Finally, we take subcategory in the strict sense of subclasses (a la
[1]).
6.1 Roster of subcategories

6.1.1 Definition (Subcategories of C-TOP and C-FTOP).
(1) C-TOP(L) [C-FTOP(L)] is the full subcategory of C-TOP [C-FTOP]

each of whose objects has the same lattice L of membership values. See
Remark 6.1.2 below.
(2) C-TOP(L, id) [C-FTOP(L, id)] is the subcategory of C-TOP
[C-FTOP] each of whose morphisms has second component identity idL.
A morphism (f, idL) is also written (f, id) or f if L is understood.
(3) C-TOPk [C-FTOP k] is the full subcategory of C-TOP [C-FTOP] for
which each space satisfies T :J {q: a E L} [coker(T) :J {q: a E L}]. Such
spaces were first defined in [42] and are called stratified if ® = 1\ (e.g. if
C = SLOC)-the history of "stratified" can be traced in the references
of [46] back to [52]. But to make the connection with [23], we generally
call such spaces weakly enriched or weakly stratified.
(4) C-TOPs [C-FTOP s] is the full subcategory of C-TOP [C-FTOP] of
"singleton spaces", i.e. the full subcategory for which the ground object
of each space has a singleton set in the first component.
(5) C-SFTOP [C-TFTOP, C-RFTOP] is the full subcategory of
C-FTOP of all spaces having strong [continuous, enriched] fuzzy topolo-
gies in the sense of [23].
Other subcategories are defined by combining symbols; e.g. C-TOPk (L) is the
full subcategory of C-TOP(L) satisfying the condition of (3), or equivalently,
is the full subcategory of C-TOPk satisfying the condition of (1).
6.1.1.1 Theorem (Justification of C-TOP k and C-FTOP k ). Let
(f, cfJ) : (X, L) -+ (Y, M)

in SET x C, with ¢>op : L +-- M a surjection, and let r, u [T, S] be respective

poslat [fuzzy] topologies on (X, L) , (Y, M) [respectively]. Consider the following
statements:
I. (X, L, r) [(X, L, n] is weakly stratified.
II. f: X -+ Y is a constant map.

III. (f, ¢» is [fuzzy] continuous from (X, L, r) [(X, L, n] to (Y, M, u)
[(Y,M,S)].
IV. (Y,M,u) [(Y,M,S)] is weakly stratified.
(1) (I II II) => IIIj
(2) (IV II III) => I.
Hence the following holds:
(3) (II II IV) => (I {:} III) .
Proof. We leave the poslat case to the reader and consider only the fuzzy poslat
case.
Ad (1). If f is a constant map, it follows that 't/b E MY, (f,¢»+- (b) is a
constant mapj in which case it then follows that
T «(f, ¢»+- (b» =T ~ ¢>op (S (b»
i.e. (f, ¢» is fuzzy continuous.

Ad (2). Let II E Lj then 3,8 E M, ¢>oP(,8) = ll. It follows that
Hence, the fuzzy continuity of (f, ¢» implies
So (X, L, n is weakly stratified.

Ad (3) . Immediate from (1) and (2). 0
6.1.2 Remark (Examples).
(1) Note C-TOP(L) = Lc-TOP and C-FTOP(L) = Lc-FTOPj i.e., these

are instantiations of D-TOP and D-FTOP with D = Lc (recall 1.3.2
and 2.1.7(2» and have their own ground SET x Lc <-t SET x C.
344 S. E. Rodabaugh
(2) Note C-TOP(L, id) = L-TOP and C-FTOP(L, id) = L-FTOPi i.e.,
these are instantiations of D-TOP and D-TOP with D = L (recall 1.3.2
and 2.1.7(4)) and have their own ground SET x L <-+ SET x C.
(3) The richness of morphisms in C-TOP(L) and C-FTOP(L) is directly
related to IC (L, L) I , the cardinality of the endomorphisms of L in C. For
example, if C = SLOC and L is a semiframe (i.e. with @ = 1\) and L
admits a prime element, then IC (L,L)I 2: 2-if a is the prime element,
then put p : L -+ L by
p = Xcoker(.j.(<»)
where coker (.j..( a)) is the complement in L of the principal ideal of a (cf.
[28, 56-57, 62-65]). However, the existence of a prime element is not
necessary, since reg ('I (JR) ), the pointless locale of regular open sets of the
usual real line, has at least IJRI endomorphisms other than the identity-
e.g. put f : JR -+ JR by
f(x)=x+r, ri=.l
Then each of f;;g('r(R» ' f:;g('r(R»' the powerset operators of f on P (JR)

restricted to reg ('I (JR)), is a non-identity endomorphism in
C (reg ('I (JR) ) , reg ('I (JR) ))
By restricting these morphisms to the symmetric regular open sets of JR,

we again have these same conclusions holding for this pointless locales as
well. The foregoing comments are modified from results of [47].
6.1.3 Definition (The category C-HTOP). The category C-HTOP com-

prises the following data:
(1) Objects. Objects are ordered pairs (L, 7) satisfying the following axioms:
(a) Ground axiom. L E ICii

(b) Topological axiom. 7 C L is closed under @ and arbitrary V.
(2) Morphisms. Morphisms are of the form </> : (L,7) -+ (M, a), are called
continuous, and satisfy the following axioms:
(a) Ground axiom. </>: L -+ M in C.

(b) Continuity axiom. </>oPI.,. : 7 +- a, i.e. </>op maps a into 7.
(3) Composition. As in C.
(4) Identities. Given (L,7), id(L,T) = idL in C.
If C = FUZLAT (recall paragraph 11 of 1.1 above), then we write
C-HTOP = HTOP
Note that C is the ground category for C-HTOP. The "H" is these cat-
egorical names refers to [25] (and see the ninth and tenth paragraphs of 1.1
above).
6.1.4 Definition (The category C-HFTOP). The category C-HFTOP

comprises the following data:
(1) Objects. Objects are ordered pairs (L, T) satisfying the following axioms:
(a) Ground axiom. L E ICI;

(b) Topological axiom. r: L -+ L is a mapping satisfying:
(i) V indexing set J, V {Uj : j E J} c L,
(ii) For IJI = 2, V {Uj : j E J} c L,
(iii) r (T) = T.
(2) Morphisms. Morphisms are of the form ¢: (L, T) -+ (M,S), are called
continuous, and satisfy the following axioms:
(a) Ground axiom. ¢: L -+ M in C.

(b) Continuity axiom. r 0 (¢OP) 2: ¢op oS, or equivalently (ala Propo-
sition 3.1.3.1), ¢* 0 r 0 (¢OP) 2: S on M.
(3) Composition. As in C.
(4) Identities. Given (L, r), id(L,r) = idL in C.
In keeping with the previous definition, if C = FUZLAT (recall paragraph

11 of 1.1 above), then we write C-HFTOP = HFTOP. As above, C is the
ground category for C-HFTOP and "H" refers to Hutton. These categories
marry the Hutton "pointless" approach to the Hohle-Sostak approach.
346 S. E. Rodabaugh
6.2 Functorial embeddings onto subcategories

6.2.1 Theorem (Functors and embeddings into C-TOP and stratifica-
tion functors). The following hold:
(1) TOP maps into C-TOP(L, id) '--* C-TOP(L) via the functor G x given
by the following sequence of definitions, where (X, '1') E ITOPI:
Gx ('1') = (({Xu: U E 'r}))

G x (X, '1') = (X, L, G x ('1'))
G x (I) = (I, id)
And C-TOP(L, id) maps back into TOP via the functor Mx given by
the following sequence of definitions, where (X,L,7) E IC-TOP(L)I:
Mx (7) = (({U eX: Xu E 7}))
M-x. (X, L, 7) = (X, M-x. (7))

M-x. (I, id) =f
If C '--* LOQML 1., then
G-x. ('1') = {Xu: U E 'r} , M-x. (7) = {U eX: Xu E 7}
and the following hold: G x is an embedding of TOP into C-TOPj

M-x. -I G-x.; the adjunction M-x. -I G-x. is a monorefiection, but generally
not an equivalence of categories since M-x. r- G-x. need not be the case; and
M-x. -I G-x. is an equivalence iff L = {.1., T}, in which case G x and M-x.
are isomorphisms; i.e. TOP ~ C-TOP(L, id) ~ {.1., T}-TOP (see (4)
below).
(2) If C '--* SLOC, then TOP embeds into C-TOPk (L, id) '--* C-TOPk (L)
via WL given by the following sequence of definitions, where (X, '1') E
ITOPI:
SUP(L) = (({L - +(a): a E L})),
wd'r) = TOP ((X, '1') , (L, SUP (L))) ,
wdX, '1') = (X,L,wd'r)),
WL (I) = (I, id)
The right adjoint LL of WL on C-TOP k (L, id) is given by the following
sequence of definitions, where (X, L, 7) E IC-TOPk(L)I:
LL (7) = (({[u 1:. 0:] : u E 7, 0: E L})),
LL (X,L,7) = (X,LL (7)),
LL (I,id) = f
This adjunction is an epicorefiection if L is a hypercontinuous [34, 40].
(3) Va E L - {T}, TOP maps functorially into C-TOP(L, id) via Fa given
by the following sequence of definitions, where (X, '1') E ITOPI:
Fa ('1') = (({u E LX: [u f, aJ E'r}))

Fa (X, '1') = (X, L, Fa ('1'))
Fa(j) = (j, id)
The functor So. maps in the opposite direction and is given by the following
sequence of definitions, where (X,L,r) E IC-TOP(L,id)l:
So. (r) = (({[u f, aJ : u E r}))

So. (X, L, r) = (X, So. (r))
So. (j,id) = f
If @ = /\ and a E La-a is comparable to each element of L and
[a < (3, a < "f => a < (3/\ "fJ, then Fa -l So..
(4) L-TOP is isomorphic to C-TOP(L,id) == L-TOP, and hence embeds
into C-TOP, via
(X, r) +-+ (X, L, r) , f +-+ (j, id)
Hence all subcategories of L-TOP, e.g. L-TOPk, embed into

C-TOP(L,id) .
(5) VL E ICI, 'r/¢I E C (L, L), L",-TOP embeds into C-TOP(L, id) as detailed
in 4.1.4 by a non-equivalence isocorefiection.
(6) C-TOPk embeds into C-TOP via the inclusion y which has a faithful
right adjoint G k given by the following sequence of definitions, where
(X, L, r) E le-TOPI:
Gk(r)=rV{g:aEL} (see 3.2.2)
GdX,L,r) = (X,L,Gdr))
G k (j, <f;) = (j, <f;)
Furthermore, y -l G k is an isocorefiection, even when restricted to pairs
of corresponding subcategories (e.g. C-TOP(L, id) and C-TOP k (L, id)),
but it is generally not an equivalence since y f- Gk need not be the case.
(7) C-HTOP embeds into C-TOP. via the singleton functor S as follows:
S(L,r) = (1,L,r1)
S (<f;) = (id, <f;)
348 s. E. Rodabaugb
where 1 is a fixed one-point set. The Hutton functor H : C-HTOP f-

e-TOP is defined by the following:
H(X,L,r) = (LX,r)
H (f, 4» = ((f,4»+-)OP
If H is restricted to the full subcategory C-TOP s, then S -1 H is an
equivalence of categories; i.e. C-HTOP ~ C-TOP s .
(8) C embeds into C-TOP via the singleton functor, also denoted S, as
follows:
S(A) = (1,A,A 1 )
S (4)) = (id,4»
where 1 is a fixed one-point set. The localic functor n :C f- C-TOP
is defined by the following:
n(X,L,r)=r
where a is the topology of the codomain of (f, 4» . If n is restricted to the

full subcategory C-TOP s, then S -1 n is an equivalence of categories; i.e.
C ~ C-TOP s. These statements hold in particular for C = LOQML,
SLOC, and LOC.
Proof. These well-known results are found in [28, 39, 42, 49, 53, 56, 62], or are
modifications of same: the only change in most cases is from 0 = /\ to general
0. Details are left to the reader. 0
6.2.2 Remark (Consequences of 6.2.1 and its proof).
(1) The ramification of 6.2.1(1-3) is that poslat topology enriches ordinary

topology both respect to objects and morphisms. Poslat topologies in
this sense contain, via characteristic mappings, an ordinary topology plus
more; and so poslat topologies are richer and contain more topological
information. It follows poslat continuity in the sense of fixed-basis and
variable-basis topology is stronger than ordinary continuity since the for-
mer requires the preservation (by the backward powerset operator) of all
open sets, not just the "characteristic" open sets. The reader who works
out the details of 6.2.1(1) will see that the greater strength of poslat
continuity guarantees Mx -1 G x , and the relative weakness of ordinary
continuity guarantees that Mx ¥ G x iff L i- {.l, T}. Similarly, the details
of (2) show that stratified poslat topologies contain the classical topo-
logical information plus a copy of the base lattice, and poslat continuity
preserves this information; and the details of (3) show that a poslat topol-
ogy contains classical topological information at every level, and poslat
continuity preserves every level of information. But not only does poslat
topology give richer morphisms than ordinary topology, but in its variable-
basis form gives a richer variety of morphisms, as is commented on in (2)
below.
(2) The ramification of 6.2.1(4-5) is that variable-basis topology makes fixed-
basis topology categorically coherent. This means that questions of how
spaces with different lattice-theoretic bases relate can now be well-posed.
The enrichment of the fixed-basis settings by variable-basis topology with
respect to morphisms is taken up in detail in Section 7 for various canon-
ical examples from fixed-basis topology. It follows from these functors
and Section 7 that variable-basis topology also enriches ordinary topology
w.r.t. variety of morphisms.
(3) The ramification of 6.2.1(6) is that variable-basis topology is naturally
related to the stratified setting, but is strictly more general, a general-
ity justified indetail using fuzzy sobriety in [56, 62, 64] and summarized
in 3.l.5(1)(b) above and Subsection 7.4 below. Since Gk constructs the
free weakly-stratified space over a topological space, it is called the weak
stratification functor [56, 62, 64]. Note that for C the category of
completely distributive lattices and L E ICI, the functor WL coincides
with G~ == Gk 0 G~; see Proposition 3.8 of [39], compare [59-60], and see
Subsection 7.2 below.
(4) The ramification of 6.2.1(7-8) is that every Hutton space and every com-
plete quasi-monoidallattice (including every locale) is a singleton (poslat)
topological space. Several consequences:
(a) Locales are topology if one is willing to say that poslat topology is
topology.
(b) A purely lattice-theoretic approach to topology, uniformities, sub-
sapces is important because it points the way for doing these things
in a variable-basis, hence categorically coherent, way.
(c) On the other hand, contrary to what many workers in fuzzy sets
claim, purely lattice-theoretic methods are not more general than
point-set methods since the former are dealing with only singleton
topological spaces, singleton uniform spaces, etc.
In the next result, the analogues to most of the functors of 6.2.1 are con-
structed for the fuzzy topology case, and we shall consistently use the same
notation for analogous functors since their roles are essentially the same and
their contexts are different and not easily confused.
6.2.3 Theorem (Functors and embeddings into C-FTOP). The following

hold:
350 S. E. Rodabaugh
(1) C-TOP embeds into C-FTOP via a functor Gx. given by the following
sequence of definitions, where (X, L, 7) E IC-TOPI:
Gx. (7) = 1\ T == (({XT }))

T?X.T
Gx. (X,L,7) = (X,L,G~ (7))

Gx. (1, ¢) = (1, ¢)
The left adjoint Mx. of Gx. on C-FTOP is given by the following sequence
of definitions, where (X, L, T) E IC-FTOPI:
Mx. (T) = coker (T) == [T = TJ

Mx. (X, L, T) = (X, L, Mx. (T))
Mx. (1, ¢) = (1, ¢)
The adjunction Mx. -l Gx. is a birefiection, but generally not an equivalence
of categories since Mx. I- Gx. need not be the case.
(2) Fix 0 E L. Lr/>-TOP maps functorially into Lr/>-FTOP via Far/> given by
the following sequence of definitions, where (X, L, 7) E ILq,-TOPI and Gr/>
is the functor developed in 4.2.6 above:
Far/> (7) = Gr/> ( 1\

[T? a]:::> T
r)
Far/> (X,L,7) = (X, L, Far/> (7))
Far/> (1, ¢) = (1, ¢)
The functor Sar/>, mapping in the opposite direction, is given by the fol-
lowing sequence of defintions, where (X, L, T) E ILr/>-FTOPI:
Sar/> (T) = [T ~ oj
Sar/> (X, L, T) = (X, L, Sar/> (T))
Sar/> (1, ¢) = (1, ¢)
Then the following hold, where Gr/> is the functor recalled in 4.1.4 above,
and the instantiations of Far/> and Sar/> when ¢ = id L are resepctively
denoted Fa and Sa:
(a) Sar/> = Gr/> 0 Sa;

(b) Sar/> -l Far/>;
(c) Sar/> -l Far/> is a birefiection, but generally not an equivalence of cate-
gories.
(3) L-FTOP is isomorphic to C-FTOP(L, id) == L-FTOP, and hence em-

beds into C-FTOP, via
(X, I) f-t (X, L, I) , f f-t (I, id)
Hence all subcategories of L-FTOP, e.g. L-SFTOP, L-TFTOP, L-

RFTOP, C-FTOP k , embed into C-FTOP(L,id).
(4) 'VL E ICI, 'V¢ E C (L,L), Lq,-FTOP embeds into C-FTOP(L,id) as
detailed in 4.2.6 by a non-equivalence isocoreflection.
(5) C-FTOP k embeds into C-FTOP via the inclusion y which has a faith-
ful right adjoint given by the following sequence of definitions, where
(X,L, I) E IC-FTOPI:
Gk (I) = 1\ {T* : T* 2: T, coker (T*):J {~: a E L}}
G k (X, L, I) = (X, L, G k (I))

G k (I, ¢) = (I, ¢)
The following hold:
(a) y .., Gk is an isocoreflection, even when restricted to pairs of corre-

sponding subcategories, but is not generally an equivalence since y
f- G k need not hold.
(b) G 6.2.3(1)
x 0
G6.2.1(6)
k = G 6.2.3(5)
k 0
G 6.2.3(1)
X
h
, were
th e superscnp
. t m-
.
dicates whence in this chapter a functor is taken, and the func-
tor G~·2.3(5) from C-TOP to C-FTOP k has a left adjoint, namely
M~·2.3(1) 0 y6.2.3(5)= y6.2.1(6) oM6.2.3(1).
(6) C-HFTOP embeds into C-FTOP s via the singleton functor S as fol-
lows, where 1 is a fixed one-point set and j : L1 -+ L is the unique
isomorphism:
T1 == Toj
S(L,I) = (1,L,T1 )
S(¢) = (id,¢)
The Hutton functor H : C-HFTOP f- C-FTOP is defined by the
following:
H(X,L,I) = (LX,T)
H(I,¢) = ((f,¢)+-t P
G xs , the point-free version of G~·2.3(1), is defined from C-HTOP to C-
HFTOP as follows:
352 S. E. Rodabaugh
G xs (L,r) = (L,G xs (r»

G xs (¢) = ¢
And Mx s , the point-free version of M 6 .2.3{1), is then defined from C-
HFTOP to C-HTOP in the expected way. The following hold:
(a) If H is restricted to the full subcategory C-TOP s, then 8 -j H holds

and is an equivalence of categories; i.e. C-HFTOP ~ C-FTOP s'
(b) G~·2.3(1) 086.2 .1 (7) = 8 6.2.3(6) 0 G xs .
(c) H6.2.1(7) 0 M~·2.3(1) = Mxs 0 H6.2.3(6).
(7) C embeds into C-FTOP via the singleton functor, also denoted 8, as
follows, where 1 is a fixed one-point set:
A~=X(Al):Al-tA
8(A) = (1, A, A~)

8 (¢) = (id, ¢)
The localic functor n : C f- C-FTOP is defined by the following:
o (X, L, I) = coker (I)
0(1, ¢) = ((I, ¢)f-lcoker(s)fP
where S is the fuzzy topology of the codomain of (f, ¢). The following
hold:
(a) If 0 is restricted to the full subcategory C-TFOP s, then 8 -j 0 holds

and is an equivalence of categories; i.e. C ~ C-FTOP s.
(b) G~·2.3(1) 0 8 6 . 2 . 1 (8) = 8 6 .2 . 3 (7).
(c) 0 6 .2.1(8) 0 M~·2.1(1) = 0 6 .2.3(7).
Proof. Ad (1). Our first task is to show that G x is well-defined and functorial.
The well-definedness of G x on objects follows from 3.2.8(1), so now let (I, ¢) :
(X,L, r) -t (Y, M, 0') in C-TOP be given. That (I, ¢) : (X, L, 7;.) -t (Y, M,SO')
is a morphism in C-FTOP is immediate from the following sequence of steps.
First, ¢* 07;. 0 (I,¢)f- is a fuzzy topology on (Y,L) by 3.2.12(1). Second,
we observe that if XO' (v) = T, i.e. v E 0', then (I,¢)f- (v) E r; and hence
Xr ((f, ¢)f- (v» = T = ¢op (T) = ¢op (XO' (v»

which means that on MY we have
Third, we apply the definition of 7,. and the fact that fjJ* preserves order and T
to conclude that on MY we have
Finally, we apply the definition of Tu to conclude that
fjJ* 07,. 0 (I, fjJ)t- ~ Tu

and that (I,fjJ) : (X,L, 7,.) ~ (Y,M,S".) is a morphism in C-FTOP.
As for M'J(, the reader can easily check that [T = T] is a topology on (X, L)
if (X, L, T) is a fuzzy topological space. Given (I, fjJ) : (X, L, T) ~ (Y, M, S) a
morphism in C-FTOP, it is straightforward to see that v E [S = T] and
To (I, fjJ)t- ~ fjJop 0 S
imply that (I, fjJ)t- (v) E [T = T]. It follows that M'J( is functorial.
As for M'J( -l G'J(, the unit is (id, id) which is clearly continuous-for each
(X,L, T) E IC-FTOPI, we have T ~ X[T=Tj, which implies T ~ 7(T=Tj. The
reader can verify from 1.3.4 that the proof of the lifting criterion for M'J( -l G'J(
is equivalent to showing the following: V (X, L, T) E IC-FTOPI, V (Y, M, u) E
IC-TOPI, and
V (I, fjJ) : (X,L,T) ~ (Y,M,S".)
fuzzy continuous in C-FTOP,
(I, fjJ) : (X, L, [T = TJ) ~ (Y, M, u)

is continuous in C-TOP. And this statement is easily verified: if v E u, then
ifJ op (S". (v)) = T, so the the fuzzy continuity of (I, ifJ) implies T «(I, fjJ) t- (v)) =
T, Le. (I, fjJ) t- (v) E [T = T], verifying (I, fjJ) is continuous.
The other assertions of (1) are left to the reader. Note the failure of G'J( -l M'J(
follows from 6.2.1(1) if C <-+ LOQML.L, since in such cases G'J( (r) = XT.
Ad (2). To verify that Fo:q, is a functor, it suffices to show that if
(I,fjJ) : (X,L,r) ~ (Y,L,u)
is continuous in Lq,-TOP, then
(I,id): (X,L, /\
~~~~T
T) ~ (Y,L, /\
~~~~".
s)
is fuzzy continuous in L-FTOP-since Gq, of 4.2.6 is a functor, it would then
follow that (I,fjJ) : (X,L,Fo:q, (r)) ~ (Y,L,Fo:q, (r)) is fuzzy continuous in Lq,-
FTOP. Letting
To: == /\ T, So: == /\ S
[T~o:j ~T
354 s. E. Rodabaugh
we note if v E (1, then applying the functor F of 4.2.6 to the continuity of

(j,</J) yields that (j,id)+- (v) E T. Now if T is a fuzzy topology on (X,L) with
[T ~ 0:] :J T, then
T((j,id)+- (v)) ~ 0:
It follows that
Tn ((j,id)+- (v)) ~ 0:
We now invoke 3.2.12 to conclude that Tn 0 (j, id) +- is a fuzzy topology on (Y, L)
with
[Tn 0 (j,id)+- ~ 0:] :J (1
It now follows from the definition of S'" that Tn 0 (j, id) +- ~ S"" from which the
functoriality of F"'t/> follows as indicated above.
It is straightforward to check that B"'t/> (T) is </J.saturated and that B"'t/> is
functorial, i.e. B"'t/> changes fuzzy continuity to continuity. It follows that (a)
is true. Now to verify B"'t/> -1 F"'t/>' we first check that (id,</J) : (X,L,T) -+
(X, L, F"'t/> [T ~ 0:]) is fuzzy continuous as follows, using the <jJ.saturation of T:
To (id, </J)+- To (</J0P)
= T
> F"'t/> [T ~ 0:]
The remainder of the adjunction reduces to checking that if
(j, </J) : (X, L, T) -+ (Y, L, F"'t/> ((1))
is fuzzy continuous, where (Y,L,(1) E ILt/>-TOPI, then
(f, </J) : (X, L, [T ~ 0:]) -+ (Y, L, (1)

is continuous. To that end, let v E (1. Then ala the proof of the functoriality
of F"'t/> above, we have
F"'t/> ((1) (v) ~ 0:
Fuzzy continuity now implies
(T((f,</J)+- (v))) ~ 0:
Hence (j, </J)+- (v) E [T ~ 0:], and this proves (b). Finally, the birefiectivity of
the adjunction follows trivially from the unit being of the form (id, </J), from
which (c) follows.
Ad (3). This is straightforward and left to the reader.
Ad (5). Ala previous proofs, we begin by checking the functoriality of Gk.
First note that
{g: 0: E L} C coker (Gk (T))
Second, given fuzzy continuous
(j,</J): (X,L,T) -+ (Y,M,S)

the definition of Gk (I) yields

70 (f, ¢)+- ~ ¢op 0 S =>
Gk (I) 0 (f, ¢)+- ~ ¢op 0 S =>
¢* 0 Gk (I) 0 (f, ¢)+- ~ S
Third, we note that ¢* 0 Gk (I) 0 (f, ¢)+- is a fuzzy topology on (Y, M) (3.2.12)
which is weakly stratified-for f3 E M, it is easy to show that (f, ¢)+- ([D E
{g : a E L}, hence G k (I) ((f, ¢ )+- ([D) = T, and the claim of weakly stratified
follows since ¢* (T) = T (¢* is a right adjoint and hence preserves 1\). Fourth,
the definition of Gk (S) implies that
¢* 0 Gk (I) 0 (f, ¢)+- ~ Gk (S)
The adjunction '-t -I G k has unit (id, id) and hinges around this detail-
given
(X,L,I) E IC-FTOPkl, (Y,M,S) E IC-FTOPI
and fuzzy continuous
(f,¢) : (X,L, I) -+ (Y,M,Gk (S))
then
(f,¢): (X,L, n -+ (Y,M,S)
is immediately fuzzy continuous since ¢* 0 7 0 (f, ¢)+- ~ Gk (S) ~ S. That '-t
r- G k fails follows immediately from 6.2.1(6) and (b). Thus all of (a) holds once
(b) is confirmed. The second claim of (b) is a corollary of the composition of
adjunctions and the first claim of (b). So the proof of (5) is complete once the
first claim of (b) is verified, and this reduces to proving
where
A == {T.. : T.. ~ XrV{Q.:aeL}}
B" {To, To" C,,". T) V (X{.,.EL)) }
Clearly A :J B, so that 1\ A ~ 1\ B. But clearly 1\ A E B, so that 1\ A ~ 1\ B.

This completes the proof of (5).
Ad (6). The functoriality of Sand H are left to the reader, the functoriality
proof of MX 8 mimics that of Mx of (1), and the functoriality of G X8 follows from
6.3.2 of the next section and the proof of the functoriality of Gx of (1). As for
(a), it suffices to show the adjunction-the other claims are left to the reader.
The unit of S -I H, given (L, n,
is
356 8. E. Rodabaugh
And given (1, M, S) and ¢ : (L, n

-+ (M1, S), the unique arrow from (1, L, P)
to (I,M,S) whose H-image factors ¢ through jOP is
(id, 'IjJ) : (1, L, T1) -+ (1, M, S)
defined by taking 'IjJ : L -+ M to be the unique (non-concrete) morphism satis-

fying
('ljJ0P) = j 0 ¢oP
The reader can now verify the adjunction and (a).
We verify (b), i.e.
G~·2.3(1) 08 6 . 2 . 1 (7) = 8 6 . 2 .3 (6) 0 G xs
The claimed identity clearly holds on morphisms. As for objects, the claim
reduces, given (L,7), to showing that the following agree on L1:
It is straightforward to verify that B is a fuzzy topology dominating XT " from

which it immediately follows that A :::; B; and it is also straightforward to verify
that A 0 j-1 is a fuzzy topology dominating Xn from which it follows that
A ~ B. The proof of (c) is left to the reader. This completes the proof of (6).
Ad (7). The proof generally is a modification of that for (6) and is left to the
reader. One detail common to the proof of the functoriality of S, the adjunction
S -1 0, and the identity of (b) is the identity
A~ = 1\ (T : A l -+ A)
T~X(Al)
which holds trivially. This concludes the proof of (7) and of the theorem. 0
6.2.4 Remark (Consequences of 6.2.3 and its proof).
(1) The appeal to 6.3.5 in the proof of the functoriality of G xs in 6.2.3(6) is

more efficient than a de novo proof that C-HFTOP is topological over its
ground and hence has the final structures needed in 6.2.3(2). The proof
of 6.3.x does not depend on the functoriality of G xs ; rather, it depends
on the embedding 8 6 .2 .3 (6), the proof of which is independent of both G xs
and 6.3.5.
(2) Many of the comments of 6.2.2, giving the philosophical ramifications of
6.2.1, can be repeated almost verbatim to give the philosophical ramifi-
cations of 6.2.3. Though we now summarize these ramifications briefly
(pointing out a few differences as well), it is left to the reader to restate
each ramification of 6.2.1 as a ramification of 6.2.3 whenever possible.
(a) Fuzzy topological structures are richer than poslat topological struc-
tures, and fuzzy continuity is stronger than poslat continuity. This
follows from 6.2.3(1).
(b) The categorical relationship between fuzzy topology and its related
"levels" of poslat topologies is precisely the obverse of the categor-
ical relationship between a poslat topology and its related levels of
ordinary topologies; namely, in the latter we have FOI -I SOl' while
in the former we have SOit/> -I FOit/> and hence SOl -I F OI . While the
results of 6.2.1 consistently give the interpretation that poslat topol-
ogy is a generalization of ordinary topology (6.2.1(1-3)), the results of
6.2.3(1-2) do not consistently give the interpretation that fuzzy topol-
ogy is a generalization of poslat topology. However, since G~·2.3(1)
has stronger properties than SOit/> and is not limited by fixing a base,
we adopt the interpretation of 6.2.3(1) that fuzzy topology is a gen-
eralization of poslat topology.
(c) Variable-basis fuzzy topology makes fixed-basis fuzzy topology cate-
gorically coherent. This follows from 6.2.3(3-4).
(d) The functor G~·2.3(5) is the weak-stratification functor. This, and
the conclusion that weakly stratified spaces are an appropriate special
setting, follows from 6.2.3(5).
(e) Every fuzzy Hutton space and every complete quasi-monoidallattice
is a singleton fuzzy topological space. This comes from 6.2.3(6-7).
But combining 6.2.1(8) and 6.2.3(7) yields a small surprise, namely
C ~ C-TOP s , C ~ C-FTOPs ::} C-TOP 8 ~ C-FTOP 8
Thus the singleton spaces representing complete quasi-monoidallat-

tices, semilocales, locales, etc may be categorically regarded as either
poslat or fuzzy.
6.3 Topological subcategories

6.3.1 Proposition (Topological subcategories of topological
categories). Let B be a subcategory of A and suppose A is topological w.r.t.
X and V : A -+ X. If each V-structured source (X, !; : X -+ V (Bj))J with
{Bj}J c IBI and {fj}J C B has its unique, initial V-lift in B, then B is
topological w.r.t. X and VJB : B -+ X.
Proof. Immediate. 0
358 s. E. Rodabaugh
6.3.2 Proposition (Meet criterion for topological subcategories). Let

A be a subcategory of C-TOP [C-FTOP] satisfying the following "meet cri-
terion":
v{(X, L,T'YH'Y c IC-TOPI, (x,L'0T'Y) E IC-TOPI
[v {(X,L, 'T-yH'Y C IC-FTOPI, (X,L, ~ 'T-y) E IC-FTOPI]
Then A is topological w.r.t. SET x C and VjA, where
V : C-TOP [C-FTOP] ~ SET x C
is the forgetful functor of Section 3.
Proof. This can be justified from 6.3.1 and the proofs of 3.3.4 and 3.3.9-
specifically the proofs of 3.3.1 and 3.3.5 as coupled with the notions of [fuzzy]
subbase in 3.2.2/3.2.9 and join of [fuzzy] topologies in 3.2.3/3.2.10. 0
6.3.3 Theorem (Topological subcategories of C-TOP and C-FTOP).
(1) Each of the following subcategories of C-TOP is topological w.r.t.

SET x C and the appropriate restriction of the forgetful functor:
C-TOP (L), C-TOP (L,id), C-TOP k, C-TOP s , C-TOP (Lh
(2) Each of the following subcategories of C-FTOP is topological w.r.t.

SET x C and the appropriate restriction of the forgetful functor:
C-FTOP (L), C-FTOP (L,id), C-FTOPk, C-FTOP s
C-FTOP (Lh, C-SFTOP, C-TFTOP, C-RFTOP
Proof. Apply the meet criterion (6.3.2) to each listed subcategory. 0
6.3.4 Proposition (Embedded Topological Categories). Let A be topo-

logical w.r.t. X and V : A ~ X. If B is a subcategory of A topological w.r.t.
X and VjB : B ~ X, and U : D ~ B is a categorical isomorphism, then D is
topological w.r.t. X and V 0 U.
Proof. Use Proposition 1.3.1. 0
6.3.5 Theorem (Topological categories embedded into C-TOP and C-

FTOP).
(1) Each of the following categories is topological w.r.t. SET x C and the
indicated modification of the forgetful functor by functors of 6.2.1:
(a) TOP, V 0 Gx. or V 0 WL·

(b) L-TOP, V 0 J, where J is the embedding of 6.2.1(4).
(c) C-HTOP, V 0 S.
(d)C,VoS.
(2) Each of the following categories is topological w.r.t. SET x C and the
indicated modification of the forgetful functor by functors of 6.2.3:
(a) L-FTOP, V 0 J, where J is the embedding of 6.2.3(3).

(b) L-SFTOP [L-TFTOP, L-RFTOP], V 0 J, where J is the appro-
priate restriction of the J of (a).
(c) C-HFTOP, V 0 S.
(d) C, V 0 S.
Proof. Apply 6.3.4 by noting, directly for (l)(c,d) and (2)(c,d) and by 6.3.3 for
(l)(a,b) and (2)(a,b), that the image of each embedded category is topological
. 0
7 Unification of canonical examples by C-TOP

and C-FTOP
This section is dedicated to canonical examples of poslat topology, examples
which internally justify variable-basis frameworks in two related ways:
(1) C-TOP and C-FTOP provide necessary, coherent frameworks for these
canonical examples. Only in these frameworks can certain questions con-
cerning these examples be well-formed, let alone resolved. For example,
when are two fuzzy real lines homeomorphic?
(2) C-TOP and C-FTOP enrich topology and fuzzy topology w.r.t. mor-
phisms, both with respect to richness of continuity and variety of mor-
phisms. This section will provide many examples of non-trivial mor-
phisms between canonical examples not possible in fixed-basis topology
and fixed-basis fuzzy topology, including traditional point-set topology.
More precisely, none of these morphisms are in the ranges (or images) of
the categorical embed dings catalogued in the previous section. For ex-
ample, C-TOP provides many non-homeomorphic continuous morphisms
between certain real lines with different underlying bases.
360 S. E. Rodabaugh
The results implicit in (1,2) above explicitly require virtually all the results
of Sections 3-6: the results of Sections 3-4 constructing initial structures from
subbases; the results from Sections 5 dealing with subbases, subspaces, em-
beddings, and isomorphisms in C-TOP and C-FTOP; and the results from
Section 6 dealing with embeddings into C-TOP and C-FTOP.
The canonical examples considered here are not exhaustive, but are examples
with extensive literatures or closely related to same. These by order include:
fuzzy real lines and unit intervals; generated and weakly generated spaces; co-
fuzzy dual real lines and unit intervals; and sober L-topological spaces.
Each subsection below is quadpartite and has the same organization-con-
struction of a particular class of canonical examples, characterization of con-
tinuous morphisms between members of that class having different bases, char-
acterization of homemorphisms between same, construction of specific classes
of continuous morphisms between same; and examples of non-homeomorphic
continuous morphisms between same.
Frequent appeal is made throughout the subsections below to the following
extension of Lemmas 1.3.2.
7.A. Lemma (Adjoints of CQML morphisms).
(1) Let tf; : L1 --t L2 be a CQML morphism. The following hold:
(a) tf; has a right adjoint tf;* : L1 ~ L2 given by
tf;* ((3) = V a
I/J(o<) ~ /3
(b) tf;* 0 tf; = idLl iff tf; is an CQML embedding.
(2) Let tf; : L1 --t L2 be a CQML morphism preserving arbitrary 1\ (e.g.

tf; E DMQL). The following hold:
(a) tf; has a left adjoint *tf; : L1 ~ L2 given by
*tf; ((3) = /\ a
/3~I/J(0<)
(b) *tf; 0 tf; = idLl iff tf; is an CQML embedding.

(c) tf; is an isomorphism {::} *tf; = tf;*.
(d) If tf; is a DQML morphism, then tf;* ({3') = [*tf; ({3)]' , *tf; ({3') =
[tf;* ({3)]' (deMorgan Laws for Adjoints).
7.B. Corollary. The category DQML is not "adjoint-closed"-there are de-

Morgan morphisms whose adjoints are not deMorgan morphisms (by (2)(d)). If
a non-isomorphism embedding in DQML has an adjoint in SFRM, it must be

outside DQML (by (2)(c,d)). It follows these remarks also hold w.r.t. DMRG.
Proof of 7.A. (l)(a) and (2)(a) come from AFT; (l)(b) are (2)(b) are exer-
cises for the reader; and (2) (c) is an immediate consequence of the inequalities
defining adjunction for order-preserving maps between posets. We prove one of
the deMorgan laws of (2)(d), leaving the other to the reader.
~* ((3') = V a
.p(a)<5.!3'
V a"
.p(a)<5.!3'
= [ 1\ all I
.p(a)<5.!3'
[ 1\ all I
[.p(a)l'~(!3')'
[ 1\ all I
.p(a')~!3
[*~ ((3)]' 0
7.1 Fuzzy real lines and unit intervals

The real lines and unit intervals are referred to in 3.1.5(1)(a) and 4.1.7(3) and
references to the literature are given there. We begin with the definitions of
these fundamental examples.
7.1.1. Discussion (Construction of fuzzy real lines and unit intervals).

Let L E IDQMLI, and let A : ffi. -+ L be a map or an L-(fuzzy) subset of ffi.
satisfying the following conditions:
• A is antitone;
• VtERA(t) = T, AtERA(t) =.1...

Putting A(t+) = Vs>tA(S), A (t-) = As<tA(S), the following are equivalent
for two such mappings A, f.l:
• WEffi., A(H)=f.l(H);
362 S. E. Rodabaugh
• "It E IR, A (t-) = J-t (t-) ;

• "It E IR, A(t+) = J-t (t+) and A(t-) = J-t(t-).
A relation == is defined by stipulating A == J-t iff any of these three conditions
hold. The L-(fuzzy) real line or L-(poslat) real line IR(L) is the set of all
equivalence classes, i.e.
IR(L) = {[AJ I A: IR -+ L, A antitone, V A(t) = T, 1\ A(t) = ..1}

tElR tElR
Each [AJ is an L-number.

The subbase for the standard topology on IR(L) comprises all maps Lt,Rt
defined as follows, where t E IR:
'ct : IR(L) -+ L by'ct (A) = (A' (t-))

9'tt: IR(L) -+ L by 9'tt (A) = A(t+)
These maps are L-(fuzzy) subsets of IR(L). And the standard poslat topology
r( L) is defined by
T (L) = (( {'ct, 9'tt : t E IR}))
The ",c" in "'ct" means "left" and the "9't" in "9'tt" means "right" since these
subbasic sets are the generalizations of the sub basic left and right open rays of
IR (this is made explicit below in the proof of 7.1.3). The space (IR (L) , T (L)) is
also called the L- (fuzzy) real line and the space (IR (L) , L, T (L)) is a (fuzzy)
real line or (poslat) real line, either one often denoted IR(L).
The L-(fuzzy) unit interval or L-(poslat) unit interval II (L) is the
subset of all L-numbers [AJ satisfying
A (1+) =..1, A (0-) =T

and is equipped with the subspace topology T (L)lll(L) of 5.2.2, more conveniently
written as T (II (L)) , namely
T (II (L)) = {Ulll(L) :UE T (L)}
The space (II (L) , T (II (L))) is also called the L- (fuzzy) unit interval and the
space (II (L), L, T (II (L))) is a (fuzzy) unit interval or (poslat) unit interval,
either one often denoted II (L).
7.1.2. Remark (Canonicity of IR(L) and II (L»). The following hold:
(1) Gx(IR, 'I) is homeomorphic to (IR{..1, T},L,T{..1, T}), and G x (II, 'I) is ho-
meomorphic to (II{..1, T}, L, T (II { ..1, T} ))-see 7.1.3 below-where 'I is the
usual topology on IR or II. Both 7.1.3(1,2) below are part of folklore (but
see [12, 24, 55]).
(2) For the normality axiom of [24] and for L E IDMRGI, there are Urysohn
Lemmas [24] with codomain [(L) and Tiezte-Extension Theorems [36,
37, 41] with codomains [(L) and IR(L). And [(L) and IR(L) for L E
IDMRG n SFRMI have all the middle-level and upper-level separation
axioms of [26]-see [40, 54].
(3) For each linear deMorgan L (with ® = 1\) and for each classical Tl topo-
logical space (X, 'I') with at most finitely many components, there is an
L-topological space (X(L), 'I(L)) such that (X(L), 'I(L)) is homeomorphic
to:
(a) Gx(X, 'I) if L = {.l, T}.

(b) IR(L) if X = IR (with 4> = id)j
(c) [(L) if X = [ (with 4> = id).
See [30-32]j and cf. [73-74] and [59,62].

(4) For each linear deMorgan L (with ® = 1\), 3EB,0 on IR(L) such that the
following hold:
(a) (EB,id) and (0,id) are continuous on (IR(L)) x IR(L) equipped with
the categorical product of L-TOP carried isomorphically to L-TOPj
(b) (EB,id) is (quasi-)uniformly continuous with respect to the appropro-
priate product (quasi-)uniformity j
(c) Ell and 0 are the unique extensions (in certain senses) of + and . from
IR to IR (L) and they possess many algebraic properties-(IR (L) , EB)
is a cancellation abelian semigroup with identity.
See [55, 58, 69] and the references given there.
7.1.3. Proposition. Let L E IDQMLI.
(1) Gx (Ii, 'I) == (Ii, L, {Xu: U E 'I}) embeds into (IR(L) , L, r (L)).
(2) The embedding of (1) is a homeomorphism iff L = {.l, T}.
Proof. Put 4> = id, and define f : IR -+ IR (L) by f (r) = [Ar ], where Ar : IR -+ L
by
A (t)
r
= { .l,
T, t
t
<r
>r
where the definition at r is non-essential because of the equivalence relation.
It follows that (f, id) is a ground morphism. To see that it is a topological
embedding in the sense of 5.3.2(1), it suffices to show that it is a homeomorphism
from (Ii, L, {Xu: U E 'I}) to (IR{.l, T}, L, r{.l, T}), the latter clearly being the
364 s. E. Rodabaugh
subspace of (~(L) ,L,7(L)) required by 5.3.2(1). Now to show that (f,id) is

a homeomorphism onto (~{l., T},L,7{1., T}), it suffices by 5.1.1 to show that
each of (f, id) and (1-1, id) are continuous; and it therefore suffices by 3.2.6 to
show that each is subbasic continuous. These proofs follow from the following
identities in the variable r:
X(r,+oo) = -Ctlf-->(lR)
X(-oo,r) = !ntlf-->(lR)
These identities establish (1), (2), and the notation "-Ct , !nt ", and are left to the
reader to verify. 0
We finish this subsection by tackling the broader question of relating real

lines with different underlying bases. Our intermediate goal is a collection of
characterizations of continuous morphisms which help us achieve our ultimate
goal of specific examples of non-homeomorphic continuous morphisms between
real lines with different underlying bases. We begin be defining restrictive types
of subbasic continuity relevant to the fuzzy real lines and fuzzy unit intervals
(and indeed generalizable to any class of spaces whose subbases have a "natural"
or "useful" partition).
7.1.4 Subbasic notation. Let .e and n respectively denote the collections of

left and right subbasic open sets of a fuzzy real line or fuzzy unit interval. If
two real lines ~ (L 1 ) and ~ (L 2 ) are given, then the collections of left and right
sub basic sets are respectively denoted I.e, 1 n, 2.e, 2n, and the member sub basic
sets are respectively denoted 1 -C t ,1 !nt, 2 -C t ,2 !nt, with similar conventions holding
if two unit intervals, or a unit interval and a real line, are given.
7.1.5 Definition (Special subbasic continuities).
(1) We say (f, ¢» is a ground morphism between ~(Ll) and ~(L2) iff
L 1 , L2 E IDMQLI and (f, ¢» : ~(Ld -+ ~(L2) is a ground morphism in
SET x LOQML. Similar definitions can be given for ground morphisms
between IT (L 1 ) and IT (L 2) , between ~(Ll) and IT (L 2) , and between IT (L 1 )
and ~(L2). All these cases are jointly described by saying that (f, ¢» is
a ground morphism between fuzzy real lines and/or fuzzy unit
intervals.
(2) A ground morphism (f, ¢» between fuzzy real lines and/or fuzzy unit in-
tervals is left-subbasic continuous (Is-continuous), right-subbasic
continuous (rs-continuous), or symmetrically-subbasic continu-
ous (ss-continuous) iff the following respectively hold:
(Is) «(f,¢>tT~ e.e) c I.e;

(rs) «(f, ¢»+-)-+ en) c In;
(ss) both (1s) and (rs) hold.
Note ss-continuity => subbasic-continuity => continuity (3.2.6).
7.1.6 Lemma (Characterization of ss-continuous maps). Let
be a ground morphism in SET x LOQML. Then (1,¢) is ss-continuous iff

both the following statements hold:
(1) Vt E ~ 3u E JR, V [A] E JR(Ll) , V/1 E J[A],

¢DP (/1' (t-)) = A' (u-)
(2) Vt E ~ 3u E ~ V [A] E JR(Ll) , V/1 E f[A],
¢DP (/1 (t+ )) = A (u+ )
In the latter case, (1, ¢) is continuous. This characterization, appropriately
modified, is valid for ground morphisms between any combination of fuzzy real
lines and/or fuzzy unit intervals.
Proof. It suffices to show (1) ¢:} Is-continuity and (2) ¢:} rs-continuity. We prove
only the former; the latter is similar and simpler. Now the former bi-implication
is equivalent to saying:
Note the condition of the right-hand side of I is equivalent to

(II)
Since j[A] E JR(L2) , then V/1 E f [A], [/1] = f [A], and so the left-hand side of II
reduces as follows:
(f,¢)~(2£t)[A] = ¢DP(2£t(f[A]))
= ¢DP (/1' (t-))
Since the right hand side of II is A' (u-) , this implies that
¢DP (/1' (t-)) = A' (u-)

It now follows that (1) holds iff (1, ¢) is Is-continuous. 0
We now apply 7.1.6 via Lemma 7.A.
7.1.7 Theorem (Continuous morphisms between real lines).

366 S. E. Rodabaugh
(1) Let 1jJ : Ll ~ L2 be an embedding in DQML and let f : ffi.(Ld ~ ffi.(L2)

by
![,x] = [1jJ o,x]
Then (f,(*1jJ)OP) : (ffi.(Ld,L 1,r(LI)) ~ (ffi.(L 2),L 2,r(L2)) is a continu-
ous morphism in LOQML-TOP iff *1jJ preserves 181 and T; in which case,
if 1jJ is not an isomorphism, then (f, (*1jJ)OP) is not in DQMLoP-TOP.
(2) Let 1jJ : Ll ~ L2 be an embedding in DMRG and let f : ffi.(Ld ~ ffi.(L2)
by
![,x] = [1jJ 0 ,x]
Then (f,(1jJ*t P) : (ffi.(Ld,Ll,r(Ll)) ~ (ffi.(L 2),L 2,r(L2)) is a continu-
ous morphism in SLOC-TOP iff 1jJ* preserves arbitrary V; in which case,
if 1jJ is not an isomorphism, then (f, (1jJ*t P) is not in DMRGop-TOP.
7.1.7.1. Corollary. ffi.(Ld ~ ffi.(L2) ¢} Ll ~ L 2 .
Proof. This follows from 5.1.1, 7.1(5), and [7.1.7(1) or 7.1.7(2)]. 0
7.1.7.2. Applications of 7.1.7. Let Ll = {O,o:, I} with 0:' = 0:,
L2 = {0,1/4,1/2,3/4,1}
with (1/4)' = 3/4 and (1/2)' = 1/2, 181 in both cases be fI, and 1jJ : Ll ~ L2 by
0, 'Y =
1jJ ('Y) = { 1/2, 'Y = 0:
°
1, 'Y = 1
Then it follows that *1jJ and 1jJ* are defined as follows:
I, (3 = 1
1jJ*((3) ={ 0:, (3 = 1/2,3/4
0, (3=0,1/4
I, = 3/4,1
(3
={ = 1/4,1/2
°
*1jJ((3) 0:, (3
0, (3 =
And it also follows that each of *1jJ and 1jJ* preserves both arbitrary V and
arbitrary A. The theorem therefore yields that both of
and
(f, (1jJ*rp) : (ffi.(Ld, L 1, r (L 1)) ~ (ffi.(L2)' L 2, r (L 2))
are continuous morphisms in SLOC-TOP. Further, by Corollaries 7.B and
7.1.7.1 above, neither of these continuous functions is a DMRGop-TOP mor-
phism and neither is a homeomorphism in LOQML-TOP.
Proof of 7.1.7. We let the reader prove (2). For (1), necessity follows from
the fact that
((J, (*'t/JtP) E LOQML-TOP) =} ((J, (*'t/JtP) E SET x LOQML)

=} (*'t/J)OP E LOQML
=} *'t/J E CQML
=} *'t/J preserves 0 and T
Now for sufficiency in (1), we let the reader verify that f as defined is well-
defined from JR(Ld to JR(L2). And to finish sufficiency, it suffices to satisfy the
conditions of Lemma 7.1.6(1,2); we show 7.1.6(1) is satisfied and leave (2) to
the reader. To that end, put ¢ = (*'t/J)OP, let t E IR, and put u = t. Note that
for each I-' E f[A],
p, (t-) = ('t/J 0 A) (t-)

It therefore follows from 't/J preserving deMorgan complements and from 7.A(3)
that
¢op (I-" (t-)) = *'t/J (('t/J 0 A)' (t-))

= *'t/J ((('t/J 0 A) (t-))')
= *'t/J ((bt ('t/J 0 A)(S)),)

= *'t/J (('t/J (b/(S))),)
= *'t/J ('t/J ((~ A(S)),))

= (!\A(S)),
s<t
= (A (t-))'
= A' (t-)
This completes the proof that 7.1.6(1) is satisfied. Finally, the last statement
of (1) now follows from Corollary 7.B. 0
7.1.8 Remark. Note 7.1.3 and 7.1.7 fulfill the claims of both (1) and (2) of
the opening paragraph of this section.
368 S. E. Rodabaugh
7.1.9 Remark. Note 7.1.7, 7.1.7.1, and the example of 7.1.7.2 remain valid if
real lines are replaced by unit intervals; and appropriate modifications remain
valid if real lines and unit intervals are mixed.
7.2 Generated (weakly stratified) poslat spaces

This subsection examines the morphisms between generated, stratified spaces
with different underlying bases. The importance of this section is two-fold: we
build non-homeomorphic (as well as homemorphic) variable-basis morphisms
between spaces generated from ordinary topology via certain functors of Section
6; and these results apply to build variable-basis morphisms between the co-
fuzzy duals of the fuzzy real lines and fuzzy unit intervals in the next subsection.
7.2.1. Definition (Functor Gt). Given C '-+ LOQML and L E ICI, the
functor
Gt : TOP -+ C-TOP k
is defined by
GwL = GLx oG k
See [60] and 6.2.2(3) of the preceding subsection for motivation behind this
notation.
7.2.2. Remark. To make G6 explicit, let (X,~) E ITOPI and f E TOP, and
put:
Gt (~) = (({Xu: U E ~} U {g : a E L}))
Gt (X, '1') = (X, L, Gt (~))
Gt (f) = f
7.2.3. Theorem (Characterization of variable-basis mappings between

stratified spaces). Let
C '-+ LOQML, (f,</J) E (SET x C) ((X,L) , (Y,M))
and ~,6 be ordinary topologies on X, Y, respectively. Then
f : (X, ~) -+ (Y,6)
is continuous in TOP if and only if
(f,</J): (X,L,Gt('r)) -+ (y,M,G~(6))
is continuous in C-TOP k •
Proof. Necessity. A subbasis of G,:/ (6) is
{XV: V E 6} U {~: /3 E M}
By Lemma 1.3.3, (1,¢)t- takes the constants of this subbase to the constants
of the subbase of G~ ('I), i.e.
and invoking the continuity of I in TOP, (1, ¢)t- takes the characteristics of
this subbase to the characteristics of the subbase of G~ (1'), i.e.
where It- is the classical backward powerset operator. Thus (1, ¢)t- maps the
subbase of G,:/ (6) to that of G~ (1'), making (1,¢) subbasic continuous, and
hence continuous in C-TOPk by 3.2.6.
Sufficiency. Given (1, ¢) is continuous, then for V E 6, we have
Next, noting that the first infinite distributive law
a 1\ B = V{a 1\ b: bE B}
holds when B C {.l, T} (or as in this setting, B C {Jo,I}), we then obtain the
expected base for G~ (1') from its subbase, i.e.
G~ (1') = ({Q 1\ Xu : a E L, U E '!})
Thus
Xf+- (V) = V (Qi 1\ Xu;)
i
Now if x ¢ It- (V), then
Vi, (Qi 1\ Xu.) (x) = .1
And if x E It- (V), then
So that
Xf+-(V) = Xu;
It follows that It- (V) = Uj E 1', making I continuous in TOP. 0
7.2.4. Remark. We make the following comments in regard to 7.2.3:

370 S. E. Rodabaugh
(1) The condition of the theorem being fully sufficient, without the imposi-
tion of the first infinite distributive law, is due to helpful criticisms of T.
Kubiak.
(2) Each ordinary continuous map generates a class of variable-basis mor-
phisms indexed by the union of the morphism classes of C <-+ LOQML,
which is generally a very large class indeed. This shows the rich variety
of morphisms in variable-basis topology, but only partly.
7.2.5. Corollary. Let C be a subcategory of completely distributive lattices,

(f,¢) E (SET x C) «X,L),(Y,M))
and '1',6 be ordinary topologies on X, Y, respectively. Then the f : (X, '1') -+
(Y,6) is continuous in TOP iff
(f,¢): (X,L,wd'r)) -+ (Y,M,WM(6))
is continuous in C-TOP k, where WL,WM are defined in 6.2.1(2).
Proof. Combine 7.2.3 with Proposition 3.8 of [39]. 0
7.2.6. Definition (Alternate extension of w). For C <-+ LOQML and L E

ICI, put wi: TOP -+ C-TOPk (L,id) by the following steps, where (X,'r) E
ITOPI:
wi ('1') = (({u E LX: Va E L, [u> a] E'r}))
wi (X, '1') = (X, wi ('1'))
wi (f) = f
This functor is given in [60] with slightly different notation. If L is linear, then
wi ('1') is the indicated subbasis.
7.2.7. Corollary. Let M be a complete chain (which holds if C is a subcate-
gory of complete chains),
(f, ¢) E (SET x C) «X, L), (Y, M))
and '1', 6 be ordinary topologies on X, Y, respectively. Then f : (X, '1') -+ (Y, 6)
is continuous in TOP implies
(f,¢): (X,L,wi('r)) -+ (Y,M,WM(6))
is continuous in C-TOP k, where wi,wMare defined in 7.2.6; and the converse
holds if L is also a complete chain.
Proof. From Theorem 3.3(1,2) of [60] we have wi ('1') :::> G~ ('1') and wM(6) =
G~ (6), and this is enough to guarantee continuity of (f, ¢) from 7.2.3. 0
7.3 (Co-fuzzy) Dual real lines and unit intervals

The purpose of this subsection is twofpld: summarize the construction of the
duals of the fuzzy real lines and fuzzy unit intervals studied in [59-60]j char-
acterize morphisms between duals based on different underlying latticesj and
construct examples of non-homeomorphic morphisms between such duals.
These duals turn out to be lR and ][, respectively, equipped with a rich
inventory of canonical poslat topologies. It is the three-fold extension of the w
functor, resulting from combining [39] with [58-59], which allows us to apply
the preceding subsection in a surprising way to generate a rich store of variable-
basis morphisms between these duals, morphisms not possible in ordinary or
fixed-basis topology.
The key to constructing duals lies in building, on a product of two sets,
topologies which are not (usually) product topologies. Then we section such
a topology onto each set to create a topology on that set. The two sets, so
respectively equipped, become dual topological spaces. If a space is given, then
constructing its dual requires finding the second set, and the topology on the
product of the two sets, in such a way that when we section this topology back
to the first set, we recover the original topology on the first set. In this section,
we summarize the application of this method to lR(L) and ][ (L): this means
in the case for lR (L), we choose lR for the second set, construct a topology on
lR (L) x lR which then sections back to lR (L) to recover the canonical topology
T (L)j and it follows that the poslat topology induced on lR, denoted CD-T (L), is
that topology making lR into the dual space of lR (L), i.e. (lR (L) , L, T (L» and
(lR, L, CD-T (L» are dual spaces, the latter being the (co-fuzzy) dual real line.
It has already been shown in [59-60] that the duals of lR (L) and ][ (L) possess
such a wealth of important properties as to merit canonical status alongside
lR (L) and ][ (L). Finally, we remark that duals can be constructed for spaces
besides the fuzzy real lines and fuzzy unit intervals.
7.3.1. Construction of poslat duals. Fix L E ILOQMLI. Let T, X, .:J =

{j,J'Y be non-empty sets with X C LX and .:J C (LT) X. Now 'V x EX, 'V t E T,
put ui (x) = i'Y (x) (t). Then {ui}(t,'Y) C LX. Put
T:J = (({ui}(t,'Y»)
i.e. T:J is the L-topology on X with subbasis {ui}(t,'Y)' making (X,L,T:J) an
L-topological space called the (L-)poslat dual of T and write X = T (L). If
(T,~) E ITOPI, then (X =T(L),L,T:J) is the (L-)poslat topological dual
of (T,~) iff 3 injection h : T -+ X such that
(T:J)lh-+(T) = Gx. (~)

where (T:J)lh-+(T) is the subspace topology on the image of h (5.2.2), and Gx.
is the functor from 6.2.1(1). More generally, one can define topological duals
w.r.t. other functors from TOP to L-TOP.
372 S. E. Rodabaugh
7.3.2. Construction of dynamic duals. Let (X,L,r.:r) be a poslat topo-

logical dual of T as in 7.2.1, let (x, t) E X x T, put U-y (x, t) = ul (x), and
put
r/ (T) = (({U-y}-y))
Then r/
(T) is the L-topology on X x T with subbasis {U-Y}-y' and we speak of
(X x T,L,r/ (T)) as the dynamic dual of (X,L,r.:r): the members ofr/ (T)
are fuzzy subsets of X x T which can be interpreted as "time-dependent"-or
"dynamic" -fuzzy subsets of X if T (or t E T) represents time.
7.3.3. Construction of (co-fuzzy) duals. Let (X, L, r.:r) be a poslat topo-

logical dual of T as in 7.2.1, and (X x T, L, r/ (T)) be the dynamic dual of
(X,L,r.:r) as in 7.2.2. Fix x E Xj then 't/u E r/ (T), put U",: T ~ L by
u'" (t) = u (x, t)
It follows that
[r/ (T)]., == {u", : u E r/ (T)}
is an L-topology on T. Put
CD-r.:r = ((U {[r/ (T)]., : x EX}))

The space (T,L,CD-r.:r) is the (co-fuzzy) dual of (X,L,r.:r).
7.3.4. Interpretation of fuzzy real lines and construction of (co-fuzzy)

dual real lines. We now give a particular instantiation of 7.3.1-7.3.3 to give
an alternate description of the fuzzy real lines and thereby generate the co-fuzzy
real lines as the co-fuzzy duals of the fuzzy real lines. Fix L E IDQMLI, and
stipulate T = ~ X = JR (L )-re-interpreted, if necessary, as a subset of LJR
by injecting JR(L) onto a subset by mapping each equivalence class to its, say,
left-continuous member:
where
il[A] (t) = A' (t-) , h[A] (t) = A(H)
and 'r to be the usual topology on llt It can be shown that the subbasic members
of r.:r are as follows:
ui
= .ct , u~ = !)tt
This implies that r.:r has the same subbasis as r (L), i.e. the fuzzy real line
(JR(L),L,r(L)) == (X,L,r.:r)
is the poslat dual ofT == ~ and because of 7.1.3(1), the poslat topological dual
of (~ 'r). Now the fuzzy real line induces the dynamic dual
(JR(L) x ~ L, r/ (JR))
as in 7.3.2 as follows:
ri (JR) = (( {,c, !R}))

where
,c, !R: JR(L) x JR -t L
by
,c ([AJ, t) = ,ct[A] = A' (t-) , !R ([A], t) = !Rt[A] = A(H)
It follows that
ri (JR) = {J,.,,c,!R,,c t\ !R, ,c V!R, I}
This dynamic dual induces the (co-fuzzy) dual topology co-r (L) == co-r:J on
T == JR; and it can be shown that
co-r(L) = (({,c>.,!R>'}))[>,JElR(L)
precisely the obverse-or "dual" -of
It can be shown that (lR, L, co-r (L)) has virtually every "good" property pro-
posed for L-topological spaces providing the underlying L has appropriate prop-
erties [59]: e.g. if L E IHUTI, then this space is Erceg-metrizable with a metric
extending the Euclidean metric. Such "canonical" topologies on JR (and H) jus-
tify the constructions of 7.3.1-7.3.3.
7.3.4.1. Proposition (Basic properties of (co-fuzzy) duals). Let

L E IDQMLI and consider the usual real line (JR, 'I') and co-fuzzy dual real
line
(JR,L,co-r(L))
The following hold:
(1) G~ ('I') c co-r (L) (see 7.2.2);

(2) G~ ('I) = co-r (L) if L is a complete chain (see 7.2.2).
(3) (lR, L, co-r (L)) is (weakly-)stratified.
(4) G x ('I) C co-r(L), and "=" holds iff L = {..1, T} (see 6.2.1(1)).
(5) (JR,L,co-r(L)) maps onto Gx(JR,'I), and this morphism is a (poslat)

homeomorphism iff L = {..1, T}.
(6) For L = {..1, T}, (lR, 'I) is self-dual in the sense that G x (lR, 'I) is poslat
homeomorphic to each of the fuzzy real line (JR {..1, T}, {..1, T}, r {..1, T})
and the co-fuzzy dual real line (JR, {..1, T} ,co-r {..1, T}) .
374 S. E. Rodabaugh
Proof. For (1), Theorem 3.1.6 of [59]; for (2), Theorem 4.1(2) of [60]; and (3)
is immediate from (1). The first assertion of (4) holds since
VrE JR'£[>'rJ =X(r,+oo)' vt[,ArJ =X(-oo,r)
where [>'r] is defined in the proof of 7.1.3 above. For necessity of the second
assertion of (4), suppose G x ('I) :J co-r (L). Then invoking (1), we have
{g : 0: E L} c {1:., I}
which forces L = {..L, T}. Now sufficiency of the second assertion of (4) follows
immediately from (2) given L is a chain. The morphism for (5) is (id, id) :
(JR,L,co-r(L» -+ Gx(JR,'I)-its continuity comes from the first assertion of
(4), and the rest of (5) comes from the second assertion of (4). Finally, (6) is a
consequence of 7.1.3(2) and (5). 0
7.3.5. Definition (Subbasic notation and symmetrically-subbasic con-

tinuities for duals). The sub basic notation (7.1.4) and ground morphisms and
symmetric-sub basic continuities (7.1.5) for the fuzzy real lines and unit intervals
can be analogously defined for their duals. For example, we let 1£,A, 1vt,A, 2£,A,
2vt,A denote left-subbasic [right-subbasic, left-subbasic, right-subbasic] fuzzy sets
of the domain [co-domain, domain, co-domain, respectively] of a ground mor-
phism between dual spaces, and we let the respective collections of subba-
sic fuzzy sets be denoted l£eo, 1Reo, 2£eo, 2Reo. As in Subsection 7.1, ss-
continuity implies continuity (by 3.2.6). In the sequel, it is also natural to
consider left-right [right-left, mixed-symmetrically-] subbasic continu-
ity, respectively denoted lrs- [rls-, mss-] continuity, respectively defined by
e
the conditions ((1,cjJ)f-r-+ (2£) C 1R, ((1,cjJ)f-)-+ R ) c 1£, both the preced-
ing; and of course, mss-continuity also implies continuity.
7.3.6. Lemma (Characterization of ss-continuous morphisms between

duals). Let
(1, cjJ) : (JR, Ld -+ (JR, L 2 )
be a ground morphism in SET x LOQML. Then (1, cjJ) is ss-continuous iff
both the following statements hold:
(1) V [11] E JR(L2)' :J [>'] E JR(Ld, Vt E JR,
cjJ0p (11' ((1 (t» -» = >.' (t-)

(2) V [11] E JR(L2)' :J [>'] E JR(L1)' Vt E JR,
cjJ0p (11 ((1 (t» +» = >. (t+ )
And (1, cjJ) is mss-continuous iff both the following statements hold:
(3) V [JL] E JR(L2) , 3 [A] E JR(Ll) , \It E lR,
4J op (JL' «(f (t)) -)) = A(H)

(4) V [JL] E JR(L2) , 3 [A] E JR(Ld , Vt E lR,
4J op (JL «(f (t)) +)) = A' (t-)
Proof. As in the proof of 7.1.6, it suffices to show (1) {:} Is-continuity, (2) {:}
rs-continuity, (3) {:} Irs-continuity, (4) {:} rls-continuity; and we prove only the
first, the others being similar and/or simpler. Now the former bi-implication is
equivalent to saying:
«(f, 4J)+-)~ e.c co ) c l.c co {:}
V [JL] E JR(L2) , 3[A] E JR(Ll) , (f, 4J)+- e ,c[/-I)) = l,c[>,) (I)
and the condition of the right-hand side of I is equivalent to
(II)
The left-hand side of (II) reduces as follows:
(f, 4J)+- e,c[/-I)) (t) = 4Jop (2,c[/-I)(f (t)))

= 4Jop (JL' «(f (t)) -))
Since the right-hand side of II is A' (t-), this implies that the condition of II is
equivalent to
4Jop (JL' «(f (t)) -)) = A' (t-)
It now follows that (1) holds iff (f,4J) is Is-continuous. 0
7.3.7. Theorem (Classes of continuous morphisms between duals). Let

(f, 4J) : (lR, LI) -+ (JR, L 2 ) be a ground morphism in SET x LOQML. Then
the following hold:
(1) If f : JR -+ JR is continuous w.r.t. the usual topology on JR and order-

preserving with
f «+00)-) = +00, f «-00) +) =-00

then (f,4J) : (JR, L 1 , GO-r (Ld) -+ (JR, L 2, co-r (L 2)) is a continuous mor-
phism.
376 S. E. Rodabaugh
(2) IT 1 : JR -t JR is continuous w.r.t. the usual topology on JR and order-

reversing with
1«+00)-) =-00,/«-00)+) = +00

then (f,r/J) : (lR,L 1 ,CD-r(LI) -t (JR,L 2,CD-r(L2» is a continuous mor-
phism.
Proof. We first note for the 1 of (1) and each [v] E JR(L2) that
v «(f(t»-) =v(f(t-», v«(f(t»+) =v(f(t+»
and similarly for the 1 of (2) and each [v] E JR(L2) that
v «(f (t» -) == v (f (t+», v «(f (t» +) = v (f (t-»
v' «(f (t» -) = v' (f (t+», v' «(f (t» +) = v' (f (t-»
Now the proof of (1) is similar and simpler than that of (2), so we prove (2);
and for (2), it suffices to satisfy 7.3.6(3,4). To that end let [J.Ll E JR(L2) , and
for (3) choose
A = r/J0P 0 J.L' 0 1
It can be checked that A : JR -t Ll satisfies the required conditions of 7.1.1
above, so that [A] E JR(LI). Now letting t E JR, we obtain the left-hand side of
the condition of 7.3.6(3):
r/J0P(J.L'«(f(t»-» = r/J0P(J.L'(f(t+)))
= A(t+)
As for (4), the proof is analogous to that of (3), but choosing
A = (r/J0P 0 J.L 0 I)'
The details are left to the reader. 0
7.3.7.1. Corollary. (lR,L 1 ,co-r(LI) is homeomorphic to (lR,L2,co-r(L 2» in

C-TOPk iff Ll ~ L2 in DQML (5.1.1 above).
7.3.8. Theorem (Another class of continuous morphisms between

duals). Let '!' be the usual topology on JR, let 1 : (lR, '!') -t (lR, '!') be con-
tinuous in TOP, and let (f,r/J) : (lR,LI) -t (lR,L 2) be a ground morphism in
SET x LOQML with Ll arbitrary in DQML and L2 a complete chain. Then
is a continuous morphism in C-TOP k.

Proof. Note from 7.3.4.1 (1) that at

l ('I) C CD-T (Ld and from 7.3.4.1(2) that
Gt 2 ('I) = CD-T (L2)' This is enough to guarantee the continuity of (I, ¢l) from
7.2.3. (Cf. proof of 7.2.7.) 0
7.3.9. Specific examples of continuous morphisms between (co-fuzzy)

duals.
(I, ¢l) : (lR, L, COoT (L)) -t (JR, M, COoT (M))
is continuous in C-TOP k if we make the following instantiations of 7.3.7 and/or
7.3.8 above:
(1) Let L == L 2 , M == L 1 , ¢lop == 1jJ : L +- M as constructed in 7.1.7.2 above

with any f : (lR, 'I) -t (lR, 'I) continuous in TOP.
(2) Let L, M be arbitrary from DQML with f (x) = x3 or f (x) = 1 - x 5 •
(3) Put M = [0,1] with the usual ordering, involution, and tensor product
(A). Construct L as a two-sided continuous diamond (cf. [60]) by
°
identifying two disjoint copies of [0,1], denoted lIz and lIr (for "left copy"
and "right copy") precisely at and 1: lIz and lIr are the sides, the partial
order is defined by saying a ::::; (3 in L iff a, (3 are on the same side and
a ::::; (3 in 1I, and the involution is defined by saying
- { a~I == 1- a r , a
a ,_ = a r E lIr
al == 1 - ai, a = al E lIz
Choosing ® = A makes L into an object of DQML. Put ¢lop: L +- M by
¢lop «(3) = (3r. Then ¢l E DQMLoP (L, M). Now let f : (JR, 'I) -t (lR, 'I) be
any continuous map in TOP, e.g. f (x) = sinx.
(4) For a discrete version of (2), let M = {O, 1/2, 1} with the usual order-
ing, involution, and tensor product (A). And let L = {O, a, (3,1}, where
{O, a, 1} is the left-side of L isomorphic to M, and {O, (3,1} is the right-side
of L isomorphic to M. Proceed now as in (2).
(5) Let M = {1., T} and L = {..L, a, (3, T} be Boolean algebras, with L
equipped with the Boolean complementation as its involution. In each
case ® = A. Put ¢lop: L +- M by ¢lop (1.) = 1. and ¢lop (T) = T. Now
proceed as in (2).
7.3.10. Remark (Other specific examples). Tying poslat topologies on

JR to those of the fuzzy real lines yields big dividends in terms of richness of
canonical properties. But it exacts a price in terms of the lattice-theoretic
components of the morphisms in C-TOPk preserving the involution. One way
out is to replace CD-T (L), which requires the involution, with at
('I) which
makes no special requirements of the lattice-the motivation being that the
378 s. E. Rodabaugh
two coincide for chains in DQML. This generates from 7.2.3 a whole class of
examples not contained in the classes considered above. Consider the following
application of 7.2.3: let L, M both be [0,1] with the usual ordering and tensor
product. Put
¢op : L f- M by ¢oP (0) = 0 2
and let f : (JR, 'I) -+ (JR, 'I) be any continuous map in TOP:
(1) Then (f, ¢) : (JR, L, G~ ('I)) -+ (JR, M, G~ ('I)) is continuous in C-TOPk
whenever f : (JR, 'I) -+ (JR, 'I) is a continuous map in TOP.
(2) (f, ¢) : (JR, L, G~ ('I)) -+ (JR, M, G~ ('I)) is a C-TOP k isomorphism (or
homeomorphism) whenever f : (JR, 'I) -+ (JR, 'I) is a homeomorphism in
TOP (since ¢op is a CQML isomorphism).
7.3.11. Remark. There are analogous classes of examples when one considers
the duals of the fuzzy unit intervals or combinations of the duals of fuzzy real
lines with duals of fuzzy unit intervals.
7.3.12. Remark. To sum up, all continuous, real-valued functions of a real

variable are included in the above classes of examples, all fixed-basis morphisms
on the real line as a poslat dual space, plus a variety of classes of variable-basis
morphisms considerably richer than those currently known on the fuzzy real
lines. In particular, the claims of both (1) and (2) of the opening paragraphs
of this section have been fulfilled in the case of the real line and unit interval
as co-fuzzy duals of the fuzzy real line and fuzzy unit interval. The point is
that poslat topology and variable-basis topology significantly enrich traditional
topology w.r.t. morphims.
7.4 Soberifications of spaces with different underlying

bases
The purpose of this section is twofold: adapt the L-sober topological spaces of
[56,62-65,68] for L E ISFRMI to the more general case for L E ICQMLI using
ideas from [57]; and then characterize and show the existence of continuous, non-
homeomorphic morphisms in LOQML-TOP between soberifications having
different underlying bases. The key ideas from [57] are the following, stated in
rough terms:
(1) If a certain property is required of a "point" on a lattice-theoretic struc-

ture, then an analogous property passes through to the evaluation map
defined on that lattice-theoretic structure.
(2) If the evaluation map on a lattice-theoretic structure has a certain prop-
erty, then the structure induced on the range (or image) of that map
inherits an analogous property.
In the sequel, we let C be a subcategory of LOQML. Technical details of

proofs for 7.4.1-7.4.3 et sequens are as in [64] and are therefore omitted.
7.4.1. Construction of C-TOP objects from C objects. Let A E Ie! and

fix L E ICQMLI. Put
Lpt(A) = CQML (A,L)
These are called the L-points of A and comprise all maps from A to L preserving
18), arbitrary V, and I. On the L-powerset of Lpt(A) we define the "Stone"
separation map ~ L as follows:
~L : A --+ LLpt(A) by ~L(p)(a) = p(a)

Then it can be shown that ~ L preserves 18), arbitrary V, and T, where these are
inhertied by the codomain of ~L from L. It can now be shown that ~J: (A) is
closed under these operations and hence is an L-topology on Lpt(A). Thus we
have
A I--t (Lpt(A) , L, ~J: (A))
where the latter is an L-topological space; so we put
LPT (A) = (Lpt(A),L, ~J: (A))
7.4.2. Construction of C-TOP morphisms from C morphisms. Contin-

uing from 7.4.1, let f : A --+ B in C, i.e. fOP : A +-- B in coP. We define
Lpt (1) : Lpt(A) --+ Lpt(B)
by
Lpt(1)(P) = po r p
Then setting
LPT (1) = (Lpt (1) ,id)
it can be proved that LPT (1) : LPT (A) --+ LPT (B) is continuous, i.e. a
morphism in C-TOP. Then together with 7.4.1 we have the functor LPT : C-
TOP (L, id) +-- C.
7.4.3. Construction of the adjunct ions LO -j LPT. Put
LO : C-TOP(L, id) --+ C
as follows:
LO (X,L,7) =7
LO (1 : (Xl, L1. 71) --+ (X2' L 2, 72)) = ((1, idtfP : 71 --+ 72
380 S. E. Rodabaugh
Then it can be proved that LO ., LPT with counit (~L t P and unit (w L, id),
where the latter is an evaluation map defined by
WL : (X, L, T) -t LPT (T) == (Lpt(T) , L, ~r: (T)), WL (x) (u) = u (x)
The unit is continuous, open w.r.t. its range viewed as a subobject (Section 5),
an embedding iff (X, L, T) is L-To, and a categorical isomorphism (Section 5) iff
(X, L, T) is L-soberj the counit is an isomorphism iff it is injective iff its domain
is L-spatial. (Cf. [64, 65, 68].) It follows that this adjunction restricts to the
equivalence of categories
SOB:C-TOP(L, id) >:::: LSPAT:C
It is now our purpose to construct continuous, non-homeomorphisms be-

tween spaces of the form LPT(A) and MPT(B) for possibly different Land
M from C to indicate the richness of morphisms in C-TOP. We begin with the
following definition and characterization.
7.4.4. Defnition. Let Let A, B be objects in C and let
(f, ¢» : (Lpt(A) , L) -t (Mpt(B), M)

be a ground morphism in SET x C. Then for 9 : A f- B a mapping in SET,
(f, ¢» is g-indexed-continuous iff Vb E B, (f, ¢» +- (~M ( b)) = ~ L (g (b)) j and
(f, ¢» is indexed-continuous if it is g-indexed continuous when A = Band
9 = idA.
7.4.4.1. Remark. Note that g-indexed-continuity, and hence indexed-contin-
uity, imply continuity.
7.4.5. Lemma (Characterization of C-TOP morphisms between

soberifications). Let A, B be objects in C and let
(f, ¢» : (Lpt(A), L) -t (Mpt(B), M)
be a ground morphism in SET x C. Then the following hold:
(1) (f, ¢» : LPT(A) -t MPT(B) is continuous iff
VbEB, 3aEA, VpELpt(A), (¢>oPoj(p))(b)=p(a)
(2) If 9 : A f- B is a mapping in SET, then (f, ¢» : LPT(A) -t MPT(B) is

g-indexed-continuous iff
VpE Lpt(A), ¢>oPoj(p) =pog
(3) If A = B, then (f, ¢» : LPT(A) -t MPT(B) is indexed-continuous iff

Vp E Lpt(A), ¢>op 0 j (p) =p
Proof. Since (3) is a corollary of (2), and the proof of (2) can be obtained from
the proof of (1), we prove only (1). For (1), let b E Band p E Lpt (A), and note
(f,¢)t- (IPM (b)) (p) = (¢OP 0 IPM (b) 0 f) (P)

¢op (IPM (b) (J (p)))
= ¢OP(J(p)) (b)
Now (f, ¢) is continuous iff Vv E IPM (B), 3u E IP:L (A), (J, ¢)t- (v) = u,
which is the case iff Vb E B, 3a E A, Vp E Lpt(A), (J,¢)t-(IPM(b))(P) =
(IP L (a)) (P). But this latter condition holds iff ¢op (J (P)) (b) = p (a). The claim
of (1) follows. 0
7.4.6 Theorem (Continuous morphisms between soberifications).

Let g : A -+ B in LOQML.
(1) Let'l/J : L -+ M be an embedding in CQML preserving arbitrary /\, and

f : Lpt(A) -+ Mpt(B) by
f(P)='l/JopogOP
Then (J, (*'l/J)OP) : LPT (A) -+ MPT (B) is a continuous morphism in

LOQML-TOP iff *'l/J preserves 0 and T.
(2) Let 'l/J : L -+ M be an embedding in CQML, and f : Lpt(A) -+ Mpt(B)
by
f(p) = 'l/J 0 p 0 gOP
Then (J, ('l/J*t P) : LPT (A) -+ MPT (B) is a continuous morphism in
SLOC-TOP iff'l/J* preserves V.
7.4.6.1. Corollary.
(1) Both of 7.4.6(1,2) hold with A = Band 9 = id.

(2) Given A E ICQMLI, then LPT (A) is homeomorphic to MPT (A) iff
L e:: M.
Proof. Note (2) follows from 5.1.1, 7.1(5), and [7.4.6(1) or 7.4.6(2)]. 0
7.4.6.2. Applications of 7.4.6.
(1) Choose A = Band 9 = id, and let L, M and 'l/J be the lattices and mor-
phism constructed in 7.1.7.2. Then (J, (*'l/JtP) : LPT (A) -+ MPT (A)
and (J, ('l/J*t P) : LPT (A) -+ MPT (A) are morphisms in SLOC-TOP,
neither of which are homeomorphisms.
382 S. E. Rodabaugh
(2) By MeBner's theorem [50], JR(L) is homeomorphic to LPT(r (L)) iff L

is a complete Boolean algebra. So for the lattices of 7.1.7.2, we have
JR(L) is not homeomorphic to LPT(r (L)) and JR(M) is not homeomor-
phic to MPT(r (M)). Thus the point spaces LPT(r (L)), MPT(r (L)),
LPT(r (M)), MPT(r (M)) are of interest. And it follows that there are
non-homeomorphic morphisms between LPT(r (L)) and MPT(r (L)), as
well as non-homeomorphic morphisms between LPT(r (M)) and
MPT(r (M)). Furthermore, LPT(r (L)) and MPT(r (M)) are non-ho-
meomorphic, as are LPT(r(M)) and MPT(r(L)).
(3) For each 'lj; : L -t M in CQML, with L non-Boolean and M Boolean
and 'lj; satisfying the conditions of 7.4.6(1) [7.4.6(2)], there is a non-ho-
meomorphic continuous morphism from JR (L) to JR (M) of the following
shape:
(WM,id)-l 0 (1, (*'lj;tP) 0 (WL,id)
[(WM,id)-l 0 (1, ('lj;*)OP) 0 (WL,id)]
respectively, where f is defined as in 7.4.6(1) [7.4.6(2)]. This is a conse-
quence of 7.4.6 and (2) above.
Proof of 7.4.6. We prove (1), leaving (2) to the reader. Now necessity is
identical to that of the proof of 7.1.7(1) and is not given. For sufficiency, the
reader can verify that f : Lpt (A) -t Mpt (B) is well-defined. We are to show
that
(1, (*'lj;tP) : LPT (A) -t MPT (A)
is gOP-indexed-continuous by satisfying the condition of 7.4.5(2); then by 7.4.4.1
we will be able to conclude that (1, (*'lj;t P) is continuous. To satisfy the condi-
tion of 7.4.5(2), let p E Lpt (A). Our goal is to verify
*'lj; 0 f (p) = po gOP
Let bE B. Applying Lemma 7.lA(2)(b), we have
*'lj; (1 (p) (b)) *'lj; ('lj; (p (gOP (b))))

p(gOP(b)) 0
8 Acknowledgements
For generous and hospitable support of this research, grateful appreciation is
expressed to the following institutions and individuals: Youngstown State Uni-
versity, which granted me a sabbatical for the 1995-1996 academic year in par-
tial support for this research, and my chair Prof. J. J. Buoni; University of the
Basque Country (Bilbao), Prof. M. A. dePrada Vicente and Dr. J. Guttierez,

and their graduate students; the Foundation for Research Development (FRD)
of South Africa, and Prof. W. Kotze and Dr. M. H. Burton, faculty and staff,
and graduate students of Rhodes University (Grahamstown); Bergische Univer-
sit at (Wuppertal) and Prof. U. Hohle, who also gave many helpful criticisms
of this work; and especially my wife Cathy and daughters Rachel, Hannah, and
Julia for their selfless support.
References
[1] J. Adamek, H. Herrlich, and G. E. Strecker, Abstract and Concrete Cate-
gories,( J. Wiley & Sons, New York 1990).
[2] C. L. Chang, Fuzzy topology, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 24 (1968), 182-190.
[3] C. H. Dowker and D. Papert-StrauB, On Uryson's lemma, General Topol-

ogy and its Relations to Modern Analysis II (1967), 111-114, Academia,
Prague.
[4] C. H. Dowker and D. Papert-StrauB, Para compact frames and closed maps,
Symposia Math. 16 (1975), 93-116.
[5] P. Eklund, Category theoretic properties of fuzzy topology, Fuzzy Sets and
Systems 13 (1984), 303-310.
[6] P. Eklund, A comparison of lattice-theoretic approaches to fuzzy topology,

Fuzzy Sets and Systems 19(1986) , 81-87.
[7] P. Eklund, Categorical Fuzzy Topology, 1986, Ph.D. Thesis (Abo Akademi,
Abo (Turku, Finland».
[8] M. Erceg, Metric spaces in fuzzy set theory, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 69
(1979), 205-230.
[9] M. Erceg, Functions, equivalence relations, quotient spaces, and subsets in
fuzzy set theory, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 3 (1980), 75-92.
[10] M. Fourman and D. Scott, Sheaves and logic, Lecture Notes in Mathemat-
ics 753, 302-401 (Springer-Verlag, Berlin 1979).
[11] J. L, Frith, Structured frames, 1987, Ph.D. Thesis (University of Cape
Town, Cape Town ( Southafrica».
[12] T. E. Gantner, R. C. Steinlage, and R. H. Warren, Compactness in fuzzy

topological spaces, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 62 (1978), 547-562.
[13] G. Gerla, Generalized fuzzy points, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 120 (1986),
761-768.
384 S. E. Rodabaugb
[14] G. Gierz et ai, A Compendium of Continuous Lattices (Springer-Verlag,

Berlin 1980).
[15] J. A. Goguen, L-fuzzy sets, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 18 (1967), 145-167.
[16] J. A. Goguen, The fuzzy Tychonoff Theorem, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 43

(1973), 734-742.
[17] H. Herrlich and G. E. Strecker, Category Theory, Sigma Ser. Pure Math.
Vol. 1 (Heldermann Verlag, Berlin 1979).
[18] U. Hahle, Probabilistische Topologien, Manuscripta Math. 26 (1978), 223-

245.
[19] U. Hahle, Uppersemicontinuous fuzzy sets and applications, J. Math. Anal.

Appl. 78 (1980), 659-673.
[20] U. Hahle, Compact fS-fuzzy topological spaces, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 13
(1984), 39-63.
[21] U. Hahle, Fuzzy topologies and topological space objects in a topos, Fuzzy
Sets and Systems 19 (1986), 299-304.
[22] U. Hahle and A. P. Sostak, A general theory of fuzzy topological spaces,
[23] U. Hahle and A. Sostak, Axiomatic foundations of fixed-basis fuzzy topol-

ogy (Chapter 3 in this Volume).
[24] B. Hutton, No"";ality in fuzzy topological spaces, J. Math. Anal. Appl.

50 (1975), 74-79.

59-67.
[26] B. Hutton and I. Reilly, Separation axioms in fuzzy topological spaces,

[27] J. Isbell, Atomless parts of spaces, Scand. Math. 31 (1972), 5-32.
[28] P. T. Johnstone, Stone Spaces (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

1982).
[29] A. J. Klein, a-Closure in fuzzy topology, Rocky Mount. J. Math. 11

(1981), 553-560.
[30] A. J. Klein, Generating fuzzy topologies with semi-closure operators, Fuzzy

[31] A. J. Klein, Generalizing the L-fuzzy unit interval, Fuzzy Sets and Systems
12 (1984), 271-279.
[32] W. Kotze, Lattice morphisms, sobriety, and Urysohn Lemmas, in [70].

[33] W. Kotze, Uniform spaces (Chapter 8 in this Volume).
[34] W. Kotze and T. Kubiak, Fuzzy topologies of Scott continuous junctions
and their relationship to the hypergraph junctor, Quaestiones Mathemati-
cae 15 (1992), 175-187.
[35] W. Kotze and T. Kubiak, Inserting L-juzzy-real-valued junctions, Math.
Nachricht. 164 (1993),5-11.
[36] T. Kubiak, Extending continuous L-real valued junctions, Math. Japon.
31 (1986), 875-887.
[37] T. Kubiak, L-juzzy normal spaces and Tiezte Extension Theorem, J. Math.
Anal. Appl. 125 (1987), 141-153.
[38] T. Kubiak, The juzzy unit interval and the Helly space, Math. Japonica
33 (1988), 253-259.
[39] T. Kubiak, The topological modification of the L-juzzy unit interval, in
[70].
[40] T. Kubiak, On L- Tychonoff spaces, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 73(1995),
25-53.
[41] T. Kubiak, Separation axioms: extension of mappings and embedding of
[42] R. Lowen, Fuzzy topological spaces and juzzy compactness, J. Math. Anal.
Appl. 56 (1976), 621-633.
[43] R. Lowen, On the Existence of Natural Non-Topological Spaces ( Helder-
mann Verlag, Berlin 1985).
[44] R. Lowen and P. Wuyts, Concerning the constants in juzzy topology, J.
Math. Anal. Appl. 129 (1988), 256-268.
[45] Liu Ying-Ming and Luo Mao-Kang, Localic Tietze extension theorem (to
appear).
[46] Liu Ying-Ming and Luo Mao-Kang, Fuzzy Topology, 1997, World Scientific
Publishing, Singapore.
[47] Luo Mao-Kang, personal communication (Seminar at Youngstown State
University, Youngstown, Ohio (USA), September 1995).
[48] S. Mac Lane, Categories for the Working Mathematician(Springer-Verlag,
Berlin 1974).
[49] H. W. Martin, Weakly induced juzzy topological spaces, J. Math. Anal.
Appl. 78 (1980),634-639.
386 S. E. Rodabaugh
[50] G. H. J. MeBner (Draft of Ph.D. thesis, 1987, Johannes Kepler Universitat

(Linz, Austria)).
[51] D. Papert and S. Papert, Sur les treillis des ouverls et les paratopologies,
Seminaire Ehresmann (topologie et geometrie differentielle), Ire annee
(1957-1958), expose 1.
[52] Pu Bao-Ming and Liu Ying-Ming, Fuzzy topology I, J. Math. Anal. Appl.
76 (1980), 571-599; Fuzzy topology II, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 77 (1980),
20-37.
[53] S. E. Rodabaugh, A categorical accommodation of various notions of fuzzy

topology, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 9 (1983),241-165.
[54] S. E. Rodabaugh, Separation axioms and the L-fuzzy real lines, Fuzzy Sets
and Systems 11 (1983), 163-183.
[55] S. E. Rodabaugh, Complete fuzzy topological hyperjields and fuzzy multipli-

cation in the fuzzy real lines, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 15 (1985), 285-310.
[56] S. E. Rodabaugh, A point-set lattice-theoretic framework 'IT' for topol-

ogy which contains LOC as a subcategory of singleton subspaces and in
which there are general classes of Stone Representation and Compactijica-
tion Theorems, First printing February 1986, Second printing April 1987,
Youngstown State University Printing Office (Youngstown, Ohio(USA)).
[57] S. E. Rodabaugh, Realizations of events, points of a locale, and the Stone

Representation Theorem, Communications of the IFSA Mathematics
Chapter 1 (1987), 28-33.
[58] S. E. Rodabaugh, A theory of fuzzy uniformities with applications to the
fuzzy real lines, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 129 (1988), 37-70.
[59] S. E. Rodabaugh, Dynamic topologies and their applications to crisp to-

pologies, fuzzijication of crisp topologies, and fuzzy topologies on the crisp
real line, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 131 (1988), 25-66.
[60] S. E. Rodabaugh, Lowen, para-Lowen, and a.-level functors and fuzzy

topologies on the crisp real line, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 131 (1988), 157-
169.
[61] S. E. Rodabaugh, Functor categories in po slat topology, Abstracts of the

Fifth International Congress on Topology (17-21 September 1990, Lecce-
Otranto, Italy), University of Leece (Leece, Italy).
[62] S. E. Rodabaugh, Point-set lattice-theoretic topology, Fuzzy Sets and Sys-
tems 40 (1991), 297-345.
[63] S. E. Rodabaugh, Necessity of Chang-Goguen topologies, Rendiconti Cir-
colo Matematico Palermo (Suppl: Serie II) 29 (1992), 299-314.
[64J S. E. Rodabaugh, Categorical frameworks for Stone Representation The-

orems, in [70J.
[65J S. E. Rodabaugh, Applications of localic separation axioms, compactness

axioms, representations, and compactifications to poslat topological spaces,
[66J S. E. Rodabaugh, Powerset operator based foundation for point-set lattice-

theoretic (poslat) fuzzy-set theories and topologies, Quaestiones Mathemat-
icae 20(3) (1997), 463-530.
[67J S. E. Rodabaugh, Powerset operator foundations for poslat fuzzy set the-
ories and topologies (Chapter 2 in this Volume).
[68J S. E. Rodabaugh, Representations, compactifications, and compactness

and low-level separation axioms for poslat topology (Chapter 7 in this Vol-
ume).
[69J S. E. Rodabaugh, Fuzzy real lines and dual real lines as po slat topological,
uniform, and metric ordered semirings with unity (Chapter 10 in this
Volume).
[70J S. E. Rodabaugh, E. P. Klement, and U. H6hle, Applications of Category

Theory to Fuzzy Subsets (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Bosten
1992).
[71J M. E. Rudin (Personal communication, 1983).
[72J V. N. Salir, Lattices with Unique Complements, Trans. of Math. Mono.

69 (1988).
[73] A. P. Sostak, A fuzzy modification of a linearly ordered space, ColI. Math.

Soc. Janos Bolyai: Topology and Appl. 41 (1983), 581-604.
[74] A. P. Sostak, A fuzzy modification of the category of linearly ordered spaces,

Comm. Math. Univ. Carol. 26 (1985),421-442.
[75] A. P. Sostak, On a fuzzy topological structure, Rendiconti Circolo Matem-

atico Palermo (Suppl: Serie II) 11(1985) 89-103.
[76J A. P. Sostak, On compacteness and connectedness degrees of fuzzy sets in

fuzzy topological spaces, in: General Topology and its Relation to Modern
Analysis and Algebra: Proceedings of the Fifth Prague Topology Sympo-
sium, 519-532 (Heldermann Verlag, Berlin 1988).
[77] A. P. Sostak, On a category for fuzzy topology, Zb. Radova Univ. u Nisu
(Ser. Math.) 2 (1988), 61-67.
[78J A. P. Sostak, Two decades of fuzzy topology: basic ideas, notions, and
results, Russian Math. Surveys 44:6 (1989), 125-186.
388 S. E. Rodabaugh
[79] R. H. Warren, Neighborhoods, bases, and continuity in fuzzy topological

spaces, Rocky Mtn. J. Math. 8 (1978),459-470.
[80] C. K. Wong, Fuzzy topology: product and quotient theorems, J. Math.

Anal. Appl. 45 (1974), 512-521.
[81] L. A. Zadeh, Fuzzy sets, Information and Control 8 (1965),338-353.
CHAPTER 5
Characterization Of L-Topologies By
L-Valued Neighborhoods
U. HORLE
Introd uction
It is well known that L-topologies can be characterized by L-neighborhood sys-
tems (d. Subsection 6.1 in [14]). The aim ofthis paper is to give a characteriza-
tion of a subclass of L-topologies by crisp systems of L-valued neighborhoods.
This subclass consists of stratified and transitive L-topologies and covers simul-
taneously probabilistic L-topologies and [O,l]-topologies determined by fuzzy
neighborhood spaces. We present this characterization depending on the struc-
ture of the underlying lattice L. In the case of probabilistic L-topologies it is
remarkable to see that the structure of complete MV -algebras (d. [2, 12]) is
sufficient, while in all other case the complete distributivity of the underlying
lattice L seems to be essential. Further, if L is given by the real unit interval
[0, 1], then the Booleanization of [0, l]-topologies corresponding to fuzzy neigh-
borhood spaces exists. Hence fuzzy neighborhood spaces can be chararcterized
by two different types of many valued neighborhoods - namely by Booelan
valued neighborhoods or by [O,l]-valued neighborhoods as the name "fuzzy
neighborhood space" suggests (cf. Remark 3.17, Proposition 5.1). Moreover,
[O,l]-fuzzifying topologies and [O,l]-topologies of fuzzy neighborhood spaces
are equivalent concepts. Finally, we underline the interesting fact that a special
class of stratified and transitive, [0, l]-topological spaces is induced by Menger
spaces which form an important subclass of probabilistic metric spaces (cf. Ex-
ample 5.6).
The paper is organized as follows: After some lattice-theoretic prerequisites
we present an L-valued filter theory (cf. Section 2) which plays a significant role
in the characterization of stratified and transitive L-topologies by crisp systems
of L-valued neighborhoods (cf. Theorem 3.8 and Theorem 3.9). In Section 4

390 U. Hohle
we discuss some categorical properties of stratified and transitive, L-topological

spaces - e.g. the fact that in the case of completely distributive lattices stratified
and transitive L-topological spaces form a category which is isomorphic to a
bireflective subcategory of the category of probabilistic L-topological spaces.
Finally, in Section 5 we collect some special [0, I)-topological results.
1 Lattice-theoretic prerequisites
1.1 A triple (L,~, *) is called a strictly two-sided, commutative quantale (cf.
[25]) iff (L,~, *) satifies the following conditions
(LI) (L,~) is a complete lattice.
(L2) (L, *) is a commutative semigroup.
(L3) The universal upper bound T is the unit element w.r.t. *.
(L4) * is distributive over arbitrary joins -i.e. (H (V ieI (3i) = VieI (0: *(3i) .
In any (commutative) quantale the self-mapping ). "-+ 0: *). has a right adjoint
map 0: --+ _. In particular 0: --+ (3 is given by
A strictly two-sided, commutative quantale is called a MV-algebra iff (L,~, *)

satisfies the important additional property
(MV) (0: --+ (3) --+ (3 = 0: V (3 '10:,(3 E L .
1.2 Let (L,~) be a partially ordered set. A semi-ideal in (L, ~) is a non empty
subset I of L provided with the property
o:~(3,(3EI ==> o:EI.
A semi-filter in (L,~) is a semi-ideal in (L, ~OP) where ~op denotes the dual
(resp. opposite) partial ordering on L. If (L,~) is a completely distributive
lattice, then for every x E L there exists a unique semi-ideal I(x) satisfying
the following conditions (cf. [23]):
(II) x < V I(x) .
(12) If I is a semi-ideal with x ~ V I ,then I(x) ~ I .
By virtue of the principle of duality the complete distributivity implies also
that for every x E L there exists a unique semi-filter F(x) provided with the
subsequent properties
(FI) AF(x) < x .
(F2) If F is a semi-filter with AF ~ x, then F(x) ~ F .
L-Valued neighborhoods 391
Lemma 1.1 Let (L,~) be a completely distributive lattice and (L,~, *) be a

complete MV -algebra. Further let x ELand .L be the universal lower bound
in (L, ~). Then the following relations are valid
(i) F(x) = {(€ -+ .L) -+ x I € E F(.L)}
(ii) I(x) = {(€ -+ .L) * x I € E F(.L)} .
Proof. (a) We show that F", := {(€ -+ .L) -+ x I € E F(.L)} is a semi-
filter. Let us consider € E F(.L) and the situation (€ -+ .L) -+ x ~ >. . Then
€' defined by
€' = «€ -+ .L) -+ (>. -+ x» -+ €
is an element of F(.L). Now we invoke the property (MV), the divisibility
and the algebraic strong de Morgan law of MV-algebras (cf. Proposition 2.3,
Lemma 2.5 in [12]) and obtain
(€' -+ .L) -+ x = (€ -+.L) * «€ -+.L) -+ (>. -+ x») -+x
= (€ -+.L) t\ (>. -+ x») -+ x
= «€ -+ .L) -+ x) V «>. -+ x) -+ x)
= (€ -+ .L) -+ x) V>. V x >..

(b) Because of
1\ (€ -+ .L) -+ x = (V (€ -+ .L») -+ x = X
lEF(..L) lEF(..L)
we infer from (F2) that F(x) is a subset of F",. On the other hand, since in any
complete MV-algebra the semigroup operation * is distributive over arbitrary
meets (cf. Theorem 5.2 in [12]), the relation .L = A{>'* (x -+ .L) I >. E F(x)}
holds. Now we apply again (F2) and obtain
'if € E F(.L) 3>' E F(x): >. * (x -+.L) ~ €
Referring again to (MV) it is easy to see that the equivalence
holds; hence F", is contained in F(x).

(c) By virtue of the principle of duality the assertion (ii) follows from(i).
o
Lemma 1.2 Let (L,~) be a completely distributive lattice and (L,~, *) be a
complete MV -algebra. Further let 7'::; be the interval topology on L (i. e. the
coarsest (ordinary) topology on L s.t. each order interval [a,,Bl is closed). Then
the following assertions hold:
392 U. Hoble
(a) (L, T~) is a compact Hausdorff space.

(b) For every € E F(.L) the order interval [x* (€ -+.L) , (€ -+ .L) -+ x] is
a neighborhood of x w.r.t. T~.
Proof. The interval topology is compact on any complete lattice (cf. p.250 in
[3]). Further we fix x E L. For each 0: E L with x 1:. 0: we choose an element
(3a E L with (3a 1:. 0:. Then we obtain: x $ V{(3a I x 1:. o:}; hence the
complete distributivity of (L, $) implies
x = V (/\ {(3 I (3 1:. 0: } ) (0)

{a,xia}
By virtue of the principle of duality we obtain also
x = /\ (V {(3 I 0: 1:. (3} ) . (0')

{a, aix}
Because of (0) and (0') the interval topology is Hausdorff separated 1 . More-
over, we combine Lemma 1.1 with (0) and (0') and obtain that for every
€ E F(.L) there exist elements 61 ,62 E L provided with the following property
hence the assertion (b) is also verified.

o
Theorem 1.3 Let (L, $) be a completely distributive lattice, (L, $, *) be a
complete MV -algebra, and let X be a non empty set. Then for every map
f : X I----t L and for every € E F(..L) there exists a map g. : X I----t L
satisfying the following conditions
(i) The range g.(X) of g. is a finite subset of L .
(ii) g.(x) * (€ -+ ..L) < f(x) < g.(x) 'Vx EX.
Proof. We infer from Axiom (12) and the algebraic strong de Morgan law (cf.
Lemma 2.4 in [12]) that for every element € E F(..L) there exists 6 E F(.L) such
that € -+.L $ (6 -+ ..L) * (6 -+ .L) . Since (L,T~) is a compact topological
space, we are in the position to choose a finite subset {Xl, ... , x n } of L such
that the following relation holds (cf. Assertion (b) in Lemma 1.2):
n
L = U[Xi * (6 -+ .L) , (6 -+ .L) -+ Xi]
i=l
Further let f : X -+ L be a map; then we define a partition {Ai Ii = 1, ... , n}

in X as follows
IThe Hausdorff separation axiom holds already in hypercontinuous lattices (cf. p. 167 in
[6]).
f-1([X1 * (6 --+ .1), (6 --+ .1) --+ xI]

= f-1([Xi * (6 --+ .1), (6 --+ .1) --+ Xi] nc(
i01 [Xj * (6 --+ .1) , (6 --+ .1) --+ Xj]))

j=l
, i::::: 2.
Now we introduce a map gE : X I---t L by:
gE(X) = (6 --+ .1) --+ Xi , whenever x E Ai (1:::; i :::; n)
Obviously f :::; gE· Further, for every x E Ai we observe
gE(X) * (f(x) --+ .1) <

< (6 --+ .1) --+ 6) < ,
€ .
hence the inequality gE * (€ --+.1) :::; f(x) follows.

o
2 L-Filters in the case of (L, <,1\, *)

Let (L,:::;, *) be a complete MV -algebra and X be a non empty set. Then the
operations in L can be extended pointwise to LX. In particular, LX can also be
viewed as a complete MV -algebra. Further we use the following notation: lA
is always the ordinary characteristic function of a subset A of X; the constant
map from X to L determined by a E L is denoted by a· Ix.
In the case of ® = 1\ we recall the notion of a stratified L-filter (cf. Def-
inition 6.1.4 in [14]): A map v : LX I---t L is called a stratified L-filter on X
iff v fulfills the following axioms:
(FO) v(1x) = T.
(Fl) iI :::; 12 =} v(fd :::; v(12) .

(F2) v(iI) 1\ v(12) < v(iI 1\ h) .
(F3) v(10) = .1.
(F4) a * v(f) < v(a * f) .

Because of (Fl) the equality holds in (F2). Moreover, since the underlying
quantale is a complete MV -algebra, we conclude from (F4) that every stratified
L-filter is tight (cf. Lemma 6.2.1 in [14]) - i.e. the following axiom holds
(F5) v(a ·lx) = a T/a E L.
Referring again to (Fl) and (F4) it is not difficult to show that every stratified
L-filters fulfills the property
394 U. Hahle
(F4') lI(a -+ f) < a -+ 1I(f) Va E L, vf E LX .
Theorem 2.1 (Uniqueness) Let (L,::;) be a completely distributive, com-

plete lattice, X be a non empty set, and let P(X) be the ordinary power set of
X. If III and 112 are stratified L-filters on X, then the following assertions are
equivalent
(i) III = 112
(ii) III (IA Va· Ix) = 112 (lA Va· Ix) VA E P(X), Va E L .
Proof. The implication (i) ==> (ii) is obvious. On the other hand we infer from
Assertion (ii) and the axioms (Fl) and (F2) that III (g) and 112 (g) coincide for
all g E LX with finite range. Now we invoke Theorem 1.3 and Axiom (F4) and
obtain for all f E LX :
V t E F(.1) ;
hence the assertion (i) follows.

D
Definition 2.2 (L-filters of ordinary subsets) Let X be a non empty set

and P(X) be the ordinary power set of X. A map r.p : P(X) -+ L is an
L-filter of ordinary subsets of X iff r.p satisfies the following axioms
(fl) r.p(X) = T r.p(0) .i. (Boundary Conditions)
(f2) r.p(A n B) r.p(A) 1\ r.p(B) . (Intersection Property)
If r.p is an L-filter of ordinary subsets, then the value r.p(A) can be interpreted
as the degree to which A is contained in r.p. In the case of the real unit interval
(Le. L = [0,1]) [O,I]-filters of ordinary subsets and necessity measures are the
same things (cf. [22]).
Since the restriction of L-filters to P(X) e:' {T, .1}X is an L-filter of crisp
subsets of X, the following lemma is of principle interest:
Lemma 2.3 Let r.p be an L-filter of crisp subsets of X. Then the map II",
LX -+ L defined by
1I",(f) V r.p(A) 1\ (1\ f(x))

AEP(X) xEA
is a stratified L-filter on X which is an extension of r.p and satisfies the addi-

tional property
(F6) 1I",(f V a) (11",(f)) V a .

Proof. It is not difficult to show that v<p is an extension of t.p. The axioms (F1)
- (F3) are obvious. The axiom (F4) follows from:
c,* (t.p(A) /\ (1\ f(x)) < t.p(A) /\ (a. * (1\ f(x)))

xEA xEA
t.p(A) /\ (1\ a. * f(x))

xEA
o
An immediate consequence from Theorem 2.1 and Lemma 2.3 is
Corollary 2.4 Let (L,::;) be completely distributive. Then there exists a bi-
jective map from the set of all L-filters of crisp subsets of X and the set of all
stratified L-filters satisfying the additional axiom (F6).
o
After a moment's reflection it is clear that there exist various extensions from
L-filters of crisp subsets to stratified L-filters. The aim of the following consid-
erations is to present a construction which is based on an additional semigroup
operation 0. For this purpose we agree upon the following
General Assumptions: We assume always that (L,::;) is a completely dis-
tributive lattice and (L,::;, *) is a complete MV -algebra. Further we consider
a semigroup operation 0 provided with the properties
(L5) (L,::;, 0) is a quantale (cf. [25]) .
(L6) a. = a. 0 T = T 0 a. - i.e. (L,::;, 0) is strictly two-sided.
(L 7) 0 is distributive over arbitrary meets.
(L8) (o.0jJ) * (r08) < (o.*'Y) 0 (jh8)
The axioms (L6) and (L8) imply immediately: a. * f3 ::; a. 0 f3; hence * is
always dominated by 0 (see also p. 209 in [27]). Further it is easy to see that
in the case of 0 E {/\, *} the quadruple (L,::;, *, 0) satisfies the axioms (L5)
- (L8) (cf. Lemma 1.2.1 in [14]).
Theorem 2.5 Let t.p be an L-filter of crisp subsets of X. Then the map
V<p : LX 1--7 L defined by
is a stratified L-filter which extends t.p and satisfies the following condition:
V<p(((j -t ..L) 0 (a. -t ..L)) -t ..L)

= (((v<p(j)) -t ..L) 0 (a. -t ..L)) -t ..L
396 U. Hohle
Proof. Because of (L6) the map v", is an extension of cpo The axiom (FI) is
obvious. In order to verify (F2), (F4) and (F6 0 ) we proceed as follows:
(a) In the case of II 1\!2 ~ Ie V x· Ix we define two sets for f E F(.1) :
= {xExnCCI fl(X) i (f-+.1)-+X}
= {x E X n Cc I !2 (x) i (f -+ .1) -+ x}
Then A~l) and A~2) are disjoint, and the following relation holds:
Ii < IeuA~i) V (f -+ .1) -+ x) . Ix (i=I,2) .
Now we invoke (f2):
v",(Jd 1\ v",(!2) ~ «cp(C) -+ .1) 0 «f -+ .1) * (x -+ .1))) -+.1 .
Since f E F(.1) is arbitrary, the axiom (F2) follows.

(b) If a ·Ix * f ~ IA V X· Ix , then f ~ IA V (a -+ x) ·Ix . We apply
(L8) :
a * ((cp(A) -+ .1) 0 «x -+ .1) * a)) -+ .1) * «cp(A) -+ .1) 0 (x -+ .1)) <

((cp(A) -+ .1) 0 «x -+ .1) * a)) -+ .1) * (cp(A) -+ .1) <:) «x -+ .1) * a))
~ .1
hence a * v",(J) ~ «cp(A) -+ .1) <:) (x -+ .1)) -+ .1 follows. Therewith the

axiom (F4) is verified.
(c) Since the relation f ~ IA V X· Ix implies
«(J -+.1) 0 «a -+.1) . Ix)) -+.1 ~

< IA V «(x -+ .1) 0 (a -+ .1)) -+ .1) . Ix ,
we obtain
v",«(J -+.1) 0 «a -+ .1) . Ix)) -+.1) <
~ «cp(A) -+ .1) <:) (x -+ .1) 0 (a -+ .1)) -+ .1
hence the inequality
v",«(J -+ .1) 0 «a -+ .1) . Ix)) -+ .1) < «v",(J) -+ .1) 0 (a -+ .1)) -+ .1
follows. On the other hand, for every pair (a, x) E Lx L we define an element
{3 E L by
{3 = /\ p. ELI x -+.1 ~ A <:) (a -+.1)} .
Because of (L7) we obtain: x -+.1 ~ {30 (a -+ .1). Hence we conclude from
«(J -+.1) 0 «a -+.1) . Ix)) -+.1 ~ IA V x·Ix

that the relation / ::; lA V «(3 -t 1..) . Ix holds. In particular we obtain:

«vcp(f) -t 1..) 0 (0 -t 1..» -t 1.. < «cp(A) -t 1..) 0 (30 (0 -t 1..)) -t 1..
< «cp(A) -t 1..) 0 (x -t 1..)) -t 1.. ;

i.e.
«vcp(f) -t 1..) 0 (0 -t 1..)) -t 1.. < vcp«(f -t 1..) 0 «0 -t 1..) . Ix)) -t 1..) .
Therewith the axiom (F6)0 is verified.
o
In the case of the real unit interval we can consider a family {Tp I p E [-1, +00] }
of associative, continuous, binary operations defined by
Too (0, (3) = min (0, (3) p = +00.
°<
Tp(o,(3) = (o-P + (3-P - I)-lip p < +00.
To(o,(3) = 0·(3 p = 0.
Tp(o,(3) = (max(o-P + (3-P - 1, ))-l/p ° -1 :5 p < 0.
It is easy to see that ([0,1],::;, T_ 1 ) is an MV-algebra; in particular T-l coin-
cides with Lukasiewicz' arithmetic conjunction (cf. [5]). Moreover, we obtain:
Proposition 2.6 The quadruple ([0,1],::; T_1,Tp) satisfies the axioms (L5)-
(L8) for all p E [-1, +00].
Proof. The axioms (L5) and (L7) follow from the continuity of Tp. Since 1 is
the unity of Tp, the axiom (L6) is evident. In order to verify (L8) we proceed
the pointwise limit of binary operations Tp with p =F

(L8) in the case of p e] - 1, O[U]O, +00[.
°,
as follows: In the case of p e {-1, +oo} Axiom (L8) is obvious. Since To is
it is sufficient to verify
Step 1. We fix (3 e]O,I] and consider a map e{3 : [0,1] t--+ [0,1] determined
by e{3(o) = Tp«(3,o). Obviously, e{3 is continuous on [0,1] and differentiable
on ]0,1[. In particular, the derivative of e{3 in 0 is given by
e~(o) . . 0) )P+l
= ( Tp(~,
Since e~ is bounded by 1 on ]0, 1[, the function f{3 : [0, 1]-t [0,1] defined by
f{3(o) = e{3(o) - 0 - (3 + 1 is non increasing. Hence /{3 is non negative.
Step 2. We fix (0,(3) E]O, l]x]O, 1] and introduce a map 9(Ot,{3) : [0,1] t--+ [0,1]
by
9(Ot,{3)(-r) = e{3(T_ 1(0,'Y)) - 0 - e{3(-r) + 1
We show the non-negativity of 9(Ot,{3)' In the case of 'Y E [0, 1 - 0] it is easy to
see that the relation
°< 1 - 'Y - 0 < 9(Ot,{3)(-r)

398 U. Hahle
holds. Further we observe
i.e. the function 'Y "-t e!3~OY) is non decreasing (resp. non increasing) for all
p E] - 1, O[ (resp. p E]O, +oo[). Hence the restriction of 9(a,{3) to [1 - a, 1] is
monotone. Because of
9(a,{3)(1 - a) = 0 9(a,{3) (1) = J{3(a)
we obtain from Step 1 that 9(a,{3) is also non negative on [1 - a, 1].

Step 9. In order to verify (L8) we fix (a,{3,'Y) E [0,1]3 and define a map
h(a,{3,oy) : [0,1] t----t [0,1] by
h(a,{3,oy) (E) = Tp(T_ 1(a,'Y),T_ 1(E,{3)) - Tp(a,E) - Tp('"(,{3) + 1 .
It is sufficient to show that h(a,{3,y) is non negative. In the case of (a, {3, 'Y) fj.
]0,1]3 we obtain immediately 0 :::; h(a,{3,oy) (E) . Further, if T_ 1(E,{3) = 0 or
T-l (a, 'Y) = 0, then the non-negativity of h(a,{3,oy) follows from
o < 1 - max(Tp(a,I - {3), Tp(I - 'Y, E)) - Tp('"(, {3) < h(a,{3,oy)(E).
Hence it is sufficient to consider (a, {3, 'Y) E ]0,1]3 , 0 < T-l (a, 'Y) and to
assume that the global minimum of h(a,{3,oy) is attained at EO E]I - {3, 1]. We
distinguish the following cases:
Case 1: EO = 1 . Then h(a,{3,oy)(I) = 9(a,{3)('"() j thus the non-negativity of
h(a,{3,oy) follows from Step 2.
Case 2: EO E]I - {3, 1[. Then the first derivative of h(a,{3,oy) vanishes in EO j i.e.
( Tp(T_1(a,'Y), T_ 1(EO,{3)))P+l
L 1 (Eo,{3)
Hence we obtain:
= Tp(a, EO) . (T-l (Eo,{3 ) - EO ) - Tp ({3)

EO
'Y, + 1
> (T_ 1(Eo,{3) - EO) - {3 + 1

= 0
In particular, the non-negativity of h(a,{3,oy) on ]1 - {3, I[ follows.
o
Combining Proposition 2.6 with Theorem 2.5 we see that in the case of the
real unit interval there exist continuously many extensions of a [O,I]-filter of
crisp subsets to a stratified [O,I]-filter. In this situation, the additional binary
operations <::) = Tp exhaust the interval determined by * = T-l and /\ = min.
Corollary 2.7 Let (L,~, *, 0) be a quadruple provided with (L5) - (L8). Then
there exists a bijective map between the set of all L-filters of crisp subsets of X
and the set of all stratified L-filters on X satisfying Axiom (F6b .
Proof. The assertion follows immediately from Theorem 2.1 and Theorem 2.5.
o
In the following definition we recall the notion of T -filters (cf. Remark 6.2.3
in [14]) which we need for an important characterization of L-filters of crisp
subsets.
Definition 2.8 (T-Filters) Let (L,~,*) be a complete MV-algebra. Fur-

ther let the algebraic operation ~ be determined by the binary meet operation
1\. A subset F of LX is called aT-filter on X iff F satisfies the following
conditions (cf. Definition 1.5 in [11]):
(lFO) Ix E F .
(IFI) h E LX with 3x : F ~ L S.t. { v{xU) If E F} = T }

xU) * f(x) ~ h(x) V f E F
==> hEF .
(JF2) lI,h E F ==> II 1\ h EF
(lF3) V f(x) = T VIE F .

"'EX
o
If the underlying lattice L is completely distributive, then the condition (lFl)

is equivalent to
(IFI') If hE LX with Vf E F(.1.) 31 E F : I(x) * (f -+.1.) ~ h(x) Vx EX,

then h E F .
In the case of (L ~,*) = ([O,Il,~,T_l) the condition (lFl') coincides with

the so-called saturation condition of pre-filters introduced by R. Lowen in the
context offuzzy neighborhood spaces (cf. [18]).
Lemma 2.9 Let (L,~) be a completely distributive lattice, X be a non empty

set, and let P(X) be the ordinary power set of X. If Fl and F2 are T -filters,
then the following assertions are equivalent
(i) Fl = F2 .
(ii) V x E L, VA E P(X) : IA V x·Ix E Fl <==> IA V x·Ix E F 2 .
Proof. The assertion follows immediately from (IFI') , (JF2) and Theorem 1.3.
o
400 U.Hoble
It is easy to see that every T -filter F on X induces an L-filter {(F) of crisp

subsets of X by
{(F)(A) = V (1\ (J(x) ~ .i))

/EF z~A
Lemma 2.10 Let (L,:5) be a completely distributive lattice and X be a non

empty set. Further let F be a T -filter on X and {(F) be the associated L-filter
of crisp subsets of X. If x ELand A ~ X, then the following assertions are
equivalent:
(i) lA V x . Ix E F .
(ii) x ~ .1 :5 {(FHA)
Proof. The implication (i) ==> (ii) is obvious. On the other hand, if
x ~.1 :5 {(FHA), then we conclude from Lemma 1.1 that for every I: E F(.1)
there exists fE E F s.t.
(x ~ .i) * (I: ~ .i) :5 1\ (JE(X) ~ .i)

zfj!A
hence the relation
holds for all I: E F(.1). Now we apply (JF1 / ) and obtain that lA V x·lx is an
element of F .
o
Theorem 2.11 Let (L,:5) be a completely distributive lattice. Then the map
F "-+ {(F) is a bijective map from the set of all T -filters on X onto the set of
all L-filters of crisp subsets of x.
Proof. The injectivity of { follows from Lemma 2.9 and Lemma 2.10. In order
to verify the surjectivity of { we proceed as follows: Let r.p be an L-filter of
crisp subsets; then we show that
F <p = {f E LX I 1\ (J(x) ~.1) :5 r.p(A) V A ~ X}

zfj!A
is aT-filter. Since the relation f(x) * x(f) :5 h(x) is equivalent to

(h(x) ~ .i) * x(J) :5 f(x) ~ .1, F <p fulfills Axiom (lFl). Now we invoke the
complete distributivity of (L, :5) and obtain:
" «h(x) 1\ h(x)) ~.1) <
z~A
< V ((" (h(x)~.1)) 1\ ( " (h(x)~.1)))

E 1 nE2 =A zfj!E1 zfj!E2
hence (11"2) follows from (f2). The axiom (1F'3) is evident. Finally, the map
lA V (rp(A) ~..L) ·lx is always an element of Fcp; hence e(Fcp)(A) rp(A)
holds for all ordinary subsets A of X.
o
Because of Corollary 2.7 and Theorem 2.11 there exists a bijective map W0
from the set of all T -filters on X onto the set of all stratified L-filters on X
satisfying (F6)0 . In the following considerations we give an explicit description
of W0. First we prove:
Lemma 2.12 Let F be a T -filter on X. Then the map VF : LX t---+ L defined

by
ZlF(h) = V(1\ ((f(x) 0 (h(x) ~..L)) ~ ..L))
JEF xEX
is a stratified L-filter provided with Property (F6)0 .
Proof. It is easy to see that ZlF satisfies the axioms (Fa), (Fl) and (F3).
Moreover, (F2) follows from (11"2). The verification of (F4) is based on Axiom
(L8). First we observe:
,8 * ((0: 0 (r ~ ..L)) ~ ..L) * (0: 0 ((,8 *1') ~ ..L)) <

((0: 0 (r ~ ..L)) ~ ..L) * (0: 0 (,8 * (,8 ~ (r ~ ..L)))) <
((0: 0 (r ~ ..L)) ~ ..L) * (0: 0 (r ~ ..L)) = ..L
i.e.
,8 * ((0: 0 (r ~ ..L)) ~ ..L) < (0: 0 ((,8 *1-) ~ ..L)) ~..L .
Hence we obtain: ,8 * VF(h) < ZlF(,8*h). The axiom (F6)0 follows immediately
from (L5) and (L7).
o
Proposition 2.13 The bijective map W0 from the set of all T -filters on X
onto the set of all stratified L-filters satisfying (F6)0 is determined by (cf.
Corollary 2.7, Theorem 2.11):
w0(F)(h) = VF(h) = V ( 1\ ((f(x)0(h(x) ~ ..L)) ~ ..L)) VhE LX.

JEF xEX
Proof. Let ZI be a stratified L-filter satisfying (F6)0, and let rp be the L-filter
of crisp subsets corresponding to ZI (cf. Theorem 2.5, Corollary 2.7). Further
let F cp be the T -filter associated with rp (cf. Proof of Theorem 2.11). Because
of Lemma 2.12 and Theorem 2.1 it is sufficient to prove:
VxE L, "lAC;;; X.
402 U. Hohle
We apply (F6)0, (L5) - (L7) and obtain:
V(lA V x·1x) = ((<p(A) -+ 1.) 0 (x -+ 1.)) -+ 1.

(( ( V (!\ (f(x) -+ 1.))) -+ 1.) 0 (x -+ 1.)) -+ 1.
JEF" x~A
V (!\ ((f(x) 0 (x -+ 1.)) -+ 1.))

JEF" x~A
vF,,(lA V x·1x)
o
Remark 2.14 (a) Let (L,:::;) be a completely distributive lattice. Then in the
case of 0 = 1\ it is easy to see that 1J! 1\ is also the composition of ~ (cf.
Theorem 2.11) with the map specified in Lemma 2.3. Indeed, the relation
V (V (( !\ (f(x) -+ 1.))
A~X JEF x~A
follows from the complete distributivity of (L,:::;).

(b) In the case of 0 = * the assertion of Proposition 2.13 remains valid without
assuming the complete distributivity of the underlying lattice (L,:::;) (cf. Re-
mark 6.2.3, Proposition 6.2.4 in [14]). This observation motivates the following
Question:
Let (L,:::;,*) be a complete MV-algebra and (L,:::;,*,0) be a quadruple sat-
isfying (L5) - (L8) . To which extent depends the validity of Proposition 2.13
on the complete distributivity of the underlying lattice (L,:::;)?
3 Stratified and transitive L-topologies

Let (L,:::;, *) be a complete MV -algebra and X be an arbitrary, non empty
set. Obviously, the algebraic and lattice-theoretic operations can be extended
pointwise to LX. Then LX is again a complete MV -algebra. Since the un-
derlying lattice of a complete MV -algebra is always a frame (resp. complete
Heyting algebra (cf. [15], Theorem 5.2 in [12])), we can also view LX as a
frame, if we confine ourselves to the exclusive application of lattice-theoretic
operations on LX .
Referring to Section 3 in [14] we only consider the case @ = 1\ in this paper;
in particular an L-topology T on X is always a subframe of LX - i.e. T is a
subset of LX which is closed under finite meets and arbitrary joins performed
in LX. An L-topology T on X is called stratified iff T satisfies the additional
axiom (cf. Subsection 5.1 in [14])
(~1) gET, 0: E L ===? (0: . Ix) * gET. (Truncation Condition)

In order to formulate the transivity axiom of a stratified L-topology we are

forced to enrich the underlying MV-algebra (L,~, *) by a further binary op-
eration 0 such that (L ~,0) is a commutative quantale. Based on the pair
(*,0) we are now in the position to introduce a commutative semigroup oper-
ation El on L as follows
0: El,8 = «0: -t .l) 0 (,8 -t .l» -t .l Vo:,,8 E L
where 0: -t _ denotes the right adjoint map to 0: * _. Obviously, El is distribu-

tive over arbitrary meets in (L, ~); hence the self-mapping A"-t A El,8 has a
left adjoint map _ [> ,8. In particular 0: [> ,8 is given by
and the following relations hold: 0: ~ (0: [> ,8) El,8 , (0: El,8) [>,8 ~ 0:
Remark 3.1 (Special cases) (a) Let us consider the case 0 = 1\. Then the
semigroup operation El and the binary join operation V coincide; in particular,
[> is just the co-implication in (L,~).
(b) Let 0: ~ _ be the right adjoint map to 0: 0 _. Further we assume that the
relation
o:-t.l = o:~.l (:= V{.A I 0: 0 A = .l}) (0)
holds for all 0: E L. Then we obtain
0: < AEl,8 (A -t .l) 0 (,8 -t .l) ~ 0: -t .l

A -t .l < (,8 -t .l) ~ (0: -t .l)
A -t .l ~ (0: 0 (,8 -t .l» -t .l
0: <:) «(3 -t .1.) < >.
hence the relation 0: [> ,8 0: 0 (,8 -t.l) follows.
(c) In the case of * = 0 the property (0) (cf. (b» is trivial. A more interesting
example can be given in the case ofthe real unit interval [0,1]: Let T-l be the
Lukasiewicz' arithmetic conjunction (cf. Section 2) and Tmin Fodor's nilpotent
minimum (cf. [4])
0:+,8>1}
0:+,8 ~ 1
It is easy to see that ([0, 1],~, Tmin) is a commutative quantale provided with
the property
V{AE[O,l]ITmin (o:,A)=O} = 1-0: v0: E [0,1] .

i.e. the quadruple ([0,1] ~,Ll.Tmin) fulfills Property (0) in (b). Finally, in
view ofthe General Assumptions in Section 2 we note that ([0, 1],~, T_l. Tmin)
does not satisfy the axioms (L7) and (L8) .
404 U. Hahle
o
A stratified L-topology T on X is called tmnsitive iff T satisfies the additional
axioms
(Tl) gET, a EL ===} (a· Ix) El 9 E To (Translation-in variance)
(T2) gET, a EL ===} 9 [> (a· Ix) E T . ( Co-Stratification)
Remark 3.2 (a) In the case of 8 = /\ the axiom (Tl) is redundant (cf. Re-
mark 3.1(a)). Thus a stratified L-topology T is transitive iff T is co-stratified
- i.e. T fulfills (T2).
(b) Let us consider the case 8 = * (cf. Remark 3.1(b)). Then the axioms (~1)
and (T2) are equivalent; hence a stratified L-topology T is transitive iff T is
translation-invariant - i.e. T satisfies (Tl). Finally, referring to Subsection
7.2 in [14] it is easy to see that probabilistic L-topologies and stratified and
translation-invariant L-topologies are equivalent concepts.
(c) Let us assume that the underlying lattice (L,~) is completely distributive.
Then Raney's Theorem implies that L is a spatial locale (cf. p. 204/205 in [6],
[15]); hence every L-topology on X can be identified with an ordinary topol-
ogyon X x pt(L) where pt(L) denotes the set of all frame-morphisms from
L to 2 = {.L, T} (cf. Subsection 7.1 in [14]). In this context the stratifica-
tion, co-stratification and the translation-invariance can be viewed as special
'topological' axioms. We return to this point in Section 5.
o
In the following considerations we identify always L-topologies T with their
corresponding L-interior operators K, respectively with their corresponding
L-neighborhood systems (/-tP)PEX (cf. Subsection 6.1 in [14]). In particular K
and (/-tP)PEX are given by
K(f) = V{g E T I9 ~ J} , /-tp(f) = (K(f))(P)
Proposition 3.3 Let T be an L-topology on X and K be the L-interior op-

emtor corresponding to T. Then the following assertions are equivalent:
(i) T is a stratified and transitive L-topology.
(ii) K satisfies the subsequent properties
(K5) (a ·lx) * K(f) < K((a·lx)*f)
(K6) (a· Ix) El K(f) = K((a ·lx) El f) .
Proof. It is not difficult to show the equivalence between (~1) and (K5) (cf.
Proposition 6.1.1 in [14]). In order to verify the equivalence between (K6) and
(Tl),(T2) we proceed as follows: Let us assume that T is transitive. Then (Tl)
implies
(a· Ix) El K(f) < K((a·lx) El f)
On the other hand we use (a 0 (3) I> a ::; (3 and deduce from (T2)
K((a·lx) Of) I> (a·lx) < K(J)
Hence we obtain:
K((a ·lx ) ° 1) < (K((a·lx) 0 1) I> (a· Ix)) 0 (a· Ix)

< (K(J)) 0 (a ·lx)
Therewith (K6) is established. Further the implication (K6) ==> (Tl) is evident.
In order to verify (K6) ==> (T2) we first observe
K(g) < K((gl>(a·lx))o(a·lx)) = (K(gl> (a·lx)))o(a·lx);
hence (T2) follows from K(g) I> (a· Ix) ::; K(g I> (a . Ix)) .
o
Since probabilistic L-topologies (cf. Remark 3.2(b)) can be identified with
crisp systems of L-valued neighborhoods (cf. Subsection 7.2 in [14]), the aim
of the following considerations is to extend this result to the case of arbitrary
stratified and transitive L-topologies. As the reader will see below the complete
distributivity of the underlying lattice plays an important role. First we start
with a definition:
Definition 3.4 (L-valued neighborhoods)

Let (L,::;, *) be a complete MV-algebraand (L,::;, 8) be a commutative quan-
tale such that the quadruple (L,::;, *, 8) satisfies the axioms (L6) - (L8). Fur-
ther let X be a non empty set and Up be aT-filter on X for all p E X (cf.
Definition 2.8). (Up)PEX is called a crisp system of L-valued neighborhoods iff
(Up)PEX satisfies the following axioms (cf. Subsection 7.2 in [14], Definition 2.7
in [11])
(1U3) d E Up ==> d(P) = T .

(1U4) 0 Vp EX Vd p E Up :3 x: U Up X Uq f---t L s.t.
qEX
(i) V (A ( V x(£1,dq))) T
dEU p qEX dqEU q
(ii) (£1(q) 8 dq(x)) * x(£1, dq) < dp(x) Vx E X
In this context every element dp E Up is called an L-valued neighborhood of p.
o
At a first glance the axiom (1U4)0 looks a little bit monstrous. Therefore we first
make a digression from the principle train of thoughts and give a characterization
of (1U4)0 in two important special cases:
406 V.Hoble
Lemma 3.5 Let (L,~, *) be a complete MV -algebra and X be a non empty

set. Further let (Up)PEX be a crisp system of T -filters on X provided with
Property (U3). If 0 and * coincide, then the following assertions are equiva-
lent
(i) (Up)PEX satisfies (U4)* .

(ii) 'Vp EX 'Vdp E Up 3d* E Up 'Vq E X 3dq E Up s.t.
d*(q) * dq(x) < dp(x) 'V x E X (cf. (U4) in 7.2 in [14]) .
Proof. The implication (ii) => (i) is obvious. In order to verify (i) => (ii) we
proceed as follows: We define a map /C : LX .........-+ LX by
(/C(f))(x) = V (1\ (d(z) -t f(z)))

dEU. zEX
The axiom (U3) implies K(f) ~ f. We show that /C(f) ~ /C(/C(f)) - i.e.
/C is an L-interior operator on X. For this purpose we fix x EX, do; E U 0;
and consider a map Ko; : U Uo; x U q .........-+ L provided with Property (i) in
qEX
(U4)* . Then we define a map Ko; : U, -+ L by
Ko;(d) = 1\ ( V K(d, dq))

qEX d.EU.
Now we are in the position to introduce a further map d:X .........-+ L as follows
d(q) = V Ko;(d) * d(q) 'VqEX .

dEU.
We conclude from Axiom (lF1) and Property (i) in (U4). that d is a L-valued
neighborhood of x. Further we infer from Property (ii) in (1U4)*:
1\ (do;(z) -t fez)) < 1\ (1\ ((K(d,dq) *d(q) *dq(z)) -t fez)))

zEX d.EU. zEX
= 1\ (K(d, dq) * d(q)) -t ( 1\ (dq(z) -t f(z))))

~EU. zEX
< 1\ (K(d,dq) *d(q)) -t (/C(f))(q))

d.EU.
= d(q) -t (/C(f))(q)
hence the relation (/C(f))(x) ~ (/C(/C(f))) (x) follows. Now we turn to the
verification of assertion (ii). If dp is a L-valued neighborhood of p, then we
define a map d* : X .........-+ L and for all q E X a map d q : X.........-+ L as follows
d*(q) = (/C(dp))(q) , dq(x) = d*(q) -t d*(x) q,xEX .

Evidently the relation d*(q) * dq(x) :5 (K(dp))(x) :5 dp(x) holds. Hence

it is sufficient to verify that d* is a L-valued neighborhood of p and dq is a
L-valued neighborhood of q. Since K is idempotent, we obtain
(K(d*))(P) = d*(P) = T ,.
hence the map x* : Up t---+ L defined by x*(d) = /\ (d(x) ~ d*(x))

zEX
satisfies the following properties
Because of (lFl) the map d* is an element of Up. Now we invoke again the
idempotence of K and obtain
V (d*(q) ~ ( " (dq(x) ~ d*(x)))) = d*(q) ~ (K(d*))(q) = T .

d.EU. zEX
Hence the map Xq : U q t---+ L defined by
Xq(dq) = d*(q) ~ ( " (dq(x) ~ d*(x)))

zEX
has the property V{xq(dq) I dq E U q} = T. Further we observe:
d*(q) * xq(dq) * dq(x) < d*(x)
i.e. xq(dq) * d(x) :5 dq(x). Finally, we conclude from (Fl) that dq is

contained in U q •
o
Lemma 3.6 Let (L,:5, *) be a complete MV -algebra and X be a non empty
set. Further let (Up)PEX be a crisp system of T -filter on X. If the under-
lying lattice (L,:5) is completely distributive, then the following assertions are
equivalent
(i) (Up)PEX satisfies (U4)0 .

(ii) 'Vp EX 'Vdp E Up 'V€ E F(.1)2 3d· E Up 'Vq EX 3dq E U q s.t.
(d*(q) <::) dq(x)) * (€ ~.1) < dp(x) 'Vx EX.
Proof. In any complete MV -algebra, the relation
V €~.1 = V (0 ~ .i) * (0 ~ .i)

EEF(J.) OEF(J.)
2cf. 1.2 in Section 1.

408 u. Hahle
holds. Referring to Lemma 1.1 we observe that for every € E F(..1.) there exists
8 E F(..1.) such that € --+..1. ~ (8 --+ ..1.) * (8 --+ ..1.) . Hence the implication
(i) ===} (ii) follows from the previous formula and Lemma 1.1. On the other
hand, let us consider dp E Up and fix € E F(..1.). According to assertion (ii)
we determine an element d; E Up and dq E U q depending on q E X such
that (d; 8 dq(x)) * (€ --+..1.) ~ dp(x) holds. Now we are in the position to
define a map K: U Up x U q I----t L as follows:
qEX
d of: d;
d=d;,dqof:dq
d=d;,dq=dq
It is easy to see that K fulfills the properties (i) and (ii) in (U4)0; hence the
implication (ii) ===} (i) is verified.
o
Remark 3.7 (a) The axioms of L-valued neighborhoods appear for the first
time in the author's paper on Probabilistic Topologies Induced by L-Fuzzy
Uniformities (cf. [11]). The simplification of Axiom (U4b in the case 8 = *
(cf. Lemma 3.5) is known since the mid-eighties. Unfortunately, this result
remained unpublished for many years.
(b) Let us consider the special case of the real unit interval- i.e. (L,~, *, 8) =
([0, 1], ~,T_l,min) where T-l denotes the Lukasiewicz arithmetic conjunction
(cf. Proposition 2.6). In this context Lemma 3.6 shows that the axioms of [0,1]-
valued neighborhoods coincide with the axioms of Fuzzy Neighborhood Systems
introduced by R. Lowen in 1982 (cf. [18]).
o
After this historical remark we return to our main subject of investigation.
Theorem 3.8 Let (Up)PEX be a crisp system of L-valued neighborhoods. Fur-

ther let T be the set of all g E LX satisfying the following property
g(p) < V (/\ (d(x) 8 (g(x) --+ ..1.)) --+ ..1.) 'VpEX
dEUp :tEX
Then T is a stratified and transitive L-topology on X.
Proof. Referring to Proposition 3.3 it is sufficient to prove that the self-

mapping JC : LX --+ LX defined by
(JC(f))(P) = V (/\ (d(x) 8 (f(x) --+ ..1.)) --+ ..1.)

dE Up :tEX
is an L-interior operator provided with the properties (K5) and (K6) .

(a) The isotonocity of JC follows from the construction. Further the axioms
(JF2) and (U3) imply: K(Jd 1\ K(fz) :::; K(!I 1\ fz) , K(J):::; f. In order
to verify the idempotency of K it is sufficient to show K(J) :::; K(K(J)). For
this purpose we fix p E X and dp E Up. Because of (U4b there exists a map
x: U Up x U q ~ L provided with the following properties
qEX
(0)
(d(q) 0 dq(x)) * x(d, dq) < dp(x) (00)

First we deduce the following relation from (L6), (L8) and (00):
dp(x) 0 (J(x) -+ .1.) > ((d(q) 0 dq(x)) * x(d,dq)) 0 (J(x) -+ .1.)
> (d(q)0dq(X)0(J(X)-+J.)) * (x(d,dq)0T)

> (d(q) 0 dq(x) 0 (J(x) -+ .1.)) * x(d, dq)
Because of
(d(q) 0 ( V (dq(X)0(J(X)-+J.))))*x(d,dq) >
CA (V (dq(x)
xEX
(d(q) 0 0 (J(x) -+ .1.))))) * x(d, dq)

dqEU q xEX
we obtain
V (dp(x) 0 (J(x) -+ .1.)) > (d(q) 0 ((K(J))(q) -+ .1.)) *( V x(d,dq)).
xEX dqEUq
Since the left side of the previous relation is independent of q EX, we can
continue the estimation as follows:
V (dp(x) 0 (J(x) -+ .1.)) >
xEX
(V(d(q)0((K(J))(q)-+J.)))*(A( V x(d,dq))) >

qEX qEX dqEUq
CA (V (d(q)
dEU p qEX
0 ((K(J))(q) --+ .1.)))) * ( A( V
qEX dqEUq
x(d, dq))) =
((K(K(J)))(q) -+ .1.) * ( A( V x(d,dq)))
qEX dqEUq
Finally, we invoke (0) and obtain:
/\ ((dp(x) 0 (J(x) -+ .1.)) --+ .1.) < (K(K(J)))(P)

xEX
hence the relation K :::; K 0 K is verified.

(b) Since * is distributive over arbitary joins and meets, the axiom (K5) follows
from the subsequent relation (cf. Proof of Lemma 2.12):
(3 * ((')'1 0 (')'2 -+ .1.)) -+ .1.) < (')'1 0 (((3 * ')'2) -+ .1.)) -+ .1.
410 U.Hoh1e
which requires the axioms (L6) and (LS). Further the axioms (L5) and (L7)
imply that the operation I::] (associated with 0) is also distributive over arbitary
joins and meets; hence we obtain:
a I::] (K.(f))(P) = a I::] ( V (/\ (d(x) ~ .1) I::] f(x)))

dEUI' ",EX
= V (/\ «d(x) ~ .1) I::] (f(x) I::] a)))

dEU p "'EX
i.e. (K6) is verified.

o
Motivated by the previous theorem we rise the following question: Is every
stratified and transitive L-topology induced by a unique crisp system of L-
valued neighborhoods in the sense of Theorem 3.S ? In the case of 0 = * we
can answer this question in the affirmative (cf. Remark 3.2(b), Subsection 7.2 in
[14]). A further sufficient condition forcing an affirmative answer is the complete
distributivity of the underlying lattice as the following theorem demonstrates:
Theorem 3.9 Let T be a stmtified and tmnsitive L-topology on X, and let K.

be the corresponding L-interior opemtor. If (L,~) is completely distributive,
then there exists a unique crisp system (Up)PEX of L-valued neighborhoods
satisfying the following condition
(U) (K.(f))(P) = V (1\

dEU p ",eX
(d(x) 0 (f(x) -+.1)) -+.1))
'V p EX, 'V f E LX .
The proof requires the following lemmata:
Lemma 3.10 Let (L,~) be a completely distributive lattice, X be an arbitmry

non empty set, and let P(X) be the ordinary power set of X. Further, for
every p E X let J.tP be a stmtified L-filter satisfying (F6b and let CPP be the
L-filter of crisp subsets corresponding to J.tp. Then the following assertions are
equivalent:
(i) (J.tP)PEX is provided with the subsequent properties
(U3) J.tp(f) < f(P) 'V f E LX.
(U4) J.tp(f) ~ V{J.tp(h) Ih(q) ~ J.tq(f) 'V q E X} .
(ii) (CPP)PEX is provided with the subsequent properties

(u3) cpp(A) =.1 whenever p f/. A
(u4) cpp(A) ~ V ((cpq(A) ~ .1)0(CPp(B) ~ .1)) ~ .1)
q(£B
'V B E P(X)
Proof. (a) ((i) => (ii» Because of fLp(lA) = rpp(A) the property (u3) follows
immediately from (U3). In order to verify the implication (U4) => (u4) we fix
A, B E P(X) and define a map h : X t--+ L by
h(x) = 1B(x) V (V rpq(A») 'VxEX .

qfiB
Then rp", (A) ::; h(x) holds for all x EX. Since rp", is the restriction of fL",
to P(X) ~ {1-, T}X , we infer from (U4) and (F1):
rpp(A) fLp(fL_(1A» < fLp(h) .

Now we apply (F6b, (L 7) and obtain:
rpp(A) < ((( V rpq(A») -+ 1-) 8 (rpp(B) -+ 1-») -+ 1-

qfiB
= V (((rpq(A) -+ 1-) 8 (rpp(B) -+ 1-» -+ 1-)
qfiB
(b) ((ii) => (i» Referring to Theorem 2.5 and Corollary 2.7 the stratified L-
filter fLp is determined by
Obviously (U3) is an immediate consequence of (u3). Further we fix h E LX

and define a map 10 : X t--+ L as follows
10 (x) = fL",(h) 'VxEX.
In order to verify (U4) it is sufficient to prove: fLp(h) ::; fLp(fo). For this
purpose we fix f E F(1-) (cf. Lemma 1.1). According to Theorem 1.3 there
exist finitely many Ai E P(X) and O:i E L (i = 1, ... , n) such that the following
relation holds:
n n
(f -+ 1-) * (/\ (lA, V O:i'Ix») < h < /\(lA, VO:i·1x)
i=1 i=1
Step 1: Let Ii : X t--+ L be a map defined by li(X) = fL",(1A, V O:i . Ix)

for all x E X (i = 1, ... , n). We show: fLp(h) ::; fLp(fi). For this purpose we
choose x ELand B E P(X) with Ii ::; 1B V X· Ix. Now we apply (F6)0
and obtain
((( Vrp",(Ai » -+ 1-) 8 (O:i -+ 1-») -+ 1- < X

"'fiB
hence the relation
((rpp(B) -+ 1-) 8 (x -+ 1-» -+ 1- > ((rpp(Ai) -+ 1-) 8 (O:i -+ 1-» -+ 1-

> fLp(h)
412 U.Hohle
follows from (F1) and (u4). Finally, we use Formula (0) and obtain the desired
inequality: fJp (h) $ fJp (Ii) .
Step 2 : It is easy to see that for all x E X the relation
n n
(e ~ .1..) * /\ Ji(x) < (e ~ .1..) * fJ z (/\ (lA. V O!i ·lx» $ fo(x)
i=l i=l
is an immediate consequence from (F2) and (F4). Now we apply again (F2),
(F4) and obtain from Step 1:
n
(e ~ .1..) * fJp(h) < (e ~ .1..) * (/\ fJp(fi») < fJp(fo)
i=l
Since e E F(.1..) is arbitrary, the inequality fJp(h) $ fJp(fo) follows.

o
Lemma 3.11 Let (L, $) be a completely distrbutive lattice, X be a non empty
set, and let P(X) be the ordinary power set of X. Further, for every p in X let
CPp be an L-filter of crisp subsets of X and let Up be the T -filter corresponding
to CPP (cf· Theorem 2.11). If (CPP)PEX satisfies Axiom (U4)0, then (Up)PEX
fulfills the following property
\:IfEUp \:I{-r,8,e):: L3 with 'Y8e 1:. 8 3jEUp }

(Ifl) { \:Iq E {xEX\'Y$f(x)} 3dq EU q s.t.
{x E X I e $ dq(x)} ~ {x E X I f(x) 1:. 8} .
Proof. We assume that Property (Ifl) is false - i.e. there exists an element
foEU p and a triple (-r,8,e) E L3 with 'Y8e i
8 such that for all jEUp
we can choose an element qj E X provided with the following properties:
'Y < j(qj)

{x E X Ie $ dqix)} n {x E X I fo(x) $ 8} ¥- 0
Now we are in the position to introduce the following crisp subsets of X
E = {xEXlfo(x) $ 8}
Referring to the map edefined in Section 2 (cf. Lemma 2.10, Theorem 2.11) we
obtain:
hence Axiom (u4) implies the estimation
8 ~ .1.. < cpp(CE) $ V ((cpq(CE) ~ .1..) 8 (cpp(CF) ~ .1..» ~ .1..

qEF
< (e8'Y)~.1..)
which is inconsistent with the choice of Cr, £1", 10) .

o
Proof of Theorem 3.9. Let T be a stratified and transitive L-topology on

X, and let K (resp. (/-LP)PEX) be the corresponding L-interior operator (resp.
L-neighborhood system) on X. Since T is stratified and transitive, we con-
clude from Proposition 2.13 and Proposition 3.3 that for every L-neighborhood
filter /-Lp (at p) there exists a unique T -filter Upon X satisfying the following
condition
(K(h))(p) v (A
dEU p "'EX
(d(x) 0 (h(x) -t 1-)) -t 1-) Vh E LX.
The aim of the following considerations is to show that (Up)PEX is a crisp

system of L-valued neighborhoods. For this purpose let <{Jp be the L-filter
of crisp subsets corresponding to /-Lp (resp. Up). Since (/-LP)PEX is an L-
neighborhood system, (/-LP)PEX fulfills the conditions (U3) and (U4) in Lemma
3.10 (cf. Subsection 6.1 in [14]). By the construction of the map ~ (cf. Proof
of Theorem 2.11) the following relation
<{Jp(X ...... {p})

holds for all dE Up. Now we invoke Lemma 3.10 and obtain
d(P) -t 1- 1-
i.e. (Up)PEX satisfies Axiom (1U3). In order to establish Axiom (1U4)0 it is

sufficient to verify the assertion (ii) in Lemma 3.6. We divide this proof into
two parts:
(a) We fix p EX. For every element x E L ...... {T} and every element dE Up
we introduce a map dx : X r-t L by
dx(x) ~(x) i x }
d(x) :s x
and we prove the following
V€EF(1-) 3d<EUp VqEX 3dq EU q s.t.
Assertion.
(dq(x) 0 d«q)) * (10 -t 1-) < dx(x) V x EX.
Let us consider an element 10 E F(1-) with (10 -t 1-) -t x :j: T. Then there
exists a further element f. E F(1-) with (f. -t 1-) -t f. :s
10 (cf. Proof of Lemma
3.6). For every /3 E L with /3 i (f. -t 1-) -t x we define an element 13 E L
by
13 = Ap. ELI /30).. i(f.-t1-)-tx}
Then Lemma 1.1 implies /3 013 i
x. Further we invoke Lemma 3.11 and
obtain in the case of f = dx that there exists d{3 E Up provided with the
property
414 U. Hahle
'VqE V,6 := {xEXI f3 ~ d,6(x)} 3dq EU q s.t.

(0)
{xEXI~~dq(x)} C {xEXldx(x)ix}
Now we introduce a map d';. : X f--t L as follows:
d';.(q) = ((€ -+.1) -4 x) V (V {f3 ELI q E V,6 , f3 i (€ -4.1) -4 x})
Step 1 : We show d';. E Up. For every IE F(.1) we choose g"( E LX provided
with the following properties (cf. Theorem1.3):
g,(x) * (r -4 .i) < d';.(x) < g,(x) 'VxEX.

g"((X) {81 ,82 , .. . ,8n }
Now we define a map gi : X f--t L by (i = 1, ... , n):

gi(X) =
g,(x) i 'VxEX .
g"((x) <
n
Since g, = /\ gi, we conclude from (Fl) and (JF2) that it is sufficient to
i=l
show gi E Up for all i = 1, ... , n. We assume the contrary - i.e. there exists
io E {l, ... ,m} s.t. gio f/. Up. Referring to the relationship between CPP and
Up (determined by the map € , cf. Theorem 2.11) we observe that there exists
a subset E of X with the following property
A (gio (x) -4 .i) i cp(CE) .

xEE
If we put X = cpp(CE), then we obtain:

X =j:. T , (00)
In particular, E is non empty (cf. Axiom (fl)), and the relation 8io -4.1 X i
holds. Further we choose an arbitrary element x E E and conclude from the
definition of d';. and the choice of g"(:
hence because of Lemma 1.1 there exists an element L E F(.1) such that the
following relations are valid
Now we put f3 = (X -4 .i) * (L -4 .i). Since d,6 is an element of Up, we use

again the special relationship between Up and CPP and obtain:
X -4.1 = cpp(CE) -4 .1 < V d,6(x)

xEE
hence there exists an element Xo E E with /3 S d/J(xo) (cf. Lemma 1.1).

Because of /3 1:. (€ ~ .1.) ~ x we use again the definition of d': and obtain:
/3 S d':(xo). Since /3 1:. c5io and d': S gio , the relation gio (xo) 1:. c5io follows
which is a contradiction to gio(XO) S c5io (cf. Relation (00)). Therefore the
assumption is false, and gio is an element of Up.
Step 2 : We show
'r/ q E X :3 dq E U q s.t.
Assertion' .
(dq(x) 0 d':(q)) * (10 ~ .1.) < dx(x) 'r/ x EX.
In the case of d':(q) S (€ ~ .1.) ~ x the Assertion' is evident. Therefore

we assume d':(q) 1:. (€ ~ .1.) ~ x and conclude from Lemma 1.1 that there
exists an element /3 E L provided with the following properties:
d':(q) * (€ ~.1.) < /3 V ((€ ~ .1.) ~ x) /3 1:. (€ ~ .1.) ~ x
q E V/J {x E X I /3 S d/J(x)}
In particular, because of (0) there exists dq E U q such that the relation
{x E X I i3 S dq(x)} C {x E X I dx(x) 1:. x} (+)
holds. In the case of dx(xo) = T there is nothing to show. Therefore we
assume dx(xo) f::. T - i.e. dx(xo) = x. Then the relation (+) implies:
i3 1:. dq(xo); hence dq(xo) 0/3 S (€ ~ .1.) ~ x follows from the definition of
i3. Now we observe 10 ~.1. S (€ ~ .1.) * (€ ~ .1.) and use again (L6) and (L8):
(dq(xo) 0 d;"(xo)) * (10 ~.1.) < (dq(xo) 0 (d;"(xo) * (€ ~ .1.))) * (€ ~ .1.)
< (dq(xo) 0 (((€ ~ .1.) ~ x) V /3)) * (€ ~ .1.)
< ((€ ~ .1.) ~ x) * (€ ~ .1.) < x
Therewith the Assertion' is verified. Finally the Assertion follows from Step 1
and Step 2.
(b) Let us consider d E Up and 10 E F(.1.). Then we choose 15 E F(.1.) with
(15 ~ .1.) ~ 15 S E. By virtue of Theorem 1.3 there exists a map d E LX
equipped with the subsequent properties:
d(x) * (15 ~ .1.) < d(x) < d(x) 'r/xEX
d(X)
For each i E {I, 2, ... , n} we define a map dXi 1----+ L by
~(x) 1:. Xi }
d(x) S xi
We conclude from the Assertion in part (a) that there exists an element
d':i E Up such that the following relation holds:
'r/q E X :3d~i) E U q s.t. (d~i)(x) 0 d;"i(q)) * (15 ~.1.) < dXi(x)
416 U. Rohle
hence we obtain for all x EX:
(++)
d(x) * (8 --+ ..L) < d(x)
Because of (JF'2) the map Ad~i)

;=1
(resp. Ad"x.) is an element of U
;=1
q (resp.
Up) ; hence the assertion (ii) in Lemma 3.6 follows from (++).
o
Remark 3.12 (L-fuzzy contiguity relations) Let (L,:::;, 8) be a strictly
two-sided, commutative quantale. Further let X be an arbitrary non empty
set and P(X) be the (ordinary) power set of X. A map c : X x P(X) f-7 L
is called an L-fuzzy contiguity relation on the space X iff c fulfills the following
axioms (d. [13]):
(C1) c(p, E) = T whenever pEE
(C2) c(p, 0) = ..L for all p EX.
(C3) c(p, E U F) = c(p, E) V c(p, F) (Distributivity)
(C4) (1\
qEF
c(q, E) ) 8 c(p, F) < c(p, E) ( Transitivity)
If c is an L-fuzzy contiguity relation on X, then the value c(p, E) can be

interpreted as the degree to which the (crisp) point p is contiguous to the
(crisp) subset E of X. In this sense the axioms (C1) - (C4) form an immediate
fuzzification of the usual contiguity axioms (d. [1]).
Now we assume a further binary operation * on L such that (L,:::;, *) is a
complete MV-algebra and (L,:::;, *, 8) satisfies the conditions (L5) - (L8). If
the underlying lattice (L,:::;) is completely distributive, then we conclude from
Lemma 3.10 and Theorem 3.9 that stratiiied and transitive L-topologies, L-
fuzzy contiguity relations and crisp systems of L-valued neighborhoods satisfying
(Fl), (lF2) , (llJ3) , (1U4b are respectively equivalent concepts. In particular, the
list of their mutual relationsships looks like as follows:
(K(f))(p) V{g(p) I gET, g:::; f}
(K(f»)(p) V
dEU p
(1\
xEX
(d(x) 8 (f(x) --+ ..L)) --+ ..L)
(K(lA))(P) = c(p, CA) --+ ..L

{d E LX I c(p, A) :::; V d(x) 'v' A E P(X)} .
xEA
Finally, the axiom (C4) justifies to understand the conjunction of translation-

invariance and co-stratification as the transitivity axiom of L-topologies.
o
We close this section with the presentation of some results in the case of
o = 1\. First we recall the concept of fuzzifying topologies 3 which appeared
in [10] under the name 'L-fuzzy topology' (cf. Definition 4.6, Proposition 4.11
in [10]): Let P(X) be the ordinary power set of a given set Xj a map p. :
P(X) t---+ L is called an L-juzzifying topology on X iff p. satisfies the following
conditions:
(01) p.(X) = p.(0) = 1- .
(02) p.(A) 1\ p.(B) < p.(A n B)
(03) 1\ P.(Ai) < p.( U Ai) V {Ai liE I} ~ P(X)
iEI iEI
Proposition 3.13 Let (L,~) be a completely distributive lattice. Then every
L-juzzifying topology induces a system (CPP)PEX of L-filters CPP of crisp subsets
of X by
cpp(A) = V{p.(G) I pEG ~ A} VP EX, VA E P(X)
Moreover (CPP)PEX satisfies the axioms (u3) , (u4) (cf. Lemma 3.10), and the
following relation holds
p.(A) = 1\ cpp(A) VA E P(X) (t)

pEA
Proof. The axioms (fl) , (f2) and (u3) follow immediately from (01) , (02)
and the construction of cpp. Further we fix p E X and consider subsets A, B, G
of X with pEG ~ A. We distinguish the following cases
V cpq(A) > p.(G) Gn CB 1- 0
qrtB
cpp(B) > p.(G) GnCB 0
hence the axiom (u4) follows. The inequality p.(A) 1\ cpp(A) is trivial. On
~
PEA
the the other hand, we apply (03) , the complete distributivity ofthe underlying
lattice (L,~) and obtain
1\ (V {p.(G) I pEG ~ A})

pEA
= V{1\ p.(Gp) I (Gp)PEA with p E Gp ~ A}
pEA
pEA
= p.(A)
Hence the formula (t) is verified.
o
3In the C88e of L = [0,1] this terminology traces back to Mingsheng Ying (cf. [30])
418 U. Hohle
Proposition 3.14 Let (L,~) be a completely distributive lattice. Further let

(ipP)PEX be a system of L-filters ipp of crisp subsets of X satisfying (u3) and
(u4). Then (ipP)PEX induces an L-iuzzifying topology p, on X by
p,(A) = /\ ipp(A) VA E P(X) .

pEA
Moreover the following formula holds
ipp(A) = V{p,(G) I pEG ~ A} 'lip EX, VA E P(X) . (++)
Proof. The axioms (01) and (02) follow immediately from (fl) and (f2).
Further let {Ai liE J} be a family of subsets of X; then the isotonicity of
L-filters of crisp subsets implies
/\ p,(Ai) = /\ (/\ ipP(Ai)) < /\ (/\ ipp(U Ai))

iEi iEi pEA; iEi pEA; iEi
hence the axiom (03) is verified. The inequality
is trivial. In the case of p ¢ A the axiom (u3) shows that in the previous
relation the equality sign holds. Therefore we assume pEA and consider the
set T of all maps ( : {G I pEG ~ A} t---t X with ((G) E G. Now we fix
( E T and put Xc = V{ip«G)(G) I pEG ~ A}. Further let F be the set
of all q E X with ipq(A) ~ xc. We show that F contains p. Let us assume
the contrary; then p EGo = An CF. In particular, we put s = ((Go). Then
the axioms (u3) and (u4) imply:
ips (A) < ips(Go) V (V ipq(A)) < Xc ;

q~Go
hence s E F which is a contradiction to s = ((Go) E Go. Therefore the

assumption is false; hence the relation
< V( E T . (0)
holds. Now we invoke the complete distributivity of (L,~) and derive the
following relation from the definition of T and Formula (0):
= /\ (V{ipC(G)(G) I pEG ~A})

CEl
= V{/\ ipq(G) I pEG ~ A} = V{p,(G) I pEG ~ A};

qEG
hence the relation (++) is verified.
o
Corollary 3.15 Let (L,:::;, *) be a complete MV -algebra and 0 = 1\. Further

let (L,:::;) be a completely distributive lattice. Then L-Juzzifying topologies, L-
fuzzy contiguity relations and stratified and transitive L-topologies are equivalent
concepts.
Proof. The assertion follows immediately from Proposition 3.3, Lemma 3.10,
Remark 3.12, Proposition 3.13 and Proposition 3.14.
o
Remark 3.16 (a) We assume the hypothesis of Corollary 3.15 , and consider
a stratified, transitive L-topology T on X. Further, let Jl be the L-fuzzifying
topology on X and c be the L-fuzzy contiguity relation on X corresponding to
Tand let T (cf. Corollary 3.15). Then the mutual relationships between T, c, Jl
are given by (cf. (+) and (++) in 3.13 and 3.14):
v{Jl(G) I pEG ~ A} = c(p, CA) -+ .l = (KT(lA»)(p)
/\ (KT(lA»(p) = Jl(A) = /\ (c(p, CA) -+ .l)

PEA pEA
where KT denotes the L-interior operator associated with T. Moreover, we

conclude from Theorem 3.9 that every L-fuzzifying topology on X can be char-
acterized by a unique crisp system of L-valued neighborhoods.
(b) If the underlying lattice (L,:::;) is given by the real unit interval ([0, 1], :::;) ,
then Proposition 3.13 and Proposition 3.14 are closely related to Theorem 3.1
and Theorem 3.2 in [30]. Even though the formulas (+) and (++) appear in
Mingsheng Ying's work, the important transitivity axiom (u4) (cf. (C4) in Re-
mark 3.12) is missing.
(c) In the case of arbitrary complete MV -algebras (without any additional
assumption on the underlying lattice) the equivalence between L-fuzzifying
topologies and L-fuzzy contiguity relations remains valid, if we use appropriate
«(]
modifications of the axioms (C4) and 3). For details the reader is referred to
Section 4 in [10].
o
Remark 3.17 (Case 0 = 1\)
Let (L,:::;,*) be a complete MV-algebra, and $(L) be the Booleanization of
the underlying lattice (L,:::;) (cf. Subsection 1.4 in [14]). Every stratified L-
topology is weakly stratified (cf. Subsection 5.1 in [14]) - i.e. every stratified
L-topology T fulfills the so-called constants conditions
(~O) Va. E L
Further let us consider the important case 0 = 1\. Then, under the hypothesis
of the stratification axiom transitivity and co-stratification of L-topologies are
equivalent concepts (cf. Remark 3.2(a». Hence we conclude from Proposition
7.4.15 in [14] that every stratified and transitive L-topology can be identified
420 U. Hable
with its Booleanziation. An important consequence of this fact is the possibil-

ity to describe stratified and transitive L-topologies by crisp systems of B(L)-
valued neighborhoods. Details of this construction can be found in Subsection
7.4 in [14).
On the other hand, if the underlying lattice is completely distributive, then we
conclude from Theorem 3.8 and Theorem 3.9 that every stratified and transi-
tive L-topology can also be identified with a crisp system of L-valued neigh-
borhoods. Hence in the case of completely distributive lattices there exist at
least two different characterizations of stratified and transitive L-topologies by
many-valued neighborhoods.
We finish this remark with a simple example in which we compute explicitly the
B(L)-valued and respectively L-valued neighborhoods of a given stratified and
transitive L-topology:
Example. We emphasize that (L,~) is a completely distributive lattice, and
we denote the implication in the Boolean algebra B(L) by =:-. Further let X
be a non empty set. Then
7 = {(a·lx) V f! aEL, fEL x with f ~ ,8·1x} (,8 E L)

is a stratified and co-stratified (resp. transitive) L-topologyon X. Indeed, the
stratification and co-stratification axiom follow from the subsequent relations:
(01 V 02) I> '"'( = (01 I> '"'() V (02 I> '"'()
(a·lx)*h < h h I> a < h V h E LX
Obviously the L-interior operator K corresponding to 7 is given by
(K(h))(p) (/\ h(x)) V (h(P) /\,8) VpEX

xEX
Then it is not difficult to show that the system Up (resp. V p) of L-valued

(resp. B(L)-valued) neighborhoods of p are given by
! d(P) = T, ,8 -+ 1. < d(x)
{d E LX V x EX}
= {jEB(L)X! f(p) = T, ,8=:-1. < f(x) VxEX}

o
4 Categorical properties of stratified and tran-

sitive L-topological spaces
Let (L,~,*) be a complete MV-algebra. A pair (X,7) is a stratified L-
topological space iff X is a set and 7 is a stratified L-topology on X. Let
(X,7) and (Y, a) be stratified L-topological spaces; a map : X ~ Y is
L-continuous (cf. Section 3 in [14)) iff satisfies the following condition
{go!gEa} C 7
In an obvious way stratified L-topological spaces and L--continuous maps form

a category denoted by SL,,-TOP. Here we emphasize again that in contrast
to the general concept of stratified L-topological spaces (cf. Section 3 and
Subsection 5 in [14]) we restrict ourselves to the case ® = 1\ - i.e. stratified
L-topologies on X form always subframes of LX .
Further let 8 be a commutative semigroup operation on L such that the
quadruple (L,:::;,*,8) satisfies the axioms (L5) - (L8). A pair (X,T) is called
a stratified and transitive L-topological space iff X is a set and T is a stratified
and transitive L-topology on X. Again stratified and transitive L-topological
spaces and L-continuous maps form a category denoted by ST 0 -TOP. In the
special case 8 = * we observe that ST.-TOP and the category P L-TOP
of probabilistic L-topological spaces coincide (cf. Remark 3.2(b)).
Theorem 4.1 The category ST0 -TOP is a coreflective subcategory of SL,,-

TOP. If in addition (L :::;,8) satisfies the algebraic strong De Morgan law,
then ST 0 -TOP is also a bireflective subcategory of SL,,-TOP .
Proof. It is sufficient to show that for any stratified L-topology u on X there

exists the coarsest, stratified and transitive L-topology TO on X with u ~ TO
and the finest, stratified and transitive L-topology Too with Too ~ u. Since the
axioms of stratified and transitive L-topologies on a given set X are preserved
under arbitrary intersections, the existence of TO is trivial. In order to show
the existence of Too we proceed as follows: Let KIT be the L-interior operator
corresponding to u; then we consider the set Jt of all L-interior operators
provided with the subsequent properties
• K satisfies (K5) and (K6) .

Since the coarsest stratified L-topology is also transitive, the set Jt is non
empty. Further let Jo(Jt) be the set of all non empty, finite subsets H of Jt.
Then the map Koo : LX f---t LX defined by
V{ 1\ K(be) I H E Jo(Jt) , 1\ he :::; h}

KEH KEH
is again an L-interior operator satisfying (K5) In order to verify (K6) we

proceed as follows: We fix x E L, h E LX , H E Jo(Jt) and choose be E LX
with 1\ be :::; h c:J x . Ix. Then we define a map lK : X f---t L by
KEH
Idx) = (x-+.1) """7 Udx)-+.1)) -+.1 "Ix E X
where 0: """7 _ is the right adjoint map to 0: 8 _. Now we apply the algebraic
strong De Morgan law (cf. Proposition 2.3. in [12]) and obtain:
V Udx) -+.1) = V (x -+ .i) """7 Udx) -+ .i)

KEH KEH
422 U. Hahle
= (x --+ .L) -, ( V(fJdx) --+ .L))

X:EH
> (x --+.L) -, ((x --+ .L) 0 (h(x) --+ .L))
> h(x) --+ .L
i.e. 1\ Ix: ~ h. Further it is not difficult to verify Ix: < X· Ix r::J Ix:.
X:EH
Summing up we get
1\ K(fx:) < 1\ K(x· Ix r::J ]x;) = X· Ix r::J (1\ K(jx:))

X:EH X:EH X:EH
< x·lx r::J Koo(h)
hence the inequality Koo(x· Ix r::J h) < X· Ix r::J Koo(x . Ix r::J h) follows.
Since the converse inequality is trivial, the axiom (K6) is established. Finally,
the subsequent relation
VKE.It
follows from the construction of Koo and the usual L-interior operator axioms
(KO) - (K2) (cf. case ® = 1\ in Subsection 6.1 in [14]); hence the L-topology
Too corresponding to Koo fulfills the desired properties.
o
Sometimes it is not easy to compute explicitly the coreflection of a stratified,
L-topological space in ST 0 L-TOP. In the case of 0 = * there exists a simple
solution as the following proposition demonstrates:
Proposition 4.2 Let (X, T) be a stratified, L-topological space, and let (X, TO)
be the coreflection of (X, T) in ST .L-TOP (= P L-TOP). Further let 0"0 be
the subframe of LX generated given by {a --+ gig E T, a E L}. Then TO
and 0"0 coincide.
Proof. We note that in any complete MV-algebra the following relations are
valid
(i) a --+ ((311\ (32) = (a --+ (3d 1\ (a --+ (32)
(ii) a --+ (V (3i) = V(a --+ (3i) .

iEI iEI
(iii) a * ((3 --+ 'Y) (a --+ (3) --+ (((3 --+ a) * ((31\ 'Y))
The relations (i) and (ii) are well known (cf. Proposition 2.1, Proposition 2.8,
Proposition 5.2(c) in [14]). Further the divisibility axiom of MV-algebras im-
plies (cf. Lemma 2.5, Lemma 2.14 in [14]):
(a --+ (3) * a * ((3 --+ 'Y) = (a 1\ (3) * ((3 --+ 'Y) = ((3 --+ a) * (3 * ((3 --+ 'Y)
= ((3 --+ a) * ((31\ 'Y)
Since (0 -t (3) -t..l = 0 * ({3 -t..l) :$ 0 * ({3 -t ,), we obtain from

Proposition 2.15 in [14]:
= (0 -t (3) -t (0 -t (3) * 0* ({3 -t ,))

= (0 -t (3) -t «{3 -t 0) * ({3 1\ ,))
therewith the relation (iii) is verified. Now we return to a stratified L-topology
on Xj then the previous relations (i) - (iii) show that the subframe 0'0 of LX
generated by
{o-tgl gE7, OEL}
is a probabilistic (Le. stratified and translation-invariant) L-topology on X (see
also Remark 3.2(b)). In particular 70 is the coarsest probabilistic L-topology
containing 7.
o
The next lemma gives a characterization of L-continuity in the case of stratified
and transitive L-topological spaces.
Lemma 4.3 (Characterization of L-continuity)
Let (L,:$) be a completely distributive lattice and (L,:$, *, 0) be a quadruple
satisfying (L5) - (L8). Further, let (X,7) and (Y,O') be stratified and transitive
L-topological spaces, and let (Up)PEX and (Vq)qEY be their corresponding
crisp system of L-valued neighborhoods. Then for every : X I----t Y the
following assertions are equivalent
(i) <1>: (X, 7) I----t (Y,O') is L-continuous.
(ii) do E Up Vd E V 4>(p) VpEX
Proof. The L-interior operator corresponding to 7 (resp. 0') is denoted by
K,T (resp.K,u). Then the L-continuity of is equivalent to the following
relation
(0)
Because of Theorem 3.8 and Theorem 3.9 it is easy to see that the implication
(ii) = } (i) holds. In order to verify (i) = } (ii) we proceed as follows: Because
of Theorem 1.3 and the axioms (1Fl) and (Jr2) it is sufficient to establish (ii)
in the case of d = IB V x· Ix where B ~ Y and d E V 4>(p)' Referring to
the relationship between L-interior operators, L-fuzzy contiguity relations and
crisp systems of L-valued neighborhoods (cf. Remark 3.12) we have to show
A (IB((X)) V x) -t..l :$ (K T (IA))(P) VA ~ X. (00)
z!lA
In the case of CA n <1>-1 (B) :f. 0 there is nothing to prove. Therefore we

assume: -I(B) ~ A. Now we invoke (0) and obtain
x = /\ IB(Y) V x) < (Ku(1B))((P)) < (K T (I4>-l(B)))(P)

lI!lB
424 U. Hahle
hence (00) follows.

o
In the following considerations we always consider a completely distributive
lattice (L,::;) and two quadruples (L,::;, *, 81) and (L,::;, *, 82) satisfying
(L5) - (L8) (see General Assumptions in Section 2). Further we assume that
82 ::; 81 - i.e. a 82 f3 ::; a 81 f3 Va, f3 E L. Then there exists a functor
£12 : ST 01 L-TOP t---+ ST 02 L-TOP defined as follows: Let (X,,) be an
object of ST 01 -TOP, and (Up)PEX be the corresponding crisp system of L-
valued neighborhoods. Since the axiom (U4)01 implies always (U4)02 , we infer
from Theorem 3.8 that (Up)PEX induces w.r.t 82 an L-interior operator K12
by
v (1\
dEU p "'EX
((d(x) 82 (j(x) ~ -L)) ~ -L))
If we denote the corresponding L-topology by '12, then the actions of £12 on

objects and morphisms can be specified as follows:
Because of Theorem 3.9 it is easy to see that £12 is even an embedding functor.
Theorem 4.4 The embedding functor £l2 : ST 01 L-TOP t---+ ST 02 L-TOP
has a left adjoint. In particular, the unit of this adjoint situation is a natural
bimorphism.
Proof. In order prove that £12 has a left adjoint it is sufficient to show that
for any object (X,O") E ST 02 L-TOP there exists w.r.t. 81 the finest stratified
and transitive L-topology '00 on X such that idx : (X, 0") t---+ £12(X,,00) is
L-continuous. For this purpose let 'I be the family of all stratified L-topologies
I on X provided with the following properties:
• I is transitive w.r.t. 81.

• idx : (X, 0") t---+ £12(X,,) is L-continuous.
Further, let (U~T))PEX be the crisp system of L-valued neighborhoods corre-
sponding to I, and let (VP)PEX be again the crisp system of L-valued neighbor-
hoods corresponding to 0". Because of Lemma 4.3 the L-continuity of the iden-
tity map idx : (X,O") t---+ £12 (X, I) is equivalent to U~T) ~ Vp Vp EX.
Since V P satisfies the axiom (lF2), the T -filter U~ generated by
U{U~T) I I E 'I} exists and is contained in V p' It is not difficult to show that
(U~)PEX is w.r.t. 81 a crisp system of L-valued neighborhoods. We denote
the corresponding stratified and transitive L-topology by '00' Referring again
to Lemma 4.3 we obtain that idx : (X,O") t---+ £12(X,,00) is L-continuous;
hence '00 fulfills the desired properties. In particular the unit of this adjoint
situation is a natural bimorphism.
o
Corollary 4.5 The category ST 01 L-TOP is isomorphic to a birefiectice sub-

category of ST 02 L-TOP. In particular, every category ST 0 L-TOP is iso-
morphic to a birefiective subcategory of the category of probabilistic L-topological
spaces.
Proof. The assertion follows immeadiately from Theorem 4.4.

o
5 Case of the real unit interval

Various authors use the real unit interval [0,1] as the underlying lattice for
investigations in fuzzy topology. Therefore it seems to be reasonable to devote
an entire section to this special case.
In order to have the usual operations + and - at our disposal we always
view [0,1] as a complete MV -algebra - i.e. the operation * on [0,1] is given
by the Lukasiewicz' arithmetic conjunction:
a*/3 max (a + /3 - 1, 0) Va,/3E[O,I]
Proposition 5.1 Let 8 = min, and let T be a [O,I]-topology on X. Then

the following assertions are equivalent:
(i) T is stratified and transitive.
(ii) T is weakly stratified and co-stratified - i.e. T fulfills the following

properties:
(EO) a· Ix E T VaE[O,I] . (Constant Conditions)
(T2) gET =} g I> (a . Ix) E T Va E [0, 1] . (Co-Stratification)
Proof. The implication (i) = } (ii) is obvious. In order to verify (ii) =} (i) it
is sufficient to show that T is stratified. Because of
(g I> a)(xo) = inf{A E [0,1]1 g(xo) :::; max(A,a)}

min (g(xo) , I{x:a<g(x)}(x o))
we obtain
sup min (/3 , I{x: /3<T_1(a,g(x))} (xo))

/3E[O,l[
sup min (/3 , I{x:l-a+/3<g(x)}(xo), g(xo))

/3E[O,l[
sup min (/3, (g I> (1- a + (3)) (xo))

/3E[O,l[
426 U.Hohle
hence the stratification axiom follows from (EO) and (T2) .

o
Because of Proposition 5.1 we can conclude from Theorem 3.8 and Theorem
3.9 that in the case of <:) = min weakly stratified and co-stratified, [0,1]-
topological spaces and fuzzy neighborhood spaces (introduced by Lowen in [18])
are equivalent concepts. This result was first established by P. Wuyts, R. Lowen
and E. Lowen [29] (see also Theorem 2.6 in [16]). The characterization of weakly
stratified and co-stratified [O,I]-topologies by Boolean valued (resp. lR([O,I])-
valued) neighborhoods is new (cf. Remark 3.17). Further it follows from Proposi-
tion 3.3 and Proposition 5.1 that [0, 1]-interior operators corresponding to fuzzy
neighborhood spaces are characterized by the simple condition
(K6) max(a, (JC(f))(x)) = (JC(max(f, a 'lx))(x) 'r/xEX
which is dual to
(F) min(a, (I(f))(x)) = (I(min(f, a· Ix ))(x) 'r/xEX
where I denotes the corresponding closure operator. The condition (F) ap-
peared independently in [20, 21] and in [19] and is an important simplification
of the condition (C') given originally by R. Lowen in [18]. Moreover, we con-
clude from Corollary 3.15 (cf. Remark 3.16(a)) that [0, 1]-fuzzifying topologies
(cf. [30]) and [O,I]-topologies corresponding to fuzzy neighborhood spaces are
equivalent concepts. In this context we now exhibit a close relationship be-
tween a-cuts of [0, 1]-fuzzifying topologies on one hand and a-level topologies
associated with fuzzy neighborhood spaces on the other hand.
Let r be a [0, 1]-topology on X. Then for every a E [0,1[ the set
Lo:(r) = {g-l(]a,l]) I g E r}
is an ordinary topology on X. Following the terminology proposed by R. Lowen
and P. Wuyts (cf. [17, 28]) we call Lo: (r) the a-level topology associated with
r. If r is co-stratified w.r.t. <:) = min, then it is not difficult to show that the
corresponding system (Lo:(r))O:E[O,l[ is nested - i.e.
f3 $ a ~ Lo:(r) ~ L/3(r)
On the other hand, if J.L is a [0, 1]-fuzzifying topology on X, then the a-cuts
J.L0: of J.L
J.L0: = {G E P(X) I a $ J.L(G)} (a E ]0,1])
form also ordinary topologies on X (cf. Corollary 2.1 in [30]).
Proposition 5.2 Let J.L be a [0, 1]-fuzzifying topology on X and let r be the
corresponding weakly stratified and co-stratified [0, 1]-topology associated with a
given fuzzy neighborhood system. Then for all a E]O,I] the following relation
holds4
J.L0: = n
Lo:(r)
/3E[O,o:[
4More details on a-cuts and VD-c!osure operators (cf. [1]) can be found in [13].
Proof. Let Kr be the [0, l]-interior operator corresponding to 7, and let G

be an element of ~i3(7). We choose 9 E 7 with G = {x E X I (3 < g(x)}.
Since 7 is co-stratified w.r.t. 0 = min, we obtain:
9 1\ 1a
i.e. {3 :S inf (Kr(1a))(q); hence (3 :S p,(G) follows from Remark 3.16(a).

Therefore
qEa
n
i3E[O,Q[
~i3(7) is contained in p'Q' On the other hand, if A E p'Q, then
we obtain (cf. Remark 3.16(a))
'v'q E A 'v'q~ A;
hence A = {x E X 1(3 < (Kr(lA))(x)) for all (3 < a - i.e. P,Q is also a
subset of n ~i3(7).
i3E[O,Q[
o
By virtue of Corollary 4.5 and Proposition 5.1 the category of fuzzy neigh-
borhood spaces is isomorphic to a bireflective subcategory of the category of
probabilistic [O,l]-topological spaces. In the following considerations we clarify
the problem to which extend fuzzy neighborhood spaces and probabilistic [0,1]-
topological spaces can be considered as ordinary topological spaces. Since [0, 1]
is a spatial locale (cf. [15]) - in particular every element a E [0, 1[ is prime,
it is well known that [0,1]- topological spaces (X,7) can be identified with
ordinary topological spaces (X x [0, 1[,11\) where 'll'r is given by (cf. Remark
3.2(c), p. 453 in [17], p.249 in [24], Remark 7.1.5 in [14]):
= {{(x,a)la<g(x)} I gE7}
A subset G of X x [0,1[ is called [O,l[-stable iff G satisfies the following
conditions
(Sl) (x, a) E G and (3 :S a ==} (x, (3) E G
(S2) 'v' (x,a) E G 3, > a s.t. (x,,) E G .
It is easy to see that every map 9 : X f----t [0,1] determines a [0, 1[-stable
subset G g of X x [0,1[ by G g =
((x, a) Ia < g(x)}, and vice versa every
[0, l[-stable subset G of X x [0,1[ induces a map ga : X f----t [0,1] by
ga(x) sup{ a E [0, 1[ I (x, a) E G}
In particular, the following relations are valid: Gga = G and gag = g; i.e.
[0, 1[-stable subsets of X x [0,1[ and [O,l]-valued maps with domain X are
equivalent concepts.
As immediate consequence of the foregoing considerations we can state the
following
428 U. Hohle
Lemma 5.3 Let 1l' be an ordinary topology on X x [0, 1[. Then the following
assertions are equivalent:
(i) Every set G E 1l' is [0, 1[-stable .

(ii) There exists a unique [0, I)-topology r on X s.t. 1l' 1l'T'
Proposition 5.4 Let 1l' be an ordinary topology on X x [0, I[ provided with the
property that every element G E 1l' is [O,I[-stable. Further let r be the [0,1)-
topology corresponding to 1l'. Then the following assertions are equivalent:
(i) r is weakly stratified and co-stratified w.r.t. 8 = min

(i.e r is a [0, I)-topology of a fuzzy neighborhood space).
(ii) 1l' fulfills the additonal properties
(ws) X x [0, 0:[ E 1l' '110: E )0, I)
GE1l' =?
(cos) {
{(x, 0:) E X x [0, I[ I (x, max(o:,.8)) E G} E 1l' '11.8 E [O,I[ .
Proof. The equivalence between (ws) and the weak stratification axiom is
evident. The equivalence between (cos) and the co-stratification axiom follows
from
(gt>.8)(x) = sup{o:e[O,l[1 0: < g(x),.8::; o:} VxeX .
o
Proposition 5.5 Let 1l' be an ordinary topology on X x [O,I[ provided with
the property that every element G e 1l' is [0, 1[-stable. Further let r be the
[0, I)-topology on X corresponding to 1l'. Then the following assertions are
equivalent:
(i) r is a probabilistic [0, I)-topology on X
(ii) 1l' fulfills the additonal properties
(s) G E 1l' =? {(x, 0: + .8 - 1) I (x,.8) E G , 1 - 0: ::;.8} E 1l'

'110: E )0, I) .
GE1l' =?
(t) { {(x, 1 - 0: +.8) I (x,.8) E G, .8 < o:} U (X x [0,1 - o:D E 1l'
'110: E)O, 1] .
Proof. The equivalence of (i) and(ii) follows from the subsequent relations:
max(g(x) + 0: -1,0) sup{o: +.8 -11 .8 < g(x) ,1- 0: ::; .8}
min(I- 0: + g(x), 1) = max(sup{I- 0: +.8 I .8 < g(x), .8 < o:}, 1- 0:)
where g denotes a [0, I)-valued map with domain X.

o
We close this section with an important class of examples of stratified and
transitive [0, I)-topological spaces generated by probabilistic metric spaces.
Example 5.6 Let T be a continuous t-norm which dominates the Lukasiewicz'

arithmetic conjunction T-1 - i.e. the quadruple ([0, 1], ::;, T-1, T) satisfies the
axioms (L5) - (L8) (cf. Proposition 2.6). Further let V+ be the set of all
nonnegative probability distribution functions - i.e.
V+ = {F E [O,I)1R I F(O) = 0, sup F(r') = F(r) , sup F(n) = I}

r' <r nEN
A map J' : X x X ~ V+ is called a probabilistic metric on X w.r.t. T iff J'

satisfies the following axioms
(PMl) (J'(x,y))(~) = 1 'tin E N {::::} x = y. (Identity)
(PM2) J'(x,y) J'(y,x) (Symmetry)
(PM3) T((J'(x,y))(rd, (J'(y,z))(r2)) < (J'(x, z))(r1 + r2)

( Triangle-Inequality)
A Menger space 5 is a triple (X, J', T) where X is a set, and J' is a probabilistic
metric on X w.r.t. T. In the case of 0 = T every probabilistic metric J'
on X induces a crisp system (Up)pEX of [0, I)-valued neighborhoods by (cf.
Theorem 4.8 and Proposition 6.3 in [11]):
Up =
{J E [0, I)X I 'tin E N 3m n EN: (J'(p,q))(~J ~ ::; f(q) 'tI q EX}.
It is not difficult to show that (Up)pEU fulfills the axioms (Fl), (lF2), (1U3)
and (1U4)r (cf. Lemma 3.6). Hence (1Up )pEX can be identified with a stratified
and transitive [0, I)-topology T (cf. Theorem 3.8 and Theorem 3.9). Summing
up every Menger space (X, J', T) (provided T dominates T _ d determines a
stratified and transitive [0, I)-topological space. Concrete examples of Menger
spaces can be found in [9) and in Subsection 7.2. in [14).
6 Concluding Remark
Probabilistic L-topological spaces play a dominant role in the theory of those
L-topological spaces which can be characterized by crisp systems of L-valued
neighborhoods (cf. Corollary 4.5). It is remarkable to see that the theory of
5Details of the theory of probabilistic metric spaces can be found in [27J.
430 U. Hohle
probabilistic L-topological spaces including its characterization by systems of

L-valued neighborhoods is only based on complete MV-algebras (L,~, *) and
does not require the complete distributivity of the underlying lattice (L,~) (cf.
Subsection 7.2 in [14]). If 8 and 1\ coincide, then the transitivity is equivalent
to the co-stratification axiom, and the Booleanization of stratified and transi-
tive L-topologies exists. In this case stratified and transitive L-topologies can
be characterized by Boolean-valued neighborhoods (cf. Case C in Subsection
7.4 in [14]). If in addition the underlying complete lattice (L,~) is completely
distributive, then in the case of 8 =j:. * a characterization of stratified and tran-
sitive L-topologies by L-valued neighborhoods is also available (cf. Theorem
3.9, Remark 3.17). Moreover, in the case of 8 = 1\ the complete distributivity
of (L,~) guarantees the equivalence between L-fuzzifying topologies, L-fuzzy
contiguity relations, crisp systems of L-valued neighborhoods and stratified and
transitive L-topologies (cf. Theorem 3.9 and Corollary 3.15).
Acknowledgement. I am deeply indebted to A. Sostak for his suggestions and

comments he made during the preparation of this paper.
References
[1] A. Appert and Ky Fan, Espaces topologiques intermediares, Actualites Sci.
et Ind. 1121 (Hermann, Paris 1951).
[2] L.P. Belluce, Semi-simple and complete MV-algebras, Algebra Universalis

29 (1992), 1-9.

third edition (Amer. Math. Soc., RI, 1973).
[4] J.C. Fodor, Contrapositive symmetry of fuzzy implications (Technical Re-

port 1993/1, Eotvos Lonind University, Budapest 1993).
[5] O. Frink, New algebras of logic, Amer. Math. Monthly 45 (1938),210-219.
[6] G. Gierz, K.H. Hofmann, K. Keimel, J.D. Lawson, M. Mislove, D.S. Scott,
A Compendium of Continuous Lattices (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, New York
1980).
[7] H. Herrlich and G.E. Strecker, Category Theory (Allyn and Bacon, Boston
1973).

245.
[9] ___ , Probabilistische Metriken auf der Menge der nicht negativen
Verteilungsfunktionen, Aequationes Mathematicae 18 (1978), 345-356.
[10] ___ , Uppersemicontinuous fuzzy sets and applications, J. Math. Anal.

Appl. 78 (1980), 659-673.
[11] ___ , Probabilistic topologies induced by L-fuzzy uniformities,
Manuscripta Math. 38 (1982), 289-323.
[12] _ _ , Commutative, residuated f-monoids, in : U. Hohle and E.P. Kle-
ment, Eds., Nonclassical Logics and Their Applications to Fuzzy Subsets,
[13] W. FliishOh and U. Hohle, L-fuzzy contiguity relations and L-fuzzy clo-
sure operators in the case of completely distributive lattices L, Math.
Nachrichten 145 (1990), 119-134.
[14] U. Hohle and A.P. Sostak, Axiomatic foundations of fixed-based fuzzy topol-
[15J P.T. Johnstone, Stone Spaces (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

1982).
[16J E. Lowen, R. Lowen and P. Wuyts, The categorical topology approach to

fuzzy topology and fuzzy convergence, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 40 (1991),
347-373.
[17J R. Lowen, A comparison of different compactness notions in fuzzy topolog-

ical spaces, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 64 (1978), 446-454.
[18J ___ , Fuzzy neighborhood spaces, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 7 (1982),165-
189.
[19] R. Lowen, P. Wuyts and E. Lowen, On the reflectiveness and coreflective-

ness of subcategories of FTS, Math. Nachrichten 141 (1989), 55-65.
[20] N.N. Morsi, A short note on fuzzy neighborhood spaces, Fuzzy Sets and
Systems 23 (1987), 393-397.
[21] ___ , The Urysohn Lemma for fuzzy neighborhood spaces, Fuzzy Sets
and Systems 39 (1991), 347-360.
[22] H. Prade, Nomenclature of fuzzy measures, in : E.P. Klement, Ed., Pro-
ceedings of the first International Seminar on Fuzzy Set Theory, 8-25 (Uni-
versity of Linz 1979, Linz (Austria)).
[23] G.N. Raney, Completely distributive complete lattices, Proc. Amer. Math.
Soc. 3 (1952), 677-670.
[24] S.E. Rodabaugh, A categorical accomodation of various notions of fuzzy
topology, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 9 (1983), 241-265.
[25] K.I. Rosenthal, Quantales and their applications, Pitman Research Notes
in Mathematics 234 (Longman, Burnt Mill, Harlow 1990).
432 U. Hahle
[26] E.S. Santos, Topology versus fuzzy topology (Preprint University of Youngs-
town 1977, Youngstown (Ohio, USA)).
[27] B. Schweizer and A. Sklar, Probabilistic Metric Spaces (North Holland, New
York, 1983).
[28] P. Wuyts, On the determination of fuzzy topological spaces and fuzzy neigh-
borhood spaces by their level-topologies, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 12 (1984),
71-85.
[29] P. Wuyts, R. Lowen and E. Lowen, Reflectors and co reflectors in the cate-
gory of fuzzy topological spaces, Comput. Math. Appl. 16 (1988), 823-836.
[30] Mingsheng Ying, A new approach to fuzzy topology (/), Fuzzy Sets and
Systems 39 (1991), 303-321.
CHAPTER 6
Separation Axioms: Extension Of Mappings

And Embedding Of Spaces*
T. KUBIAK
Introd uction
The present chapter is intended to give a self-contained development of some
of the topics of fuzzy topology (54A40) that involve L-real-valued continuous
functions on L-topological spaces. The four major themes include separation of
L-sets by continuous L-real functions, insertion of continuous L-real functions
between two comparable L-real functions, extension of continuous L-real func-
tions from a subspace to the entire space and embedding L-topological spaces
into products. (In actual fact, it is the embedding of L- Tychonoff spaces into
L-cubes which falls into that category of results.)
In general topology (i.e. when the lattice L is the two-point chain) these
ideas are among the most important aspects, and related results, such as e.g.
Urysohn lemma, Tietze extension theorem or Tychonoff embedding theorem,
rank among the fundamental theorems.
The fuzzy topology we shall deal with is that which in this Handbook is
named the fixed-basis fuzzy topology. This means that throughout this article
the lattice L is fixed (modulo some aditional assumptions) as in the chapter
by H6hle and Sostak [13]. The assumptions about L have been minimalized
and, consequently, our main results are complete lattice results. We recall that
most of the separation axioms that will concern us as well as the concept of
an L-real-valued function require L to be isomorphic to its dual lattice via an
involution. Thus, a complete lattice with an order-reversing involution is the
minimal assumption for this chapter. We notice that, unlike [13], we classically
use the meet operation in the definition of an L-topology by letting Q9 = 1\ (see
[13] for details) .
• Dedicated to Professor Kiyoshi Iseki on his 80th birthday.

434 T. Kubiak
In some instances, in particular when the poset of all continuous L-real

functions is required to be a lattice, we shall assume that L is meet-continuous.
The distributivity (in a form of the infinite distribution law) is mainly needed
when making statements about universal spaces.
We note that our results truly generalize their topological counterparts. This
means that not only statements of the latter but also their proofs are obtainable
by letting L to be a two-point lattice. We recall that this is rarely the case in
those papers in which L is the real unit interval [0,1]. These papers freely use
the order-density of [0,1] while the two-point lattice (general topology) is not
order-dense.
The outline of this paper is as follows:
§1 First L-topological concepts.
Lattices. L-sets. L-topological spaces. Continuity, subs paces and products.
Stratification.
§2 L-real-valued functions.
Monotone L-subsets of the real line. L-real line and L-intervals. Semicon-
tinuous and continuous L-real functions. Characteristic functions of L-sets.
Separating L-sets by continuous L-real functions. Generating continuous L-
real functions.
§3 Separation axioms.
Completely L-regular spaces and L-regular spaces. L-normal spaces. Separa-
tion properties of L-reals.
§4 Insertion and extension of mappings.
Two insertion lemmas. Insertion and extension theorems for L-normal spaces.
General L-topological insertion and extension theorems. Extending ffi.(L)-
valued functions.
§5 Embedding of L-topological spaces.
Completely regular families of functions. Embedding theorems. Universal L-
topological spaces.
1 First L-topological concepts
Concerning the general background, we refer the reader to the foundation chap-
ters [13] and [47]. For the reader's convenience we compile here those L-
topological concepts (and only those) that we shall need in the sequel. These
are all standard and come from [4, 8, 9, 34, 53]. Some of those notions can
essentially be found in [13] and [47], but not all of them and not always in the
form we need herein. Our references for lattices are [6] and [2].
Separation axioms 435
Lattices
Let L be a complete lattice. Its universal bounds are denoted by .l and T. Thus
.l ~ a ~ T for all a E L. We set V0 =.l and A 0 = T. The two-point
lattice {.l, T} is denoted by 2.
A unary operation ' on L is a quasi-complementation if it is an involution
(Le. a" = a for all a E L) that inverts the ordering (Le. a ~ /3 implies /3' ~ a').
In (L,') the de Morgan laws hold:
for every A C L. In particular, .l' = T and T' = .l.

In each complete lattice L one has the two generalized associative laws:
jEJ jEJ jEJ jEJ
for arbitrary {Aj c L : j E J}.

A complete lattice L is meet-continuous if
(MC)
for all a ELand all directed sets DeL (D is directed if, whenever "{1, "{2 ED,
there is "{ E D such that "{1 ~ "{ and "{2 ~ "( ). It is easy to show that (M C) is
equivalent to
(MC)*
where D 1 , D2 CLare directed.

We remark that the set D in (MC) (likewise those of (MC*)) can without
loss of generality be assumed to be a chain (cf. [10, p. 122]). This actually will
always be the case in this chapter.
A complete lattice L is infinitely distributive (or a frame or a complete Heyt-
ing algebra) if
(ID)
for all a ELand BeL. We note, using the generalized associative law, that
(ID) is equivalent to
(ID)* 1\ VA j = V{ 1\ cpU) : cpE II Aj}

jEJ jEJ jEJ
for arbitrary Aj C L with a finite index set J.

Clearly, in (L,') we also have the dual versions of (Me), (ID), etc., i.e di-
rected infs distribute over finite sups in L, etc.
436 T. Kubiak
If the index set J is arbitrary, (ID*) becomes the complete distributive law
(CD). We shall never use (CD) in this chapter, but may refer to it when making
historical remarks.
1.1 Example. The following provide some examples l of a complete lattice L

with a quasi-complementation (= order-reversing involution)' :
(1) L = [0,1] with a' = rp-l(l-rp(a)), a E L, where rp is an order-preserving
bijection from L to L. In the standard example one has 'lj; = idL.
(2) L = {n~l: i = 1, ... ,n - 1} with the natural ordering and (n~l)' =
n-i-l
n=r.
(3) L = {.1, a, {3, T} (where a /\ {3 = .1 and a V {3 = T) with a' = a and
{3' = {3 (cf. [41]).
(4) L = P(X) (the power set of a set X) with A' = X\g(A) for every A eX,
where 9 is an involution of X onto itself (this is an example of a quasi-Boolean
algebra, see [41] for more details and for a representation theorem).
(5) Let (L, *) be a complete MV-algebra. Then a' = a -t.1 =
V{oX E L : 0.*>' = .1}, a E L, is a quasi-complementation (see [12] for details;
also see [13]). Note that such L does not need to be completely distributive.
(6) Among nondistributive lattices with a quasi-complementation' are also
those in which' is an orthocomplementation (i.e., a /\ a' = .1 and, thus,
a V a' = T for all a E L). A particular class of such lattices is provided
by weakly orthomodular lattices. These are complete lattices with an ortho-
complementation' satisfying the following weak modularity condition: if a is
orthogonal to {3 (i.e. 0.:-::; {3') and {3 :-::; " then (a V {3) /\, = (a /\ ,) V {3.
Typical examples are the lattices of closed subspaces of a Hilbert space. For
more information see [52] (also cf. [2]).
(7) Finally, we mention complete Boolean algebras (which are special cases
of both (5) and (6)).
L-sets
Let (L,') be a complete lattice. For X a set, LX is the complete lattice of all
maps from X into L, called L-sets or L-subsets of X, under pointwise ordering:
a:-::; b in LX if and only if a(x):-::; b(x) in L
for all xEX. In particular, given A c LX we have (VA)(x) = V{a(x): aEA}
for all x EX, and the same for infs.
For Y C X and a E LX, alY E L Y is the restriction of a to Y. If A c X,
1A E 2x C LX is the characteristic function of A. The constant member of LX
with value a is denoted a too. We write alA for 0./\ 1A. The cardinality of a
set X is denoted IXI.
Clearly, LX has a quasi-complementation' defined pointwisely: a'(x) =
a(x)' for all a E LX and x E X. Thus, the de Morgan laws are inherited by
(LX ,').
1 Examples (5) and (6) have been suggested by u. Hohle.

Images and inverse images of L-sets

Let f: X -t Y be an arbitrary mapping. We define
r': LX -t L Y and r-: L Y -t LX
by
f~(a) = V a(x)I{!(:r)} and r(b) =b 0 f
:rEX
for all aEL x and bEL Y (where b 0 f, the composition of f and b, will later be
denoted by just bf). Clearly, r(a)(y) = V{a(x) : f(x) = y} for all yEY.
Note that f~(IA) = If(A) and r-(IB) = I f -1(B)'
All the properties of images and inverse images of sets are inherited by the
two operators just defined. We shall need a number of them, viz.:
1.2 Properties. Let (L,') be complete. Let f: X -t Y, g: Y -t Z, a E LX,

bEL Y , CEL z . Then:
(1) j'- preserves arbitrary sups and arbitrary infs; f~ preserves arbitrary
sups (in particular both are order-preserving),
(2) a ~ r-U~(a)),
(3) rU+-(b)) ~ b, and rU+-(b)) = b if and only if f is onto,
(4) (g 0 f)~(a) = g~U~(a)),
(5) (g 0 f)+-(c) = f+-(g+-(c)),
(6) f+- (b') = f+- (b)'.
Proof. Let us check (4). We calculate
g~U~(a)) = V f~(a)(y) l{g(y)}
yEY
= V(V
yEY :rEX
a(x) 1{!(:r)} (y)) l{g(y)}
= V(V
xEX :rEX
a(x) 1{!(:r)}U(X))) l{g(f(:r))}
= V a(x) l{g(f(:r))}
:rEX
= (g 0 f)~(a). D
We shall distinguish notationally between images and inverse images of L-

sets generated by f: X -t Y and its restriction j: X -t f(X) where f(x) =
f(x) for all xEX. For aEL x and bEL Y we trivially have:
j~(a) = f~(a)lf(X) and f+-(b) = j+-(blf(X)).
Notation. If A eLY, then f+-(A) = U"'(a) : aEA}.
438 T. Kubiak
L-topological spaces
Let (L, ') be a complete lattice. A subfamily T c LX which is closed under

the formation of any sups and finite infs (both formed in LX) is called an L-
topology on X and its members are called open L-sets (thus, 10, Ix ET)2. The
L-topological space (X, T) will often be denoted just by X and its L-topology
by o(X). Members of K(X) = {kELX : k' is open} are called closed. Clearly,
K(X) is closed under any infs and finite sups.
Many of the point-free topological concepts easily generalize to an L-topo-
logical setting. An 8 c LX is said to generate o(X) if
o(X) = n{T :J 8: T is an L-topology on X},
and we write o(X) = ((8)). If Be LX and
o(X) = {V B: Be B},
then B is a base for X. A family K of closed L-sets is a closed base if K' = {k' :
k E K} is a base. The weight w(X) of X is the smallest infinite cardinal such
that X has a base of cardinality ~ w(X), i.e.
w(X) = min {IBI : B is a base for X} + No.

1.3 Lemma. Let L be a complete lattice, X be an L-topological space, and let
U be a family of open L-sets. Then there exists a subfamily Uo C U such that
VUo= VU and IUD I ~ w(X).
Proof. Let B be a base for X with IBI ~ w(X). Let
v= {vEB : v ~ u for some UEU}.
For v E V choose Uv E U such that v ~ Uv . We set
Uo = {u v E U: vEV}.
Clearly, IUol ~ w(X). Since B is a base, for every U E U there is V" C V such
that VV" = u. Also, for every vEV" one has v ~ Uv ~ VUo· Thus VV" ~ VUo
for all uEU. Therefore,
Vu = V VV" ~ VUo.
"EU
This proves the nontrivial inequality. D

We note that if L is a frame and T = ((8)), then B = {/\ s : S E8, S is finite}
is a base.
2We note that this is a special case of the concept investigated in [13] (see Introduction).
Let aEL x . Then
Clx a = l\{kE"'(X): a:::; k}
is the closure of a (also denoted by a), and
Intx a = V{UEO(X) : u:::; a}
is the interior of a (also denoted by Int a). We note that Clx satisfies all the
four Kuratowski's axioms and !ntx has the well-known dual properties. Also
notice that !ntx a = (Clx(a'))/.
Continuity, subspaces and products
For L-topological spaces X and Y, f: X -+ Y is called continuous if, whenever

u is open in Y, uf is open in X. Clearly, the composition of two continuous
functions is continuous by 1.2(5). The collection of all continuous functions
from X to Y is denoted C(X, Y).
1.4 Proposition. Let (L, ') be complete. For f: X -+ Y, the following state-
ments are equivalent:
(1) f is continuous,
(2) r-(",(Y)) c ",(X),
(3) r-(S) C o(X) for any S C L Y with o(Y) = ((S)),
(4) f-+(Clx a) :::; Cly f-+(a) for all aEL x ,
(5) Clxf+-(b):::; f+-(Clyb)forallbELY.
Proof. (1) ¢:} (2) is trivial by 1.2(6); (1) ¢:} (3) is proved in Chapter 3 or
Chapter 4 of this volume (see [13, 3.3] or [47, 3.2.6]); (2) => (4) => (5) => (2)
follows by standard argument by using 1.2. 0
A continuous bijection f: X -+ Y is a homeomorphism if f- 1 is conti-
nuous. This is equivalent to the statement that f is closed continuous bijection,
i.e. f-+(k) is closed in Y for every k closed in X. Indeed, (J-l)+- = f-+.
For (Y, r) an L-topological space and a map f: X -+ Y, f+-(r) is an L-
topology on X by 1.2(1), and is clearly the smallest L-topology on X making f
continuous from X to (Y, r). When X C Y and f is the identity embedding,
then
Tx = f+-(r) = {uIX: uET}
is called the subspace L-topology.
If f: X -+ Y is continuous, then so is the restriction flA: A -+ Y for every
subspace A of X (as flA is the composition of iA, the identity embedding of A
into X, andj). Continuous is also 1: X -+ f(X) , because for every open u in
Y one has f+-(ulf(X)) = f+-(u).
440 T. Kubiak
More generally, if BeY, then g: X """"* B is continuous if and only if

f = jB 0 g: X """"* Y is continuous. Indeed,
g+-(o(B)) = g+-(jB+-(O(Y)) = (jB 0 g)+-(o(Y)) = f+-(o(Y)).
We say that f: X """"* Y is an embedding if j: X """"* f(X) is a homeomorphism.

For future use we include the following:
1.5 Lemma. Let (L, ') be a complete lattice. If f: X """"* Y is continuous and
aEL x , then
Clf(x) f-t(a) = (Cly r(a)) I f(X).
Proof. Since f-t(a) = f-+(a) on f(X) and f-+(a) =..L on Y \ f(X), hence
Clf(x) f-t(a) = 1\ {klf(X) : f-t(a) :::; klf(X), kE~(Y)}

= l\{klf(X): f-+(a) :::; k, kE~(Y)}
= (Cly r(a)) I f(X). 0
1.6 Lemma. Let L be complete. If 8 c L Y and f maps a set X into Y, then

f+-(((8))) = ((1+-(8))).
Proof. The inclusion :::> is obvious. Since f+-(8) c ((1+-(8))), hence f is
continuous from (X, ((1+-(8)))) to (Y, ((8))) by 1.4(3). This yields the non-trivial
inclusion. 0
1. 7 Corollary. Let L be complete. If I = ((8)) on X and A eX, then

IA = ((8A)) where 8A = {uIA: uE 8}. 0
Now, let (7j)jEJ be a family of L-topologies on a set X. The supremum
L-topology VjEJ 7j is one which is generated by UjEJ 7j.
Let (Xj)jEJ be a family of L-topological spaces. The product of the Xj is
the usual Cartesian product ITjEJ Xj L-topologized by the L-topology
V1rj (o(Xj)),
jEJ
where 1rj is the j th projection.

As a consequence of the definition and 1.4(3) (the latter is the most impor-
tant statement in this section, because it enables us to deal with continuity in
a distributivity-free environment!) we have the following:
1.8 Proposition. Let L be a complete lattice. Then f: Y""""* ITjEJ Xj is con-

tinuous if and only if 1rj 0 f: Y """"* Xj is continuous for every j E J. 0
Stratification
An L-topological space X is called, in this Handbook, weakly stratifietP if all

the constant L-sets of X are open (cf. [34]).
That we deal here with (weak) stratification serves essentially only one pur-
pose, mainly in section 5, viz. to be able to embed sub-products into products
(see below).
Let Cx denote all the constant L-sets of X. For i an L-topology on X, we
let
i e = iVCx .
Then X with rc is called weakly stratified and is denoted by Xc. If X = Xc,
we obviously have
C(X, Y) = C(X, ye).
1.9 Proposition. Let L be a complete lattice. Let f: X ~ Y (a mapping from
a set to a set). Let A C Y and let i and (1j)jEJ be L-topologies on Y. Then:
(1) f+-(Cy) = cx,
(2) f+- (ie) = (f+- (I))e,
(3) (V jEJ 1j)e = VjEJ i/,
(4) (iAY = (rc)A.
Proof. (1) is obvious. For (2), since i e is generated by iUCy, hence
f+-(iUCy) = f+-(I) uCx generates f+-(i e ) by 1.6. Statement (3) is obvious
and (4) follows from (2) with f the identity embedding of A into Y. 0
As a consequence of (2) and (3) above, we obtain:
1.10 Proposition. Let L be complete. Let (Xj )jEJ be a family of L-topological

spaces. Then
(II Xjy = II Xi- 0
jEJ jEJ
We observe that even if only a factor, Xj say, is weakly stratified then so is

the whole product X = I1 jEJ Xj. Indeed, we then clearly have
Cx C 7rj(o(Xj )).
This is the reason that only those factors (or products of those factors), that
are weakly stratified can standartly be embedded into the product (cf. [39]).
For, the usual bijective copy of Xjo in X, viz.
Z = {xEX : Xj = Zj whenever i i- io}

3For what is stratified and strongly stratified, we refer to [13,5.1 and particularly 5.2.7).
442 T. Kubiak
(where Zj is fixed in Xj for i 1= io) always has constant L-sets when considered
as the subspace of the product. Namely, L-sets Uj = 7rj(u)IZ (u open in Xj)
generate the L-topology on Z (cf. 1.7) and for every xEZ
Uj(x) = u(Zj) whenever i 1= io,

i.e. Uj ECz if i 1= io.
Thus, while cp = 7rjolZ is a continuous bijection from Z to Xjo, its inverse
cp-l is continuous provided Xjo has enough constant L-sets (precisely, when
every constant L-set with values in {u( Zj) : U is open in Xj and i 1= io} is
open in Xjo)' This is guaranted by the case when Xjo is weakly stratified. This
discussion is summarized by the following:
1.11 Proposition. Let L be a complete lattice. For (Xj)jEJ a family of L-to-

pological spaces, the following are equivalent for any i E J:
(1) IT jEJ Xj is weakly stratified and Xj can be embedded into the product.
(2) Xj is weakly stratified. 0
2 L-real-valued functions
The usual symbols JR and Q stand for real and rational numbers, and I =
[0,1] C JR. We shall deal with the L-reals of [14] and [5]. (See [11] and [35]
for other fuzzy reals.) The details of the presentation which follows come from
[22,24,27]. In most cases, we do not make specific references to·these papers.
Monotone L-subsets of the real line

Let L be a complete lattice and JRL be the set of all order-reversing maps
.x : JR -+ L provided with the following properties
V.x(JR) = T , /\ .x(JR) =..L .
For .x E JRL and t E JR, we let
.x+(t) = V.x(t,oo) and .x-(t) = /\.x(-oo,t).
Clearly.x+ ~ .x ~ .x-.
2.1 Lemma. Let L be a complete lattice. For.x, I" E JRL, the following hold:
(1) 0+ and 0- are order-preserving self-mappings of JRL,
(2) .x++ =.x+ = .x-+ and .x-- =.x- = .x+-,
(3) .x+ ~ 1"+ iff .x- ~ 1"- iff .x+ ~ 1"-,
(4) .x+ = 1"+ iff .x- = 1"-,
(5) 0+ preserves all the existing sups in lRL and 0- preserves all the
existing infs (both formed in lRL),
(6) If ¢J: lR -+ lR is an increasing bijection, then A 0 ¢J E lRL, (A 0 ¢J)+ =
A+ 0 ¢J and (A 0 ¢J)- = A- 0 ¢J.
Proof. (1) We have /\ >.+ (lR) ~ 1\ A(lR) =.1 and
VA+(lR) = VVA(t, 00) = V(U A(t,OO)) = VA(lR) = T;

tEIR tEIR
similarly for 0 - .
(2) As above,
A+(t) = V(U A(S,OO)) = VVA(S,OO) = VA+(S) = >.++(t).

s>t s>t s>t
If s > t, then >.+(t) ~ A-(S), hence A+(t) ~ Vs>t A-(S) = A-+(t) and A-+ ~
A+ is obvious. This proves the first assertion of (2). The proof of the second
one is similar.
(3) Let >.+ ~ p,+. By monotonicity of 0 - and (2), we have A- = >.+- ~
p,+- = p,- which clearly implies A+ ~ p,-. Now, the latter inequality and (2)
yield >.+ = >.++ ~ p,-+ = p,+.
(4) is a consequence of (3).
(5) is obvious.
(6) Clearly A 0 ¢J E lRL and
(A 0 ¢J)+(t) = VA(¢J(t,OO)) = VA(¢J(t),oo) = A+(¢J(t));

the same for (-) -. 0
2.2 Example. In general, lRL need not be a sublattice of LIR, i.e. need not be
closed under 1\ and V formed in LIR. To see this, consider the complete lattice
L obtained by identifying the top and bottom elements of two disjoint copies II
and 12 of the real unit interval with the natural ordering (if ai E Ii \ {O, I}, then al
and a2 are incomparable). Now let AI, A2ElRL be such that Ai(lR) C Ii \ {I}.
Then (AI 1\ A2)(lR) = {O}, hence Al 1\ A2 ¢ lRL.
We also note that L has a quasi-complementation, viz. a' = 1 - a E Ii
whenever a E Ii.
The point of this example is that L is not meet-continuous (for if D =
[0,1) C I 1 andaEI2 \{0,1},thenaI\VD=a:j:. O=V{al\,: ,ED}).
2.3 Lemma. Let (L, ') be meet-continuous. Then lRL is a sublattice of LIR and
both (-) + and 0 - are lattice homomorphism, i. e. preserve 1\ and V.
Proof. To avoid repetitions we first observe that for all A, p, E lRL and all A C lR
one has the following:
444 T. Kubiak
(a) V{A 1\ /L)(A) = V A{A) 1\ V /L{A),

(b) I\{A V /L)(A) = 1\ A{A) V 1\ /L{A).
Indeed, since both A{A) and /L{A) are chains in L, we have using (MC*)
VA{A) 1\ V /L{A) = V{A{t) I\/L{s): t,sEA}

< V{A{t 1\ s) I\/L(t1\ s) : t,sEA}
= V(A 1\ /L)(A),
with the reverse inequality being obvious. This proves (a). Now (b) follows
similarly by using the dual of (MC*) which holds on account of ' .
With A = IR we have V(AI\/L)(IR) = T and I\{AV /L)(IR) = 1. by (a) and (b),
respectively. Thus IRL is a sublattice (the other details for this are trivial).
Furthermore, using (a) with A = (t,oo) yields (A 1\ /L)+(t) = A+(t) 1\ /L+(t),
and by (b) with A = (-oo,t) we obtain (A V /L)-(t) = A-(t) V /L-(t). The two
remaining cases are trivial. 0
L-realline and L-intervals

Let (L, ') be a complete lattice. Given A, /LEIRL, let
A '" /L iff A+ = /L+'

This is an equivalence relation and the set IR(L) of all the equivalence classes
[A] is called the L-realline [14], [5]. It becomes a poset with
[A] :5 [/L] iff A+:5 /L+'
The natural L-topology on JR(L) is generated by the L-sets Rt, L t E LR(L)
(tEIR) defined by
2.4 Remark. For each tEIR the following hold:

(1) Rt = V.>tR. = V.>tL~,
(2) L t = V.<t L • = V.<t R ;,
where all the s can be assumed to be rational.
Proof. This is a restatement of 2.1(2). 0

Clearly, R t 1\ R8 = R tV8 and L t 1\ L8 = L tA8 . We thus have another two
L-topologies on IR{L), viz.
and
whose supremum is the natural L-topology of JR(L).

If not otherwise stated, JR(L) carries its natural L-topology and so does any
subspace of JR(L).
Two important subspaces of JR(L) are the following:
I(L) = {[A]EJR(L): A-(O)' = A+(1) = l.}
and
(0,1)(L) = {[A]EI(L): A+(O)' = A-(1) = l.}.
They are called the closed and open unit L-interoals, respectively. The terms
"closed" and "open" should be understood in an order-theoretic sense and not
in a topological one (for, we do not know any L t 2 with which 1/(L) would be
closed in JR(L) and 1(0,1)(L) would be open in I(L)).
Both these L-intervals are equipped with the ordering induced from JR(L).
Of course, pertinent are only the restrictions of L t and R t with tEl, and these
will also be written as L t and R t .
2.5 Proposition. (1) If (L,') is a complete lattice, then (1(L) , e) is a com-

plete lattice (in which VjEAAj] = [V jEJ Aj] and similarly for infs) with a quasi-
complementation [A]e = [Ae] where Ae(t) = A(1 - t)' for all tElR.
(2) If (L,') is meet-continuous, then JR(L) and JR(L)C are L-topological
lattices (in which [A] V [IL] = [A VIL] and similarly for infs).
(3) If (L,') is meet-continuous, then (I(L), e) and (I(L)C, e) are L-topolo-
gical lattices with a continuous quasi-complementation.
Proof. (1) We observe that h = {AELR : [A]EI(L)} is a complete sublattice
of LR. The relation"" on h has the substitution property for arbitrary V and
/\, i.e. if Aj "" ILj for all j, then Vj Aj "" V j ILj and /\j Aj "" /\j ILj by (5)
and (4) of 2.1. Since I(L) = h \ "", it is a complete lattice.
It is easy to verify that
(+) (A+)e = (A e)- and (A-)e = (A e)+
for all AEh, hence AeEh and A ""IL iff Ae '" lL e • Thus [A]e is well defined
and is clearly a quasi-complementation.
(2) JR(L) is a lattice by the same argument as that for (1), using 2.3. Let 71'1
and 71'2 be the projections of JR(L) x JR(L) onto JR(L). Since (-)+ and (.)- are
lattice-homomorphisms (2.3), we have
and dually for the two remaining cases. Thus, /\ and V are continuous from
JR(L) x JR(L) into JR(L) by 1.4(3). The case of JR(L)C follows by 1.10.
(3) The same argument as in (2). Alternatively, it follows by (2), (1), and
the easily proven fact that
o(1(L) x I(L)) = o(JR(L) x JR(L))/(L)XI(L)'
The quasi-complementation is continuous on account of (+). Specifically,
L t 0 (.)e = R 1- t and R t 0 oe = L 1 - t for every 0 ::::; t ::::; 1. 0
446 T. Kubiak
2.6 Remark. For any complete lattice (L, '), lR(L) and (O,l)(L) are home-
omorphic.
Proof. Let h: (0,1) -t lR be an increasing homeomorphism. Define
H: lR(L) -t (O,l)(L) by H([,x]) = [,xh]

where
if t ~ 0,
if 0 < t < 1,
if t~1.
It is left to the reader to check that H is a well-defined continuous bijection and

its inverse is continuous too. 0
2.7 Remark. The subspaces R(2), 1(2) and (0,1) (2) of lR(L) are homeomor-
phic to lR, 1 and (0,1) equipped with 2-topologies consisting of characteristic
functions of their open sets. They embed into lR(L) via e: t -t [1( -oo,t)] , where
Rte = l(t,oo) and Lte = l(-oo,t). Clearly, e is also a lattice embedding.
Notation. Given t E lR, [t] is the member of lR(L) generated by 1( -oo,t). We
write (0) for the member of I(L) generated by an element of lRL which is
constant on 1 with the value o.
Semicontinuous and continuous L-real functions

Let (L, ') be a complete lattice. The partial ordering on lR(L)X is defined by
f ~ 9 iff f(x) ~ g(x)
for all x EX. Of course, f ~ 9 iff Rtf ~ Rtg iff Lt' f ~ Lt' 9 for all t E lR.
When f and 9 take values in a sublattice oflR(L) (or when lR(L) itself is a lattice),
f /\ 9 and f V 9 exist, and (f /\ g)(x) = f(x) /\ g(x) and (f V g)(x) = f(x) V g(x)
for all xEX.
Let X be an L-topological space. We distinguish the following:
LSC(X) = {fElR(L)x : f+-(RL) C o(X)},
USC (X) = {fElR(L)x : f+-(CL) C o(X)},

LSC*(X) = I(L)x n LSC(X),
USC*(X) = I(L)x n USC(X).
We now have
C(X) = C(X, lR(L)) = LSC(X) n USC(X),

C*(X) = C(X,/(L)) = LSC*(X) n USC*(X).
Members of LSC(X) (USC(X)) are called lower (upper) semicontinuous.

Notation. For tEJR, t denotes the constant function of X into JR(L) with the
value [t]. Clearly, tEC(X).
Given an f: X -+ JR(L) , we write fz for a representative of f(x), i.e.
f(x) = [Jz].
For fEC*(X), rEC*(X) is the composition of f and 0-.
2.8 Lemma. Let (L, ') be a complete lattice and let X be an L-topological space.
Then:
(1) t 1\ f, tv fEC(X) for all tEJR and fEC(X).
(2) If F c LSC*(X), then t 1\ V F = V{t 1\ f : f E F} E LSC"(X) for
every tEJR.
Proof. (1) As Rat = 10 if s ~ t, and Rat = Ix if s < t, we have Ra(t 1\ J) =
Rat 1\ RBf, open L-set. Similarly for La and for the case of t V f.
(2) LSC*(X) is clearly closed under arbitrary pointwise sups. Condition
(ID) is not needed to have the equality, for we clearly have for all x E X
IC-co,t) 1\ Vfz = V (I(-co,t) 1\ fz),

IEF IEF
and these two functions are representative of (t 1\ VF)(x) (the left one) and
VIEF(t 1\ J)(x) (the right one). 0
2.9 Remark. For (L, ') a meet-continuous lattice, C(X) and C*(X) are closed
under finite 1\ and V. The same hold for C(X, JR(L)C) and C(X, I(L)C) provided
X is weakly stratified.
Proof. This is now obvious. E.g., f 1\ g is the composition of two continuous
functions; the first is X -+ JR(L) x JR(L) via x t-+ (f(x),g(x)) (continuous by
1.8) and the second is 1\ on JR(L) x JR(L) (continuous by 2.5). 0
Characteristic functions of L-sets

Let (L, ') be a complete lattice. A characteristic function of an a E LX is a map
Xa: X -+ I(L) defined by
Xa(x) = (a (x))
for all x EX. These functions have many properties analogous to those of
characteristic functions of sets (cf. [22] and [24]).
2.10 Remark. If A c LX and a E LX, then:

(1) XvA = VaEA Xa,
(2) XI\A = l\aEA Xa.
(3) (Xa)- = Xal. 0
448 T. Kubiak
2.11 Remark. Let X be an L-topological space and a E LX. Then:

(1) a is open if and only if Xa E LSC·(X),
(2) a is closed if and only if Xa E USC· (X). 0
The following decomposition lemma [21] generalizes the representation a =

VtEl(t /\ la-t(t,I]) holding for each a E IX.
2.12 Lemma. For L a complete lattice and X a set we have
for all a E I(L)x.
Proof. Let x E X and s < 1. 8ince R. t = 10 if s 2: t, we have (cf. the proof of

(1) of 2.8)
Rs (V
tEl
(t /\ XRta)) (x) =
tEl t>s
VRta(x) = Rsa(x),
t>s
which yields the required equality. 0
Separating L-sets by continuous L-real functions
Let (L, ') be a complete lattice and X an L-topological space. Given a, b E LX,
we write
a-<b
if and only if
(8)
for some fEC(X) and s < t in llt4 (Note that the point is in the first and third
inequalitites, because the second one always holds.)
If necessary, we shall write
a -<j b
to indicate the function involved in (8).
Note. Let us have a look into what does (8) mean when L = 2. Then a = lA,
b = lB and, using the isomorphism e: R -+ JR(2) , e(t) = [t], we have with
4 Referring to the terminology introduced by S.E. Rodabaugh ([48, §3]) a is called completely
inside b iff a -< b (see 2.17 infra).
9 = e- 1 0 f: X -+ IR the following: LU = L~ 0 e 0 e- 1 0 f = l[t.oo)g and,

similarly, R.J = 1( •• oo)g. Thus, (8) becomes
lA :5 l[t.oo)g :5 1( •. oo)g :5 IB,

and this says that g(A) C [t, (0) and g(X\B) C (-00, sl. In particular, if
f: X -+ 1(2) , s = 0, t = 1, then g(A) = {I} and g(X\B) = {o}.
2.13 Lemma. Let (L, I) be complete. For a, b E LX the following are equiva-
lent:
(1) a -<b,
(2) a:5 L11g:5 Rag :5 b for some gEC*(X),
(3) a:5 Ralg :5 L 1g:5 b for some gEC*(X),
(4) Xa:5 9 :5 Xb for some gEC*(X).
Proof. (I)::} (2): Let a -<I b (as in (8)). Let <p be an increasing bijection
of IR onto itself such that <p(0) = sand <p(I) = t. For each x E X we set
fcp(x) = [Ix 0 <pl· By 2.1(6), fcp E C(X). By 2.8(1) 9 = (0 V fcp) /\ 1 E C*(X)
and we have (as in proving 2.8(1)):
= L 1/0 V L11 fcp = L11 fcp = Lcp(1)1 f = Lt' f

L11g
and, similarly, Rag = R.f. Thus, 9 is as required.

(2) ::} (1): Obvious
(2) ¢:? (3): For each 9 E C*(X) we have Rog- = L 1g, and since 0- is an
involution, we also have Rog = L 1g-.
(2) ::} (4): We must have RtX a :5 Rtg (0 :5 t < 1) and Lt'g:5 Lt'Xb (0 <
t :5 1). Indeed, RtXa = a :5 L11 9 :5 Rtg and Lt' 9 :5 Rag :5 b = Lt'X b.
(4) ::} (2): a = L1/Xa :5 L1/g :5 Rog:5 ROXb = b. 0
2.14 Lemma. Let X be an L-topological space. If (L, I) is complete and a, b,

c, dE LX, then:
(1) a -< b ::} a :5 b (in fact, a -< b ::} a -< Int b).
(2) c:5 a -< b :5 d ::} c -< d.
(3) a -< b ::} bl -< a l •
(4) a -< b::} a -< u -< b for some u E o(X).
(5) If 9 E C(Y,X), and a -< b, then ag -< bg (in L Y ).
Furthermore, for (L, I) a meet-continuous lattice we have:
(6) a -< c and b -< c ::} a V b -< c.
(7) a -< b and a -< c ::} a -< b /\ c.
Proof. (1) and (2) are trivial. For (3), if a -<I b with fEC*(X), then bl -</" al .
To prove (4), observe that
a:5 L11f:5 R!f = u:5 L!lf:5 Hof:5 b,

450 T. Kubiak
i.e. a -< u -< band u is open. For (5), if a -<j b, then ag -<jog bg.
Now assume (L, I) is meet-continuous. For (6), if a -<I c and b -<g c, then
a V b -</Vg c where f V 9 E C(X) by 2.9. Similarly for (7). 0
Definition. If a -< b/, then a and b are said to be completely separated. An

a E LX is called an L-zero-set if
a = Rr/f
for some fEC(X) and bE LX is called an L-cozero-set if bl is an L-zero-set.
2.15 Lemma. Let X be an L-topological space with (L, I) a complete lattice.

For a E LX, the following are equivalent:
(1) a is an L-zero-set.
(2) There exists fEC*(X) such that a = ROlf.
(3) There exists fEC*(X) and tEl such that a = Rtlf.
(4) There exists fEC*(X) andtEI such thata=L/f.
Proof. (1) ~ (2): If a = Roig with 9 E C(X), then a = Rolf with f =
(0 V g) 1\ 1EC*(X).
(2) ~ (3): Obvious.
(3) ¢:} (4): a = R/f = Ll~d·. Similarly, a = LO = RLd·.
(3) ~ (1): a = R/ f = Rolh for hEC(X) such that hx(s) = fx(s + t) for all
sElR. 0
Generating continuous L-real functions

We develop here a general procedure of constructing a continuous L-real function
using monotone families of L-sets, cf. [14, 20, 23]. In our presentation we follow
[28].
Let (L, I) be a complete lattice and let X be a set. Each non-decreasing
family C = {c r : r E Q} C LX such that VC = Ix and /\ C = 10 is called a scale.
Let for every x E X and t E lR
fx(t) = 1\ c/(x).
r<t
Notice that fx ElRL. Indeed it is order-reversing, /\ fx(lR) = (V Cnx) = 1., and
Vfx(lR) :::: VtER Vr>tC~(x) = (/\CY(x) = T.
Also, it is easy to see that fx = f;.
The function f: X -+ JR( L) , defined by
f(x) = [jx]
is said to be generated by the scale C.
In what follows p, q, r stand for rationals.
2.16 Lemma. Let (L, ') be complete and let f,g: X -t R(L) be generated by
the scales {c r : rEQ} and {d r : rEQ}. Then:
(1) Lt! = Vr<t Cr for every tER.
(2) Rt' f = I\r>t Cr for every tER.
(3) Lrf::; cr ::; Rr'f for every rEQ.
(4) f::; 9 if and only if dr ::; cq whenever r < q.
(5) f is generated by both {Lrf: rEQ} and {Rr'f: rEQ}.
For X an L-topological space we have:
(6) fEC(X) if and only if Cr Slnt cq whenever r < q.
(7) fEC*(X) if and only if fEC(X), and Cr = 10 ifr < 0, and Cr = Ix
if r> 1.
Proof. (1) For each x E X we have Lt' f(x) = f;(t) = fx(t) = I\r<t cr'(x).
Hence Lt! = Vr<t Cr·
(2) Since Rt' f = I\.>t L.f, hence by (1) we obtain
.>tr<. .>tr>. r>t
Since I\r>t Cr ::; Vr<. Cr for every s > t, hence
/ \ Cr ::; / \ V Cr = R/ f·
r>t .>t r<.
(3) Obvious by (1) and (2).

(4) Ifr < q then dr ::; Rr'g::; Rr'f::; Lqf::; Cq. Conversely, for every q < t,
dq S Vr<t Cr = Ltf· Thus, Ltg = V q<t dq S Ltf, i.e. f S g.
(5) Clearly, both {Lrf} and {Rr'f} are scales by 2.1(1). Since Rp'f ::;
Lqf S Rr'f whenever p < q < r, they generate the same function by (4).
Let h be the function generated by {Lrf}. Then for all x E X and t E R,
Lt' h(x) = I\.<t I\r<. Lr' f(x) = Lt' f(x).
(6) =>: For r < q we have by (1) and (2)
Cr S /\ cp = R/ f S Lqf = V cp ::; cq.

p>r p<q
Since Rr' f is closed and Lqf is open, we obtain cr ::; Int cq.
¢::: Since Vr<t Cr = Vr<t Int Cr, hence Lt! is open by (1). Similarly, since
I\r>tCr = I\r>tCr, hence Rt'f is closed by (2). By 1.4(3), fEC(X).
(7) f is J(L )-valued if and only if
r<O r>l
452 T. Kubiak
2.17 Lemma. Let X be an L-topological space with (L, ') a complete lattice.
For a, bELx, the lollowing are equivalent:
(1) a ...d.
(2) There exists a lamily {u r E o(X) : rEij n (0, I)} such that a ~ U r ~ b
lor every rEij n (0,1), and U r ~ u q whenever r < q.
Proof. (1) => (2): Referring to 2.13, assume a ~ Ro' I ~ Ld ~ b with

IE C*(X). For every r E ij n (0,1) we have Ro' I ~ Lr/ ~ L 1 /. Also,
Lrf ~ RP' / ~ L q / if 0< r (1): Let {u r E o(X) : rEij n (0, I)} be given. Put U r = 10 for r ~
and U r = Ix for r 2: 1. Then U = {u r E o(X) : rEij} is a scale of open L-sets
°
such that U r ~ u q if r < q in ij. Let I be the function generated by U. By
2.16(7), /EC*(X). Moreover, since a ~ U r ~ b if 0< r < 1, we obtain by (1)
and (2) of 2.16:
r>O r<l
3 Separation axioms
In this section we shall consider only those separation axioms which are relevant
to the main subject of this article, viz. extending continuous L-real functions
and embedding L-topological spaces. Those axioms include: L-To, L-regularity,
L-tychonoffness, L-normality and perfect L-normality. All of them but L-To
were introduced by Hutton [14, 15] and Hutton and Reilly [17]. The L-To
axiom has been introduced independently by a number of authors: Liu [32],
Rodabaugh [45], Wuyts and Lowen [54], Sostak [49]. In actual fact, Liu has a
different and much more sophisticated, yet equivalent, formulation (see [27] for
details).
Completely L-regular spaces and L-regular spaces
In what follows we adopt the following notation: given A c LX and b E LX,

we write
if and only if a -( b for every a E A.
Definition. Let (L, ') be a complete lattice. An L-topological space is com-

pletely L-regular if, whenever U E LX is open, there exists a family A C LX
such that
A -( U and VA = u.
We shall say that A is a ~-decomposition of u. IT A consists of open L-sets, we

say it is an open ~-decomposition.
The following are taken from [27].
3.1 Theorem. Let (L, ') be a complete lattice. For X an L-topological space,
the following are equivalent:
(1) X is completely L-regular.
(2) For every basis B and each U E B, u has an open ~-decomposition.
(3) u = V{v E o(X): v ~ u} for every open u E LX.
(4) Intx a = V{VEo(X) : v ~ a} for every a E LX.
(5) For every 9 E LSC*(X) there exists a family :F c C*(X) such that
9 = VF, a pointwise sup, i.e. g(x) = VfE:F f(x) for all x EX.
(6) The family of all L-cozero-sets is a base for X.
Proof. (1) ~ (2): Let A be a ~-decomposition of u. Then a ~ u for every
aEA and, using 2.14(4), there exists an open Va such that a ~ Va ~ u. Clearly,
VaEA Va = u. Thus {va: aEA} is an open +decomposition of u.
(2) ~ (1): Obvious
(2) ~ (3): Let u be open (it is a member of the basis o(X)). For V an open
~-decomposition of u we have u = VV ~ V{w E o(X) : w ~ u} ~ u.
(3) ~ (4): For every a E LX we have
Intx a = V{UEO(X): u ~ a} =V V{VEO(X): V ~ u}
< V{vEo(X) : V ~ a} ~ Intx a.
(4) ~ (3): Obvious.

(3) ~ (5): Let JELSC*(X). For every tEl we let Vt = {vEo(X) : V ~
Rtf}· By 2.13, Xv ~ fv ~ XRtf for some fvEC*(X). By 2.10 we thus have
Using 2.8 and 2.12 we obtain
tEl vEV. tElvEV.

a pointwise sup of members of C*(X).
(5) ~ (6): Let u be open in X. Then XuELSC*(X) and, thus, there exists
an:F c C*(X) with V F = Xu· Clearly, u = RoXu = VfE:FRof.
(6) ~ (1): A basic open L-set Rof, where JEC*(X), has {La' f : 0 < s ~ I}
as a +decomposition. Indeed, by 2.4, Rof = V8>0 La' f and La' J ~f RoJ for
all s E (0,1]. 0
454 T. Kubiak
3.2 Lemma. Let (L,') be a frame. Let S C LX generate the L-topology of X.

Then X is completely L-regular if and only if every member of S has an open
-< -decomposition.
Proof. To prove the non-trivial implication, let J be a finite index set. Let
{Vj : j E J} c S and let v = AjEJ Vj. We show that v has an open -<-
decomposition. Let Vj be an open -<-decomposition of Vj' Let cpE<P = fl jEJ Vj
and let vIP = AjEJ cp(j). Since cp(j) E Vj, hence cp(j) -< Vj. Thus vIP -< Vj for
every j E J. Hence, by 2.14(7) we have
VIP -< 1\ Vj = V.
jEJ
By (ID*) we get
Thus, every basic open L-set has an open -<-decomposition, and X is completely
L-regular by 3.1(2). 0
3.3 Remark. Let (L,') be a frame. The following statements hold:

(1) If f: X -+ Y and (Y, T) is completely L-regular, then (X, r-('T)) is
completeley L-regular.
(2) Every subspace of a completely L-regular space is completely L-regular.
(3) A supremum of completely L-regular L-topologies is completely L-regu-
lar.
(4) A product of completely L-regular spaces is completely L-regular.
Proof. By 2.14(5) we get (1). Clearly (2) is a consequence of (1) (note that
these hold for L a complete lattice). Also, (3) follows from 3.2, and (4) is a
consequence of (1) and (3). 0
3.4 Remark. If (L,') is a frame, then JR(L) , its subspaces and products of those
subspaces, are all completely L-regular.
Proof. After 3.3, it suffices to show JR(L) is completely L-regular. We have
R t = Vs>t Ls' and Ls' -<id Rt, id being the identity map of JR(L) into itself, as
well as L t = Vs<t Rs' with Rs' -<id Lt. By 3.2 we get the assertion. 0
3.5 Theorem. Let (L,') be a complete lattice and let X be an L-topological

space. Consider the following statements:
(1) X is completely L-regular.
(2) k = A{r-(j-+(k)) : fEC*(X)} for every k E I\;(X).
(3) Cl x a = A{f+-(j-+(a)): fEC*(X)} for every a E LX.
(4) U{f+-(o(I(L)): fEC*(X)} is a base for x.
(5) o(X) = V{J+-(o(I(L)) : fEC*(X)}. i.e. X has the smallest L-topology

with respect to which all members of C*(X) are continuous.
Then (1) ::} (2) <=> (3) <=> (4) ::} (5).
If L is a frame, then (5) ::} (1).
Proof. (1) ::} (2): By 3.1(6), for every closed L-set k there exists T c C*(X)
such that
IEF
Therefore f-+(k) ~ J-+(J+-(Ho ' )) ~ Ho', a closed L-set. Hence f-+(k)) ~ Ho' for
all J E:F. Therefore
/\ J+-(J-+(k)) ~ /\ f+-(Ho ' ) = k.

IEC*(X) IEF
Clearly, k ~ A{J+-(J-+(k)) : fEC*(X)} always.

(2) ::} (3): Let T = C*(X). For every a E LX we have
Clx a = /\ {k E /t(X) : a ~ k}
= /\ /\ f+-(J-+(k))
IEF
> /\ f+- (J-+ (a)).

IEF
By continuity of J we have J-+(a) ::; J-+(a), hence
Clx a::; /\ f+- (J-+ (a)).

IEF
(3) ::} (2): Obvious.

(2) ::} (4): With u = k' we obtain from (2)
u= V f+-( Int(J-+(ul)/)),
IEC*(X)
and the assertion follows.

(4) ::} (2): Let k be closed. Let T c C*(X) and let {kl : JET} C /t(I(L))
be such that k = A{J+-(kl) : JET}. Then the proof of (1) implies (2) goes
unchanged with k I playing the role of Ho I.
(4) ::} (5): Obvious.
Now assume L is a frame.
(5) ::} (1): o(X) is a supremum of completely L-regular L-topologies by 3.4
and 3.3(1), hence completely L-regular by 3.3(3). 0
456 T. Kubiak
3.6 Proposition. Let (L, ') be a complete lattice and let X be an L-topological
space such that 0 Eo( X) if and only 0' Eo( X). Then the following are equivalent:
(1) o(X) C ex.

(2) X is completely L-regular and each member of C* (X) is constant.
Proof. (1) ::} (2): X is completely L-regular, because we have 0 = Ll'Xo; ::;
RoXa ::; 0 and XaEC*(X). Thus 0 ~ o. Also, f(x) <f, f(y) with x f:. y implies
Rt/(x) <f, Rt/(y) for some 0 ::; t < 1, a contradiction.
(2) ::} (1): Assume there is a non-constant open L-set. Then there is a
closed L-set k with k(x) f:. k(y) for some x..iJ..:.... By (1) ::} (2) of 3.5, there
is an f E C*(X) such that f-+(k)(f(x)) f:. f-+(k)(f(y)), i.e. f(x) f:. f(y), a
contradiction. 0
3.7 Proposition. Let (L, ') be a frame. If X is a completely L-regular space,

then so is Xc.
Proof. 3.6 and 3.3(3). 0
Definition. Let (L, ') be a complete lattice. An L-topological space X is called

L-regular if
for every UEO(X).

Clearly every completely L-regular space is L-regular (cf. 3.1 (3) ) .
We observe, following [29), that with 5
vCu iff v::;u

an L-regular space is one in which every open L-set has an open C -decomposi-
tion. Also note that C has all the properties of the relation ~ stated in 2.14,
except of the property (4) of 2.14. Thus the proof of 3.1 applies unchanged
to the case of c. Consequently for (L, ') a frame, if S c LX generates the
L-topology of X, then X is L-regular if and only if U = V{VEO(X) : v::; u} for
every UES. Thus, we also have a counterpart of 3.3 and 3.7. In particular, we
have:
3.8 Remark. Let (L, ') be a frame. Every subspace of an L-regular space is
L-regular. A product of L-regular spaces is L-regular. If X is L-regular, so is
Xc. 0
Definition. Let (L, ') be a complete lattice. An L-topological space X is

called L-To if, whenever x f:. y in X, there exists an open L-set U such that
u(x) f:. u(y).
5 Referring again to the terminology porposed by S.E. Rodabaugh ([48, §3]) v is quite-inside
u iff v Cu.
3.9 Remark. (1) If (L, ') is complete, then every subspace of an L-To space
is L-To and a product of L-To spaces is L-To.
(2) If (L, ') is a frame and I1 jE J Xj is L-To, then so is every X j .
Proof. (1) is obvious. For (2), let I1 jE J Xj be L-To. Let Xj ;/; Yj in Xj' Select
x and y in the product such that 1l"i(X) = 1l"i(Y) for all i ;/; j. We observe that the
open L-set in the definition of L-To can without loss of generality be assumed
to be a basic open L-set. Let u = I\ioo Ui1l"i (Jo c J is finite) be the basic open
L-set of the product which separates x and y. Clearly, there is io E Jo such that
Ui o1l"i o(X) ;/; Uio1l"io(Y)' The way we have chosen x and y clearly implies that
io = j and we are done. 0

L-Tychonoffif it is completely L-regular and L-To.
3.10 Proposition. Let (L, ') be a frame. The following statements hold:
(1) Every subspace of an L-Tychonoff space is L-Tychonoff.
(2) A supremum of L-Tychonoff L-topologies is L-Tychonoff.
(3) A product of L-Tychonoff spaces is L-Tychonoff.
(4) If X is L-Tychonoff, then so is Xc.
Proof. By 3.3 and 3.9 we get (1)-(3). By 3.7 we have (4). 0
3.11 Remark. Let (L, ') be a frame and let Xj be weakly stratified for every
j E J. Then, if I1 jE J Xj is L-To (resp., L-regular, completely L-regular, L-
Tychonof/), then so is every Xj'
Proof. By 1.11 and 3.9 (resp., 3.8, 3.3, 3.10). 0
It is of interest to note that L-Tychonoff spaces (in fact, L-regular L-To
spaces) admit certain pointwise separation property which when L = 2 becomes
the Hausdorff separation property. Namely (cf. [27]):
3.12 Proposition. Let (L, ') be a complete lattice. Let X be an L-regular space.
Then X is L-To if and only if it satisfies
L-T2: If x;/; y in X, there exist u,VEo(X) such that u(x) ~ u(y), v(y) ~ v(x),
and u ~ v'.
Proof. Clearly, always L-T2 => L-To. Assume X is L-To and L-regular. Let
x ;/; y in X. Let u(x) ;/; u(y) for some u E o(X). Then either u(x) ~ u(y)
or u(y) ~ u(x). We without loss of generality assume that the first inequality
holds. Since X is L-regular, there is a family V C o(X) such that u = VV = VV
where V = {v: v E V}. Thus (VV)(x) ~ (VV)(y), so that there exist v E V
such that v(x) ~ v(y). Consequently, v(x) ~ v(y), and v(x) ~ v(y). Also
w(y) ~ w(x) where w = (v)'. Finally note that w = Int(v ' ) ~ v'. Thus X
satisfies L-T2 • 0
For more about L-T2 we refer to [27].
458 T. Kubiak
L-normal spaces

L-normal if whenever k :::; u (k is closed and u is open), there exists an open v
such that
k:::; v:::; v:::; u.
A perfectly L-normal space is an L-normal space in which every open L-set is
F,n i.e a countable sup of closed L-sets. An a E LX is Gli if a' is Fq.
The following comes from [27]:
3.13 Theorem. Let (L, ') be a meet-continuous lattice. Every L-regular space
X with a countable base is perfectly L-normal.
Proof. By L-regularity, every open L-set u can be written as u = VV = VV,
where V C o(X) and V = {v : v E V}. By 1.3, there is a countable subfamily
{vn : nEN} of V such that
u= V Vn :::; V Vn :::; U.
n n
Thus, every open L-set is an Fq.
To show L-normality, let k :::; u where k is closed and u is open. By (*) (and
its dual version for closed L-sets), there exist countable families {vn : n E N}
and {w n : n E N} consisting of open L-sets such that
k :::; V
n
Vn = V
n
Vn = U
and
k = 1\ Wn = 1\ Wn :::; U.
n n
Clearly, we can assume both these families are non-decreasing. Define
hn = Vn 1\ 1\ Wi for n 2': 2.
i<n
We observe that if m :::; n, then h m :::; Vm :::; Vi<n Vi , and if m > n, then
h m :::; Wn :::; W n . Thus h m :::; Wn V Vi~n Vi for all -m and n, and consequently
where, thus, h is open and f is closed. Furthermore, we have

k < V 1\ 1\
Vn Wn = V(v 1\ 1\ w
n n) (by (MC))
n n n n
and
I < I\(wn V Vvn) = 1\ wn V VVn (by the dual of (Me))

n n n n
< u. 0
The next theorem is due to Hutton [14]. It will also later be obtained as a
simple corollary from an insertion theorem for L-normal spaces.
3.14 Theorem (Urysohn's lemma). For X an L-topological space with (L,') a

complete lattice, the following are equivalent:
(1) X is L-normal,
(2) If k is closed, U is open, and k :::; u, then there exists an f E C*(X)
such that k :::; L 1 ' f :::; ReI :::; u.
Proof. (1) ::} (2): Let {qn} be an enumeration of Q n [0,1] with ql = 0 and
q2 = 1. For every n ;::: 2 we inductively construct a family {u qi : i < n} of open
L-sets such that
k :::; u qi :::; u qi :::; u q; :::; U if qi < qj (i, j < n).

There is u q1 with k :::; u q1 :::; u q1 :::; u. With u q2 = U this is (/2). Assume that u qi
are already defined for i < n and satisfy (In). Let q, = max {qi : qi < qn, i < n}
and qr = min {qi : qi > qn, i < n}. Then q, :::; qr and thus there exists u q" with
U q, :::; u q" :::; u q" :::; u q., Now u qi (i < n+ 1) satisfy (In+1)' We have constructed
a family {u r : r E Q n (0, I)} of open L-sets such that k :::; U r :::; U and U r :::; u q
if r < q. By 2.17 we conclude that k ~ u.
(2) ::} (1): If k ~f U with IEC*(X), then k:::; v:::; v:::; U with v = R!f. 0
3.15 Corollary. Let (L,') be a complete lattice. Every L-normal and L-regular
space is completely L-regular. 0
Separation properties of L-reals
We summarize here separation properties of JR(L) , I(L), their products as well

as stratifications of them. These results are easily deduced from some of the
above propositions, see also [27, 30]. We remark that we do not require complete
distributivity of L (cf. [45]).
3.16 Proposition. Let (L,') be a frame. The following hold:

(1) JR(L)J, (JR(Ly)J, I(L)J and (I(L)C)J are L-Tychonoff for any J.
(2) If PI :::; No, then JR(L)J and I(L)J are perfectly L-normal.
(3) If IJI :::; No and ILl:::; No, then (JR(Ly)J and (I(L)C)J are perfectly
L-normal.
460 T. Kubiak
Proof. (1) First note that IR.(L) and I(L) are L-To (in fact, they are L-T2 for
any Lj see [27] ), and so are their weakly stratified products by 3.9. By 3.4, 3.7
and 1.10 all the spaces of (1) are completely L-regular, hence L-Tychonoff.
(2) We first observe that with L a frame and with IJI :::; No
{ 1\ 7rj(Rs /\ Lt): s,tE(ij,

jEK
KcJ is finite}
is a countable base for IR.(L)J, an L-regular space by 3.4 and 3.3(4). Hence
IR.(L)J is perfectly L-normal by 3.13. The same argument applies to (I(L))J.
(3) As in (2) by noticing that {Rs /\ L t /\ a : s, t E (ij, a E L} is a countable
base of IR.(L) whenever ILl:::; No. 0
3.17 Remark. The author does not know if I(L)J is L-normal for an arbitrary
J (this is a long-standing open question of [44]) and the same for (I(L)C)J. In
fact, I do not know if Xc must necessarily be normal whenever X is (see also
[30]).
4 Insertion and extension of mappings

All the results of this section are given or were announced in [22-25]. We begin
with two abstract insertion lemmas which will be used latter to prove inser-
tion and extension theorems for L-normal spaces and ext rem ally disconnected
L-topological spaces with (L, ') a complete lattice. These include the Katetov-
Tong insertion theorem for IR.(L)-valued functions and Tietze-Urysohn extension
theorem for I(L)-valued functions. When (L, ') is meet-continuous, those inser-
tion lemmas yield general L-topological insertion, extension and separation the-
orems which generalize the classical results of Blair [3] and Lane [31], Mrowka
[37], and Gillman and Jerison [7]. A particular case is an extension theorem
for I(L)-valued functions of Hutton-compact subspaces of completely L-regular
spaces [27]. Finally, we discuss the possibility of extending IR.(L)-valued func-
tions.
Two insertion lemmas
Definition. Let L be a complete lattice. A binary relation <S in LX is called a

subordination if for all a, b, c, dEL the following hold:
(PI) a <S b => a:::; b,
(P2) a:::; b <S c :::; d => a <S d,
(P3) a <S c and b <S c => a V b <S c,
(P4) a <S b and a <S c => a <S b /\ c,
(IP) (Insertion Property) a <E b ::} a <E c <E b for some c E LX .

Such a relation has various names in the literature. It is sometimes called a
quasi-proximity relation.
4.1 Example. The two examples that will concern us are the following:
(1) Let (L, ') be a complete lattice. For X an L-topological space and
a,bEL x ,
a <E b ¢} aS Int b
satisfies (Pl)-(P4), and X is L-normal iff (IP) holds.
(2) Let (L, ') be a meet-continuous lattice. Let X be an arbitrary L-topo-
logical space. If a, bEL x , then
a <E b ¢} a -<I b
for some JEC*(X) satisfies (Pl)-P(4), and (IP) (cf. 2.14).

One can show [22) that a subordination <E is equivalent to the relation p of
Katetov [18). Thus, the lemmas which follow are essentially the two insertion
lemmas of [18). The proofs are written down as in [23) where <E is the relation
of 4.1(1) (see also [26)). Actually, the proof of Lemma 4.2 is essentially the
proof that separated FIT-sets in a normal topological space have disjoint open
neighborhoods (cf. 4.3).
4.2 Lemma. Let L be a complete lattice and let <E a subordination in LX. Let
A, B c LX be two countable subfamilies such that
VA <E b and a <E AB

for all a E A and bE B. Then there exists acE LX such that a <E c <E b for all
aEA and bEB.
Proof. (as in [26)) Let {an} and {b n } be enumerations of A and B. We set

ao = VA and bo = AB. Then
for all nand m. We construct inductively two countable collections {c n : n E N}

and {d n : n E N} of elements of LX such that
(In) ai <E Ci <E d j <E bj , ao <E d j and Ci <E bo for each n > 2 and
i,j < n.
To begin with, select Cl with al <E Cl <E boo Since bo S b1 , hence Cl <E b1 .
Also, ao <E b1 , hence ao V Cl <E b1 . Thus there exists d 1 with ao V Cl <E d 1 <E b1 .
We now have
462 T. Kubiak
Now assume that for some n 2: 2 we have already constructed Ci, d i EL x (i < n)
such that (In) holds. Since
hence there exists Cn such that
an @ Cn @ bo A 1\ d j.
j<n
Similarly, since Ci @ bo ~ bn (i ~ n) and ao @ bn , hence there is d n such that
ao V V Ci @ dn @ bn .
i'Sn
This proves (In+l). Now, we set
Then an @ Cn ~ C for all n. Also, since Cn @ d m for all nand m, hence

C ~ dm @ bm for all m. Thus an @ C @ bm for all n, m. 0
4.3 Corollary. Let (L, ') be a complete lattice and let X be L-normal. Let
a E LX be Fq and bE LX be Go. Then, if a ~ b and a ~ Int b, then there
exists an open u such that a ~ u ~ 'IT ~ b.
Proof. 4.2 with @ of 4.1(1). 0
4.4 Lemma. Let L be a complete lattice and let @ be a subordination in LX.

Let {a r : r E Q} and {b r : r E Q} be two non-decreasing subfamilies of LX such
that
a r @ b. whenever r < s.
Then there exists a family {cr : r E Q} of LX such that
ar @ Cp @ Cq @ b. whenever r < p < q < s.

Proof. (as in [26)) Let {r n} enumerate Q. We will define a family {cr. : i E
N} C LX such that
ar @ Cr. @ Cr ; @ bs whenever r <ri < rj < s.

We proceed inductively. If r < rl < s, then a r ~ a rl @ b. and a r @ brl ~ bs .
By 4.2, there is crl such that ar @ crl @ b. (r < rl < s).
Suppose we have constructed everything for all ri with i < n. We set with
i <n
Co = {cr. : ri < rn}, C1 = {cr. : ri > rn},
A = {a r : r < r n}, B = {b r : r > r n}.
Also, let 'D = A u Co and c = B U C1 • We then have
for all dE'D and eEc. Thus 4.2 applies, and there exists crn such that
for every dE'D and eEc. This means that
ar (§ Crn if r < rn,
cr. (§ Crn if ri < rn,

Crn (§ Cr. if rn < ri,
Crn (§ br if rn < r,
and we are done. 0
4.5 Remark. These two lemmas yield more than what we are going to deduce
from them. These yield also insertion theorems for (quasi-)uniformly and (qua-
si-)proximally continuous functions and some others; see [26].
Insertion and extension theorems for L-normal spaces

The following, given in [22, 23], extends the classical Katetov-Tong insertion
theorem [18, 51].
4.6 Theorem (Insertion theorem). Let (L, ') be a complete lattice. For X an
L-topological space, the following statements are equivalent:
(1) X is L-normal.
(2) If gEUSC(X), hELSC(X) and g:::; h, then there exists an fEC(X)
such that 9 :::; f :::; h.
(3) (Urysohn's lemma) If k', u E o(X) and k :::; u, then there exists an
fEC*(X) such that k:::; L 1 'f:::; Raf:::; u.
Proof. (1) =} (2): For every rEQ let
hr = Rr' h and gr = Lrg.
Then {hr : r E Q} and {gr : r E Q} are scales generating h and g, respectively,

by 2.16(5). Since hr is closed, gr is open, and hr :::; gs(r < 8) by 2.16(4), hence
hr (§ 9s whenever r < 8 in Q,
where (§ is the subordination relation of 4.1(1). By 4.4 there exists :F = {fr:
r E Q} C LX such that
464 T. Kubiak
hr @ Ip @ Iq @ gs whenever r (3): If k is closed, u is open and k ~ u, then Xk E USC*(X),
XuELSC*(X) and Xk ~ Xu (cf. 2.11). For IEC*(X) with
we obtain k - (1): See the proof of 3.14. 0
Theorem 4.6 suggests to characterize those L-topological spaces that ad-
mit the property of inserting a continuous function between lower and upper
semicontinuous functions. For L = 2 these are the extremally disconnected
spaces; see Lane [31] who deduced it from the 2-version of Theorem 4.16. There
is however a short direct proof given below.
Definition. Let (L, I) be a complete lattice. An L-topological space X is called

extremally disconnected if 'iI is open whenever u E LX is open.
4.7 Remark. For a complete lattice (L, I), X is extremally disconnected iff
whenever u ~ k and u, kl E o(X) iff Int k is closed for every k E /'i:(X).
'iI ~ Int k
Proof. If X is extremally disconnected and u ~ k with U, kl E o(X), then 'iI is

open and 'iI ~ k. Thus 'iI ~ lnt k. Now, if k is closed, then CI(lnt k) ~ lnt k
since lnt k ~ k. Finally, if u is open, then 'iI = (lnt (u l ))' is open since lnt( u l )
is closed. 0
4.8 Theorem. For an L-topological space X with (L, I) a complete lattice the
(1) X is extremally disconnected.
(2) If gELSC(X), hEUSC(X) and 9 ~ h, then there exists an IEC(X)
such that 9 ~ f ~ h.
(3) If u, k' E o(X) and u ~ k, then there exists an IE C* (X) such that
u ~ L 1 ' I ~ Ro I ~ k.
Proof. (1) => (2): Since Lrh ~ Rr'g and Lrh is open for all r E Ql, hence
Lrh ~ lnt (Rr'g). Let Ir = lnt (Rr'g). Let:F = {lr : rEQl}. Then:F is a scale,
for it is non-decreasing, and A :F ~ ArEQ Rr' 9 = 10 and V:F ~ VrEQ Lrh = Ix·
Since Rr' 9 is closed, hence Ir is closed and open by 4.7. Thus:F generates an
IEC(X). Since Lrh ~ Ip ~ Rq'g whenever r (3): As in the proof of (2) => (3) of 4.6.
(3) ::} (1): Let U ~ k with u,k/Eo(X). Since u -<I k for some IEG*(X),
hence U ~ Int k. By 4.7, X is extremally disconnected. 0
We now proceed to applications of 4.6 and 4.8 to extending continuous I(L)-

valued functions.
4.9 Lemma. Let (L, ') be complete. Let X be an L-topological space, A eX,
and let IE G*(A). Let g, h: X -+ I(L) be defined by I = 9 = h on A, 9 = 0,
h = 1 on X \ A. Then:
(1) If lA is open, then gELSG*(X) and hEUSG*(X).
(2) If lA is closed, then gEUSG*(X) and hELSG*(X).
Proof. The following equalities hold:
R - { Ut /\ lA if t 2: 0,
(lg) tg - Ix if t < O.
Rth = { Ut Vl~X\A if t < 1,

(2h) if t 2: 1.
where UtEO(X) is such that utlA = Rtf for all tEIR. Similarly, we have
(lh) Lth = { Vt ;}A if

if
t ~ 1,
t> 1.
L - { Vt V lx\A if t> 0,
(2g) tg - 10 if t~ O.
where VtEO(X) is such that VtlA = Ltf for all tEIR.

For i = 1,2, property (i) for 9 (resp., h) follows from (i g ) (resp., (ih)). 0
For convenience we shall use the notion of suitability [for extending functions]
introduced in [42].
Definition. An L-topological space is called suitable if there exists a nonempty

proper subset A of X such that lA is open. Then A is called suitable open.
Also, A is called suitable closed if lA is closed.
Definition. Let X and Y be L-topological spaces, A c X and f: A -+ Y be

continuous. A continuous g: X -+ Y is called a continuous extension of lover
X if glA = I (i.e. g(x) = I(x) for all xEA).
4.10 Theorem (Tietze-Urysohn extension theorem). Let (L, ') be a complete

lattice. Let X be L-normal and A c X be suitable closed. Then every continuous
function I: A -+ I(L) has a continuous extension over X.
466 T. Kubiak
Proof 1. Let g,h: X --+ I(L) be such that 9 = h = f on A, 9 = 0 and h = 1

on X \ A. Then 9 :::; h, gEUSC*(X) and hELSC*(X) by 4.9(2). Hence, there
is FEC*(X) such that g:::; F :::; h by 4.6. Clearly FIA = f. 0
Proof 2. For every r E Qn (0, 1) there exist Vn Wr E o(X) such that Rrf = Vr IA
and Lrf = wrlA. Let
Clearly, kr :::; Us if r < 8 in Q n (0, 1), and since kr is closed and U r is open, we
have
kr (5 Us if r < 8,
where (5 is the relation of 4.1(1). Thus, by 4.4, there exists a family {er : r E
Cr = 10 if r :::; °
Q n (0, I)} c LX such that kr (5 cp (5 cq (5 Us whenever r < p < q < 8. Let
and Cr = Ix if r ~ 1. Then C = {c r : r E Q} is a scale, and
since Cp (5 cq iff cp :::; Int cq , hence C generates an FEC*(X) by 2.16(7).
Let us now check that F = f on A. Indeed, for every t E (0,1] and every
xEA we have
LU(x) /\ L~f(x) = /\ (wrIA)'(x)

r<t r<t
= /\ u~(x) :::; /\ c~(x)
r<t r<t
= L~F(x)
by 2.16(1). Similarly,
L~F(x) = /\ c~(x) :::; /\ k~(x)

r<t r<t
= /\ Rrf(x) = LU(x)
r<t
for all xEA. Thus f = F on A. 0
We note that the Tietze-Urysohn extension theorem does not characterize
L-normality (if ILl> 2) just because there are non-suitable L-normal spaces. It
is also not a characterization of suitable L-normal spaces as the following simple
example of [22] shows.
4.11 Example. Let L = I = [0,1] with a' =1-a for all aEI. Let X = [0,00).
For each tEl and i = 0,1,2, let
Then 7 = {Ut,i : tEl, i = 0,1, 2}U{ld is an L-topology on X. It is easy to see

that (X, n
has a unique suitable closed set, namely the interval I (h = ud,o).
Also, Ti = C[ and JEC*(I) iff J is constant. Let JEC*(I) with J(x)= [A] EI(L)
for all xEX. Then F: X -+ I(L) defined by
if
= { ~~xl
XEI,
F(X) if xEX\I
(recall (~) is a member of I(L) generated by a member of IRL which is constant

on I with value ~) is continuous. Clearly, FII = J (actually, F is the unique
continuous extension of I).
Finally observe that (X, n fails to be L-normal. Indeed, let k = u1,2and
u = u!,o' Then k ~ u. If aET (resp., a/En and k ~ a ~ u, then a = u (resp.,
a = k). Since k f:. u, k is not open, u is not closed, we infer that (X, nis not
L-normal. 0
4.12 Question. Under what conditions is L-normality equivalent to the exten-

sion property with respect to suitable closed sets (in the class of all suitable L-
topological spaces)?
The space (X, LX) shows that L = 2 is not a necessary condition.
4.13 Corollary. Let (L, /) be a complete lattice. Let X be an L-normal space

with a suitable closed subset A. The following hold:
(1) Each continuous J: A -+ I(L)J has a continuous extension over X.
(2) If X is weakly stratified, each continuous J: A -+ (I(L)C)J has a con-
tinuous extension over X.
Proof. (1) For every j E J, 'Trj 0 J: A -+ I(L) has a continuous extension

F j : X -+ I(L). Then F: A -+ I(L)J such that 'Trj 0 F = Fj is a continuous
extension of J (cf. 1.8).
(2) This follows from (1). For if X is weakly stratified, then so is A by
1.9(4). Also, C(A,I(L)J) = C(A, (I(L)C)J) because (I(L)C)J = (I(L)Jy by
1.10. 0
There are counterparts of 4.10-4.13 for extremally disconnected L-topologi-
cal spaces. In particular, we have the following result whose proof is the same
as that of 4.10 (proof 1) except that the appeal to 4.9(2) and (4.6) is replaced
by an application of 4.9(1) and (4.8).
4.14 Theorem. Let (L, /) be complete. Let X be an extremally disconnected L-

topological space and A c X be suitable open. Then every continuous function
J: A -+ I(L) has a continuous extension over X. 0
4.15 Remark. For L = 2, 4.14 is a characterization of extremal disconnect-

edness (see [7, 1.H.6 D. If ILl > 2, as in the case of L-normality, suitable
L-topological spaces with the extension property with respect to suitable open
sets need not be extremally disconnected. This can be shown by a modifica-
tion of Example 4.11. Namely, for the space (X, n
of 4.11, (X,U) is also an
468 T. Kubiak
L-topological space where U = {u' : uET}. In (X,U), the interval J is a unique

suitable open set, UI = el, and C*(J) consists of constant functions. Also,
the function F of 4.11 is a continuous extension of lover (X,U) too. Finally,
(X,U) is not extremally disconnected, because CI(u t :o) = Ul-t,2 f/. U for all
0:::; t < 1. Therefore, one can formulate a counterpart of Question 4.12 for the
case of extremally disconnected spaces.
General L-topological insertion and extension theorems
There are remarkable generalizations of the insertion and extension theorems we

have already proved. Those general results provide: (1) necessary and sufficient
conditions for the insertion of a continuous JR(L)-valued function between two
comparable JR(L)-valued functions (Blair [3], Lane [31] for L = 2), (2) necessary
and sufficient conditions for extending a given continuous J(L)-valued function
from a given subspace to the whole space (Mr6wka [38] for L = 2), and (3)
necessary and sufficient conditions for extending an arbitrary continuous J(L)-
valued function from a given subspace to the whole space (if L = 2, this is the
well-known Urysohn extension theorem due to Gillman and Jerison [7, 1.17]).
We note that the insertion and extension theorems of the preceding subsec-
tion can be deduced from the general results of this subsection. We however
have included direct proofs because these are complete lattice proofs while those
which follow require (L, ') to be a meet-continuous lattice.
Results ofthis subsection were announced in [24] and stated (without proofs)
in [25].
Notation. If A cX and aELA, then (a)oELX is defined as follows:
if xEA,
(a)o(x) = { ar) if xEX \ A.
4.16 Theorem (general insertion theorem). Let (L, ') be a meet-continuous

lattice. Let X be an L-topological space and let g, h: X -t JR(L) be two arbitmry
functions. The lollowing are equivalent:
(1) There exists IEC(X) such that g:::; I :::; h.
(2) II s <t in JR, then Rs'h and Lt'g are completely separated.
Proof. (1) => (2): Trivial, for if s < r < t, then Lt' 9 :::; Lt'l :::; Rrl :::; Rsh,
hence Lt' 9 - (1): By 2.16(5), {Lrg : r E Q} and {Rr'h : r E Q} are scales that
generate 9 and h, respectively. Now, (2) says that Rr'h -< L.g whenever r < s
in Q. Since L is meet-continuous, hence @ =-< is a subordination (cf. 4.1(2)),
e
and by 4.4 there exists = {c r : r E Q} C LX such that Rr' h -< cp -< cq -< L.g
if r < p < q < s. Clearly, A = 10, e ve
= lx, and the continuous function I
e
generated by satisfies 9 :::; I :::; h on account of 2.16(4). 0
4.17 Theorem (general extension theorem). Let (L, ') be a meet-continuous

lattice. Let X be an L-topological space, A C X, and let f E C*(A). The
(1) f extends continuously over X.
(2) (Rs'l)o and (Lt'l)o are completely separated in X for every s < t in
[0,1].
Proof. (1) ~ (2): Let 9 E C*(X) be a continuous extension of f. Clearly,
then (R~l)o ~ R~g and (L~l)o ~ L~g, and this provides the required complete
separation.
(2) ~ (1): Define g, h: X -+ I(L) by 9 = f = h on A, 9 = 0 on X\A and
h = 1 on X\A. Then Rs' h = (Rs' 1)0 and Lt' 9 = (Lt' 1)0 (s < t) are completely
separated in X. Since 9 and h satisfy the assumption of 4.16, there is FEC*(X)
between 9 and h which is the extension of f. 0
4.18 Theorem (Urysohn extension theorem). Let (L, ') be meet-continuous.

For an L-topological space X and A eX, the following are equivalent:
(1) Every fEC*(A) has a continuous extension over X.
(2) For all a, bELA, if a and b are completely separated in A, then (a)o
and (b)o are completely separated in X.
Proof. (1) ~ (2): If a -<I b' via f E C*(A) and 9 E C*(X) extends f, then
(a)o -<g (b)o'
(2) ~ (1): Let f E C*(A). If 0 ~ s < t ~ 1, then Rs'f,Lt'f E LA are
completely separated in A by f itself, hence (Rs'l)o and (Lt'l)o are completely
separated in X. By 4.17, f has a continuous extension over X. 0
As an application of 4.18 we shall have an extension theorem for H-compact
[16J suitable closed subsets of completely L-regular spaces (proved directly in
[27]).
Definition. An L-topological space is H -compact if every k E K(X) is compact,

i.e. whenever k ~ VU with U c o(X), there is a finite Uo C U such that
k ~ VUo.
4.19 Proposition (Urysohn's type lemma). Let (L, ') be meet-continuous. If

X is a completely L-regular space, kEL x is compact, uEL x is open, and k ~ u,
then k ~ LU ~ Rof ~ u for some fEC*(X).
Proof. Let V be an open -<-decomposition of u (cf. 3.1). Then k ~ VV
and there exists a finite subfamily Vo C V with k ~ VVo. By 2.14(6) we have
VVo -< u, hence k -< u. 0
4.20 Lemma. Let X be an L-topological space with (L, ') a complete lattice
and let A eX. Then A is an H -compact subspace of X if and only if (k)o is
compact in X for every kEK(A).
470 T. Kubiak
Proof. Let A be H-compact, k E I\:(A), and let (k)o :5 VU with U C o(X).

Then k :5 (V U)IA :::: VuEu(uIA) and, thus, there exists a finite Uo C U such
that k:5 VUEuo(uIA). Hence (k)o :5 VUo.
Conversely, let kEI\:(A) and k:5 VV with VCo(A). Then (k)o:5 (VV)o =
VVEV(v)O :5 VVEVwV, where wvlA = v with Wv E o(X). Therefore, there
is a finite Vo C V such that (k)o :5 VvEVo WV' Consequently, k = (k)oIA :5
VvEVo (wvIA) = VVo. 0
4.21 Theorem. Let (L,') be a meet-continuous lattice. Let A be an H -compact
subspace 01 a completely L-regular space in which A is suitable closed. Then
every continuous I: A -+ I(L) has a continuous extension over X.
Proof. Let a, bELA be completely separated, i.e. a -< b' in A. Then
CIAa:5 IntA(b') = (CIAb)'.

Let CIAa = kdA and CIAb = k21A where kl,k2EI\:(X). Since 1AEI\:(X), hence
(CIAa)O = kl 1\ 1A and (CIAb)o = k2 1\ 1A
are closed in X. Furthermore, ( CIAa)o is compact in X by 4.20, and
Now, by 4.19 we have
i.e. (a)o and (b)o are completeley separated in X. By 4.18, f has a continuous
extension over X. 0
4.22 Remark. 'All the results of this subsection are valid for weakly stratified
L-topological spaces and I(L)C instead of I(L).
Extending IR(L)-valued functions

Very little is known about the possibility of continuous extending IR(L)-valued
functions. For instance, we do not know any L ¥- 2 for which the Tietze-Urysohn
theorem is valid for IR(L)-valued functions. The reason is that (with L meet-
continuous; see 2.9) C(X, IR(L)) is merely a lattice and not a ring as is the case
when L = 2. However, the following holds:
4.23 Lemma. Let X be an L-topological space with (L,') a meet-continuous

lattice. Let A C X be such that 1A is an L-zero-set and let every function of
C*(A) has a continuous extension over X. Then every function 01 C(A) has a
continuous extension over X.
Separation axioms 471.
Proof. Referring to 2.6. we let f: A --+ (0, l)(L) c J(L) be continuous. Let
F: X --+ J(L) be its continuous extension. Let 1A = Ro'g with 9 E C·(X).
Then 1A = L 1 'g-. Next, define
1 1
gl = 9 1\ 2 and g2 = g- V 2
Then Rogl = Rog = 1x\A = L 1g- = L 1g2 and L Og1 = Rog2 = Ix. Also,
gllA = 0 and g21A = 1. Therefore by 2.9
and F11A = FIA = f. We also have
F1(X) C (O,l)(L).
Indeed, for every xEX\A
RoFl(X) = (RoF(x) V Rog1(X)) 1\ Rog2(X) = (RoF(x) V T) 1\ T = T
and, similarly,
L 1'F1 (x) = (L 1'F(x) V..l) I\..l =..l,
i.e. F1(X \ A) c (0, l)(L), and Fl(A) C (0, l)(L) since F11A = f. 0
4.24 Remark. By 4.23, if the set A of 4.10,4.13,4.14 and 4.21 is such that 1A
is an L-zero-set, then in all of these results J(L) can be replaced by JR(L). The
proof of 4.23 remains valid (without any change) for functions taking values in
(0, l)(L) U {[O]}, (0, l)(L) U {[I]} and (0, l)(L) U {[OJ, [I]} (cf. related questions
of [43, Question 2.5] and [44, Question 8.7]).
In particular, since in a perfectly L-normal space every closed L-set is an
L-zero-set (see [14]), we have the following [24]:
4.25 Theorem. Let (L,') be a meet-continuous lattice. Let X be a perfectly

L-normal [weakly stmtifiedj space and A be a suitable closed. Then every conti-
nuous f: A --+ JR(L) [JR(L)C] has a continuous extension over X. 0
5 Embedding of L-topological spaces

In this section we treat the problems of embedding L-topological spaces into
products. From the very begining we embed spaces of prescribed weight, i.e.
the amount of factors of the range space is controlled according to the weight
of the embedable space. Crucial for this is a pointfree setting for the concept
of separating points from closed sets introduced in [27]. Two other results are
included: an embedding theorem for zero-dimensional L-topological spaces [40]
and an L-version of the Urysohn embedding theorem.
472 T. Kubiak
Historically, the first I-topological Tychonoff embedding theorem was given

by Katsaras [19] for completely I-regular6 and Katsaras-T1 spaces (note that
I(L) is not Katsaras-T1 ). For (L, ') a completely distributive lattice, Liu [32] has
embedded an L-Tychonoff space into an L-cube with IC*(X)I factors by using
Liu's pointwise characterizations of complete L-regularity and L-uniformities.
Later, Sostak [49] introduced and studied the notion of E-regularity in a 1-
topological setting.
Completely regular families of functions
Definition. Let (L, ') be a complete lattice. Let f: X -+ Yf be continuos for

every f E F. The family F is called completely regular iffor every k E I\'; (X)
(CR)
In a topological setting, F satisfies (CR) iff F separates points from closed

sets, i.e. whenever x f/. K c X(a closed subset), there is an f E F such that
f(x) f/. Cly! f(K). Condition (CR) is equivalent (see [27]) to the condition of
separating "fuzzy points" from closed L-sets introduced in [32]. For L = I,
another equivalent pointed condition is given in [49].
We note that we could write ~ in (CR) in place of =, since::; always holds.
Thus, if 9 c F is completely regular, then so is F. In what follows we write
f-+(k) rather than Cly! f-+(k).
5.1 Remark. For any complete (L, ') the following are equivalent:
(1) F is completely regular.
(2) Clx a = V{f+-(f-+(a)) : fEF} for all aEL x .
(3) U{(o(Yf)): fEF} is a base for X.
Proof. Replace I(L) by Yf and C*(X) by F in the proof of (2) {::} (3) and (2)
{::} (4) of 3.5. 0
With our new terminology, a part of 3.5 can now be stated as follows:
5.2 Remark. (1) If (L, ') is complete and X is completely L-regular, then
C·(X) is a completely regular family.
(2) If (L, ') is a frame, then C*(X) is completely regular iff X is completely
L-regular. 0
5.3 Fundamental Lemma. Let (L, ') be a complete lattice. Let X and lj
(j E J) be arbitrary L-topological spaces. Every completely regular family
FeU C(X, lj)
jEJ
6 Actually, Katsaras has a different, but equivalent [22], [49], definition (see also [27, Sect.
4]).
has a completely regular subfamily
Fo cF such that IFol::; w(X).

Proof. Let K be a closed base of X such that IKI ::; w(X). By (a closed L-set
version of) 1.3, for every kEK there exists Fk e F such that IFkl ::; w(X) and
k = /\ r-(f--+(k))
IEF.
Let
Since w(X) is, by definition, an infinite cardinal hence IFol ::; w(X). We claim
Fo is completely regular. Indeed, given an arbitrary closed h, we choose H e K
with h = AH. Since k ;::: h for all kEH, we have
h = /\ /\ r-(f--+(k))
kE1i IEF.
> /\ /\ r-(f--+(h))
kE1i IEF.
> /\ r-(f--+(h)). 0
IEFo
5.4 Remark. Let (L, ') be a complete lattice. Let X be an L-To space and let
F be a completely regular family. Then F separates points of X, i.e whenever
x f y in X, then there is an fEF such that f(x) f f(y)·
Proof. Cf. the argument for (2) ::} (1) of 3.6. 0
Embedding theorems
The following, proved in [27], is a fundamental theorem in this section, which

enables us to deduce all the embedding theorems for spaces of prescribed weight.
5.5 Embedding Theorem. Let (L, ') be a complete lattice and let X be L-To.
Let f: X -t YI be continuous for every f E F. If F is completely regular, then
X can be embedded into IT gE9 Yg where geF is such that 191::; w(X).
Proof. By 5.3, there is a completely regular family 9e F such that 191 ::; w(X).
By 5.4, 9 separates points of X. Let eg: X -t IT gE9 Yg be the diagonal map,
Le. 7r gO eg = g for every g E 9. Thus eg is continuous by 1.8 and injective by 5.4.
We now show that eg: X -t eg(X) is a closed mapping. Using continuity of
474 T. Kubiak
projections, 1.2, and 1.4, we have for every kE I\:(X) and gEQ (we let E = eg(X)
and e = eg):
g+-(g-+(k)) = eg (7r; (7rg (eg (k))))

> eg (7r; (7r; (eg (k))))
> eg(eg(k))
= e+-(eg(k)IE)
= e+-(CIE e-+(k))
by 1.5. Therefore
k= 1\ g+-(g-+(k)) 2: e+-(CIE e-+(k))

gEg
and e+-(k) 2: e-+(e+-(CIEe-+(k)) = CIEe-+(k) since e is onto. Thus e = eg is a

closed mapping. 0
As an important corollary we have:
5.6 Theorem (embedding lemma). Let (L,') be complete and let X be L-To.
For every L-topological space Y, if C(X, Y) is completely regular, then there is
a cardinal m ~ w(X) such that X can be embedded into the cube ym. 0
For weakly stratified X and Y, one can simply say that X embeds into
yw(X) (cf. 1.11). For such spaces we formulate the following corollary of 5.5
(Mrowka [37] for L = 2):
5.7 Theorem. Let (L,') be complete, let X and Y be weakly stratified and let
X be L-To. If U{C(X, yn) : n E N} is completely regular, then X can be
embedded into yw(X) . 0
5.8 Theorem (Tychonoff embedding theorem). For every complete (L, '), each
L-Tychonoff [weakly stratified] space X can be embedded into a cube I(L)m for
some m ~ w(X) [into the cube (I(Ly)w(Xl].
Proof. By 5.2 and 5.6. 0
5.9 Theorem (Urysohn embedding theorem). Let (L,') be a meet-continuous

lattice. Every L-regular second countable [weakly stratified] L-To space can be
embedded into I(L)~O [into (I(L)C)~o].
Proof. By 3.13, 3.15 and 5.8. 0
5.10 Corollary. Let (L,') be a frame. The following hold:

(1) A [weakly stratified] space is L-Tychonoff if and only if it is homeomor-
phic to a subspace of a [weakly stratified] L- Tychonoff cube.
(2) A [weakly stratified] space is L-regular, second countable and L-To if

and only if it is homeomorphic to a subspace of a [weakly stratified] L-Hilbert
cube.
Proof. By 5.8, 5.9, 3.3, 3.4 and 3.8. 0
The following L- topological versions of the Sierpinski space and of the two-
point discrete space were introduced in [50] and [1] respectively.
Definition. For (L,') a complete lattice, S(L) (resp., D(L)) is the L-topolo-
gical space with L as the underlying set and with the L-topology {I0, idL , Id
(with the L-topology generated by {idL,idL}, resp.).
We note that S(2) = xS and D(2) = XD where S = (2, {0, {T}, 2}) (the
Sierpinski space), D = 2 with the discrete topology, and xS consists of charac-
teristic functions of members of S.
The following two embedding theorems were first proved in [36] and [40],
respectively.
5.11 Theorem. Let (L,') be a complete lattice. Every [weakly stratified] L-To
space can be embedded into S(L)m for some m ~ w(X) [into (S(L)C)w(Xl].
Proof. Let K be a closed base of X with \K\ ~ w(X). For each k E K, let
fk: X --t S(L) , fk(X) = k'(x) for all x E X. Clearly, fk is continuous and
f;;U;(k)) = k. Therefore k ~ I\JEFf .... U-+(k)) where :F = Uk : k E K}.
Hence :F is completely regular and 5.6 applies. 0
Definition. An L-topological space is called zero-dimensional if it has a base

consisting of closed and open L-sets (clopen for short).
Of course, subspaces of zero-dimensional spaces are zero-dimensional. It is
also clear that if (L,') is a frame, then zero-dimensionality is productive (d.
[40]).
5.12 Theorem. Let (L,') be complete. Every [weakly stratified] zero-dimen-

sional L-To space X can be embedded into D(L)m for some m ~ w(X) [into
(D(L)C)w(Xl].
Proof. Let 8 be a base consisting of clop en L-sets such that \8\ ~ w(X). We
have 8cC(X, D(L)). Indeed u .... (idL ) = u and u .... (id!J = u' are open for every
u E 8. Also for every u E 8, u = u .... (u-+(u)) ~ I\vEBv .... (V-+(u)). Thus 8 is
completely regular and 5.6 applies. 0
Universal L-topological spaces
A universal L-topological space for a given class of L-topological spaces is a

space in this class in which every space belonging to the class can be embedded.
In formulating universal space theorems we shall restrict ourselves to weakly
stratified spaces.
476 T. Kubiak
5.13 Theorem. Let (L, ') be a frame. Then (I(Ly)max{m,ILI} is universal for
all weakly stratified L-Tychonoff spaces of weight::; maxim, ILl} where m 2: No.
Proof. Since J(L) is second countable, hence w((J(L)c)m) ::; maxim, ILl}.
Therefore (J(L)c)max{m,ILI} is weakly stratified (by 1.10), L-Tychonoff (by
3.16) and has weight::; maxim, ILl}. By 5.8, an L-Tychonoff X embeds into
(J(L )C)w(X), and since we are in the class of weakly stratified spaces, hence X
embeds into (I(L)c)max{m,ILI}. 0
Similarly one proves the two results which follow:
5.14 Theorem. Let (L, ') be a complete lattice. Then (S(L)c)max{m,ILI} is

universal for all weakly stratified L-To spaces of weight::; maxi m, ILl} where
m 2: No· 0
5.15 Theorem. Let (L, ') be a frame. Then (D(Ly)max{m,ILI} is universal

for all weakly stratified zero-dimensional L-To spaces of weight::; maxim, ILl}
where m 2: No. 0
Another universal space for weakly stratified zero-dimensional L-To spaces
is given in [40]. We refer to [33] for further results related to 5.9 (viz. Urysohn
metrization theorem).
References
[1] D. Adnajevic and A.P. Sostak, On inductive dimension for fuzzy topological
spaces, Fuzzy Sets Syst. 73 (1995), 5-12.
(Amer. Math. Soc. Providence, RI. 1979).
[3] RL. Blair, Extension of Lebesgue sets and of real-valued functions, Czechos-
lovak Math. J. 31 (106) (1981),63-74.
[4] C.L. Chang, Fuzzy topological spaces, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 24 (1968), 182-
190.
[5] T.E. Gantner, RC. Steinlage, and RH. Warren, Compactness in fuzzy
topological spaces, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 62 (1978),547-562.
[6] G. Gierz, K.H. Hofmann, K. Keimel, J.D. Lawson, M. Mislove and D.S.
Scott, A Compendium of Continuous Lattices, (Springer, Berlin, 1980).
[7] L. Gillman and M. Jerison, Rings of Continuous Functions, (Springer, New
York, 1976).
[8] J.A. Goguen, L-fuzzy sets, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 18 (1967), 145-174.
[9] J.A. Goguen, The fuzzy Tychonoff theorem, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 43 (1973),
734-742.
[10] J. Gratzer, General Lattice Theory, (Akademie-Verlag, Berlin, 1978).
[11] U. Hohle, G-fuzzy topologies on algebraic structures, J. Math. Anal. Appl.

108 (1978), 113-150.
[12] U. Hoble, Commutative, residuated l-monoids, in: "Nonclassical Logics

and Their Applications to Fuzzy Subsets" U. Hoble and E.P. Klement,
Eds., 53-106 (Kluwer Academic Publ., Dordrecht, Boston, 1995).
[13] U. Hohle and A. P. Sostak, Axiomatic foundations of fixed-basis fuzzy topol-
[14] B. Hutton, Normality in fuzzy topological spaces, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 50

(1975), 74-79.

58 (1977), 559-571.

59-67.
[17] B. Hutton and I.L. Reilly, Separation axioms in fuzzy topological spaces,
Fuzzy Sets Syst. 3 (1980),93-104.
[18] M. Katetov, On real-valued functions in topological spaces, Fund. Math 38
(1951), 81-85; Correction, ibid. 40 (1953), 203-205.
[19] A.K. Katsaras, Fuzzy proximities and fuzzy completely regular spaces I,
Anal. Stiin. Univ. "AI. I. Cuza" Iasi 26 (1980), 31-41.
[20] A.K. Katsaras, Ordered fuzzy topological spaces, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 84
(1981), 44-58.
[21] W. Kotze and T. Kubiak, Inserting L-fuzzy real-valued functions, Math.

Nachr. 164 (1993), 5-11.
[22] T. Kubiak, On fuzzy topologies, Ph.D. Thesis, UAM, Poznan, 1985.
[23] T. Kubiak, L-fuzzy normal spaces and Tietze extension theorem, J. Math.
Anal. Appl. 125 (1987), 141-153.
[24] T. Kubiak, Extending continuous L-realfunctions, Math. Japon. 31 (1986),
875-887.
[25] T. Kubiak, Around I(L), in "First Joint IFSA-EC and EURO-WG Work-
shop on Progress in Fuzzy Sets in Europe. November 25-27, 1986, Warsaw
Poland. Proceedings" (J. Kacprzyk and A. Straszak, Eds.), Prace IBS PAN,
Vol. 167, Warszawa, 1988, 175-179.
[26] T. Kubiak, Insertion and extension of mappings, in preparation; abstract
in: Notices South African Math. Soc. 24 (1) (1992), 35.
478 T. Kubiak
[27] T. Kubiak, On L-Tychonoff spaces, Fuzzy Sets Syst. 73 (1995), 25-53.

[28] T. Kubiak and M.A. de Prada Vicente, On internal characterizations of
completely L-regular spaces, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 216 (1997),581-592.
[29] T. Kubiak and M.A. de Prada Vicente, L-regular topological spaces and
their topological modifications, submitted.
[30] T. Kubiak and M.A. de Prada Vicente, Some questions in fuzzy topology,
Fuzzy Sets Syst. (Special Issue on Fuzzy Analysis and Related Topics), to
appear.
[31] E.P. Lane, Insertion of a continuous junction, Topology Proc. 4 (1979),
463-478.
[32] Liu Ying-Ming, Pointwise characterization of complete regularity and
imbedding theorem in fuzzy topological spaces, Scientia Sinica, Series A,
26 (1983), 138-147.
[33] Liu Ying-Ming, Fuzzy metrization - an application of embedding theory, in

"Analysis of fuzzy information", Vol. I (J. Bezdek, Ed.), 1987,203-209.
[34] R. Lowen, Fuzzy topological spaces and fuzzy compactness, J. Math. Anal.
Appl. 56 (1976), 621-633.
[35] R. Lowen, On the existence of natural fuzzy topologies on space of proba-
bilistic measures, Math. Nachr. 115 (1984), 33-57.
[36] R. Lowen and A. Srivastava, FTSo: the epireftective hull in the Sierpinski
object in FTS, Fuzzy Sets Syst. 29 (1989), 171-176.
[37] S. Mr6wka, Further results on E-compact spaces I, Acta Math. 120 (1968),
162-185.
[38] S. Mr6wka, On some approximation theorems, Nieuw Archief voor Wiskun-
de (3) 16 (1968), 94-111.
[39] Pu Pao-Ming and Liu Ying-Ming, Fuzzy topology II. Product and quotient
[40] L. Pujate and A. Sostak, On zero-dimensionality in juzzy topology, Serdica
16 (1990), 285-288.
[41] H.Rasiowa, An Algebraic Approach to Non-classical Logics, (PWN - North-
Holland, Warszawa, 1974).
[42] S. E. Rodabaugh, Suitability in fuzzy topological spaces, J. Math. Anal.
Appl. 79 (1981), 273-285.
[43] S.E. Rodabaugh, The L-fuzzy real line and its subspaces, in "Fuzzy Sets and
Possibility Theory: Recent Developments", (R.R. Yager, Ed), Pergamon
Press, Oxford, 1982, 402-418.
[44J S. E. Rodabaugh, Separation axioms and the fuzzy real lines, Fuzzy Sets
Syst. 11 (1983), 163-183.
[45J S.E. Rodabaugh, A point-set lattice-theoretic framework T for topology,
Youngstown State University, Preprint 1986.
[46J S.E. Rodabaugh, Applications of localic separation axioms, compactness
axioms, representations, and compactijications to poslat topological spaces,
[47J S. E. Rodabaugh, Categorical foundations of variable-basis fuzzy topology
[48J S.E. Rodabaugh, Separation axioms, representation theorems, compactness,
and compactijications (Chapter 7 in this Volume).
[49J A.P. Sostak On the concept of E-regularity for fuzzy topology, Mat. Vesnik
41 (3) (1989), 189-203.
[50J A.K. Srivastava and R. Srivastava, Fuzzy Sierpinski space: Another note,
Fuzzy Math. 3 (1985),99-103.
[51J H. Tong, Some characterizations of normal and perfectly normal spaces,
Duke Math. J. 19 (1952), 289-292.
[52J V.S.Varadarajan, Geometry of Quantum Theory (Springer-Verlag, Berlin,
1985).
[53J R.H. Warren, Neighborhoods, bases, and continuity in fuzzy topological
spaces, Rocky Mountain J. Math. 8 (1978), 459-470.
[54] R. Wuyts and R. Lowen, On the total and global measures of separation in
fuzzy topological spaces, Fuzzy Sets Syst. 19 (1986), 51-80.
CHAPTER 7
Separation Axioms: Representation Theorems,

Compactness, And Compactifications
S. E. RODABAUGH
Introd uction
In the historical development of general topology, the searches for appropriate
compactness axioms and appropriate separation axioms are closely intertwined
with each other. That such intertwining is important is proven by both the
Alexandrov and Stone-Cech compactifications; that such intertwining is to be
expected follows from the duality between compactness and separation-the
former restricts, and the latter increases, the number of open sets; and that such
intertwining is categorically necessary is proven by the categorical nature of the
Stone-Cech compactification and its relationship to the Stone representation
theorems. Furthermore, these compactifications and many other well-known
results justify the compact Hausdorff spaces of traditional mathematics.
As mathematicians sought to develop and extend general topology in various
ways using the concept of a fuzzy subset, it is not surprising that searches for
the appropriate axioms of compactness and separation axioms were intertwined
with varying degrees of success. Some of these attempts include the following:
(1) The Hutton axioms of normality and compactness (denoted H-compact-

ness (by us)) [12-13], together with the Hutton-Reilly (HR) separation
axioms schemum [14], give the H-compact, HR-Hausdorff spaces.
(2) The a-compactness axiom of Gantner, Steinlage, and Warren [7] and the
a-separation axiom schemum of Rodabaugh [32] together yield a-compact
a-Hausdorff spaces.
(3) Stratified compact Hausdorff spaces in the sense of Lowen may be found
in reference [27] of [42].

482 S. E. Rodabaugh
(4) The compactness axiom of Chang [3], denoted C-compactness in [39, 42],
is joined by Rodabaugh [35, 42] to various separation axioms for poslat
topological spaces, including those motivated from locales.
(5) Compact Hausdorff-separated spaces as defined in Subsections 6.3-6.4 of
[11], with related and extensive developments in references [20] and [25]
of [11].
We make a preliminary comment on notation. Based both on the results
of [35, 42] and on the additional results contributed by this chapter, it is this
author's view that this chapter should simplify the notation of [35, 42] and
rename C-compactness by compactness and localic regularity by regularity,
and make other corresponding simplifications, e.g. C-COMP-LOC-REG-
SOB-L-TOP should be renamed K-REG-SOB-L-TOP.
With regard to content, this chapter summarizes both the compactification
reflectors of fixed-basis topology w.r.t. compactness given in [35, 42] as well as
the development in [35, 42] of closely related low-order separation axioms-the
L-To and L-sobriety axioms, which together with certain regularity axioms and
compactness establish the fixed-basis categorical equivalent of compact Haus-
dorff spaces and generate en route various needed classes of generalizations of
Stone representation theorems. But this chapter also adds many new results to
those of [35,42]:
(1) extensions of the fixed-basis compactifications of [42] to variable-basis
topology in the sense of [43], giving the first compactification reflectors
for variable-basis topology;
(2) detailed object-level and category-level comparisons of traditional and
fixed-basis sobriety, including applications to the fuzzy real lines, the gen-
eral fuzzification problem, and the construction of new fuzzy real lines and
fuzzy arithmetic operations;
(3) detailed object-level and category-level comparisons of compact Hausdorff
with its fixed-basis categorical equivalent of compact, regular, sober L-
spaces, including applications to the fuzzy unit interval;
(4) detailed morphism-level comparison between continuous mappings on
compact Hausdorff spaces and L-continuous mappings on compact, regu-
lar, sober L-spaces; and
(5) connections to the compact Hausdorff-separated spaces of Subsections 6.3-
6.4 of [11].
All proofs not given in this chapter are found in detail in [42], a paper on
which this chapter is primarily based. Much of the new material in (2-4) was
in response to, or arose out of, extensive discussions with U. Hahle; and the
material in (5) is contributed by U. Hahle.
It might be helpful to the reader to point out certain fundamental philoso-
phies underlying this chapter and its predecessor [42] (see also [39]):
Separation axioms and compactifications 483
(1) Tihonov theorems are not more important than compactification reflec-
tors. The justification for this is that the latter considers compactness and
separation together. Furthermore, compactification reflectors reveal the
proper role played by morphisms in compactifications. In this sense, cat-
egorical compactifications play a more fundamental role than topological
compactifications (see Section 1 below).
(2) Traditional mathematics has much to teach fuzzy sets. In particular, the
theory of locales informs fuzzy sets of the following: compactness is really
localic compactness, and both are intimately related to H-compactness;
localic separation axioms give rise to separation axioms for fixed-basis
spaces which are intimately related to corresponding HR-separation ax-
ioms; and sobriety, appropariately generalized, has as fundamental role to
play in fuzzy sets as in general topology. An important corollary is that
the categorical equivalent of compact Hausdorff spaces for L-topological
spaces is the compact, regular, L-sober topological spaces.
(3) Fuzzy sets has much to teach traditional mathematics. In particular, the
general classes of Stone-Cech compactifications constructed in fixed-basis
topology, along with the associated general classes of Stone representation
theorems, enable fuzzy sets to enrich traditional spaces with many new
compactifications and representations, as well as teach traditional math-
ematics several lessons: the Stone representation theorem for distributive
lattices rests on 2 == {..l, T} being a distributive semiframe; the Stone
representation theorem for Boolean algebras rests on 2 == {..l, T} being a
complete Boolean algebra; and the Stone-Cech compactification for gen-
eral topology rests on 2 == {..l, T} being a frame.
In order to further clarify the philosophy and methods of this chapter, it is

needful that we discuss in more detail various approaches to compactifications,
state with more specificity the goals of this chapter, as well as give a few lattice-
theoretic preliminaries; this is done in Section 1 below. We close these opening
remarks with an outline of this chapter.
§l. Views and approaches to compactification

§2. Fixed-basis sobriety and spatiality
§3. Separation axioms for representation and compactification
§4. Compactness axioms for representation and compactification
§5. Fixed-basis Stone representation theorems for distributive lattices
§6. Fixed-basis Space representations of compact regular locales and compact
Hausdorff spaces
§7. Fixed-basis Stone representation theorems for Boolean algebras
§8. Compactification reflectors for entire fixed-basis categories of topology
§9. Compactification reflectors for variable-basis categories of topology
§1O. References
1 Views and approaches to compactification
In traditional topology, there have historically been two fundamental views (or
metaphysics) of compactification, together with the two associated method-
ologies (or epistomologies). It is necessary to understand these views and ap-
proaches in order to understand what has been done in recent years in point-set
lattice-theoretic (poslat) topology with regard to compactification, and what
therefore should be done with respect to compactness, separation axioms, and
representation theorems.
1.1 Discussion (Two definitions of compactification in traditional top-

ology).
(1) Topological definition. Let (X,'I) E TOP. Then «X*,'I*),h) is a

compactification of (X, 'I) iff (X*, 'I*) is compact and:
(a) h : X -+ X* is a homeomorphic embedding (i.e. regular monomor-

phism);
(b) h-t(X) is dense in X*.
(2) Categorical definition. 3 a subcategory C of TOP of compact spaces, 3

a functor K : TOP -+ C, K -1 '-+. Applying the diagrams for adjunction
given in [35, 39, 40, 45], based in turn on [29], we have the following
restatement of the foregoing condition:
v (X, 'I) E ITOPI, 317 : (X, 'I) -+ K (X, 'I),
v (Y,6) E ICI , V f : (X, 'I) -+ (Y, 6) ,
3 !1 : K (X, 'I) -+ (Y, 6) , f =1 0 17.
For each (X, 'I), the pair (K (X, 'I) ,17) is the compactification of (X, 'I).
TOP c
'<IX (1) K(X)
'<I f (4) o :3 TJx (2)

(6)
Y K(X) '<IY (3)
The topological definition may be found in [6], and the categorical definition
may be found in [10]. Note the categorical definition says a compactification is
a compact space together with a universal arrow from the space to the compact
space, i.e. a continuous map through which all liftings must uniquely factor;
equivalently, we may say C is a reflector in TOP.
There need be no relationship between these two definitions: the Alexan-
drov (one-point) compactification is a topological compactification but generally
yields not a universal arrow; and the Stone-Cech compactification is a categor-
ical compactification which satisfies the embedding and density criteria only
when the original space is Tihonov. What the two viewpoints have in common
is the stipulation of an object (the compact space) and an arrow (the map), and
where they differ is in the criteria which the map must satisfy in categorical
terms: the topological approach requires the map be a regular monomorphism
(plus density), and the categorical approach requires the map be a universal
arrow.
As indicated above, topological and categorical viewpoints coincide for
Stone-Cech compactifications of Tihonov (= completely regular To ) spaces.
(It is a non-trivial exercise to derive for such spaces the topological criteria
from the categorical criteria.) This coincidence shows the canonicity of the
Stone-Cech approach. This in turn illustrates that the categorical criteria are
more fundamental than the topological criteria in this sense: every topological
space has a Stone-Cech compactification, so that "unique liftings of maps" or
"categorical reflection" applies more broadly (or "universally") than "existence
of regular monomorphisms". Furthermore, the categorical criteria (in the case
of Stone-Cech) are based on the machinery of the Stone representation theorems
for Boolean algebras and distributive lattices; they are in fact based ultimately
on the relationship between locales and topological spaces, a topic explored more
486 s. E. Rodabaugh
fully below.
1.2 Discussion (Two approaches/methodologies to compactification).

There are two fundamentally distinct approaches to contructing the compact-
ification (X*, '1'*) of a space (X, '1'), and these two approaches reflect the two
different definitions discussed above.
(1) Topological/point-set approach. Given a space (X, '1'), the first (and
more traditional) approach first builds the set X* and then furnishes the
topology '1'* to make the space (X*, '1'*); in the case of Stone-Cech, the set
/3X is a subset of the appropriate cube formed using evaluation, and the
topology /3'1' is inherited as a subspace topology. The topological or point-
set definition of compactification is reflected in this traditional approach
since it builds the point-set first. A typical reference is [6].
(2) Categorical/localic approach. The second approach first builds the
topology '1'* and then assigns a suitable point-set X* as the underlying
set. Because this approach in its first step is "point-free", it tends to rely
heavily on categorical methods and so reflects the categorical viewpoint.
In the case of Stone-Cech, the topology /3'1' is first constructed, and then a
suitable point-set /3X is attached as the underlying set. The construction
of /3'1' uses the construction of the Stone-Cech compactification A for any
locale A; and then the machinery of the Stone representation theorems,
actually the adjunction between TOP and LOC, builds the underlying
set X. See [16] for details.
In the case of Stone-Cech, both approaches coincide (or "commute") and

yield the same compactification, even for a general space. In particular, the
first approach
(X, '1') t----t X t----t /3 X t----t (/3 X, /3'1')
uses the forgetful functor V: TOP -t SET, and then builds the compactifica-
tion as indicated above; while the second approach
(X, '1') t----t '1' t----t /3'1' t----t (/3 X, /3'1')
uses, in succession, the functors
n : TOP -t LOC, /3: LOC -t K-REG-LOC, PT : LOC -t TOP
1.3 Discussion (Categories L-TOP and C-TOP). To motivate these ques-

tions for poslat topology, we need to review some terminology from [11, 43]; and
the reader should review the powerset operators of [44-45]-these are constantly
used throughout this chapter. The category SFRM comprises all complete lat-
tices, together with morphisms preserving arbitrary V and finite /\, and taken
with the usual composition and identities. For X E ISETI and L E ISFRMI,
we form the L-powerset LX comprising all L-(fuzzy) subsets a : X -t L.
Now for L E ISFRMI, the category L-TOP comprises all spaces (X, r) in
which the L-topology r is closed under all arbitrary V and finite /\ of LX-the
members of rare (L-(fuzzy)) open subsets-together with functions I whose
backward powerset operators It preserve L-topologies (i.e. It (v) == v 0 I is an
L-open subset of the domain whenever v is an L-open subset of the codomain),
and taken with the usual composition and identities. The categories L-TOP are
the categorical models for fixed-basis topology in the sense of Chang-Goguen,
where L is the lattice-theoretic base fixed for the entire topological categoryj
and in this context we also speak of fixed-basis (poslat) topology. We point
out that the restriction from the general lattice-theoretic category CQML of
[11, 43] to SFRM in this chapter is appropriate since the compactifications
given below use i8l = /\.
The categorical models for variable-basis topology are determined by first

stipulating a subcategory C of lattice-theoretic bases. For this chapter C is
taken as the category SLOC == SFRMoP. The category C-TOP comprises
all spaces (X,L,r) such that L E ICI and (X,r) E L-TOP, together with all
morphisms (I, ¢) E SET x C whose backward powerset operators (I, ¢)+- pre-
serves the poslat topologies (Le. (I, ¢)+- (v) == ¢op 0 V 0 I is an open subset
of the domain whenever v is an open subset of the codomain), and taken with
the composition and identities of SET x C. The category C-TOP is the cat-
egorical model for variable-basis topology since it unifies as subcategories
all the L-TOP's for L E IClj and in this context we also speak of variable-
basis point-set lattice-theoretic (poslat) topology. Again, we point out
that C is restricted to be SLOC rather than a more general subcategory of
LOQML == CQMLoP since the compactifications of objects in IC-TOPI use
i8l = /\.
1.4 Discussion ("Topological definition/approach" to compactification

in fixed-basis topology). The topological approach to compactification in tra-
ditional topology finds many approximate counterparts in fixed-basis topology
[1, 2, 25-28, 30]. Each approach of these sources was analyzed in [42] and none
were found to have all of the following desirable properties:
(1) truly generalize the classical (3, Le. without using itj
(2) be valid for a broad category of lattices L (instead of restricted to just
L = [0,1] C lR)j
(3) be categorical, i.e. generate a compactification reflectorj and
(4) be a reflector on all of L-TOP, instead of reflecting on a restrictive sub-
category of L-TOP.
488 S. E. Rodabaugh
1.5 Discussion ("Categorical definition/approach" to compactification

in fixed-basis topology). In [42] we see the emergence of a canonical approach
satisfying all the conditions of 1.4(1-4), as well as satisfying topological criteria
for spaces with appropriate separation properties, for all categories L-TOP for
L E JFRMJ. From that work, using the criteria of [39], is affirmed: a strong vin-
dication of Chang's definition of compactness [3] for poslat topology, a definition
ignored in the literature; the establishment of L-sobriety, and its included L-To
axiom, as the lowest-level separation axioms for L-topology; and the establish-
ment of both the localic and the Hutton-Reilly axioms of regularity, complete
regularity, and normality as the middle-level separation axioms for L-topology.
It turns out that the categorical equivalent of the compact Hausdorff spaces of
classical mathematics is the compact [3], localic or Hutton-Reilly regular, sober
L-topological spaces. (For a discussion of other separation axioms, see [20] and
[22].)
1.6 Question. What are the precise relationships, object-level and category-
level, between traditional sobriety and L-sobriety, when are these sobrieties
actually equivalent, and what role does this relationship play in giving a general
solution to the fuzzification-Iattice-dependent extension-problem in topol-
ogy?
1. 7 Question. What are the precise relationships, object-level, morphism-

level, and category-level, between classical compact Hausdorff spaces and the
compact, localic or Hutton-Reilly regular, sober L-topological spaces?
1.8 Question. Is there a counterpart in variable-basis topology of the cat-

egorical/localic approaches to compactification in traditional and fixed-basis
topology?
The first goal of this chapter is to summarize for the reader, sans proofs,
the categorical/localic development in [42] for fixed-basis topology; the second
goal is to settle Questions 1.6-1. 7, thereby further clarifying the roles of L-
sobriety and density in the developments of [42]; and the third goal is to answer
Question 1.8 affirmatively, thereby transferring to variable-basis topology the
development of the categorical approach given in [42] for fixed-basis topology.
Achieving these latter goals completes the contribution of [42] to the debate
over compactness and separation axioms.
In Section 2, we summarize the fuzzification of spatiality and sobriety previ-
ously given in [35, 39-42]-this allows us to generalize the adjunction between
TOP and LOC, and the resulting equivalence between SOB-TOP and SPAT-
LOCi and the relationship between traditional sobriety and its generalizations
is fully detailed, answering Question 1.6. We then discuss in Section 3 localic-
like separation axioms and their relationship to the axioms of [14]. Then localic
compactness, compactness [3], and H-compactness [13] are discussed and related
in Section 4. After these preliminary sections and using the above-mentioned
ideas, we present results in which can be found applications to both multi-valued

and traditional topology:
(1) General classes of Stone representation theorems for distributive lattices
(Section 5). It follows in the fixed-basis context that compactness with
sobriety are a categorically equivalent replacement to traditional compact-
ness with traditional sobriety.
(2) Compact, regular, sober, fixed-basis topological space representations of
compact regular locales (Section 6). It follows that the compact, regular,
sober, fixed-basis topological spaces are categorically equivalent to the
traditional compact Hausdorff topological spaces. Furthermore, the for-
mer spaces may be viewed as a type of soberification of the latter spaces,
answering part of Question 1. 7. Further, if the basis of the spaces is
a complete Boolean algebra, then H-compact, HR-regular, sober spaces
may replace the compact, regular, sober spaces in the preceding sentence.
In this context we summarize results of U. H6hle connecting compact,
regular, sober, fixed-basis topological spaces to the compact, Hausdorff-
separated spaces of Subsections 6.3-6.4 of [11], including the result that
when the basis is a complete Boolean algebra, these two approaches coin-
cide.
(3) General classes of Stone representation theorems for Boolean algebras
(Section 7). It follows in the fixed-basis context that sobriety with any
pairing of either compactness or H-compactness with either of regular-
ity or HR-regularity is also categorically equivalent to pairing traditional
compactness with traditional Hausdorff.
(4) Stone-Cech compactifications for all poslat topological spaces in the fixed-
basis category L-TOP with L E IFRMI (Section 8). In this context com-
pactness plays the same role as traditional compactness, the completely
regular, To, L-topological spaces play the same role as the traditional com-
pletely regular To spaces, and the compact, regular, sober, L-topological
spaces play the same role as the traditional compact Hausdorff spaces.
For some frames L, including the complete Boolean algebras, the previous
sentence holds with H-compactness replacing compactness, HR-complete
regularity replacing complete regularity, and HR-regularity replacing reg-
ularity. Finally, the relationship between classical compactifications and
L-compactifications is detailed using notions of soberifications and density,
thereby completing the answer to Question 1. 7.
(5) Stone-Cech compactifications for all poslat topological spaces in certain
subcategories of the variable-basis category LOC-TOP (Section 9). As
in (4) above, these use compactness, sobriety, and complete regularity.
These compactifications are equivalently generated for all spaces in cor-
responding subcategories in the variable-basis category BOOLoP-TOP
using H-compactness, sobriety, and HR-complete regularity. These results
answer Question 1.8.
490 S. E. Rodabaugh
We finish this section with a few lattice-theoretic preliminaries. All lattice-

theoretic categories not defined in this chapter are found in [42-4]; the pre-
fix "D" or "c" or "ORTHO" in a categorical name indicates the attribute
of distributivity, completeness, or orthocomplemented is stipulated for its ob-
jects. Unless specified otherwise, all base lattices L are taken from the category
SFRM or its dual SLOC. We maintain the practice of [11,43] of denoting the
lower and upper bounds of a lattice by .1 and T, respectively; and the constant
maps from a set X into a lattice L with values .1 and T are denoted ~ and I,
respectively. We use the symbols "{.l, T}" and "2" interchangeably.
2 Fixed-basis sobriety and spatiality

The ideas of sobriety and spatiality comprise the machinery of compactification
as developed below. This section summarizes such ideas as carried over to
poslat or Chang-Goguen fixed-basis topology. Proofs not given below, as well
as philosophical and mathematical justification of the ideas constructed and the
methods employed, can be seen (in more general form) in [35, 39-41]. Toward
the end of the section we cite the two-fold justification from [41] of fuzzy sets
which these ideas give us; cf. 5.14, 6.8, 7.11 below. At the end of the section
we add a detailed analysis with proofs comparing traditional sobriety with the
sobriety described below. Classical notation and ideas are taken from [16]. Each
fixed base lattice is taken from SFRM or SLOC.
2.1 Lemma (Lattice-dependent extension of 0: TOP -? LOC). LO: L-

TOP -? SLOC is a functor, where
LO(X,r) = r, LOU: (X,r) -? (Y,o,» = ([Ut)IO']OP: r -? 0')
2.2 Lemma (Lattice-dependent extension of PT: TOP +- LOC). LPT:

L-TOP +- SLOC is a functor, where
Lpt(A) = {p : A -? Lip E SFRM} ,

eliL : A -? LLpt(A) by eliL(a) (P) = p(a),
LPT(A) = (Lpt(A) , eliL(A»,

LPT[J : A -? B] = [rp]r, i.e. LPTU)(P) = po r p
where r p : A +- B is a concrete map in SFRM. Also, eli L E SFRM.
2.3 Lemma (Lattice-dependent extension of 1J! : TOP -? IPT-+(LOC)I).

Put
1J!L : IL-TOPI-? ILPT-+(SLOC)I
Separation axioms and compactincations 491
as follows: given (X,:::;) E IL-TOPI, put

'h : X --+ Lpt(r) by IliL(X) : r --+ L by IliL(X)(U) = u(x)
Then IliL : (X,r) --+ (Lpt(r)'~L(r)) is L-continuous, and L-open w.r.t. its
range in (Lpt(r) , ~L(r)) (see [43] for notions of openness ofmorphisms and the
underlying subspace topology and subobject.)
2.4 Theorem (Lattice-dependent extension of n -I PT). Ln -I LPT with

unit IliL and counit ~L. As special cases, L E IFRMI =? L-TOP is adjunctive
with LOe via Ln -I LPTj and L = {-L, T} =? n -I PT.
2.5 Definition (Lattice-dependent extension of sobriety and To). A

space (X,:::;) E IL-TOPI is (L-)sober [(L-)To ] iff IliL is bijective [injective].
SOB-L-TOP is the full subcategory of L-TOP of all sober objects.
2.6 Remark. Given the G,,: TOP --+ L-TOP functor-see Definition 4.1.1 of
[39], references [11, 94, 98] of [39], Theorems 6.2.1(1) and 6.2.3(1) of [43], and
Remark 3.7 of [11], a classical space (X, 'I) is sober [To] ¢:> G,,(X, 'I) is {-L, T}-
sober [{-L, T}-To]. We also denote "{-L, T}-sober" by "2-sober". And from [16]
for TOP, Hausdorff =? sobriety =? To, with no implications reversiblej and
there is no relationship between sobriety and T 1 • But in TOP under regularity,
sobriety is equivalent to each of To, Tb and T2 j and hence in TOP, compact
Hausdorff spaces are equivalent to compact regular sober spaces. To "fuzzify"
compact Hausdorff spaces, it suffices to combine the "appropriate" fuzzy notions
of compactness and regularity with the fuzzy notion of (L-)sobriety defined in
2.5. In [42] we determined these "appropriate" notions to be compactness [3]
or H-compactness [13] together with Hutton-Reilly regularity [14] or "localic"
regularity [35, 39] (cf. [4, 16]).
The concepts of L-subspace topology, L-open morphism, L-embedding, and
L-homeomorphism are fundamental to the compactification theory summarized
in this chapter, used repeatedly in the sequel, and found with detailed categorical
analysis in [43].
2.7 Definition (Lattice-dependent extension of spatiality). The lattice

A E SLOe is L-spatial iff ~L : A --+ LLpt(A) is injective. L-SPAT-SLOe is
the full subcategory of SLOe of all L-spatial semilocales. If L = {-L, T}, then
we speak of both {-L, T}-spatiality or 2-spatiality. We point out that 2-spatiality
is precisely the "crisp" or "classical" spatiality of [16].
2.8 Lemma. The following hold:

(1) 'v'(X,r) E IL-TOPI, (X,r) is L-sober [L-To ]¢:> IliL is an L-homeo-
morphism [L-embedding] (see [43]).
(2) 'v' A E ISLOq, A is L-spatial¢:> ~L : A --+ ~L (A) is an isomorphism.
492 S. E. Rodabaugh
(3) If L1 y L2 in SFRM, then L 1 -spatiality => L 2 -spatiality. Thus {.l, T}-

spatiality, or 2-spatiality, implies L-spatiality for each L in SFRM.
2.9 Lemma. V(X, r) E IL-TOPI, Ln(X, r) = r is L-spatial; and V A E

ISLOq,
LPT(A) = (Lpt(A), cl>t(A))
is L-sober. Thus
Ln: L-TOP ~ L-SPAT-SLOe
and
LPT : SOB-L-TOP +- SLOe
where the full subcategories SOB-L-TOP and L-SPAT-SLOe are defined in
the obvious way. Furthermore, the functors
Ln 0 LPT : SLOe ~ L-SPAT-SLoe
LPT 0 Ln : L-TOP ~ SOB-L-TOP

are valid, called the L-spatialization and L-soberification functors, respec-
tively.
2.10 Theorem (Lattice-dependent extension of SOB-TOP ~ SPAT-

LOe representation theorem). VL E ISFRMI,
SOB-L-TOP ~ L-SPAT-SLOC
2.11 Theorem. Let L E ISFRMI, (X, r) E IL-TOPI, A E ISLOq, and

h: A ~ r in SFRM be given; and put H: X ~ Lpt(A) by H(x) = IJIdx) 0 h.
Then:
(1) H: X ~ Lpt(A) is L-continuous (Le. in L-TOP).

(2) If h is an epimorphism in SET (i.e. surjective), then H is a L-open mor-
phism w.r.t. the L-subspace topology on H-+(X) inherited from LPT(A).
(3) If H is injective, then IJI L is injective. And conversely, if h is an epi-

morphism in SET and IJI L is injective, then H is an L-embedding into
LPT(A), i.e. an L-homeomorphism onto H-+(X) with the L-subspace
topology inherited from LPT(A).
2.12 Remark. Lemma 2.8(1) is a corollary of Theorem 2.11: set A = rand

set h = idr •
2.13 Remark. The full generality of 2.11 is fundamental to Stone-Cech com-

pactification as developed in this paper.
2.14 Remark (Necessity of fuzzy subsets). Many justifications offuzzy or

lattice-valued sets and the ideas of this section appear in Sections 5-8. But for
now we cite a two-fold justification proved in [35, 39-41 J and derived in part
from 2.10 above. First, there are many locales which cannot be represented by
any classical sober topological space; but every locale, indeed every complete
lattice, has at least one representing sober fixed-basis topological space. Second,
many localic products are not (isomorphic to) any product topology; but every
localic product is some L-product topology, where L-product topology is taken
in the sense of [9, 55J. The point is that only with L-subsets (Discussion 1.3) do
we have the option of choosing the lattice L of membership values; whereas the
restriction L = {1.., T} in classical mathematics insures that classical topology
has the above two gaps which can only be filled by fuzzy or lattice-valued subsets
(the word "only" being justified because of the categorical nature of these gaps
and their lattice-valued "solutions").
2.15 Discussion (Comparison between L-sobriety and classical sobri-

ety). The purpose of this discussion is to establish categorically the relationship
between L-sobriety and classical sobriety by introducing two new functors: the
L-2-soberification and 2-L-soberification functors. Motivated from and implic-
itly contained in Remark 6.3 of [42], these functors will help us, in Discussion
6.3 below, to formalize that remark. Furthermore, these functors find important
applications in this Section and Sections 6 and 8. These applications include
the general fuzzification problem in topology (Discussion 2.16), the construction
of new fuzzy arithmetic operations (Discussion 2.16), the relationship between
traditional compact Hausdorff spaces and compact, regular, sober L-spaces (Dis-
cussion 6.3), and the relationship between traditional compactifications and L-
compactifications via both density and the L-continuous extension of continuous
maps (Discussions 8.14-8.15).
2.15.1 Definition (L-2-Soberification). The L-2-soberification functor is

the functor
LPT 0 n : TOP -+ SOB-L-TOP
Object-wise (X, 'I) I-t (Lpt ('I) ,<PI: ('I)), with the latter called the L-2-sober-
ification of the former. (Cf. Lemma 2.9.)
2.15.2 Remark. LPT 0 Ln 0 Gx. : TOP -+ SOB-L-TOP is naturally iso-

morphic to the L-2-soberification functor (where Gx. is given and studied in
[43]).
Proof. Note 'I ~ Gx. ('I). And it is proved in [35J: A ~ B ::} LPT (A) ~
LPT (B) (using the universality of Ln -j LPT). 0
494 S. E. Rodabaugb
2.15.3 Definition (2-L-Soberification). The 2-L-soberification functor is

the functor
PT 0 LO : L-TOP -+ SOB-TOP
Object-wise (X,7) I--t (Pt (7), CP~ (7)) with the latter called the 2-L-sober-
ification of the former. (Cf. Lemma 2.9.)
2.15.4 Remark. There are other functors which are candidates for 2-L-sober-
ification, namely PT 0 0 0 S.l and PT 0 0 0 Mx (where S.l (..l-level functor)
and Mx ("Martin" functor) may be found in [43]). But these are apparently
different, and neither of these "fits" as nicely with the L-2-soberification functor
defined above.
2.15.5 Theorem (Adjunction between sobrieties). Let L E ISFRMI.

Then SOB-TOP -l SOB-L-TOP. More precisely, the following hold:
(1) LPT 0 0 -l PT 0 LO.

(2) The unit of this adjunction is a homeomorphism, i.e. this adjunction is
an iso-reflection.
Proof. Ad (1). The basic tool is the fact that the composition of the adjunctions
is again an adjunction (see Lemma 9.17.1 below for a precise statement). To
use this tool, we put together a few facts. First, each ordinary topology is
2-spatial (2.9), and 2-spatiality implies L-spatiality (2.8(3)); and this means
the adjunction 0 -l PT restricts to the categories SOB-TOP and L-SPAT-
SLOC. Second, the adjunction LO -l LPT restricts to a categorical equivalence
when restricted to the categories SOB-L-TOP and L-SPAT-SLOC (2.10);
and this means on these categories we have the reverse adjunction LPT -l LO.
Now composing the adjunctions 0 -l PT and LPT -l LO yields the claimed
adjunction LPT 0 0 -l PT 0 LO.
Ad (2). The verification of (2) is implicit in the verification of (1). To be
more explicit, let (X, 'I) be an ordinary sober topological space. Then the image
of this space under PT 0 LO 0 LPT 0 0 is the ordinary sober topological space
Since 'I is L-spatial (see proof of (1)), then 'I ~ cpr: ('I). Now the universal
properties of 0 -l PT imply that
(Pt ('I), Cp~ ('I)) ~ (Pt (cpr: ('I)), Cp~ (cpr: ('I)))
Since (X, 'I) ~ (Pt ('I), Cp~ ('I)) (by the sobriety of (X, 'I)), it follows that the
unit
1) : (X, 'I) -+ (Pt (cpr: ('I)), Cp~ (cpr: ('I)))
of the adjunction LPT 0 0 -l PT 0 LO is a homeomorphism. 0
2.15.6 Definition (Topological L-topological spaces). Let L E ISFRMI.

An L-topological space (X, r) is topological or 2-topological iff r is 2-spatial.
This definition was first given in [35), and was later shown by MeBner [31)
to be independent of previous definitions of "topological" L-spacesj and other
references include [39, 40). We denote (full) subcategories of 2-topological fixed-
basis spaces by the prefix 2-TOP.
2.15.7 Theorem (Sobriety Representation Theorem). Let L E ISFRMI.
(1) The L-2-soberification of each ordinary topological space is a 2-topological

sober L-space.
(2) SOB-TOP ~ 2-TOP-SOB-L-TOP via the restriction of LPT 0 0 -i
PToLO.
Proof. Ad {1}. The details are similar to those of 2.15.5 above. Given an
ordinary topology'!, it follows that eli~ ('!) is also an ordinary topology, and
so both'! and eli~ ('!) are both 2-spatial and L-spatial, i.e. '! ~ eli~ ('!) ,
'! ~ eli;: ('!), and eli~ ('!') ~ eli;: (eli~ ('!)). Now it follows that
eli;: ('!) ~ eli;: (eli~ ('!)) ~ eli~ ('!) ~ eli~ (eli;: ('!))
This implies eli;: ('!) is 2-spatial, and so (Lpt ('!) ,eli;: ('!)) is a 2-topological
sober L-space.
Ad {2}. The adjunction LPToO -i PToLO is now a composition of categor-
ical equivalences. Namely, we now view 0 -i PT as the categorical equivalence
between SOB-TOP and SPAT-SLOC, and we view the categorical equiva-
lence LPT -i LO between SOB-L-TOP and L-SPAT-SLOC as restricting to
an equivalence between 2-TOP-SOB-L-TOP and SPAT-SLOC. 0
The following result stems from discussions with U. Hohle concerning L-2-
soberifications.
2.15.8 Application (Fuzzy Real Lines and Unit Intervals). If L is a com-

plete Boolean algebra, then IR(L) is L-homeomorphic to the L-2-soberification
of IR and II (L) is L-homeomorphic to the L-2-soberification of ll.
Proof. We prove the fuzzy unit interval casej the other case is identical. From
Theorem 3 of [12) comes the fact that if L E ICBOOLI, then the L-topology
r (L) of II (L) is lattice-isomorphic to the usual topology r (2) of the real line in-
terval ll. Now from [31], we have L E ICBOOLI ¢> (ll (L), r (L)) ~ LPT (r (L)).
Finally, we have T (2) ~ r (L) :::} LPT (r (L)) ~ LPT (r (2)) by the universality
of LO -i LPT [35). The claim now follows. 0
496 S. E. Rodabaugh
2.15.9 Remark. Theorems 2.15.5 and 2.15.7 in essence say that L-sobriety is
closely related to, yet richer than, traditional sobriety, i.e. L-2-soberification
is richer than 2-L-soberification. Restated, ordinary sober topological spaces
may be categorically regarded as sober L-spaces which are "topological". Thus
L-sobriety provides the traditional sober spaces, plus possibly many more de-
pending on the lattice L. We state the following problem and related conjecture:
2.15.10 Problem. Find a condition on L which is necessary and sufficient to

have SOB-TOP ~ SOB-L-TOPj and find all such conditions on L.
2.15.11 Conjecture. Let L E ISFRMI. Then SOB-TOP ~ SOB-L-TOP

{::} L is 2-spatial.
2.15.12 Remark. If the conjecture be true, then for the non-spatial locales L
given in [16], L-sobriety would be strictly richer categorically than traditional
sobriety.
2.16 Discussion (Dual solution to the general fuzzification problem).

One of the unanticipated benefits of the L-2soberification functor is that it
resolves the general fuzzification problem in topology in a way dual to the Klein
fuzzification.
2.16.1 Question (Fuzzification problem). In reference [97] of [39], the au-

thor essentially posed the following fuzzification problem. Fix L a complete
deMorgan chain. 'V (X, 'I') E ITOPI , 3 (?) (X (L) ,'!' (L» E IL-TOPI, the fol-
lowing boundary conditions are satisfied:
(1) For L = 2 == {..L, T}, 3h: X --+ X (L) a bijection, '!'is order-isomorphic to
'!' (L) via h+- 0 Sl.., where Sl.. (u) = [u > ..L] (see the SOt functor of 6.2.1(3)
of [43] with a = ..L)j
(2) For (X, '!') = IR, (X (L) ,'!' (L» is L-homeomorphic to the L-fuzzy real line
IR(L) (reference [69] of [43]).
(3) For (X, '!') = II == [0,1], (X (L), '!' (L» is L-homeomorphic to the L-fuzzy
unit intervalll (L) (reference [69] of [43]).
The following summarizes the substantial partial solution by Klein [17-19]:
2.16.2 Theorem (Klein fuzzification). Let (X, '!') be an ordinary topolog-

ical space with at most finitely many components, and let L E IHUTI such
that ..L is meet-irreducible. Then 3! (X (L) ,'!' (L» E IL-TOPI. Further, this
fuzzification satisfies the following conditions ala those of 2.16.1:
(1) For L = 2 == {.l, T}, 2.16.1(1) holds providing it is further assumed that
(X, 'I') is Tl and ['Ix E X, X - {x} is connected].
(2) For (X, 'I) = IR, 2.16.1(2) holds providing L is assumed a complete de-
Morgan chain.
(3) For (X, 'I) = II == [0,1]' 2.16.1(2) providing L is assumed a complete
deMorgan chain.
The Klein fuzzification leads to some additional open questions.
2.16.3 Question (Fuzzification of complex plane). Given JR x JR, then

(JR x JR) (L) exists by 2.16.2 and JR(L) x JR(L) exists by the Goguen-Wong prod-
uct [9,55], which is the categorical product on L-TOP. We repeat the question
first posed as an open question in reference [52] of [39]:
- Is there an unambiguous model for the L-complex plane, i.e. is
(JR x JR) (L) L-homeomorphic to JR(L) x JR(L)?
2.16.4 Question (Klein fuzzification functorial).

(1) Is the Klein fuzzification functorial, i.e. can it be made into a functor
K: CONN-TI-TOP -+ L-TOP?
(2) If the answer to (1) is affirmative, does K have a left-adjoint or at least
preserve products?
We now give partial answers to 2.16.1, 2.16.3, and 2.16.4 using the L-2-
soberification functor for L a semiframe. The conclusions of the theorem are
stated so as to facilitate comparison with 2.16.1 above and 2.6.2 above.
2.16.5 Theorem (L-2-Soberification and fuzzification). Let (X, 'I) E

ITOPI and L E ISFRMI. Then its L-2-soberification
(X* (L) ,'I* (L)) == LPT (n (X, 'I')) = (Lpt ('I) ,i)t ('I))
(1) For L = 2, 'I is order-isomorphic to 'I* (L)j and X is bijective with X (L)
iff (X, 'I) is sober, in which case 2.1.16(1) holds as stated.
(2) For (X, 'I) = JR, (X* (L), 'I* (L)) == JR* (L) is L-homeomorphic to the L-
fuzzy real line JR(L) providing L E ICBOOLI.
(3) For (X, 'I) = II == [0,1]' (X* (L), 'I* (L)) == II* (L) is L-homeomorphic to
the L-fuzzy unit interval II (L) providing L E ICBOOLI.
498 S. E. Rodabaugh
(4) (JR x JR)* (L) is L-homeomorphic to JR* (L) x JR* (L).

(5) The following are all L-homeomorphic
(JR x JR)* (L) ~ JR* (L) x JR* (L) ~ JR{L) x JR{L)
providing providing L E ICBOOLI.

(6) Results analogous to (4,5) hold for the L-fuzzy unit square; i.e. (4,5) holds
with "!R." replaced by "IT".
Proof. For (I), 'r is 2-spatial; the second clause is the defintion of sobriety;
and the third clause holds since qi+- 0 S1. = ~-1 0 S1. = ~21. The proofs of
(2,3) are given in 2.15.8. As for (4), we have JR x JR is Hausdorff, hence sober.
So using this fact and the 2-spatiality of'r, we may restriction our attention to
SOB-TOP and 2-TOP-SOB-L-TOP. By 2.15.7(2), the adjunction
LPT 0 n -l PT 0 Ln
may be regarded as a categorical equivalence, which implies the reverse adjunc-

tion
PT 0 Ln -l LPT 0 n
holds, i.e. the L-2-soberification functor has a left-adjoint. This implies that
this functor preserves all products existing in SOB-TOP. Since SOB-L-TOP
and SOB-TOP are closed under all products (Theorem 5.2.1 and Corollary
5.2.2 of [35]), we have
(JR x JR)* (L) ~ JR* (L) x JR* (L)
in SOB-L-TOP. To finish (4), we note
(JR x JR)* (L) E 12-TOP-SOB-L-TOPI
Bthat L-homeomorphs of 2-topological sober L-spaces are again 2-topological

sober L-spaces (the 2-topological claim follows from the universality of n -l PT
and the L-sobriety claim follows from the universality of Ln -l LPT), and hence
that JR* (L) x JR* (L) E 12-TOP-SOB-L-TOPI. Now (5) follows from (2) and
(4) using the universality of the Goguen-Wong product. And the proof of (6) is
analogous to that of (4,5). 0
2.16.6 Remark (Fuzzification and new class of fuzzy real lines and
unit intervals).
(I) It would seem that the L-2-soberification functor should be considered

as a new fuzzification functor. Note that this functor provides an L-
fuzzification for every topological space for every L E ISFRMI and does
so functorially-this latter property has implications for a new fuzzy addi-

tion and fuzzy multiplication detailed in 2.16.7 below. In particular, this
means we have new models of the fuzzy real line and fuzzy unit interval
for arbitrary semiframes, namely JR* (L) and [* (L), which coincide with
the Hutton models if L is a complete Boolean algebra. There are other
fuzzification procedures in the literature which should in the future be re-
lated whenever possible to the L-2-soberification: the L( -fuzzy) duals and
L(-fuzzy) topological duals of the author in [36]; the Lowen fuzzification
in reference [24] of [36] in which each separable metric space has an L-
fuzzification for L = [0,1]; the Lowen fuzzification in reference [25] of [36]
in which each linearly-ordered topological space has an L-fuzzification for
L = [0,1]; the Sostak fuzzification in reference [130] of [39] in which each
linearly-ordered space has has an L-fuzzification for L = [0,1]; etc. The
most general of the now known fuzzification machines is that provided by
the L-2-soberification functor.
(2) It is instructive philosophically to consider the different paths taken by
the Klein fuzzification and the alternatiive provided by L-2-soberification.
These show the fuzzification offered here to be dual to the Klein fuzzifica-
tion.
(a) The Klein fuzzification first builds the set X (L) and then the L-
topology'! (L) , while L-2-soberification builds the L-topology '1'* (L)
(up to isomorphism) first and then the set X* (L). This should be
compared with the two approaches to compactification outlined in
Discussion 1.2 above.
(b) There are two paths from To to Hausdorff: through Tl and through
sobriety. The Klein fuzzification is related to Tl and our alternative
is related to sobriety-see 2.16.2(1) and compare with 2.16.5(1).
(c) There are two basic ways in which to view the traditional lattice 2
of membership values: as a chain and as a Boolean algebra. The
Klein fuzzification is partly related to chains and our alternative is
partly related to Boolean algebras-see 2.16.2(2,3) and compare with
2.16.5(2,3).
2.16.7 Application (Fuzzification and new fuzzy arithemetic opera-

tions). Jointly L-continuous fuzzy addition and fuzzy multiplication on the
L-fuzzy real line with many algebraic properties were constructed by the author
in references [96, 100] of [39] under the restriction that L is a complete deMor-
gan chain. If we consider the L-2-soberification of the real line, namely the new
fuzzy real line JR* (L) from 2.16.6(1), then using 2.16.5(4) and the fact LPTo n
is functorial, we get as a corollary the generation of new fuzzy arithmetic oper-
ations on our new L-fuzzy real lines for L only a semiframe:
[+ : JR x JR -+ 1R] 1-+ [LPT(n(+)): (JR x JR)* (L) -+ JR* (L)]
= [(LPT (n (+ )))' : JR* (L) x JR* (L) -+ JR* (L)]
500 S. E. Rodabaugh
[. : JR x JR ~ JR] [LPT (S1 (.)) : (JR x JR)* (L) ~ JR* (L)]

[(LPT (S1 (-)))' : JR* (L) x JR* (L) ~ JR* (L)]
where LPT (S1 (+)) and LPT(S1 (+))', and LPT(S1 (.)) and LPT (S1 (.))', are in
the same morphism class of L-TOP in the sense defined in 8.15 below.
3 Separation axioms for representation and

compactification
This section catalogues the separation axioms for L-spaces important for rep-
resentation and compactification theorems. For this purpose, the appropriate
low-level axioms are L-sobriety and axioms subsumed by L-sobriety, and the
approriate middle-level axioms are either the regularity, complete regularity,
and normality motivated by locales, or the Hutton-Reilly regularity, complete
regularity, and normality axioms. It is well-established for some time that the
Hutton-Reilly high-level axioms are appropriate if taken without the Hutton-
Reilly low-level axioms; we show in [42] that these high-level axioms should be
used with the L-To axiom subsumed in L-sobriety. See also [20, 21-22, 37, 39]:
these references include comparisons of separation axiom schemes, relationships
to uniform structures, and studies of separation properties of the fuzzy intervals
and fuzzy real lines. Proofs of the results of this section are found in [42].
3.1 Discussion (Low-level separation axioms). The low-level axioms suit-

able for compactification in poslat (or L-) topological spaces are those defined in
the preceding section, namely (L- )To and (L-)sobriety of Definition 2.5 above.
For convenience, we also now name an axiom implicit in Definition 2.5: (X, r)
is (L-)80 iff is surjective. For L-topology we have that
(L-)sober {::} To + 80 •
Furthermore, it is shown for L-topology [35]:
(1) (X, r) is To {::} Vx E X, Vy E X, x :/; y, 3u E r, u(x) :/; u(y).

(2) (X,r) is 8 0 {::} Vp E Lpt(r), 3x E X, Vu E r, p(u) = u(x).
3.1.1 Proposition. VL E IDMRGI, JR(L) and each .If (L), for J an interval
of JR, are L-To in the sense of Definition 2.5 above (see [12], [7], [34, 43] for
definitions and discussion of JR(L) and .If (L)).
A far more sophisticated result is due to [31]: given L E IDMRGI, JR(L)

(and in fact .If (L) for.lf a non-degenerate interval of JR) is sober L E ICBOOLI.
3.1.2 Corollary. Every fuzzy real line in the literature is L-To.
Because of 3.1.1 and 3.1.2, together with the fact no other To-like axiom in
the literature is satisfied for JR(L) , the L-To axiom of Definition 2.5 should be
regarded as canonical. Interestingly enough, our L-To axiom was independently
discovered in reference [55] of [42], justified by categorical methods for L = ][
in references [29-30] of [42], and is apparently the same as the sub-To axiom of
[23]. Note that the HR-To axiom is deemed unacceptable since it is not satisfied
by the various fuzzy real lines and intervals [34].
3.2 Discussion (Middle-level separation axioms). The middle-level ax-

ioms of importance for compactification for fixed-basis poslat topology include
the Hutton-Reilly axioms of regularity, complete regularity, and normality [14]
denoted HR-regularity, HR-completely regularity, and HR-normality (but with-
out the HR-To axiom, so e.g. we want HR-normality but not HR-To), as well as
the "localic" axioms of regularity, complete regularity, and normality given in
[35] denoted loc-regularity, loc-completely regularity, and loc-normality in [35,
42]. The latter axioms are motivated by the separation axioms for locales, and
in this chapter the prefix "loc" is dropped for the regular and completely reg-
ular case. All these axioms are defined below; but also see [22] regarding these
axioms.
3.3 Discussion (High-level separation axioms). These include the Hutton-

Reilly axioms [14] above normality, but without the HR-To axiom of Hutton-
Reilly; e.g. we want HR-pseudometrizability, but not HR-metrizability (the
former plus HR-To ). In keeping with [35], we define a space to be a metric
space if it is HR-pseudometric and L-To as in Definition 2.5; and we also define
a space to be a sober metric space if it is HR-pseudometric and L-sober as
in Definition 2.5. Using [34, 35], JR(L) is a metric space for L E IHUTI; and
using [31,34], JR(L) is a sober metric space iff L E IORTHOHUTI. Also see
[20] regarding metric spaces.
3.4 Discussion (Refinements of the partial order for regularity ax-

ioms). "Refinements" or strengthenings of a partial order (e.g. the way-below
relation « of [8]) have been studied for many years; and applications to the
fuzzy context are developed in [21-22, 42] and their references. Middle-level
separation axioms important to compactification involve various refinements of
the partial order either in the base lattice L or in a poslat powerset LX. We
now define and discuss those refinements relevant to regularity.
3.4.1 Definition. Let L E ISFRMI ,M c L, and a, bE M.

(1) a is well-inside b (w.r.t. M), denoted a ~ b, if
3 c E M, a 1\ c =.1, b V c = T
502 S. E. Rodabaugh
This comes from [16].

(2) a is quite-inside b (w.r.t. M), denoted a <s b, if
3cEM,a:S;c':S;b
where L is assumed in DMRG and c' is the involute of c in L. This comes
from [35, 42].
3.4.2 Remark. Trivially <s is a refinement, for a <S b ~ a :s; b. Generally;::::

and :s; are not related; but under distributivity, a ;:::: b ~ a :s; b. The notions
of ;::::, <S, and « appear to be pair-wise distinct. The first two are related by
following "Insertion Axioms", the first one of which guarantees that ;:::: refines
:S;.
3.4.3 Insertion Axioms (IA). Let L E IDMRGI and MeL.

(IA1) '1;/ a, bE M, a;:::: b (w.r.t. M) ~ a <S b (w.r.t. M).
(IA2) '1;/ a, bE M, a <S b (w.r.t. M) ~ a;:::: b (w.r.t. M).
3.4.4 Proposition (Sufficient conditions for the Insertion Axioms). Let

L E IDMRGI , X E ISETI , and MeL, and consider the following conditions:
(1) ..1. is meet-irreducible in L (or ..1. E Lb-see [32, 33]);

(2) L is a vertical sequence of at least two generalized diamonds, each with
at least two facets [37];
(3) L E ICBOOLI, or more generally, L is a complete MV-algebra;
(4) L is a generalized diamond with two facets [37];
(5) L E IORTHODMRGI, or more generally, L is a weakly orthomodular
deMorgan algebra.
(I) each of (1,2,3,4) ~ (IA1) holds for M C LX;
(II) each of (3,4,5) ~ (IA2) holds for M C LX.
3.4.5 Remark. None ofthe conditions of 3.4.4 are superfluous. The generalized
conditions in 3.4.4 (3,5) are suggestions of U. H6hle.
3.5 Definition (Regularity axioms). Let A,L E ISFRMI and (X,r) E

IL-TOPI·
(1) A is localic regular, or regular, iff
'v'aEA, 3 {b-y} -y C{bEA:b~aw.r.t. A}, a=V -y b-y
This is a modification of [5, 16]; see 3.6(1) below. REG-SLOC is the full
subcategory of SLOC of regular semilocales.
(2) (X, r) is localic regular, or regular, iff r is regular Ii la (1) above. This
is a modification of [35]. REG-L-TOP denotes the full subcategory of
L-TOP of regular spaces.
(3) (X,r) is HR-regular iff
'v' u E r, :3 {v-y} -y C {v : v :::; u}, u = V v-y

-y
where L is further assumed to be in DMRG, and v denotes the (L-)clos-

ure 1\ {k : v:::; k, k' E r} of v [14]. HR-REG-L-TOP is the full subcat-
egory of L-TOP of HR-regular objects.
The following proposition links regularity of spaces with regularity of locales,

shows that HR-regularity can be redefined Ii la the definition of localic regularity
using @, and shows how these regularities are related to each other and the LO
and LPT functors. Sequens, DSFRM [DSLOC] denotes the full subcategory
of SFRM [SLOe] of disdtributive objects.
3.6 Proposition. Let A,L E ISFRMI and (X,r) E IL-TOPI.
(1) If A E IDSLOCl, then A is regular {::}
'v' a E A, a = V{b E A : b ~ a w.r.t. A}

Hence for A E ILOCl, A is regular {::} A is a regular locale in the sense of
[5, 16]. Hence REG-LOC = REG-LOC of [16].
(2) If L E IDSFRMI , (X, r) is regular {::}
'v'u E r, u = V{v: v ~ u w.r.t. r}
Hence if L E IFRMI, then (X, r) is regular {::} LO(X, r) is a regular

locale; and if L = {.l, T}, then (X, 'I') E ITOPI is (classically) regular {::}
Gx(X, 'I) is regular, where G x can be found in [39, 42].
(3) If L E IDMRGI, then the following are equivalent:
(i) (X, r) is HR-regular;

(ii) 'v'uEr,3{v-Y}-yC{vEr:v@uw.r.t.r},u=V-yv-y;
504 S. E. Rodabaugh
(iii) 'v'UET,U=V{vET:V<SU}.
(4) If L E IDMRGI and (IAl) holds for w.r.t. LX, then regularity::} HR-
regularity. This implication holds under 3.4.4(1-3).
(5) If L E IDMRGI and (IA2) holds for w.r.t. LX, then HR-regularity ::}
regularity. This implication holds under 3.4.4(3-5).
(6) A is regular::} LPT(A) is regular and L-soberj the converse holds if A is

L-spatial.
(7) If L E IDMRGI and (IAl) holds for <ilI7(A) w.r.t. LLpt(A), A is regular
::} LPT(A) is HR-regular and L-soberj the converse is valid if also A is
L-spatial and (IA2) holds for <ilI7(A) w.r.t. LLpt(A).
(8) The following hold (cf. 2.9 above):
LO: REG-L-TOP --+ REG-SLOC
LPT : REG-L-TOP f- REG-SLOC
LO : HR-REG-L-TOP --+ REG-SLOC (under (IA2))
LPT : HR-REG-L-TOP f- REG-SLOC (under (IAl)
3.7 Corollary. Let L E ICBOOLI, or more generally, L be a complete MV-

algebra, and (X, T) E IL-TOPI. Then (X, T) is regular {:} (X, T) is HR-regular.
3.8 Remark.
(1) It is known that ~(L) and .lJ (L), for .lJ C ~, are HR-regular (in fact, HR-
pseudometrizable) if L E IHUTI: see [34]. It follows that if (IA2) also
holds, ~(L) and .lJ (L) are regular. For example, if L E ICBOOLI, then
~(L) is regularj of course, for such an L it is well-known that the Hutton
topology T(L) on ~(L) is isomorphic to the standard topology 'I' on lR,
which yields the same result.
(2) Under certain restrictions, Sarkar-regularity [46] may be substituted for

HR-regularity. See 5.1(2,3) of [34] for the conditions.
(3) From [35] comes the notion of a L-topological space being loc-Hausdorff:
if L E IFRMI, then (X, T) is loc-Hausdorff iff T is strongly Hausdorff
as a locale (for which notion see [15, 16]). Under the conditions of (1)
guaranteeing regularity, the fuzzy intervals are localic Hausdorff as well.
They also satisfy the Ro and Rl axioms of [14]. From above, they satisfy
for L E IDMRGI the L-To axiom.
3.9 Discussion (Refinements of the partial order for complete regu-

larity axioms). As in the case with regularity, complete regularity requires
refinements of the partial order, refinements related to those given in 3.4 and
its sequel, which we now define and discuss.
3.9.1 Definition. Let L E ISFRMI, Me L,and'v'a,b EM. And let]IJ) be the

dyadic rationals in [ == [0,1].
(1) a is really inside b (w.r.t. M), denoted a '< b, iff 3 {a q : q E]IJ)} eM,
(i) a ~ ao ~ al ~ b; and
(ii) p <q :} a p ~ aq •
This definition comes from [16]. We shall call {a q : q E]IJ)} aloe-scale

between a and b.
(2) a is completely inside b (w.r.t. M), denoted a @s b, iff 3 {a r : r E [} C

M,
(i) a ~ ao @s al ~ b; and
(ii) r < s :} ar @@ as.
This definition comes from [35,43]; a similar refinement, the ~-relation,

has since appeared in [21,22]. We shall call {a r : r E [} an HR-scale
between a and b..
3.9.2 Remark. The way in which '< and @@ are derived from ~ and @,
respectively, guarantees that the new notions are related by the same Insertion
Axioms used above to relate the previous refinements of ~, and that the above
development concerning ~, @, regularity, and HR-regularity has an analogous
development for <,
@@, and the definitions of complete regularity given below.
3.9.3 Lemma (Sufficiency of the Insertion Axioms). Let L E IDMRGI

and MeL.
(1) If (IA1) holds for M w.r.t. L and M is a complete join subsemilattice of

L, then 'v'a,b EM, a'<b (w.r.t. M) :} a @@ b (w.r.t. M).
(2) If (IA2) holds for M w.r.t. L, then 'v' a, bE M, a @@ b (w.r.t. M) :} a '<b

(w.r.t. M).
3.9.4 Proposition. Let L E IDMRGI, X E ISETI, and MeL. Then:

506 S. E. Rodabaugh
(I) If M is a complete join semisublattice of L, then each of 3.4.4(1,2,3,4) =?

[Va,b EM, a'<b (w.r.t. M) =? a @s b (w.r.t. M)J.
(II) Each of 3.4.4(3,4,5) =? [Va,b E M, a @@ b (w.r.t. M) =? a'<b (w.r.t.
M)J.
3.10 Definition (Complete regularity axioms). Let A, L E ISFRMI and

(X, r) E IL-TOPI.
(1) A is localic completely regular, or completely regular, abbreviated

c-reg, iff
Va E A, :3 {b'"(} '"( C {b E A : b'< a w.r.t. A} , a = Vb'"(

'"(
This is a modification of [5, 16J; see 3.11(1) below. CREG-SLOC is the

full subcategory of SLOC of c-reg semilocales.
(2) (X, r) is localic completely regular, or completely regular, abbre-
viated c-reg, iff r is c-reg aLa (1) above. This is a modification of [35J.
CREG-L-TOP denotes the full subcategory of L-TOP of c-reg spaces.
(3) (X, r) is HR-completely regular, abbreviated HR-cr, iff
Vu E r,:3I E ISETI,:3 {Uir: (i,r) E I xli},
U = V{UiO : i E I} and [Vi E I, r < s =? flir :S Uis :S uJ

where L is further assumed to be in IDMRGI, and fl denotes the L-closure
of U (3.5(3) above). This definition comes from [14J. HR-CR-L-TOP is
the full subcategory of L-TOP of HR-cr spaces.
3.10.1 Remark. Loc-cr =? regularity, and HR-cr =? HR-regularity.
Analogous to Proposition 3.6, the following proposition links complete reg-

ularity of spaces with complete regularity of locales, shows that HR-complete
regularity can be redefined aLa the definition of lac-complete regularity using
@@, and shows how these complete regularities are related to each other and
the LO and LPT functors.
(1) If A E IDCSLFI, then A is c-reg ¢:} Va E A, a = V {b : b'< a w.r.t. A}.

Hence for A E ILOCl, A is c-reg ¢:} A is a completely regular locale in
the sense of [5,16]. Restated, CREG-LOC = COMPL-REG-LOC of
[16].
(2) If L E IDCSLFI, (X,r) is c-reg {:} 'Vu E r, u = V {v: v<u w.r.t. r}j if
L E IFRMI, then (X, r) is c-reg {:} LO(X, r) is a regular localej and if
L = {.l, T}, then (X,T) E ITOPI is (classically) completely regular {:}
Gx.(X, 'r) is c-reg, where Gx. can be found in [39,43].
(3) If L E IDMRGI, then the following are equivalent:
(i) (X, r) is HR-crj
(ii) 'Vu E r, 3 {v"},, C {v E r: v @@ u w.r.t. r}, u = V" V"j
(iii) 'VuEr,u=V{vEr:v@@u}.
(4) If L E IDMRGI and (IA1) holds for w.r.t. L , then c-reg :::} HR-cr. This
implication holds under 3.4.4(1-3).
(5) If L E IDMRGI and (IA2) holds for w.r.t. L , then c-reg ~ HR-cr. This
implication holds under 3.4.4(3-5).
(6) A is c-reg :::} LPT(A) is c-reg and L-soberj the converse holds if A is
L-spatial.
(7) If L E IDMRGI and (IA1) holds for <J.iI:(A) w.r.t. LLpt(A), A is c-reg:::}
LPT(A) is HR-cr and L-soberj the converse is also valid if A is L-spatial
and (IA2) holds for <J.iI: (A) w.r.t. LLpt(A).
(8) The following hold (cf. 2.9 and 3.6(8)) above:
LO : CREG-L-TOP -+ CREG-SLOC
LPT : CREG-L-TOP ~ CREG-SLOC
LO : HR-CR-L-TOP -+ CREG-SLOC (under (IA2))
LPT : HR-CR-L-TOP ~ CREG-SLOC (under (IA1)
3.12 Corollary. Corollary 3.7 and Remark 3.8 hold with "regular" ["HR-
regular"] replaced by "c-reg" ["HR-cr"].
3.13 Remark. To the statements of 3.12 can be added some of the additional
consequences of c-regj e.g. if L is a frame, then (X, r) is c-reg :::} r is isomorphic
to a (not necessarily closed) sublocale of a localic product of the localic unit
interval. The reader can peruse IV: 1.7, 2.1-2.11 of [16] for further implications
of c-reg, and of HR-cr through c-reg and Propostion 3.11.
3.14 Discussion (Refinements of the partial order for normality ax-

ioms). As with regularity, normality requires refinements of the partial order
ala those given in 3.4 and sequens, which we now define and discuss.
3.14.1 Definition. Let L E ISFRMI, MeL, and a, bE M.
508 s. E. Rodabaugh
(1) a ~ b via c means a, b, c satisfy the condition of 3.4.1(1) above.

(2) a C5 b via c means a, b, c satisfy the condition of 3.4.1(2) above, where L
is assumed in DMRG.
3.14.2 Modified Insertion Axioms (MIA). Let L E IDMRGI and MeL.
(1) 'Va,b,c EM, a ~ b via c::} a C5 b via c'.

(2) 'Va, b, c E M, a C5 b via c ::} a ~ b via c'.
3.14.3 Remark. Clearly MIA(I) [(2)] is strictly stronger than IA(I) [(2)].
3.14.4 Proposition. Let L E IDMRGI, X E ISETI, and MeL.
(1) Each of 3.4.4(1,2,3,4) implies MIA(I) holds for M w.r.t. LX.

(2) Each of 3.4.4(3,4,5) implies MIA(2) holds for M w.r.t. LX.
3.15 Definition (Normality axioms). Let A,L E ISFRMI and (X,r) E

IL-TOPI·
(1) A is localic normal, or loc-normal, iff
'Va, b E A, a V b = T, 3 c, d E A, c 1\ d = 1., c V b = T, a V d = T
This comes from [5, 16].
(2) (X, r) is localic normal, or loc-normal, iff r is loc-normal Ii la (1) above;
cf. [35].
(3) If L E IDMRGI, then (X,r) is H-normal iff 'Vclosed k (Le. k' E r
), 'Vu E r, k :5 u, 3v, k:5 v :5 v:5 u. This comes from [12].
3.15.1 Remark. Loc-normality::} c-reg, and H-normality ::} HR-cr. The

former implication is the "localic Urysohn Lemma" [4, 16] and the latter impli-
cation is the "Hutton-Urysohn Lemma" [12].
Analogous to 3.6 and 3.11, the following proposition links loc-normality with
normality oflocales, shows loc-normality and H-normality can be redefined using
the refinements of the partial order given in 3.14.1, and relates these normalities
to each other and the Lfl and LPT functors.

(1) A is loc-normal ¢:? Va, bE A, a vb = T, 3c,d E A,

c :::: a via d, d :::: b via c
For A E ILOCl, A is loc-normal ¢:? A is a normal locale in the sense of [5,

16J.
(2) (X,r) is loc-normal ¢:? Vu,v E r,uVv = I,3w,z E r,w:::: u via
z, Z :::: v via w. For L E IFRMI, (X, r) is loc-normal ¢:? Lf),(X, r) is a
normallocalej and if L = {1., T}, (X, 'I) E ITOPI is (classically) normal
¢:? Gx(X, 'I) is loc-normal.
(3) If L E IDMRGI, then (X,r) is H-normal ¢:? Vu,v E, v' ~ u, 3w,z E

r, v' :::: w' via z, z :::: u via w'.
(4) If L E IDMRGI, (MIA1) holds for r w.r.t. LX, and r has the property
that
Vu, v E r, u ' ~ v => u V v = I
then (X, r) is loc-normal => (X, r) is H-normal.
(5) If L E IDMRGI, (MIA2) holds for r w.r.t. LX, and r has the property
that
Vu, v E r, u V v = I => u ' ~ v
then (X, r) is H-normal => (X, r) is loc-normal.
(6) If L E IDMRGI and (MIAl,2) both hold for r w.r.t. LX, then (X, r) is
H-normal ¢:? (X, r) is loc-normal. These hypotheses hold if L E ICBOOLI
or is a complete MV -algebra.
(7) A is loc-normal '* LPT(A) is loc-normal and sober; the converse holds if
the kernel ~r {.J,} and the co-kernel ~r {I} of ~ L are singleton sets.
(8) If in (7) it is also assumed that L E IDMRGI and (MIA1,2) both hold
for ~L(A) w.r.t. LLpt(A), then A is loc-normal => LPT(A) is H-normal
and sober.
3.17 Corollary. Corollary 3.7 and Remark 3.8 hold with "regular" ["HR-
regular"J replaced by "loc-normal" ["H-normal", respectivelyJ.
4 Compactness axioms for representation and

compactification
The purpose of this section is to define and relate the concept of localic compact-
ness to the L-topological notions of compactness [3J and Hutton compactness
510 S. E. Rodabaugh
[13]. Many other concepts of compactness for fuzzy sets and fuzzy topology
have from the poslat perspective been given-a-compactness, strong compact-
ness, fuzzy compactness, ultra-compactness, N-compactness, etc; but none of
these are known to admit a truly general compactification in either sense of
1.1 above. Localic compactness and compactness [3] do admit a general com-
pactification in both senses of Section 1 (see Section 8 below); and for certain
lattices (or "bases"), Hutton compactness [13] is equivalent to compactness.
Hence these three compactness axioms will be considered in this section. Our
reasons for the term "compactness" designating the definition due to Chang [3]
emerge later in Sections 5-9. See Section 5.3 of [39] for detailed comments on
the proper criteria for compactness in poslat fuzzy sets; see Sections 5-8 below
and [14, 16] for relations between these compactness axioms and separation ax-
ioms, including connections to the compact spaces in the sense of [11]; and see
[42] for proofs.
4.1 Definition. Let A, L E ISFRMI and (X, r) E IL-TOPI.
(1) An element a E A is finite or compact iff
"IS C A, V S ~ a, 3 F (finite) C S, V F ~ a
and the subset of A of compact elements is denoted K(A). If A is a locale,

then finiteness is equivalently defined by replacing "~" by "="; see [16].
(2) A is localic compact or compact iff T in A is finite ala (1), Le.
VScA, VS=T,3F(finite)CS, VF=T
See [16]. K-SFRM [ K-SLOC, K-LOC ] is the full subcategory of

SFRM [resp. SLOC, LOC] of compact objects.
(3) (X, r) is compact [3] or localic compact [35] iff T (= Xx) in r is finite
ala (1), i.e. Vopen covering U C r, VU = T,3 finite open sub covering
V C U, VV = I. K-L-TOP is the full subcategory of L-TOP of compact
objects.
(4) If L E IDMRGI, then (X, r) is H-compact [13] iff Vclosed k E LX
(3.15(3)), Vopen covering U C r of k, k ~ VU), 3 finite open subcov-
ering V C U of k, k ~ VV. H-COMP-L-TOP is the full subcategory
of L-TOP of H-compact objects.
4.2 Definition. The subsets N [7] and Ad (cf. [33]) of a lattice are defined as
follows:
A C = {a E A : Vb E A, a ~ b or a ~ b}
Ad = {b E A: 3a E A, a < band [a,b] C A C }
Also T is nonsup in A iff ~ non-empty BeL - {T}, VB = T [32].

4.3 Theorem. Let A, L E ISFRMI and (X, r) E IL-TOPI.
(1) (X, r) is compact {:} Ln(X, r) == r is compact.

(2) If A is L-spatial or A, L are finite, then A is compact {:} LPT(A) is
compact.
(3) If A is a generalized diamond of two facets with T nonsup on each facet
[37] or T E Ad, then A is compact =} LPT(A) is compact.
(4) If iPL is finite-to-one, and the hypotheses of (3) hold, then LPT(A) is
compact => A is compact.
4.4 Remark. The importance of 4.3 cannot be overstated: compactness, ma-

ligned in the literature, is precisely the space equivalent of localic compactness
(for complete lattices, and particularly for locales). The wholesale abandonment
of compactness is due to fuzzy theorists being both unaware of locale theory
and preoccupied with "unrestricted" Tihonov Theorems, rather than focusing
on categorical reflectors (Le. categorical compactifications) and Tihonov Theo-
rems which truly generalize the classical Tihonov Theorem. Compactness excels
on both issues-see the detailed analyses in [39, 42] as well as the next three
sections. And our next results show there is an intimate connection between
H-compactness and localic compactness and compactness.
4.5 Theorem. Let L E IDMRGI and (X, r) E IL-TOPI.

(1) H-compactnes =} compactness.
(2) If L E ICBOOLI, then compactness =} H-compactness.
4.6 Corollary. Let A E ISFRMI, L E IDMRGI, and (X,r) E IL-TOPI.

(1) (X, r) is H-compact =} Ln(X, r) == r is compact, and the converse holds
if L E ICBOOLI.
(2) If A is L-spatial or A, L are finite, then A is compact ¢: LPT(A) is H-
compact, and the converse of "¢:" holds if L E ICBOOLI.
(3) If L E ICBOOLI, and if A is a generalized diamond of two facets with
T nonsup on each facet [37] or TEA, then A is compact =} LPT(A) is
H-compact.
(4) If iPL is finite-to-one, and the hypotheses of (3) hold, then LPT(A) is
H-compact =} A is compact.
512 S. E. Rodabaugh
5 Fixed-basis Stone representation theorems for

distributive lattices
This section shows how distributive lattices can be categorically represented by
certain compact, L-sober, poslat topological spaces. Use is made of the repre-
sentation of distributive lattices by coherent locales given in [16]. The classical
Stone representation theorem for distributive lattices is generalized in poslat
topology in the sense that it is reformulated and incorporated into a schemum
or class of representation theorems, each theorem indexed by the base lattice
L of membership values, the classical theorem being recovered by stipulating
L = {.l, T}. This implies that compactness and L-sobriety, in the context of
coherence, are the counterpart to traditional compactness and sobriety.
From [16] comes the modern form of the classical theory, the material con-
cerning poslat spaces is modified from [35], while Stone's original theorem is in
[51]. Proofs for this section are in [42].
5.1 Definition (Coherent Lattices). Let A E ISLOq. Then A is coherent

iff both of the following hold:
(1) Each element of A is a join of finite elements of A.
(2) The set K(A) of all finite elements is a sublattice of A; equivalently, K(A)
is closed under finite meets (so that T E K(A)). (The equivalence follows
since K(A) is always closed under finite joins).
5.1.1 Remark. Note that a coherent object of SLOC is compact (since T is

finite).
5.1.2 Examples. Every finite, non-distributive lattice is coherent (and com-

plete), and there are easily obtained infinite, non-distributive, complete, coher-
ent lattices; e.g., let A be the set-theoretic union [,U[r of two copies of[ == [0,1],
say [, for the "left" copy and [r for the "right" copy, but with I, and lr identi-
fied as T, 0, and Or identified as .l, and the obvious order with only T and .l
comparable to all the elements of A. So there are many non-trivial examples in
ICOH-SLOq -ICOH-Loq
5.2 Definition (The category COH-SLOC) . The category COH-SLOC is

the subcategory of SLOC consisting of all coherent objects (5.1) together with
all coherent morphisms: given A, B E ISLOq , 9 : A -+ B in SLOC is co-
herent iff gOPIK(B) : K(A) t- K(B) in SFRM. COH-LOC is the subcategory
of LOC of all coherent objects and coherent morphisms.
5.3 Definition (The category COH-TOP). The category COH-TOP is the

subcategory of TOP comprising the following data:
(1) Coherent spaces (X, 'I): a space (X, 'I) is coherent iff it is sober and
K('I), the collection of compact open subsets of 'I, is closed under finite
intersections and is a basis for 'I.
(2) Coherent morphisms: a set mapping f : X -t Y is a coherent mor-
phism or coherent mapping f : (X, 'I) -t (Y,6) iff
f'-Is: 'I +- 6 and f'-IK(S): K('I) +- K(6)
i.e. f is continuous and [f'-]OP is a coherent lattice morphism (in LOC).
5.4 Proposition. (X, 'I) E ITOPI is coherent iff it is sober and 'I is a coherent
locale.
5.5 Definition (The category COH-L-TOP). Let L E ISFRMI. The cat-

egory COH-L-TOP is the subcategory of L-TOP comprising the following
data:
(1) (L)-Coherent spaces: (X, r) is (L)-coherent iff it is L-sober and r is

a coherent lattice.
(2) (L)-Coherent morphisms: a set mapping f : X -t Y is a(n) (L)-
coherent morphism or (L)-coherent mapping f : (X,r) -t (Y,lT)
iff
frlu : r +- lT and ftIK(u): K(r) +- K(lT)
i.e. f is L-continuous and [ft]OP is a coherent lattice morphism (in
SLOC).
5.6 Remark. Clearly COH-{..L, T}-TOP is isomorphic to COH-TOP. Note

that the notion of coherence in poslat topology hinges on the notions of com-
pactness (and its equivalence with the finiteness of I in r, or I being in K(r))
and fixed-basis sobriety.
We begin to list the tools used in this and the next two sections. The main
idea is to relate the concept of ideals to the concept of finite (or compact)
elements: J is an ideal of B iff J is a lower set ('r/ a, bE B, [a:::; b, b E J] :::}
a E J) and J is closed under finite joins (implying ..L of B is in J). We let
Idl (B) denote the set of all ideals of B. Much of what follows is taken from the
classical representation of distributive lattices by coherent locales and coherent
spaces as presented in [16].
5.7 Lemma [16: d. Proposition 11.3.2]. A complete distributive lattice is

coherent iff it is isomorphic to the locale of ideals of some distributive lattice.
Hence, every coherent, complete, distributive lattice is a frame.
514 s. E. Rodabaugh
5.8 Remark. From the proof of 5.7 in [16] comes the following important fact:
VB E IDLATI, B ~ K (Idl (B)), where DLAT is the category of distributive
lattices and lattice morphisms.
5.9 Lemma (Representation of distributive lattices by coherent lo-

cales: [16: Corollary 11.3.3]). DLATop ~ COH-LOC, i.e. DLATop is cat-
egorically equivalent to COH-LOC via the functors FIN and IDL induced
respectively by the following correspondences: A E ICOH-LOC! determines
K(A) E DLAT, and B E DLAT determines Idl(B) E ICOH-LOC!.
5.10 Lemma [16: Theorem 11.3.4]. Each coherent locale is (classically) spatial.
5.11 Lemma. VL E ISFRMI, each coherent locale is L-spatial.
5.12 Lemma. Let L E ISFRMI. Then the following hold:
(1) LO maps COH-L-TOP into COH-SLOC.

(2) LO maps COH-L-TOP into COH-LOC iff L E IDSFRMI, where
DSFRM is the full subcategory of SFRM of distributive objects.
(3) LPT, restricted to COH-LOC, maps COH-LOC into COH-L-TOP.
The following theorem synergizes these results: 2.10,5.5,5.9,5.11, and 5.12.
5.13 Theorem (Schemum of Stone representation theorems for dis-

tributive lattices). The following hold:
(1) VL E IDSFRMI , COH-L-TOP ~ COH-LOC.

(2) VL E IDSFRMI , COH-L-TOP ~ DLAToP.
(3) COH-TOP ~ DLAT [16: Corollary II.3.4].
(4) VL E IDSFRMI, COH-L-TOP ~ COH-TOP.
5.14 Remark (Justification of fuzzy sets to traditional mathematics).

To traditional mathematics we can say that fuzzy sets, i.e. lattice-valued sub-
sets, give a much richer representation of distributive lattices than traditional
topology can alone-for each complete distributive lattice L, there is a category
of representing L-topological spaces (5.13(2)). Furthermore, fuzzy sets explain
the classical Stone representation theorem for distributive lattices: the member-
ship lattice implicit in Stone's theorem is {.L, T}, and Stone's theorem hinges
on this lattice being complete and distributive; and in this way fuzzy sets as
lattice-valued sets pinpoint the properties of {.1, T} crucial to, yet hidden in,
Stone's theorem.
5.15 Remark (Justification of compactness and L-sobriety to fuzzy

sets). To poslat topology we can say that compact, L-sober spaces are a proper
generalization of traditionally compact sober spaces (5.13(4»-indeed, fixing a
complete semiframe L, each distributive lattice B generates a compact, L-sober
space which is additionally L-coherent (cf. 4.3(2-4) above and see 5.16 below).
5.16 Discussion. Analogously to the traditional case in [16], the equivalence

of 5.13(2) sends an L-coherent space (X,r) to the distributive lattice K(r), and
sends a distributive lattice B to the L-coherent space LPT(Idl(B»)-this comes
by composing the Ln, LPT functors appropriately with the FIN, IDL functors
of 5.9. Now by Lemma n.3.4 of [16], the prime elements of Idl(B) are precisely
the prime ideals of B; and from Proposition 5.4.1(3) of [35] and Proposition 2
of [37], we have that for all L E ISFRMI, the prime elements of Idl(B) are
adjunctive with Lpt(Idl(B)) (viewing both as pre-ordered categories) iff .1 is
meet-irreducible in L. Hence, analogous to the traditional case, we may regard
LPT(Idl(B)) as the "L-prime spectrum" of B when .1 is meet-irreducible in
L, and otherwise as the "L-spectrum" of B. We therefore state:
5.17 Definition (L-(Prime) spectrum of lattice). Let B E ILATI and L E

ISFRMI. Then LPT(Idl(B)) is the L-spectrum of B, denoted L-Spec(B). If
.1 is meet-irreducible in L, then L-Spec(B) is called the L-prime spectrum of
B. The L-spectrum is essential for the representation of Boolean algebras; see
7.8 below.
6 Fixed-basis space representations of compact

regular locales and compact Hausdorff spaces
In this section we show that categorically, the classical compact Hausdorff
spaces, the compact, regular, distributive objects of SLOe, and the compact,
regular, L-sober spaces are all categorically equivalent, the latter equivalence
requiring L a distributive object of SFRM. If L is also a Boolean algebra, then
H-compactness, HR-regularity, and L-sobriety are another categorical equiva-
lent, as are the compact, Hausdorff-separated spaces of Subsections 6.3-6.4 of
[11]. We point out that these categorical equivalences are obtained in two dif-
ferent ways: using the representation theorems of 5.13 above; and using the L-2
and 2-L soberification functors of 2.15 (et sequens) above. Indicated below are
some philosophical ramifications. Proofs not given below are found in [42].
6.1 Lemma. K-REG-DSLOe y 2-SPAT-SLOe, where DSLOe denotes

DSFRMoP.
516 S. E. Rodabaugh
6.2 Theorem (Representations of compact Hausdorff spaces). The fol-

lowing statements hold:
(1) VL E IDSFRMI , K-REG-SOB-L-TOP ~ K-REG-DSLOC.
(2) VL E IDSFRMI , K-REG-DSLOC ~ K-REG-LOC.
(3) VL E IDSFRMI , K-REG-SOB-L-TOP ~ K-REG-LOC.
(4) K-HAUS-TOP ~ K-REG-LOC [16: Corollary III.l.l0).
(5) VL E IDSFRMI, K-REG-SOB-L-TOP ~ K-HAUS-TOP.
(6) VL E ICBOOLI ,
H-COMP-HR-REG-SOB-L-TOP ~ K-REG-SOB-L-TOP
and so statements (1,3,5) hold with "H-COMP-HR-REG" replacing

"K-REG".
6.3 Discussion. The equivalences of (5),(6)(5) above send an L-topological

space (X, r) to the traditional or "crisp" point space (Pt(r) , 41--t(r)), and send
a traditional topological space (X,'!') to the L-point space (Lpt('I) , 41L('I))-
the reader will note that these correspondences are object-level descriptions of
the L-2-soberification and 2-L-soberification functors (2.15 et sequens). Discus-
sions with U. Hohle have motivated the author to use these functors to express
an alternative categorical equivalence between K-REG-SOB-L-TOP and K-
HAUS-TOP, i.e. one not factoring through the Stone representation theorems
of Section 5. This will prove instructive both here and in Section 8 below. In
particular, we are able to provide a partial converse to 6.2(5) above and 6.3.2(1)
below-under certain conditions, the distributivity of L is also necessary.
6.3.1 Proposition. The following hold:
(1) (X, 'I) compact Hausdorff ::} LPT ('I) (the L-2-soberification of (X, 'I))
is compact, regular, and L-sober.
(2) (X,r) is compact, regular, and L-sober space::} PT(r) (the 2-L-sober-
ification of (X, r)) is compact Hausdorff.
(3) Every compact, regular, and L-sober space arises (up to L-homeomorph-
ism) as the L-2-soberification of (X, 'I) of some compact Hausdorff space,
providing L is a distributive semiframe.
Proof. (1,2) follow from 4.3(1,2), 3.6(6) above. As for (3), we have the following
correspondences determined by applying first PT 0 Ln and then LPT 0 n:
(X, r) t-+ (Pt (r) ,~~ (r)) t-+ (Lpt (~~ (r» ,~i (~~ (r)))
Since L is distributive, we have r is 2-spatial (Lemma 6.1 above), which implies

that r ~ ~~ (r). Using L-sobriety followed by the universality of Ln -1 LPT,
the following L-homeomorphisms set up:
(X, r) ~ (Lpt (r), ~i (r)) ~ (Lpt (~~ (r)), ~i (~~ (r)))
This says that every compact, regular, and L-sober space can be recovered as
the L-2-soberification of the compact Hausdorff space (Pt (r), ~~ (r», which
in turn is the 2-L-soberification of the original compact, regular, and L-sober
space. 0
6.3.2 Theorem (Direct equivalence of K-REG-SOB-L-TOP to

K-HAUS-TOP). Let L E ISFRMI. The following hold:
(1) If L E IDSFRMI, then the adjunction LPT 0 n -1 PT 0 Ln of 2.15.5

restricts to give an equivalence of the categories K-REG-SOB-L-TOP
and K-HAUS-TOP.
(2) The converse of (2) holds if L is also assumed to be compact and regular;
in fact, under these additional assumptions, if the adjunction LPT 0 n -1
PT 0 Ln restricts to give an equivalence of the categories K-REG-SOB-
L-TOP and K-HAUS-TOP, then L E IFRMI.
Proof. Ad {1}. From 6.3.1 above, we have that the adjunction LPT 0 n -1
PToLn of2.15.5 restricts to give an adjunction of the categories K-REG-SOB-
L-TOP and K-HAUS-TOP. Note K-HAUS-TOP is a subcategory of SOB-
TOP. Now by Lemma 6.1 we have K-REG-SOB-L-TOP is a subcategory of
2-TOP-SOB-L-TOP. Thus the restriction of the adjunction LPT 0 n -1 PT 0
Ln of 2.15.5 in this case turns to be a restriction of the equivalence LPT 0 n -1
PT 0 Ln of 2.15.7.
Ad {2}. Assume that LPT 0 n -1 PT 0 Ln restricts to give an equivalence of
the categories K-REG-SOB-L-TOP and K-HAUS-TOP. Then given (X, r)
in K-REG-SOB-L-TOP, we have
r ~ ~i (r)
by Lemma 2.9 above,
~i (r) ~ ~i (~~ (r»
via the assumed restriction of LPT 0 n -1 PT 0 Ln and the subsequent L-
homeomorphism
(X, r) ~ (Lpt (~~ (r» , ~i (~~ (r)))

518 S. E. Rodabaugh
and
<P£ (<p;+ (7)) ~ <P;+ (7)
by Lemma 2.8(3) followed by Lemma 2.9. Composing isomorphisms, we have
that
7~<P;+(7)
Now note that <P;+ (7) is a 2-topology (i.e. a traditional topology) and hence is
a frame; and so 7 is a frame. Since all of the foregoing is true for each space in
K-REG-SOB-L-TOP, it must be true of the L-soberification
of the particular singleton compact, regular space (1, L1): the compactness and
regularity of (1, L1) are immediate from the localic compactness and regularity
of L as a semiframe; and the compactness and regularity of (Lpt (£1) , <P£ (£1))
now follow from 3.11(6) and 4.3(2), with the sobriety trivially true. It follows
from the earlier remarks that that <P£ (L1), hence L1, and hence L, is a frame.
So we obtain L is distributive and the converse of (1) holds under the conditions
of L being compact and regular. 0
6.4 Remark (Role of 2-topological spaces). Recall the definition of 2-

topological I-spaces given in 2.15.6. We note that given (X, 7) in L-TOP with
Lin DSFRM, (X,7) is compact, regular, and L-sober :::} (X, 7) is topological,
with an analogous result holding for the Hutton/Hutton-Reilly conditions if L
is a complete Boolean algebra: this follows immediately from 2.15.7(1) coupled
with 6.3.1(3). Indeed, such spaces have many other important properties, as
summarized in the following theorem:
6.5 Theorem. Let L E IDSFRMI [ ICBOOLIl and (X,7) E IL-TOPI. Then

(X,7) is compact, regular [H-compact, HR-regular], and L-sober :::} 7 is isomor-
phic to the topology of some compact Hausdorff object in TOP, in which case
(X,7) and 7 have these additional properties:
(1) (X, 7) is topological in the sense defined in 2.15.6;
(2) (X,7) is loc-normal [H-normal] (3.15 above), c-reg [HR-cr] (3.10 above),
loc-Hausdorff (3.8(3) above), and loc-Tu (Le. 7 is Tu in the sense of [16]);
(3) localic maps from flat sublocales of locales into have Joyal extensions;
(4) 7 is a retract in LOC of some coherent locale;
(5) 7 is isomorphic to a closed sublocale of the localic Tihonov cube;
(6) 7 is a stably continuous lattice.

6.6 Corollary. If L E ICBOOLI, then all the properties and conclusions of

6.5 hold for the fuzzy unit intervallL (L).
6.7 Remark. Corollary 6.6 should be compared with 2.15.8 above, since both
are related to the fact that n(L) is a 2-topological space for L E ICBOOLI.
6.8 Remark.
(1) Philosophically, depending on the lattice-theoretic assumptions involved,
some combination of compactnes/H-compactness, regularity /HR-regular-
ity, and L-sobriety must be viewed as an appropriate generalization of
classical compactness and Hausdorff: our mandate for the word "must"
stems from our use of categorical equivalences. The reader might ask:
given that the lattice-theoretic assumptions are more restrictive for the
Hutton/Hutton-Reilly approach than the localic approach (the restrictions
for the latter allowing the important lattice L = [0,1]), why not work
only with the latter? The answer is that not only are these approaches
often logically (and categorically) equivalent, but in some contexts the
Hutton/Hutton-Reilly approach is more convenient; indeed, as seen in the
next section, the localic approach must factor through the Hutton/Hutton-
Reilly approach. In any case, some combination of these two approaches
is an appropriate generalization of classical compactness and Hausdorff, a
point repeatedly reinforced in Section 7.
(2) In this section we have presented the categorical equivalence of K-REG-
SOB-L-TOP with K-HAUS-TOP. This means that from a categori-
cal point of view, compact, regular, sober, L-spaces behave like compact
Hausdorff spaces. But what kind of relationship is there between a spe-
cific compact, regular, sober, L-space and compact Hausdorff spaces? This
question for its resolution requires notions of subspaces and density and
will be presented at the close of Section 8.
6.9 Remark (Connections to compact Hausdorff-separated spaces of

[11]). We now summarize some comments communicated to the author from
U. H6hle concerning the connections between compact, regular, sober L-spaces
and the compact Hausdorff-separated L-spaces of Subsections 6.3-6.4 of [11] and
extensively developed in references [20, 25] of [11]. The following comparisons
can be made:
(1) Let L be a bi-frame, i.e. L, LOP E IFRMI. Then each compact, sober,
L-space is compact in the sense of Subsection 6.4 of [11].
(2) If L E ICBOOLI, then an L-space is compact, regular, and sober¢} it
is compact and Hausdorff separated in the sense of Subsections 6.3-6.4 of
[11].
520 S. E. Rodabaugh
The proof of (1) uses Theorem 6.2.6 of [11], an L-analogue of Lemma III.lo9
of [16], and Zorn's Lemma. And the proof of (2) can be obtained from the
categorical equivalence of 6.2(5) above, together with the categorical equivalence
of compact Hausdorff spaces with compact Hausdorff-separated spaces in the
sense of [11] over complete Boolean algebras (Section 4 of reference [25] of [11]).
There is a further corollary we can add which follows from 6.2(6) above:
(3) If L E ICBOOLI, then an L-space is H-compact, HR-regular, and sober <=>
it is compact and Hausdorff-separated in the sense of Subsections 6.3-6.4
of [11].
7 Fixed-basis Stone representation theorems for

Boolean algebras
This section shows how Boolean algebras can be categorically represented by
certain compact/H-compact, regular/HR-regular, L-sober topological spaces.
Crucial use is made of the representation of distributive lattices by L-topological
spaces given in Section 5, in which a prominent role is played by the no-
tion of L-spectrum created in 5.17 above. The classical Stone representation
theorem for Boolean algebras is generalized in poslat topology in the sense
that it is reformulated and incorporated into a schemum or class of repre-
sentation theorems, each theorem indexed by the base lattice L of member-
ship values, the classical theorem being recovered by stipulating L = {l., T}.
This implies that compactness/H-compactness, regularity /HR-regularity, and
L-sobriety comprise poslat counterparts to traditional compactness and Haus-
dorff, a point reinforcing Section 6.
From [16] comes the modern form of the classical theory, the material con-
cerning fixed-basis spaces is modified from [35], and Stone's original theorem is
in [48-50, 52]. Proofs for this section are found in [42].
7.1 Theorem. The following sets of conditions are equivalent for a space (X, '1')
in TOP:
(1) compact, Hausdorff, and totally disconnected;
(2) compact and totally separated;
(3) compact, To , and zero-dimensional;
(4) coherent and Hausdorff.
7.2 Definition (Classical Stone spaces). A space (X, '1') in TOP is a Stone
space iff it satisfies one 7.1(1-4). The full subcategory of TOP of all Stone
spaces is denoted STN-TOP.
7.3 Proposition. (X, 'r) in TOP is a Stone space iff it is coherent and regular.
7.4 Remark. Proposition 7.3, taken from [35], indicates how to generalize
the concept of Stone spaces to the fixed-basis setting. We define the notion of
L-Stone spaces below using the localic approach; but it is necessary at times
to use the Hutton/Hutton-Reilly approach, which is equivalent for appropriate
base lattices (see 3.7, 4.5, 6.8) above.
7.5 Definition (L-Stone spaces).
(1) Let L E ISFRMI. A space (X,r) in L-TOP is an L-Stone space iff it

is L-coherent and regular. The full subcategory of L-TOP of all L-Stone
spaces is denoted STN-L-TOP.
(2) Let L E IDMRGI. A space (X, r) in L-TOP is an HR-L-Stone space
iff it is HR-L-coherent H-compact, L-sober, and is a coherent lattice and
HR-regular. The full subcategory of L-TOP of all HR-L-Stone spaces is
denoted HR-STN-L-TOP.
For L E ICBOOLI, it follows from 3.7 and 4.5 above that L-Stone spaces
and STN-L-TOP are equivalent to the HR-L-Stone spaces and HR-STN-L-
TOP, respectively. Sequens, the reader will need to recall the notions of K(A)
for a complete lattice A (4.1(1) above), closed L-subset (4.1(4) above), L-closure
(3.5(3) above), and L-spectrum (5.17 above).
7.6 Lemma. Let L E IDMRGI, (X,r) E IL-TOPI, and rnr' denote the open
and closed (or clopen) L-subsets of (X, r). Then:
(1) (X,r) is H-compact => K(r) :::> r n r', and the converse holds if L is a
complete Boolean algebra.
(2) (X,r) is HR-regular => K(r) ern r', and the converse holds if r is
coherent.
7.7 Lemma. Let L E ICBOOLI and (X,r) E IL-TOPI, and consider the
following statements:
(i) K(r) is a Boolean subalgebra of LX (and so is closed under the comple-

mentation of LX derived pointwise from L);
(ii) K(r) = r n r';
(iii) (X, r) is H-compact and HR-regular;
(iv) (X, r) is compact and regular.
522 S. E. Rodabaugh
Then the following conclusions hold:
(1) (i) ¢:} (ii) ¢= (iii) ¢:} (iv);

(2) If r is coherent, (i) ¢:} (ii) ¢:} (iii) ¢:} (iv);
(3) If any of (i-iv) hold, then (X, r) is H-compact.
7.8 Lemma (Role of L-Spectra). Let L E ICBOOLI and A E IDLATI.

Then the following are equivalent:
(1) L-Spec(A) is an L-Stone space;

(2) A E IBOOLI.
7.9 Lemma. Let L E ICBOOLI. Then STN-L-TOP is a full subcategory of

COH-L-TOP.
7.10 Theorem (Schemum of Stone representation theorems for Bool-

ean algebras). Let L E ICBOOLI. The following hold:
(1) STN-L-TOP ~ BOOUP;

(2) STN-TOP ~ BOOLop (Corollary IIAA of [16));
(3) STN-L-TOP ~ STN-TOP.

sets, give a much richer representation of Boolean algebras than traditional
topology can alone-for each complete Boolean algebra L, there is a category of
representing L-topological spaces (7.10(1)). Furthermore, fuzzy sets explain the
classical Stone representation theorem for Boolean algebras: the membership
lattice implicit in Stone's theorem is {1., T}, and Stone's theorem hinges on
this lattice being a complete Boolean algebra; in this way fuzzy sets as lattics-
valued sets pinpoint the properties of {1., T} crucial to, yet hidden in, Stone's
classical theorem.
7.12 Remark (Justification of compactness, regularity, L-sobriety to

fuzzy sets). To fixed-basis topology we can say that compact/H-compact,
regular /HR-regular, L-sober spaces are a proper generalization of the classical
com pact Hausdorff spaces (7.1 O( 3)) indeed, each Boolean algebra generates such
a space (through L-spectrum) which is additionally L-coherent. This reinforces
the point made in Section 6.
8 Compactification reflectors for entire fixed-

basis categories of topology
As indicated in 1.1 and 1.2 above, the categorical/localic way to generate the
Stone-Cech compactification reflector for TOP is to combine the compactifica-
tion reflector for LOC with the classical 0 and PT functors; see the details in
[16, 42]. Using the LO and LPT functors for the fixed-basis case, we gener-
alize or reformulate the major steps of this approach to obtain a schemum of
Stone-Cech compactification reflectors indexed by L E IFRMI, which includes
the classical reflector indexed by L = {.l, T}, such that each reflector is on the
entirety of an L-TOP-and not merely on some proper subcategory-and also
satisfies all the appropriate topological criteria as discussed in Section 1above.
The general fixed-basis case proved in [42] gives attention to many key issues:
the Stone-Cech compactification of a locale is isomorphic to the frame of that
locale's completely regular ideals; the general fixed-basis case lends itself to
several interpretations w.r.t. the notions of closure and density when justifying
the topological criteria, while no possible ambiguity exists for the crisp case;
and generally many details of the general fixed-basis case are less trivial than
their counterparts in the traditional case.
The plan of this section is as follows: state in 8.1 the Stone-Cech compacti-
fication for LOC; summarize all the main results under one theorem heading in
8.2; state some corollary results in 8.3; spend most of the rest of the section giv-
ing ideas/results needed for the statements ofthe main results to be well-formed
(e.g. closure and density); and then state some consequences which include de-
tailed analyses of the relationship of traditional comapctification to fixed-basis
compactification. Through it all the roles of compactness of Section 4, the reg-
ularity and complete regularity of Section 3, and the L-sobriety of Section 2
are paramount; and for certain bases L, including L E ICBOOLI, various as-
pects of the Hutton/Hutton-Reilly compactness and separation axioms scheme,
together with L-sobriety, are equivalent.
This section relies heavily on the notion of a poslat subspace topology on
a crisp subset given in [54]-given a space (X,T) and A c X, then the corre-
sponding subspace is (A,T(A)) or (A,TIA), where T(A) == TIA == {UIA: U E T}
is the subspace topology on A from T. As shown in [43], this notion identifies
the sub objects of each category of the form L-TOP for L E ISFRMI. A closely
related point: this section uses the notion of embedding studied in [43].
Finally, a full development with details of proof for this section is given in
[42], with these exceptions: the error of Proposition 8.7(3) in [42] is corrected
below by means of a reworked Definition 8.6 and Proposition 8.7; new material
is added in Discussions 8.14-8.15; and the proof of naturality of the compact-
ification reflector of 8.2V (which was left to the reader in [42]) is provided in
Section 9 below-this detail of proof is given in the variable-basis case, where the
additional complexity of change of basis merits its inclusion in the exposition.
8.1 Lemma. The following are in [16].

524 S. E. Rodabaugh
(1) The category FRM is algebraic. Hence each categorical regular epimor-
phism in FRM is an epimorphism in SET (i.e. a surjection).
(2) The inclusion functor '--+ : LOC +- K-REG-LOC has a left adjoint
13 : LOC -+ K-REG-LOC, i.e. 13 -1 '--+. The unit 'fJ : A -+ j3A of this
adjunction is a regular monomorphism in LOC iff A is completely regular.
(3) For locales, compactness + regularity => c-reg. Thus for L E IFRMI,
(X, r) is compact and regular => (X, r) is c-reg. (Cf. 6.5(2) above).
8.2 Theorem (Compactification reflectors for each L-TOP). Let L E

IFRMI, let (X, r) E IL-TOPI, let 13, 'fJ be as given in 8.1, and let Hr : X -+
Lpt(j3r) by Hr(x) = wL(x) 0 'fJ. Then the following hold:
1. Existence of compact objects and associated morphisms.
(1) j3.(X,r) == LPT(j3(Ln(X,r))) E IK-REG-SOB-L-TOPI.

(2) Hr : (X, r) -+ LPT(j3(Ln(X, r))) is a morphism in L-TOP.
II. Conditions for openness. If 'fJ is a regular monomorphism and we

identify
H:(X,r) == (H:(X),ip"L(j3r)(H:(X)))
then Hr is an L-open mapping w.r.t. H:(X, r), where H:(X, r) is a
subspace of j3.(X,r) formed by putting on H:;t(X) the subspace topol-
ogy ip"L(j3r)(H:(X)) induced by restricting to H:(X) the L-subsets in
ip"L (j3r) as maps.
III. Conditions for embeddings. Hr is a homeomorphism onto
(H:;t(X), ip"L(j3r)(H:;t (X)))

iff (X, r) is c-reg and L-To.
IV Existence of topological compactifications. If
(X, r) E ICREG-To-L-TOPI
then (X, r) has a topological compactification in the sense of 1.1(1) above
and 8.9 below, namely (j3.(X,r),Hr ).
V. Existence of (unique) categorical compactifications. The inclusion
functor
'--+ : L-TOP +- K-REG-SOB-L-TOP
has a left adjoint, the L-compactification functor, namely
13. == LPT 0 13 0 Ln
such that:
(1) HT is the unit of /3s -l '-t and maps its domain onto a dense subspace
of its codomain;
(2) HT is an embedding iff its domain is c-reg and L-To.
8.3 Corollary. The following hold:

(1) If L E IFRMI, then K-REG-SOB-L-TOP is a reflective [regular mono-
reflective] subcateory of L-TOP [CREG-To-L-TOP].
(2) (Classical Stone-Cech compactification). The inclusion functor
'-t : TOP ~ K-HAUS-TOP
has a left adjoint, the 2-compactification functor PT 0 /3 00, such that
the unit
H'!; : (X, 'I) ~ /3. (X, 'I)
maps (X, 'I) onto a dense subspace of /3. (X, 'I), and is an embedding iff
(X, 'I) is completely regular and Hausdorff.
We now give ancillary results and ideas which support Theorem 8.2 and
are important in their own right. Of particular significance are Definition 8.6,
Proposition 8.7, Definition 8.8, and Definition 8.9-these are needed to make
the statement of 8.2.IV well-defined (for until [42] no definition of density of an
L-subset in an L-topological space had been given); and in fact, the statement of
8.2.IV must be understood in light of Definition 8.9. This section concludes with
remarks and discussions giving detailed analyses of the relationship between
traditional compactifications and L-compactifications.
8.4 Lemma. Let L E ISFRMI. If an object of L-TOP is regular [c-reg], then

each crisp subset equipped with the L-subspace topology in the sense of [54] is
also regular [c-reg].
8.5 Discussion. We have nowhere stated which of the several notions of closure
in fuzzy topology we are using for the poslat analogue of the density criterion
of the topological definition of compactification (1.1(1) above). The L-closure
of a L-subset has been defined in 3.5(3) above; but for crisp subsets of a poslat
topological space there are several notions of closure and density, and it is with
the density of crisp subsets of a poslat topological space that we are concerned
in 8.2.IV. For this reason we collect in Definition 8.6 all the possible notions of
closure of crisp subsets in a poslat space, show in what sense these are equivalent
in 8.7, and then define density in 8.8. It is shown in [42] that the statement of
8.2.1V is valid with the definition of density given in 8.8.
8.6 Definition (Notions of closure and closedness of crisp subsets). Let

L E ISFRMI, (X,r) E IL-TOPI, A c X be a crisp subset of X,and a E L.
526 S. E. Rodabaugh
(1) The a-closure [a"-closureJ of A [32, 33, 17-19, 47], denoted Gla:(A)
[Gl a• (A)], is the crisp subset
{x EX: (u E T, u(x) > a [2': aJ) :::} u t\ XA =1= J,.}
(2) The L-closure XA of A is taken as in 3.5(3) above, where L E IDMRGI.

(3) A is open [closedJ if XA [Xx -AJ E T.
(4) A is J.-closed iff A = Gil. (A); and A is J.-open iff X - A is J.-closed.
The latter is equivalent to saying that :3 u E T, A = [u > J.J.
8.7 Proposition. Let L E ISFRMI, (X,T) E IL-TOPI, and A c X.
(1) The following are equivalent:
(i) Va<T, Gla:(A) =X;

(ii) Va> .1., Gla:' (A) = X;
(iii) Gll.(A) =X (where Gll.(A) is the a-closure of A for a = .1.);
(iv) V{UET:U~XX-A}=J,..
If L E IDMRGI, then (i-iv) are equivalent to
1. (v) XA = X.
(2) X - Gil. (A) [Gh (A)J is an J.-open [J.-closedJ (crisp) subset of (X, T) in
the sense of 8.6(4).
(3) Let a < T [a > J.J and B = Gla: (A) [Gla:< (A)J in (X, T). Then A is an
a-dense [a"-denseJ subset of(B,T(B)).
Proof. Each statement is proved in [42J (or its references) save (2). To show
X - Gil. (A) is J.-open, we note
V x ~ Gil. (A) , :3 Ux E T .3. Ux (x) > .1., Ux t\ XA = J,.

Further we claim:
V x ~ Gil. (A) , Ux t\ XOIJ. (A) = J,.
For if not (for some x), :3 y E Gil. (A) .3. Ux (y) > .1., which forces Ux t\ XA =1= J,.,
a contradiction. The claim implies that Gil. (Gil. (A)) = Gil. (A) , i.e. Gil. (A)
is J.-closed, which in turn implies X - Gil. (A) is J.-open. We also observe that
if we put
w= V Ux
x~OIJ.(A)
then X - Gil. (A) = [w > J.J. In any case, (2) is proved. 0

8.8 Definition (Density for poslat topology). Let L E ISFRMI, (X, T) E

IL-TOPI, and A c X. Then A is dense in (X, T) if it satisfies any of the
conditions of 8.7(1)(i-iv). If L E IDMRGI, then A is dense in (X, T) if it
satisfies any of the conditions of 8.7(1)(i-v).
We can now give the definition of topological compactifications for fixed-basis

topology in 8.9 below.
8.9 Definition (Topological definition of compactification for fixed-

basis topology). Let (X,T) E IL-TOPI. Then «X*,T*),h) is a compactifi-
cation of (X, T) iff (X*, T*) E IL-TOPI is compact and:
(1) h : (X, T) -T (X*, T*) is an L-homeomorphic embedding [43], i.e. given

the subspace topology T*(h-+(X» on h-+(X) in the sense of [43,54]'
is injective and continuous and h- 1 : (X,T) -T (h-+(X),T*(h-+(X») is

continuous.
(2) h-+(X) is dense in (X*,T*) in the sense of 8.8.
The proof of 8.2.1V allows a strengthening of the statement of 8.2.1(2) as

follows:
8.10 Proposition. If L E IFRMI and (X, T) E IL-TOPI, then H is a mor-

phism in L-TOP from (X, T) onto a dense subspace of (X, T), where density is
taken in the sense of 8.8 ..

sets, give a much richer compactification theory than traditional topology can
alone-each traditional topological space has an entire class of unique compact-
ifications indexed by the objects of FRM: given a traditional space, it can be
viewed as a fixed-basis space with base lattice {.L, T}, hence it is an object in
L-TOP for each frame L, and in L-TOP it has a unique compactification via
/38; this can be made more precise using functors-see 2.15 and 6.3 above and
8.14 below. Furthermore, fuzzy sets explains the classical Stone-Cech theorem:
the membership lattice implicit in the classical theorem is {.L, T}, and the the-
orem hinges on this lattice being a frame; and fuzzy sets as lattice-valued sets
thus pinpoint the properties of {.L, T} crucial to, yet hidden in, the classical
theorem.
528 S. E. Rodabaugh
8.12 Remark (Justification of compactness, regularity, complete reg-

ularity, and L-sobriety to fuzzy sets). To fuzzy sets we simply repeat
the point made several times before: compact, regular, L-sober [c-reg, L-sober]
spaces are a proper generalization of traditional compact Hausdorff [Tihonov
== completely regular Hausdorff, respectively] spaces. More specifically w.r.t.
compactness, the compactness of [3] is the only compactness axiom in the ex-
tant literature boasting a categorical reflection on all of L-TOP for each L
in FRM. Again, the reader should review our remarks in Section 1 above
and the criteria for a "good" fuzzification of compactness given in [39]. We
note, using Sections 3-4, that if L E ICBOOLI, then throughout this section
H-compactness [HR-regularity, HR-cr] replaces compactness [regularity, c-reg],
and one can then rightly speak of H-compactifications. Finally, we should em-
phasize that the roles of L-spatiality and L-sobriety are essential in at least
two ways: first, these concepts set up the basic adjunction LD. -1 LPT which
transfers the localic compactification to L-topology; and second, the technical
role of L-spatiality and L-sobriety in assuring that <l> L and \II L are bijections
can be constantly seen in the proofs of [42].
8.13 Remark. As analyzed in detail in [39], compactness has an excellent Ti-

honov theorem, namely the Goguen-Tihonov theorem [9], a true generalization
of the classical theorem. For those interested in Tihonov theorems in which the
cardinality of the indexing set is unrestricted regardless of the base lattice L, we
recall the following result from [35]: if {(X1' , 1"1')} l' is any collection of compact,
L-sober spaces such that x/1"1' (the localic product of the 1"1"s) is L-spatial, then
the Goguen-Wong product space (x X1" X 1"1') is compact and L-sober, yielding
a cardinality-free Tihonov theorem for K-SOB-L-TOP for any L in SFRM.
We also note that from the Chapter IV.2 notes of [16] comes the claim that
the Tihonov theorem for K-HAUS-TOP is a consequence of the Stone-Cech
compactification, so we pose the question: for L in FRM, does K-REG-SOB-
L-TOP have a cardinality-free Tihonov theorem courtesy of (38 -1 <-+?
8.14 Discussion (Classical vis-a-vis L-compactifications at the object-

level). We now resolve the question posed in Remark 6.8(2) regarding the
object-level relationship between compact, regular, sober, L-spaces and com-
pact Hausdorff spaces (recall that the categorical relationship is given in [42] and
Section 6 above). The resolution of this question stems from the following: ex-
tensive discussions with U. Hahle, the L-2-soberifications and 2-L-soberifications
of Discussions 2.15 and 6.3, the concept of density, and notions of subspaces.
The discussion below will give an alternate description of the "soberifications"
in Discussion 6.3 of "compact spaces" as well as further clarify the relationship
between the objects of "L-2-compactifications" and the objects of (classical)
2-compactifications of ordinary topological spaces mentioned in Remark 8.11
above as part of the justification to traditional mathematics of fuzzy sets.
To begin this discussion, let L E IDSFRMI and let (X,1") be a compact,
regular, sober L-space, and let
A = {x EX: '</u E r, u (x) E {..i, Tn

i.e. A = nu E T u+- {..i, T} . The suggestion to study this subset of X is an insight
of U. Hohle that is important to the sequel. Using the subspace notation of 5.2.2
of [43] and the S1. functor of 6.2.1(3) of [43]-the latter is the SOl functor with
a: = ..i-we make explicit two spaces based on A both of which we regard as
"subspaces". The internal subspace is
and the external subspace is
Note that the internal subspace is a true subspace of (X, r) as defined in the
fourth paragraph at the beginning of this section. We now examine the rela-
tionship between these two "subspaces" as well as the relationship between the
internal subspace and (X, r), beginning with a proposition listing some needed
facts.
8.14.1 Proposition. Let L E IDSFRMI. The following hold:
(1) 2pt (r) is bijective with A.
(2) 2pt (TJA) is bijective with A.

(3) T)A is 2-spatial.
(4) r is 2-spatial.
(6) The following bijections hold::
TJA ~ 81. (TJA) , 81. (~~ (TJA)) ~ ~~ (TJA) ~ ~-+ (S1. (TJA))
where ~ : ''I -+ p (Pt ('I)) denotes the ordinary comparison map from [16]
defined by ~ (U) = {p E Pt ('I) : p (U) = T}.
(7) (A,rIA) is a compact, regular, and L-sober space; and (A,81. (TJA)) is a
compact, regular, sober space, and hence compact Hausdorff.
(8) (A'TJA) is a dense subspace of (X,r).

530 S. E. Rodabaugh
Proof. Ad(1). V x E A, 'h (x) is a 2-point on r. By L-sobriety of (X, r) ,

X, and hence A injects nto Lpt(r), and hence into 2pt(r). But given p E
2pt (r) C Lpt (r), L-sobriety guarantees :3x E X, WL (x) = p. But since WL (x)
is a 2-point on r, then x E A.
Ad (2). It suffices to show 2pt (riA) ~ 2pt (r). Given p E 2pt (r), put
p : riA -+ 2 by p (UIA) = p (u). Since restriction preserves V and /\, it follows
p E 2pt (riA). Injectivity follows using (1), and surjectivity is immediate from
the inverse correspondence-p : r -+ 2 by p (u) = p (UIA) .
Ad (3). Let UIA =I- VIA. Then :3 x E A, U (x) =I- V (x). This implies [u T] =I- =
[v = T]. This implies using (2) that
<1>duIA) = {pE2pt(rIA):p(u)=T}
= {x E A : UIA (x) = T}
{x E A : U (x) = T}
[u=T]
=I- [v = T]
<1>2 (VIA)
So <1>2 : riA -+ 2 is injective.
Ad (4). This follows from Lemma 6.1 above.
Ad (5). This follows from the steps of the proof of (3).
Ad (6). Most of these follow from the preceding statements. The last bijec-
tion follows from the steps of (3), noting Iu = TI = [u > 1..) .
Ad (7). This follows from Sections 2-4 and the above claims; cf. the proof
of Proposition 6.3.5 above.
Ad (8). Using riA ~ r from (6), we establish density using 8.7(1)(iii). Let
x E X and suppose x f/: Gil- (A) . Then
:3u E r .3. u(x) > 1.. and U/\XA =~
This means that u =I- ~ and yet UIA = ~IA. But this violates the bijection
riA ~ r. 0
We now link the internal and external subs paces of (X, r) with the L-2 and
2-L soberification functors given in Discussion 2.15 above (cf. 6.3).
8.14.2 Theorem (External and internal subspaces and soberifications).

Let L E IDSFRMI.
(1) The following hold:
(a) (A, riA) is L-homeomorphic to (2pt (r), <1>2 (r)), which is the Gx im-
age of the 2-L-soberification of (X, r) (where G x is given and studied
in [43]).
(b) (A,S.L ('TJA)) is the 2-L-soberification of (X,r), i.e. the image

of (X, r) under PT 0 LO.
(2) (X, r) is L-homeomorphic to each of the following:
(a) the L-soberification of (A,'TJA), i.e. the image of (A,'TJA) under
LPToLO.
(b) the L-2-soberification of (A,S.L (riA))' i.e. the image of
(A,S.L ('TJA)) under LPToO.
Proof. The proofs follow from the preceding proposition, the universality
of appropriate adjunctions, and Discussion 2.15. As an example, to prove
(2)(b), we note from Proposition 8.14.1(6) that 'TJA ~ r. From the univer-
sality of LO -j LPT, it follows that (Lpt ('TJA) , i)t ('TJA)) is L-homemorphic to
(Lpt (r), i)t (r)), which in turn is L-homeomorphic to (X, r) by sobriety. 0
The following definition and theorems make explicit the relationships be-
tween traditional and fixed-basis compactifications and the role of fixed-basis
soberifications. These results lean heavily on Discussions 2.15 and 6.3, as well
as 8.14.1, and 8.14.2.
8.14.3 Definition (L-2-Compactification and 2-L-compactification). Let

L E IFRMI. (X, r) E IL-TOPI, (X, 'I') E ITOPI, and,8 be the compactification
functor for LOC. Then
PT 0,8 0 LO : L-TOP -+ K-HAUS-TOP
is the 2-L-compactification functor, where object-wise, we have the following
sequence of correspondences:
(X, r) t-+ r t-+ ,8r t-+ PT (,8r)
And
LPT 0 ,8 0 n : TOP -+ K-REG-SOB-L-TOP
is the L-2-compactification functor, where object-wise, we have the following
sequence of correspondences:
( X, 'I') t-+ 'I' t-+ ,8'I' t-+ L PT (,8'I')
Recall that the traditional Stone-Cech compactification functor is PT 0 ,8 0

o (8.3(2) above), and that the L-compactification functor is LPT 0 ,8 0 LO
(8.2V above). The following theorem makes 8.11 more precise w.r.t. poslat
compactifications of ordinary topological spaces.
8.14.4A Theorem (Comparison of compactifications of ordinary

spaces). Let (X, 'I') E ITOPI and L E IFRMI. Then the following hold:
532 s. E. Rodabaugh
(1) The traditional Stone-Cech compactification PT WI) is the external sub-

space of the L-2-compactification LPT WI) .
(2) The L-space 2PT ((3'J:) is the internal subspace of the L-2-compactification
LPT ((3'J:).
(3) The point-sets Pt ((3'J:) and 2pt ((3'J:) of the two subspaces are identical,
and their respective topologies cfl-"* ((3'J:) and cfl2* ((3'J:) are isomorphic.
(4) The internal subspace 2PT ((3'J:) is dense in the L-2-compactification

LPT ((3'J:) .
(5) The L-2-compactification LPT ((3'J:) is L-homeomorphic to the L-2-sober-

ification of the traditional Stone-Cech compactification PT ((3'J:).
(6) The traditional Stone-Cech compactification PT ((3'J:) is homeomorphic to

the 2-L-soberification of the L-2-compactification LPT ((3'J:).
Proof. Ad(2). Following the terminology preceding 8.14.1 above, the internal
subspace of LPT ((3'J:) is based on the subset A given by
A = {p E Lpt ((3'J:) : Vb E (3'J:, cfldb) (P) E {..L, T}}

Noting cfl L (b) (P) = p (b), then it follows
A = {p E Lpt((3'J:): Vb E (3'J:, p(b) E {..L, T}}
which means A is precisely 2pt ((3'J:). Now the internal L-subspace topology on
A inherited from LPT ((3'J:) is precisely cfl£, ((3'J:) lA, which is precisely cfl2* ((3'J:) .
Ad{l). Using the proof of (2), we now prove (1). Note that the point-set
Pt ((3'J:) of the external subspace is precisely 2pt ((3'J:) = A. And the external
ordinary topology 81. (cfl£, ((3'J:) IA) is precisely 81. (cfl2* ((3'J:)) = cfl-"* ((3'J:) , where
cfl : (3'J: -t r (Pt ((3'J:)) is the traditional comparison map from [16] defined by
cfl (U) = {p E Pt ('J:) : p (U) = T}-we let the reader verify tb.is last equality.
Ad (3). From (1), we have 81. (cfl2* ((3'J:)) = cfl-"* ((3'J:). Now the functor 81.
acts isomorphically from 2-topologies to ordinary topologies (via u t--+ [u > ..L]).
Ad(4). This is an instantiation of 8.14.1(8).
Ad (5). This is an instantiation of 8.14.2(2)(b).
Ad (6). This is an instantiation of 8.14.2(1)(b), given that the compact,
regular L-topology cfl£, ((3'J:) is 2-spatial. 0
8.14.4B Theorem (Comparison of compactifications of L-spaces). Let

L E IFRMI and (X,7) E IL-TOPI. Then the following hold:
(1) The 2-L-compactification PT ((37) is the external subspace of the L-com-

pactification LPT ((37) .
(2) The L-space 2PT (f3T) is the internal subspace of the L-compactification
LPT(fJr) .
(3) The point-sets Pt (/37) and 2pt (/37) of the two subspaces are identical,
and their respective topologies 4> .... (/37) and 4>2' (/37) are isomorphic.
(4) The internal subspace 2PT (/37) is dense in the L-compactification

LPT (/37).
(5) The L-compactification LPT (/37) is L-homeomorphic to the L-2-soberifi-

cation of the 2-L-compactification PT (/37).
(6) The 2-L-compactification PT (/37) is homeomorphic to the 2-L-soberifica-
tion of the L-compactification LPT (/37).
Proof. The proof, similar and dual to the proof of 8.14.4A, is left to the reader.
o
8.14.5 Application (Fuzzy unit intervals). Using Application 2.15.8, it

follows from 8.14.4A(5) that if L is a complete Boolean algebra, then II (L) is
the L-2-compactification of [0,1].
8.14.6 Summary. The above comments and results of Discussion 8.14 are a
rigorous and detailed development of U. H6hle's suggestion to the author that
the object-level difference between L-compactifications and traditional Stone-
Cech compactifications should be "essentially" the addition of more points of
density, i.e. the traditional compactification adds a set of 2-points to compactify
the given ordinary space, while an L-compactification adds a generally larger
set of L-points to compactify a given L-space. Furthermore, if we start with an
ordinary topological space, then fuzzy sets contribute a rich schemum of com-
pactifications, more precisely, an L-2-compactification for every frame L which
"essentially" differs from the classical compactification by adding more points
of density. This clarifies in detail the comments in Remark 8.11 concerning the
compactifications of ordinary spaces contributed by fuzzy sets.
Discussion 8.15 (Compactifications and extensions of mappings). Some

of the ideas of 2.15,6.3, and 8.14 may be used to further clarify the relationship
between traditional compactifications and fixed-basis compactifications w.r.t.
morphisms. We make special use of the internal and external subspaces (A, 71A)
and (A,S.L hA)) of a compact, regular, sober L-space (X,7). First, we define
an equivalence relation on the morphisms of a category C.
8.15.1 Definition (Morphism classes ofa category). We say f,g E Care

equivalent, or f == g, iff :3 h, k isomorphisms in C, f = hog 0 k. It is easy to
see that == is an equivalence relation. We let [f] denote the equivalence class
534 S. E. Rodabaugh
containing I of morphisms in C equivalent to I, and call this a morphism

class of C.
8.15.2 Proposition. If categories C and D are equivalent, then their morphism

classes are in a bijection.
Proof. If I of C goes over to 9 of D, and comes back to 1', then I and I'
will be in the same class-land I' determine a naturality square in which the
other two sides are units which are C-isomorphisms. This is half of the proof
of bijection. The other half is similar and lives on the fact that the units on the
D-side are D-isomorphisms. 0
8.15.3 Set-Up. Let us consider the internal and external subspaces (A'TJA)
and (A,Sol (TJA)) of a compact, regular, sober L-space (X,r); and let (Y, 'I') be
an ordinary topological space in SOB-TOP and (Z,O') be its L-2-soberification
in SOB-L-TOP. Now let families F and F' of morphism classes be defined as
follows:
F = {(fj I I : (A, Sol (TJA)) -t (Y, 'I') is continuous}
:F' = {[I'] If': (X,r) -t (Z,O') is L-continuous}
8.15.4 Theorem (Extension of mappings). Let L E IDSFRMI. Then F

and :F' are bijective.
Proof. We first note that (A,Sol (TJA)) is sober, that (X,r) is a 2-topological
sober L-space (Remark 6.4), and that (Z,O') is a 2-topological sober L-space
(2.15.7(1)). Next we note that :F is a subclass of the morphism classes of
SOB-TOP, that F' is a subclass of the morphism classes of 2-TOP-SOB-
L-TOP, and that the morphism classes of SOB-TOP are in a bijection with
the morphism classes of 2-TOP-SOB-L-TOP (apply 2.15.7(2) followed by
8.15.2). Finally, we observe that this bijection restricts to these subclasses :F
and :F' by the results of Discussion 6.3 and Discussion 8.14. 0
8.15.5 Remark (Possible applications of extensions of mappings). The

following are restatements and consequences of Theorem 8.15.4.
(1) Given that the functor Sol identifies (A'TJA) with (A, Sol (TJA)) , and that
the latter is dense in (X, r) (8.14.1(8)), then 8.15.4 says that each contin-
uous mapping I: (A, Sol (riA)) -t (Y, 'I') has, up to L-homeomorphism, a
unique extension to some I' : (X, r) -t (Z, 0'); and conversely, each such
I' has, up to homeomorphism, a unique restriction to some I.
(2) The theorem implies that L-compactifications behave w.r.t extension of
maps similarly to the way traditional compactifications behave w.r.t. ex-
tension of maps. This is another way of philosophically confirming Theo-
rem 8.2.
(3) Note that in the theorem we are allowed to specify the ordinary sober
space(Y, '!'). As suggested by U. Hahle, if we choose (Y, '!') to be lR, then
the theorem gives us an L-extension of the Stone-Weierstrafi Theorem.
Let us midrash this suggestion using Applications 2.15.4 and 8.14.5 as a
guide, and letting L be a complete Boolean algebra. Then by Application
2.15.8, we have that (Z, u) is L-homeomorphic to the fuzzy real line IR(L).
Thus, the following subclasses of morphism classes are bijective:
F= {[ill i: (A,Sl. ('TJA)) -t IRis continuous}

F' = ([i'] Ii' : (X,r) -t IR(L) is L-continuous}
This may be seen as additional justification for the fuzzy real line (see
[18-22,43] and the author's chapter on IR(L)).
9 Compactification reflectors for variable-basis

categories of topology
It is the purpose of this section to extend the compactifications for fixed-basis
topology given in the preceding section and [42] to variable-basis topology. More
precisely, it is the purpose of this section to give a compactification reflector for
certain subcategories of LOC-TOP defined in Section 1. This requires that
several previous concepts be extended, which we label as steps:
S1. The lattice-theoretic category LOC must be extended to LOC1.5 (de-
fined sequens), thus "internalizing" all lattice-theoretic bases for topology
within a lattice-theoretic category.
S2. The compactification reflector for LOC must be extended to LOC1.1I.
S3. The fixed-basis adjunctions LO -l LPT must be extended to the variable-
basis adjunction between certain subcategories of SLOC-TOP and cor-
responding subcategories of SLOC 1.1I (defined sequens) in order to ap-
propriately use restrictions of the compactification reflector for LOC1.II.
S4. The fixed-basis compactification functors 13. must be extended to the
variable-basis case.
We now define lattice-theoretic categories, defined along the lines of the
functor categories of [39, 40], needed for variable-basis compactifications.
9.1 Definition. We let 1.5 be the category having two objects and no mor-
phisms (other than the identity morphisms), i.e. 1.5 may be regarded as the pre-
ordered category {l, t} with the trivial ordering. We note that 1.5 is isomorphic
to its dual 1.5°P , and so we use them interchangably as convenient. The nota-
tion l, t is motivated by the "(L, r)" of a topological space (X, L, r) E IC-TOPI
for any subcategory C of LOQML.
536 S. E. Rodabaugh
9.2 Definition. The categories SLOC1.5 and LOC1.5 are functor categories
having base SLOC and LOC, respectively, and exponent 1.5; i.e. an object
A is a functor A : 1.5 -+ SLOC, LOC, respectively, a morphism ( : A -+ B is
a natural transformation, the composition is that of natural transformations,
and the identity transformation is the identity morphism of SLOC, LOC, re-
spectively, in each component. It is also convenient to consider [SLOC1.5] op,
[LOC1.5] op , which is the category SFRM1.5, FRM1.5, respectively. We also
write A as (L,A) (so that A (l) = L, A (t) = A), and amorphism (as «(?, (fP) ,
thereby reserving (I, (t as notation for the concrete maps which are the compo-
nents of the morphism (OP in the dual category.
9.3 Remark. The reader can check that SLOC1.5 [LOC1.5] ~ SLOC x
SLOC [LOC x LOC), and so we use these categories interchangably as conve-
nient.
9.4 Definition (Compact objects in LOC1.5). We say (L,A) in SLOC1.5 is
compact iff A is compact as defined above in 4.1(2); and (L, A) is (completely)
regular iff A is (completely) regular as defined in (3.10(1» 3.5(1) above. We
let K-REG-SLOC1.5 [K-REG-LOC1.5] be the full subcategory of SLOC1.5
[LOC1.5] of compact, regular objects.
9.5 Proposition (Compactification refiector for K-REG-LOC1.5). The

inclusion functor '-+ : LOC1.5 t- K-REG-LOC1.5 has a left adjoint f3us :
LOC1.5 -+ K-REG-LOC1.5. The unit ",1.5 : (L, A) -+ (31.5 (L, A) of this ad-
junction is a regular monomorphism in LOC1.5 iff (L, A) is completely regular.
Proof. We need only define f31.5 on objects, providing we subsequently satisfy

the Lifting Criterion of 1.3.0 of [43)-the action on morphisms will then be
correctly stipulated by the Naturality Criterion to insure the adjunction; and
the regular monomorphism claim is left to the reader. Let (L, A) be given, put
f31.5 (L, A) = (L, f3A) , where f3 is the functor given in 8.1(2) above, and put
T/1.5 : (L, A) -+ (L, f3A) by
T/1.5 = (idL, T/)
where T/ is given in 8.1(2) above. Now let (M, B) and (f, g) : (L, A) -+ (M, B)
be given, where (M,B) is compact. Then (1,g) : (L,f3A) -+ (M,B) and
(f, g) = (1, g) 0 T/1.5
where 1 = f and 9 is the unique map guaranteed by f3 -j '-+ satisfying g = gOT/.

The reader can check that (1, g) is the unique morphism from (L, f3A) to (M, B)
satisfying the preceding display. 0
Steps 1 and 2 are done. Now to apply the f31.5 -j '-+ of 9.5 to variable-
basis topology, we must make careful restriction of the morphisms allowed in
variable-basis topology. To discuss and justify such restrictions, we need the

following lemma, a variation of Lemma 1.3.2 of [43], whose proof is left to the
reader.
9.6 Lemma (Properties of adjoints). Let 'If; : L t- Min SFRM be given

and let 'If;* be the right adjoint guaranteed by the Adjoint Functor Theorem
(AFT).
(1) 'If; 0 'If;* = idL ¢:> 'If; is surjective.
(2) If 'If; also admits a left adjoint *'If;, then 'If; 0 *'If; = idL ¢:> 'If; is surjective.
9.7 Definition (Sub collections of SLOC and SLOC-TOP and prefixes).

(1) SLOC~i:ht comprises the following data:
(i) ISLOC~i:htl = ISLOC1.5I;

(ii) each morphism ( in SLOC~i:ht is a morphism of SLOC1.5 satisfying:
i. (t E SFRM;
ii. (/0 (t = id (where id refers to the identity on the codomain of
(n
(2) SLOCfd1t comprises the following data:
(i) ISLOCfStl = ISLOC1 .5 1;

(ii) each morphism ( in SLOCfdJt is a morphism of SLOC1.5 satisfying:
i. 3 *(/ E SFRM;
ii. (/0 *(/ = id (where id refers to the identity on the codomain of
*(d·
(3) SLOCright-TOP comprises all objects of SLOC-TOP together with
those morphisms (f, rP) such that rP°P satisfies the conditions on (/ in (l)(ii)
above.
(4) SLOC/eft-TOP comprises all objects of SLOC-TOP together with
those morphisms (f, rP) such that rP°P satisfies the conditions on (/ in (2) (ii)
above.
(5) Prefixes for these categories-we anticipate 9.8 below-select out further
subcategories based on conditions required of the objects; for example,
K-REG-SLOCright-TOP
denotes the full subcategory of SLOCright-TOP of all compact, regular
spaces, where a space (X, L, r) is regular [c-reg, compact, To, etc] iff (X, r)
is regular [c-reg, compact, L-To, etc, resp.] as an L-space in the sense of
Sections 3,4 above. Prefixes regarding sobriety and spatiality await 9.14
below.
538 S. E. Rodabaugh
9.8 Proposition (Subcategories of SLOC and SLOC-TOP).

SLOC~i:ht and SLOCf~Jt are subcategories of SLOC1.5 with the composition
and identities of SLOC1.5; and SLOCright-TOP and SLOCleft-TOP are
subcategories of SLOC-TOP with the composition and identities of SLOC-
TOP.
9.9 Examples (Examples of morphisms in SLOC~i:ht' SLOCf~Jt,

SLOCright-TOP, SLOCleft-TOP). The restrictions defining the categories in
9.7 allow for a rich variety of morphisms; and in particular, these categories pos-
sess many morphisms for which (lor ¢>op are not isomorphisms (and hence not
identities). Thus these categories are appropriate frameworks for variable-basis
topology, and compactification reflectors in these settings constitute significant
extensions of those given in Section 8 above. The following examples are stated
for (I only-these obviously can be stated for ¢>op as well. These examples rely
in part on 9.6 above.
(1) Examples of non-isomorphisms satisfying 9.7{I)(ii):
(a) In 7.1.7.2 of [43], let M = L 1 , L = L 2 , and (I : L f- M by (I = *'ljJ.

Then (t = 'ljJ; both (I ,(t preserve arbitrary V and arbitrary 1\, so
that (I, (t E SFRMj and (I is surjective, so that (I 0 (t = id L .
There are many other such linear examples.
(b) Let M be any semiframe with .1 E Mb [32, 33]-or equivalently .1 is
meet-irreducible in M, let L = {.1, T}, and put (I: L f- M by
0>.1
(I (0) ={ T,
.1, 0=.1
Then (t : L -+ M by
(J=T
(3=.1
Note (I preserves arbitrary V and finite A, (t preserves preserves

arbitrary V and arbitrary 1\, so that (I ,(t E SFRM; and (I is
surjective, so that (I 0 (t = idL. There are many complete lattices
satisfying the condition required of M.
(2) Examples of non-isomorphisms satisfying 9. 7(2) (ii):
(a) In 7.1.7.2 of [43], let M = L 1 , L = L 2,and (I: L f- M by (I = 'ljJ*.

Then * (I = 'ljJ; both (I , *(I preserve arbitrary V and arbitrary 1\, so
that (I, *(1 E SFRMj and (I is surjective, so that (I 0 *(1 = idL.
There are many other such linear examples.
(b) Let M be any complete lattice such that T is K-separated for any
cardinality K. This condition on M means that
VA c M, IAI :::; K, VA < T

Now let L = {..L, T} and put (I : L +- M by
a=T
a<T
Then (t : L -+ M as in (l)(b) above; both (I, *(1 preserve arbitrary
V and arbitrary 1\, so that (I, *(1 E SFRM; and (I is surjective, so
that (I 0 *(1 = idL. There are many examples of M satisfying this
separation condition, e.g. [0, 1/2J U {I} in the real line.
(3) Examples of non-isomorphisms satisfying both 9.7(1)(ii) and

9.7(2)(ii). Every surjection in DMRG and CLAT has both right and
left adjoints by AFT, and the composition property of (ii) is satisfied (by
9.6); so all such morphisms satisfy both 9.7(1)(ii) and 9.7(2)(ii) (since
DMRG, CLAT Y SLOC). There are many such surjections which are
not isomorphisms. As a corollary, these comments hold for all surjections
in CBOOL. An illustrative example is the following. Let
L = P{a,b} = {0, {a} ,{b}, {a,b}}

M = P {a, b, c} = {0, {a} , {b} , {c} , {a, b} , {a, c} , {b, c} , {a, b, c}}
and put (I : L +- M as follows:
0, {b} f-t 0, {a}, {a,b} f-t {a}, {c}, {b,c} f-t {b},
{a, c}, {a, b, c} f-t {a, b}
Trivially (I is non-injective and surjective, and it is left to the reader to
check that (I preserves all joins and meets, i.e. that (I : L +- M is a
complete Boolean morphism.
We are now in a position to carry out Step 3, namely, describe the adjunction
between spaces and ordered pairs of semiframes.
9.10 Discussion (Setting variable-basis functors up). We are going to

construct two adjunctions-Oright -l PTright and Olelt -l PTlel t , but we will
supply details of proof only for the first, the second being analogous and left to
the reader. We put
SLOCright-TOP -+ SLOC~i:ht'
SLOC/elt-TOP -+ SLOCfSt
540 S. E. Rodabaugh
by formally setting
Oright (X, L, T) , Olelt (X, L, T) = (L, T)
Oright (1,4» , Olelt (1,4» = (4)op, [(1,4» +- Icodomain topolOgy] OP)
where (I,4»+- is restricted to the topology of the codomain of (1,4». We now

put
PTright SLOCright-TOP +- SLOC~i;ht ,

Pllelt SLOClelt-TOP +- SLocf~Jt
by formally defining for objects
PTrighdL, A) , Plle/dL, A) = (Lpt (A) ,L, ~r: (A))

where Lpt (A) ,~r: (A) are as defined in Section 2 above. As for the action on
morphisms, we set
where
PTright (Opt: Lpt (A) -+ Mpt (B) by PTright (Opt (p) = (t 0 p 0 (t

PTlelt «()pt : Lpt (A) -+ Mpt (B) by PTlelt «()pt (p) = *(1 0 P 0 (t
9.11 Lemma (Variable-basis functors). Each of Oright, Olelt, PTright ,

PTlelt is a functor.
Proof. We check only that PTright makes continuous morphisms; all other
details are left to the reader (who needs merely to note the relationship between
right adjointness and composition). Let ( : (L, A) -+ (M, B). We wish to show
PTright (() : (Lpt (A), L, ~r: (A)) -+ (Mpt (B), M,~};} (B))
is continuous. Let v E ~};} (B) . Then
It must be shown that
3a E L, PTright (()+- (v) = ~L (a)

Given b E M above, choose
a = (db)
and let p E Lpt (A). Then:
PTright (()+-- (~M (b)) (p) [(I 0 ~M (b) 0 PTright (()pt] (p)
= (I (~M (b) (PTri9ht (()pt (P)))

(I [(PTri9ht (()pt (P)) (b)]
(I (*(1 (p((t (b))))
P ((t (b))
P (a)
~L (a) (p)
Thus PTright (()+-- (v) = ~L (a), and this completes the proof. 0
9.12 Lemma (Variable-basis adjunctions).
o'right -l PTright and o'left -l PTleft
Restated,
Proof. We prove only the "right" case; the "left" case is left to the reader.
As outlined in 1.3.0 of [43], we must prove both the lifting criterion and the
naturality criterion. For the lifting criterion, let (X, L, T) E ISLOCright-TOPI
and let
'f/ : (X, L, T) -+ (Lpt (T), L, ~I: (T))
by choosing
'f/ = (ih, idL)
where '11 L : X -+ Lpt (T) is taken from Section 2 above. It follows that
('11 L, idL) satisfies the conditions required of morphisms in SLOCright-TOP.
We claim this 'f/ is the unit of the claimed adjunction. So let the following be
given: (M,B) E ISLOC~i;htl and (I,¢): (X,L,T) -+ (Mpt(B),M'~M(B))
in SLOCright-TOP. We must show
3! (I, ¢) == (],4» : (L, T) -+ (M, B) , (I, ¢) = PTright (1,4» 0 'f/
where we will take each of] and 4> as indicating (non-concrete) mars in SLOC.
It follows immediately that we must choose] = ¢, in which case satisfies the t
special restrictions of 9.7(1)(ii) above since ¢op satisfies the special restrictions
of 9.7(3) above. Now to determine 4> : T -+ B in SLOC from
f = PTright (1,4» pt 0 '11 L

542 S. E. Rodabaugh
let b E M and x E X. Then we have the following:
f(x) (b) == [PTright (l'¢)pt (Wdx))] (b)
= [(r p)· 0 'ilL (x) 0 if)oP] (b)
= (¢oP)" (Wdx) (if)0P(b)))

(¢oP)" (if)op (b) (x))
From this it follows:

¢OP(f(x) (b)) = ¢oP((¢oP)"(if)oP(b)(x)))
if)0P (b) (x)
Rewritten we have
if)0P (b) (x) = ¢op (CPM (b) (f (x)))
9.12.1
This implies that fP(b) : X -+ L and hence if)0P : T +- B are uniquely deter-
mined in SET; ~ is a semiframe map since ¢oP, cP M E SFRM; and therefore
if) : T -+ B is uniquely determined in SLOC as required. This completes the
proof of the lifting criterion.
We now show that the action of o'right on morphisms is compatible with the
"bar" operator (f, ¢) given above, thus satisfying the naturality criterion and
completing the proof that o'right -l PTright. To this end, let
(f, ¢) : (X, L, T) -+ (Y, M, 0')
in SLOCright-TOP be given. Now the "bar" operator of the lifting proof
assigns to (f, ¢) the following unique arrow in SLOC~i;ht:
9.12.2
But o'right assigns the arrow
9.12.3
We must show these arrows are the same. Because of 9.12.1, the morphism of
9.12.2 may be rewritten as
9.12.4
So we must verify that 9.12.3 and 9.12.4 are in agreement, and it suffices to
show the second components agree. To that end, let x E X and v E 0'. Then
¢OP (CPM (v) ('11M (f (x)))) = ¢op ('11M (f (x)))(v)
= ¢OP(v(f(x)))
(f, ¢)+- (v)(x)
It follows that
This completes the proof of naturality and the proof of the lemma. 0
9.13 Remark. The above proof of adjunction is even more variable-basis than
the various arguments explicitly suggest. For example, the derivation of ,¢, in
the proof that (\It L, idL) is the unit, implicitly uses M-valued sets and mappings
that are quite unexpected. Starting with the displays just before 9.12.1, we have
'¢OP (b) (x) ¢lOP U (x) (b»

¢lOP (~M (b) U (x»)
= ¢l0P(~M(b)of)(x)
= ¢lOP (\ItM (x) (~M (b) f)

0
= ¢lOP (\ItM (x) U1:i (~M (b»»
where as expected, ~M : B -+ MMpt(B) , but where unexpectedly,
9.14 Definition (Variable-basis sobriety and spatiality). We say a space

(X, L, 7) is sober iff (X, 7) is L-sober in the sense of Section 2; and we say a
functor (L, A) is spatial iff A is L-spatial in the sense of Section 2. In categorical
notation, the prefix "SOB" ["SPAT"] indicates the full subcategory of the
category in question of all its sober [spatial] objects.
9.15 Theorem (Variable-basis sobriety-spatiality representation the-

orems). Sobriety [spatiality] is equivalent to the unit "l [counit c] of both
SLOCright-TOP -I SLOC~i;ht and SLOCleft-TOP -I SLOCte"jt being an iso-
morphism in the appropriate category. Furthermore, both SLOCright-TOP -I
SLOC~i;ht and SLOCleft-TOP -I SLOCt~:t restrict to the following categor-
ical equivalences:
SOB-SLOCright-TOP ~ SPAT-SLOC~i;ht
SOB-SLOCleft-TOP ~ SPAT-SLOCtSt
Proof. The proof, based on Lemmas 9.11-9.12, is a modification of the proof

of Theorem 6.12 of [40], and is left to the reader. 0
We are now able to implement Step 4 above of our goal-variable-basis com-

pactifications. In order to avail ourselves both of the compactification reflector
544 S. E. Rodabaugh
of 9.5 and the adjunctions of 9.12, we must restrict ourselves to obtaining com-
pactification reflectors for the categories LOCright-TOP and LOCleft-TOP.
With regard to LOC-TOP, this is no restriction whatsoever w.r.t. objects or
spaces: every space of LOC-TOP has a compactification-in fact two com-
pactifications (!); this follows from the fact that
ILOCright-TOPI = ILOClewTOPI = ILOC-TOPI

Referring now to the definitions of topological and categorical compactifications
given in 1.1 at the beginning of this chapter, some rather surprising conclusions
follow from the results we are about to present:
(1) The compact space of the right compactification is the same as the com-
pact space of the left compactification.
(2) The morphism of the right compactification is the same as the morphism
of the left compactification.
(3) The right topological compactification is therefore the same as the left
topological compactification.
(4) The right categorical compactification is not the same as the left categor-
ical compactification. Basicly, this means that the morphisms of LOC-
TOP which are factored uniquely through the unit of the right compact-
ification reflector need not be the same as those which factor uniquely
through the unit of the left compactification reflector-the former are the
morphisms of LOCright-TOP and the latter are morphisms of LOCleft-
TOP, and these two classes of morphisms are different.
9.16 Discussion (Setting right and left compactification reflectors up).

We use the functors set up previously in this section. Furthermore, as we
shall see, most of the topological issues in variable-basis compactification have
already been resolved in Section 8 and [42] in the fixed-basis case-issues such
as embedding and density; i.e. most of what we subsequently do in this section
is try to make the categorical issues clear. Now the basic idea, object-wise, is
the following sequence of correspondences:
(X, L, T) t-+ (L, T)

t-+ (L,/37)
t-+ (Lpt({3T) ,L,cpi (/37))
This leads us to propose the following two adjuctions as giving the compactifi-
cation reflectors for variable-basis topology:
PTright 0 {31.5 0 o'right -i '-""right

where the inclusion functors are respectively defined on
K-REG-SOB-LOCright-TOP
K-REG-SOB-LOCleft-TOP
and the proposed left adjoints are respectively defined on LOCright-TOP and
LOCleft-TOP. We will abbreviate the respectively proposed left adjoints by
{3~i:ht and f3l,;jt· We now state the right and left variable-basis versions of
Theorem 8.2.
9.17 Theorem (Right and left compactification reflectors for variable-

basis topology). Let
(X, L, r) E ILOC-TOPI
let Hr be as given in 8.2, let {31.5, T)1.5 be as given in 9.5, and let Ji T : (X, L, r) --+
(Lpt ({3r) , L, ~r: ({3r)) by Ji T = (HT' idL). Then the following hold:
1. Existence of right compact objects and associated morphisms.
(1) (3~i:ht(X, L, r) == PTright({31.5(Oright(X, L, r))) E
IK-REG-SOB-LOCright-TOPI
(2) Ji T : (X,L,r) --+ PTright ({31.5(Oright(X,L,r))) is a morphism in

LOCright-TOP.
II. Conditions for openness. If T)1.5 is a regular monomorphism, then Ji T

is an open morphism in the sense of [43].
III. Conditions for embeddings. Ji T is an embedding in the sense of [43]
iff (X, L, r) is c-reg and To.
IV Existence of right topological compactifications. If
(X, L, r) E ICREG-To-LOCright-TOPI
then (X, L, r) has a (right) topological compactification in the sense of

1.1(1) above and 9.18 below, namely ((3~i:ht(X,L,r), Ji T).
V. Existence of right categorical compactifications. The inclusion
functor
'---+right : LOCright-TOP +- K-REG-SOB-LOCright-TOP

has a left adjoint, namely
al.5
fJright = PTright
-
0 fJa l .5 t'\
0 ~ 'right
such that:
546 S. E. Rodabaugh
(1) 1fr is the unit of ,8;i;ht -j '--+right and maps its domain onto a dense
subspace of its codomain;
(2) 1fr is an embedding in the sense of [43] iff its domain is c-reg and To.
VI. Existence of left topological and categorical compactifications.

Each statement of I-V holds if "right" is everywhere replaced by "left" in
both modifiers and subscripts.
9.18 Definition (Topological definition of variable-basis compactifica-

tions). Let (X, L, T) E IC-TOPI where C is a subcategory of LOQML. Then
((X* , L *, T*), (h, ¢))
is a compactification of (X,L,T) iff (X*,L*,T*) is a compact object of C-

TOP and the following hold:
(1) (h,¢) : (X,L,T) --+ (X*,L*,T*) is a homeomorphic embedding in the

sense of [43]; and
(2) h--+ (X) is dense in (X*, L*, T*) in the sense of 8.8 above.
Proof of 9.17 (I-IV). This is immediate from 8.2 and [42].
Proof of 9.17 (V). We first satisfy the Lifting Criterion of 1.3.0 [43]. Let
(X, L, T) E ILOCrighrTOPI
(Y, M, a) E IK-REG-SOB-LOCright-TOPI
(f, ¢) : (X, L, T) --+ (Y, M, a) E LOCright-TOP
be given. It must be shown :3! (1, ¢) : (Lpt (,8T), L, 'PI: (,8T)) --+ (Y, M, a),
Since 1fr = (Hr , idL) , this forces ¢ = ¢, and it forces J to be the J of 8.2(V) and
its proof in [42]. So the Lifting Criterion is just the fixed-basis case in disguise,
and it guarantees that '--+right has a left adjoint whose action on objects coincides
Wl
·th f.'right.
(./1.5
It remains to show that the action of this left adjoint on morphisms is that
of ,8;i;ht, i.e. to satisfy the Naturality Criterion of 1.3.0 of [43]; and this is
more subtle than the Lifting Criterion. To this end, we now give three needed
lemmas, the first two of which are standard.
9.11.1 Lemma (Composition of adjunctions). Let
F : A -+ B, G : A f- B, H : B -+ C, J : B f- C
be functors such that F -l G and H -l J with units TJ and <5, respectively. Then
the following hold:
(1) H 0 F -l G 0 J; and
(2) V f : A -+ B in A, then GJ H F (f) is a solution of
Proof. (1) is well-known; and (2) is proved by first building the naturality
square for H -l J, applying G to this square, hooking that square to the natu-
rality square for F -l G, and then taking the outer square. 0
9.11.2 Lemma (Condition for left adjoint). Let F,F: C -+ V, G: C f- V

be functors satisfying the following conditions:
(1) F -l G with unit TJ;
(2) F and F agree on objects; and

(3) Vf : A -+ B in C, F (f) is a solution of
G ( ) 0 TJA = TJB 0 f
Then F and F agree on morphisms and F -l G.
Proof. Applying (1), the lifting and naturality criteria of 1.3.0 of [43), and the
"bar" operator of those criteria, we have
F (f) = TJB 0 f
is the unique solution of
G( ) 0 TJA= TJB f 0
Thus (3) applies to force F (f) = F (f) , F = F, and F -l G. 0
9.11.3 Lemma (Characterization of unit tiT)'
V (X, L, r) E jSLOCright-TOPj ,
9.17.3.1
548 S. E. Rodabaugh
Proof. Abbreviating T/h~T) by T/l.5, we recall
T/1.5 = (idL, T/ : T ~ (h)
in which case
It follows
PTright (T/1.5) = (PTright (T/1.5)pt' (T/1.5)I)
= (PTright (T/1.5)pt,idL)
Now
1iT = (Hn idL)
and so the second components on each side of 9.17.3.1 is idL . It remains to check
that the first components are the same, i.e. that
9.17.3.2
Letting p E Lpt (T), we have
PTright{ T/1.5) pt (P) = [( T/1.5 U* 0 p 0 (T/1.5) T

= idL 0 P 0 T/op
po T/op
Now let x E X. Then

PTright (T/1.5)pt (WL (x» = WL (x) 0 T/op
= HT (x)
This completes the proof of 9.17.3.2 and hence of 9.17.3.1. 0
Resumption of proof of 9.17(V). We now complete the proof of the Natu-

rality Criterion. From the Lifting Criterion, we know that ~ has a left adjoint
whose action on objects coincides with that of PTright 0 {31.5 0 S1 right. Hence by
9.17.2, it suffices to show that
v (f,t/J): (X,L,T) ~ (Y,M,u) E LOCright-TOP

PTright ({31.5 (S1 right (f,t/J») is a solution of
9.17a
But since S1 rig ht -I PTright and {31.5 -I ~, it follows from 9.17.1 that
( ) 0 [PTright (T/h~T)) 0 (WL,idL)] =

[PTright (17M,I7)) 0 (1JIM,idM)] 0 (f,cp) 9.17b
Now it can be seen that 9.17a follows from 9.17b by 9.17.3. This completes
the proof of naturality and of the adjunction.
Proof of 9.17(VI). The "left" case is completely analogous to the "right" case,
including the Lifting Criterion and Lemma 9.17.3, and is left to the reader. 0
9.19 Corollary. Theorem 8.2 is corollary to Theorem 9.17.
9.20 Remark (Additional compactification reflectors). For C y LOC,

the categories Cright-TOP and Cleft-TOP have compactification reflectors
by restricting the reflectors of 9.17. For certain C, these compactification re-
flectors can be generated by other than compactness and regularity; e.g. for
C = CBOOL, the reflectors on CBOOLright-TOP and CBOOLleft-TOP
can be described using H-compactness [HR-regularity, HR-cr] en lieu of com-
pactness [regularity, c-reg]. Cf. 8.12 and 9.9(3) above.
References
[1] N. Blasco and R. Lowen, Wallman compactijication in FNS, Communi-
cations of the IFSA Mathematics Chapter 2 (1988), 1-3.
[2] U. Cerruti, The Stone-tech compactijication in the category of fuzzy topo-
logical spaces, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 6 (1981), 197-204.
[3] C. L. Chang, Fuzzy topological spaces, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 24 (1968),
182-90.
[4] C. H. Dowker and D. Papert (StrauB), On Urysohn' s lemma, General
Topology and its Relations to Modern Analysis and Algebra (1967) 111-
4, Academia, Prague.
[5] C. H. Dowker and D. Papert (StrauB), Separation axioms for frames, Col-
loq. Math. Soc. Janos Bolyai 8 (1972), 223-40.
[6] J. Dugundji, Topology (Allyn & Bacon, Boston 1970).
[8] G. Gierz et aI., A Compendium of Continuous Lattices (Springer-Verlag,
Berlin 1980).
[9] J. A. Goguen, The fuzzy Tychonoff theorem, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 43
(1973), 734-42.
550 S. E. Rodabaugh
[10] H. Herrlich and G. E. Strecker, Category Theory, Sigma Series in Pure

Mathematics 1 (Heldermann-Verlag, Berlin 1979).
[11] U. Hohle and A. Sostak, Axiomatic foundations of jixed-basis fuzzy topol-


50 (1975), 74-9.

59-67.

[15] J. R. Isbell, Atomless parts of spaces, Math. Scand. 31 (1972), 5-32.
[16] P. T. Johnstone, Stone Spaces (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

1982).
[17] A. J. Klein, Closure in fuzzy topology, Rocky Mount. J. Math. 11 (1981),

553-60.
[18] A. J. Klein, Generating fuzzy topologies with semi closure operators, Fuzzy
[19] A. J. Klein, Generalizing the fuzzy unit interval, Fuzzy Sets and Systems
12 (1984),267-74.
[20] W. Kotze, Uniform spaces (in this Volume).
[21] T. Kubiak, On L-Tychonoff spaces, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 73 (1995),

25-53.
[22] T. Kubiak, Separation axioms: extension of mappings and embeddings of

[23] Liu Y.-M., private communication.
[24] Liu Y.-M. and Luo M.-K., Fuzzy Stone-Cech type compactijications, Proc.
Polish Symp. Interval and Fuzzy Mathematics (1986), 117-38.
[25] Liu Y.-M. and Luo M.-K., Induced spaces and fuzzy Stone-Cech compacti-
jications, Sci. Sinica Ser. A 30 (1987), 1034-44.
[26] Liu Y.-M. and Luo M.-K., Fuzzy Stone-Cech type compactijications and
the largest Tychonoff compactijications, Chinese Ann. Math. Ser. B 10
(1989), 74-84.
[27] Liu Y.-M. and Luo M.-K., Preorder relations in fuzzy compactijications,
Chinese Bull. 34 (1989), 705-9.
[28) Liu Y.-M. and Luo M.-K., Preorder relations in fuzzy compactijications
(Preprint Sichuan University, Chengdu (1989)).
[29) S. Mac Lane, Categories for the Working Mathematician (Springer-Verlag,
Berlin 1971).
(30) H. W. Martin, A Stone-Cech ultra fuzzy compactijication, J. Math. Anal.
Appl. 73 (1980),453-6.
(31) G. H. J. Mefiner, Sobriety and the fuzzy real lines, preprint, 1987.
[32) S. E. Rodabaugh, The Hausdorff separation axiom for fuzzy topological

spaces, Topology Appl. 11 (1980), 319-34.
(33) S. E. Rodabaugh, Connectivity and the fuzzy unit interval, Rocky Mount.
J. Math. 12 (1982), 113-21.
[34] S. E. Rodabaugh, Separation axioms and the fuzzy real lines, Fuzzy Sets
and Systems 11 (1983), 163-83.
[35) S. E. Rodabaugh, A point set lattice-theoretic framework 11' which contains

LOC as a subcategory of singleton spaces and in which there are general
classes of Stone representation and compactijication theorems, first draft
February 1986 / second draft April 1987 (Youngstown State University
Central Printing Office, Youngstown, Ohio 1987).
(36) S. E. Rodabaugh, Dynamic topologies and their applications to crisp to-

pologies, fuzzijication of crisp topologies, and fuzzy topologies on the crisp
[37] S. E. Rodabaugh, Lowen, para-Lowen and a-level functors and fuzzy to-
pologies on the crisp real line, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 131 (1988), 157-69.
[38] S. E. Rodabaugh, Generalizations of coherence, Communications: IFSA

Mathematics Chapter 4 (1989),41-4.
(39) S. E. Rodabaugh, Point-set lattice-theoretic topology, Fuzzy Sets and Sys-
tems 40 (1991), 297-345.
(40) S. E. Rodabaugh, Categorical frameworks for Stone representation theo-

rems, in: S. E. Rodabaugh, E. P. Klement, and U. Hahle, eds., Applica-
tions of Category to Fuzzy Subsets, 178-231 (Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Dordrecht, 1992) .
(41) S. E. Rodabaugh, Necessity of Chang-Goguen topologies, Rendiconti Cir-

colo Matematico Palermo Suppl., Serie II 29 (1992), 299-314.
[42) S. E. Rodabaugh, Applications of localic separation axioms, compactness

axioms, representations, and compactijications to poslat topological spaces,
552 s. E. Rodabaugh
[43] S. E. Rodabaugh, Categorical foundations of variable-basis topological spa-

ces (Chapter 4 in this Volume).
[44] S. E. Rodabaugh, Powerset operator based foundation for point-set lattice-

theoretic (poslat) fuzzy-set theories and topologies, Quaestiones Mathemat-
icae 20(3)(1997), 463-530.
[45] S. E. Rodabaugh, Powerset operator foundations for poslat fuzzy set the-
[46] M. Sarkar, On fuzzy topological spaces, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 79 (1981),

384-94; 84(1981), 431-42.
[47] F. Schulte, The study of nested topologies through fuzzy Topology (Master's
Thesis, Youngstown State University, Youngstown, Ohio 1984).
[48] M. H. Stone, Boolean algebras and their applications to topology, Proc.
Nat. Acad. Sci. (USA) 20 (1934), 197-202.
[49] M. H. Stone, The theory of representations of Boolean algebras, Trans.
Amer. Math. Soc. 40 (1936),38-111.
[50] M. H. Stone, Some applications of the theory of Boolean rings to general
topology, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 41 (1938), 385-481.
[51] M. H. Stone, Topological characterization of distributive lattices and

Brouwerian logics, Casopis Pest. Mat. Fys. 67 (1938), 1-25.
[52] M. H. Stone, The representation of Boolean algebras, Bull. Amer. Math.
Soc. 44 (1938), 807-16.
[53] M. H. Stone, A general theory of spectra: IIII, Proc. Nat. Acad.Sci.
(USA) 26 (1940), 280-3; 27 (1941), 83-7.
[54] R. H. Warren, Neighborhoods bases and continuity in fuzzy topological
spaces, Rocky Mount. J. Math. 8 (1978),459-470.

Anal. Appl. 45 (1974), 512-21.
CHAPTER 8
Uniform Spaces
w. KOTZE
Introduction
Uniform spaces are the carriers of notions such as uniform convergence, uniform
continuity, precompactness, etc .. In the case of metric spaces, these notions were
easily defined. However, for general topological spaces such distance- or size-
related concepts cannot be defined unless we have somewhat more structure than
the topology itself provides. So uniform spaces lie between pseudometric spaces
and topological spaces, in the sense that a pseudometric induces a uniformity
and a uniformity induces a topology.
The history of uniform spaces goes back to the late thirties. The approach
of A. Weil in 1937 [20] is the so-called "entourage" or "surrounding" one, and
many books on general topology contain this treatment. See for example: [2] and
[21]. In 1940, J. W. Tukey [19] introduced another approach through uniform
coverings. This approach is particularly favoured by J. R. Isbell [12].
In Sections 1 and 2 of this chapter we look at these two approaches as well
as an equivalent one through families of functions which is less common in the
literature. It is this latter approach which motivates the concept of L-fuzzy
uniform spaces as was conceived by Bruce Hutton in [8, 10] - a point which is
often missed.
Sections 1 and 2 contain no reference to the fuzzy case, but will hopefully be
of use to the reader who is not a specialist in (crisp) uniformities. Furthermore,
the juxtaposition with Sections 3, 4 and 5 is intended as an illustration of non-
trivial fuzzifications of an important classical theory.
The fuzzification of the concept as established by R. Lowen [14, 15] is sum-
marized as well, but discussed further in Chapter 9 on "Extensions of Uniform
Space Notions" by M. H. Burton and J. Gutierrez Garcia. In fact that chapter
could be read as a sequel to this one. Another fuzzification of the concept, not
discussed here for sake of space, was introduced by U. Hohle [5, 6].

554 W. Kotze
Acknowledgement
This chapter was written during and after a visit by J. Gutierrez Garcia of the
Universidad del Pais Vasco, Bilbao, Spain, to Rhodes University, Grahamstown,
South Africa, in 1997. A substantial part of the work is due to him.
1 Uniform spaces
A mapping f between pseudometric spaces (X, d) and (Y, p) is uniformly con-
tinuous if for each e > 0 there exists a(e) > 0 such that P(f(Xl), f(X2)) < e
whenever d(Xl,X2) < a(e). That is, images under f of points a(e)-close in X
are e-close in Y.
Since orders of nearness are not defined for a general topological space, the
notion of uniform continuity is meaningless here. The same, of course, can be
said about size-dependent notions such as completeness, precompactness and
boundedness.
The mathematical construct employed in studying this kind of properties
is called a uniform space. Uniform spaces are between pseudometric spaces
and topological spaces in the sense that any pseudometric space generates a
topological space and any uniform space generates a topological space.
If X is a set we recall the following notations.
1. 6 = 6(X) ~ {(x,x): x EX}.

2. If U ~ X x X then Us dg {(x,y) : (y,x) E U}. We call U symmetric if
U= Us.
3. If U, V ~ X x X then
U 0 V ~f {(x,y) E X x X: 3z E X s.t. (x,z) E V and (z,y) E U}.
4. un ~ ,U 0
..
U0 ... 0 U.,
n factors
If 6 ~ U then U ~ U2 ~ U3 ~ ... ~ un.
1.1 Diagonal uniformities

The reader is referred to [21] as a general reference. The motivation for the
following definitions is:
In a metric space (X, d) the sets
Ue = ((x,y): d(x,y) < e} with e > 0

have the properties:
Uniform spaces 555
1. Ue n U6 = Umin(e,6);
2. ~ ~ Ue for each e > 0;
3. (U,;)s = Ue;
4. Ue 0 U6 ~ U(e+6)' so given e, U! 0 U! ~ Ue.
Definitions 1.1.1 A diagonal uniformity on a set X is a collection U ~ 2xxx

satisfying the following properties:
(DU1) U is a filter on X x X. In other words:
(a)0~U,
(b) Ul, U2 E U => U1 n U2 E U,
(c) U ~ V, U E U => V E u.
(DU2) IfU E U then ~ ~ U.
(DU3) If U E U then Us E U.
(DU4) If U E U then there exists V E U such that V 0 V ~ U.
The elements of U are sometimes called entourages or surroundings.
If X is a set and 18 ~ 2X x x, then 18 is called a uniform base on X iff
(DUB1) 18 is a filter base. In other words:
(a) 0 ~ 18,
(b) B 1 , B2 E 18 => 3B3 E 18, B3 ~ Bl n B2.
(DUB2) If BE 18 then ~ ~ B.
(DUB3) If BE 18 then there exists D E 18 such that Ds ~ B.
(DUB4) If BE 18 then there exists DE 18 such that DoD ~ B.
Proposition 1.1.2 1. If 18 is a uniform base then
(18) ~ {U ~ X x X : B ~ U for some B E 18}
is a uniformity.
2. If U is a uniformity and 18 ~ U satisfies (18) = U then 18 is a uniform base.

Examples 1.1.3 1. Let (X,d) be a pseudometric space and e > O. Let
U: = ((x,y) : d(x,y) < e};

556 w. Kotze
Bd = {U: : c > O};

Ud = (Bd).
Then Ud is a uniformity on X. Note that Ud = U2d and so different
pseudometrics can generate the same uniformity.
2. Let B = {~} and U = (B). Then B is a uniform base and U is a uniformity
called the discrete uniformity on X.
3. If U = {X x X} then U is called the trivial uniformity on x.
4. For r E JR, let Br = ~ U {(x, y) E JR x JR : x > r, y > r} then B = {Br :
r E JR} is a uniform base on JR.
1.2 The uniform topology

Let x E X, A ~ X and U ~ X x X we define
U[x] ~ {y EX: (x,y) E U}
and
urAl ~f U U[x] = {y EX: 3x E A s.t. (x,y) E U}.
xEA
Note that for U: as in Examples 1.1.3 above, U1[x] = B(x,c), the open ball
with centre x and radius c.
Theorem 1.2.1 Let (X, U) be a uniform space. Then the collection {U[x] :
U E U} is a neighbourhood base at x, or'T(J = {G ~ X : Yx E G, 3U E
U s.t. U[x] ~ G} is a topology on X.
'T(J is called the uniform topology generated by U and (X, T(]) is called a
uniformizable topological space.
Examples 1.2.2 1. In the case of a pseudometric space (X, d) with the uni-
formity Ud as in Examples 1.1.3, number 1, above, the uniform topology
generated is clearly the original pseudometric topology.
2. The discrete uniformity on X generates the discrete topology on X since
~[x] = {y EX: (x,y) E~} = {x}.
3. The trivial uniformity on X generates the indiscrete topology on X since

(X x X)[x] = X.
4. The topology generated by the uniformity on JR as discussed in number 4
of Examples 1.1.3 is also the discrete topology since
Br[x] = {x} for x :5 r.

Uniform spaces 557
1.3 Uniformly continuous functions

Definition 1.3.1 Let (X, U) and (Y, V) be uniform spaces and let tp : X -+ Y
be a mapping. The mapping tp is said to be uniformly continuous iff for all
V E V there exists U E lU such that whenever (x,y) E U, (tp(x),tp(y)) E V.
That is:
VV E V, 3U E lU: (tp x tp)(U) ~ V.
Or
VV E V, (tp x cp)f-(V) E lU.
Theorem 1.3.2 If tp : (X, U) -+ (Y, V) is a uniformly continuous function then

tp: (X,ru) -+ (Y,7V) is continuous.
Proposition 1.3.3 If f : (X, U) -+ (Y, V) and g : (Y, V) -+ (Z, W) are two

uniformly continuous mappings then the mapping go f : (X, U) -+ (Z, W) is
also uniformly continuous.
2 Equivalent approaches to uniformity

We'll now introduce equivalent approaches to uniform spaces.
2.1 Families of functions

First we'll prove the existence of a bijection between the following two families:
A = {U ~ X x X : .6. ~ U}
and
B = {f: 2x -+ 2x : VA E 2x , A ~ f(A) and f preserves arbitrary unions.}
That is, fEB iff

(i) A ~ f(A) for each A E 2x;
(ii) f (U Ai) = Uf(Ai) for each family {AihEJ ~

iEJ iEJ
2x.
We can start defining a map T : A --+ B in the following way:
T: A -+ B
U t-t T(U): 2x -+ 2x
A t-t [T(U)](A) = UrAl
It is not difficult to see that T(U) E B. In fact:
For each A E 2x , since .6. ~ U it is clear that A ~ UrAl = [T(U)](A).
558 W. Kotze
On the other hand, for each {AdiEJ ~ 2x we have
[T(U)] (U Ai)
iEJ
= U [U Ai] = U
iEJ U zE Ai
U[x] = U U U[x]
iEJ zEAi
iEJ
= UU [Ai] = U[T(U)] (Ai)

iEJ iEJ
We now define a mapping il> : B -t A in the following way:

il> : B -t A
f t-+ il>(f)={(x,y)eXxX:yef({x})}= U ({x}xf({x}))
zEX
Since {x} ~ f( {x}) for each x e X it is clear that ~ ~ il>(f) and so

il>(f) e A.
Finally it is not difficult to check that il> 0 T = IdA and Toil> = IdB and
therefore il> = T-l is a bijection. In fact we have for each U e A:
(il> 0 T)(U) = il>(T(U)) = {(x, y) e X x X : y e [T(U)]( {x})}
= {(x,y) e X x X: y e U[x]} = {(x,y) e X x X: (x,y) e U}
=U
and for each feB and A e 2x :

((T 0 il»(f))(A) = (T(il>(f))(A)
= il>(f)[A] = {y eX: 3x e A s.t. (x, y) e il>(f)}
={yeX:3xeAs.t. yef({x})}
= {y eX: ye U f({X})}
zEA
= {y eX: y e f(A)} = f(A)
Therefore both T and il> are bijective.
Now if we consider in A and B respectively the orders given by
and
f ~ g <==> f(A) ~ g(B) for all A e 2x
then both T and il> are order preserving.
If U ~ V it is clear that [T(U)](A) = UrAl ~ V[A] = [T(V)](A) for each
Ae 2x.
Uniform spaces 559
Conversely, if [T(U)](A) = UrAl ~ V[A] = [T(V)](A) for each A E 2x then
U = u
xEX
({x} x U[x]) ~ U ({x} x V[x]) = V.
xEX
On the other hand, if f ::; 9 then

if!(f) = ((x,y) E X x X: y E f({x})} ~ ((x,y) E X x X: y E g({x})} = if!(g).
Conversely, if if!(f) = U ({x} x f({x})) ~ if!(g) = U ({x} x g({x}))

xEX xEX
then f ({x }) ~ 9 ({x }) for each x E X and therefore f ::; g.
Taking into account that any diagonal uniformity V on X is just a subset

of A satisfying axioms (DUl), (DU3) and (DU4), we can also think of any
uniformity as a certain subset of B (the image of U under T). Consequently we
have the following two theorems:
Theorem 2.1.1 [fV ~ A is a diagonal uniformity then B = T(V) ~ B satisfies

(Bl) if h, 12 E B then there exists is E B such that is ::; h and is ::; 12;
(B2) if fEB, 9 E Band f ::; 9 then 9 E B;
(B3) if fEB then f+- E B, (where f+-(A) = n{B ~ X: f(BC) ~ AC} for each
A E 2X);
(B4) if fEB then there exists 9 E B such that gog::; f.
PROOF.
(Bl) Let h = T(Ul),h = T(U2 ) E B with U1 , U2 E V. For each A ~ X we

have
[T(U1 n U2 )](A) = (U1 n U2 )[A] ~ UdAl n U2 [A]

= [T(ud](A) n [T(U2 )](A) = h (A) n 12 (A)
and so is = T(U1 n U2 ) satisfies what we needed, since U1 n U2 E U.
(B2) Let f = T(U) E B with U E V and 9 = T(V) E B such that f ::; g.

For each x E X we have f({x}) = U[x] ~ V[x] = g({x}) and therefore
U = u
xEX
({x} x U[x]) ~ U ({x} x V[x]) = V.
xEX
Since V is a filter it follows that V E V and so T (V) = 9 E B.

560 W. Kotze
(B3) Let f = T(U) E $ with U E U. It follows from (DU3) that Us E U. Now

for each A ~ X
[T(Us)](A) = Us [A) = U Us [x) = U{y EX: (x, y) E Us}

xEA xEA
= U{YEX:(y,X)EU}
xEA
Let y E U {y EX: (y, x) E U} and B ~ X such that [T(U)](BC) =

xEA
U[BC) ~ AC. There exists x E A such that (y,x) E U. Hence x rf- U[BC) and so
y E B. Therefore
[T(Us)](A) = U{y EX: (y,x) E U} ~ n{B ~ X : [T(U)](BC) ~ AC}

xEA
= [T(U))i-(A).
Conversely, let y E n{B ~ X: [T(U)](BC) ~ AC}. Since y rf- {y}C, it follows

that [T(U)]( {y}) = U[y) ~ AC, that is U[y) n A =P 0.
Hence there exists x E A such that (y, x) E U and so y E UsiA) = [T(U.)](A).
Therefore
and consequently
[T(U.))(A) = [T(U))i-(A).
This shows that fi- = T (Us) E $.
(B4) Let f = T(U) E $ with U E U. It follows from (DU4) that there exists
V E lU such that V 0 V ~ U. Now for each A ~ X
[T(V) 0 T(V)](A) = V[V[A)) = {y EX: 3z E ViAl s.t. (z, y) E V}

= {y EX: 3x E A, z E X s.t. (x, z) E V and (z, y) E V}
={y EX: 3x E A s.t. (x, y) E V 0 V} = (V 0 V)[A)
~ U[A) = [T(U)](A).
This shows that there exists 9 = T(V) E $ such that gog::; f. 0
Theorem 2.1.2 If$ ~ B satisfies (Bi), (B2), (B3) and (B4) then lU = <1>($) ~
A is a diagonal uniformity.
PROOF.
(DUl) It is clear that 0 rf- lU and X x X E U.

Uniform spaces 561
Let U1 = ~(II), U2 = ~(h) E U. There exists fa E lli such that fa $ II and

fa $h Therefore
Let U = ~(f) E lU and V ~ X x X such that U ~ V. It is clear that V E A

and so T(V) E B. On the other hand I = T(U) ~ T(V), thus T(V) E lli. We
therefore conclude that V = ~(T(V)) E ~(B) = U.
Consequently lU is a filter.
(DU2)
This is just because lU ~ A.
(DU3) Let U = ~(f) E lU with I E lli. It follows from (U3) that r- E lli. Now
we have
~(f+-) = ((x,y) E X x X: y E I+-({x})}

= ((x,y) E X x X: y E n{B ~ X : I(B C) ~ {x}C}}
Let y E n{B ~ X: I(BC) ~ {xy}. Since y ¢ {yy, it follows that I({y}) ~
{xy, that is x E I({y}).
Conversely, if x E I({y}), for each B ~ X such that I(BC) ~ {xy we have
y E B, (ify E BC then x E I({y}) ~ I(BC) ~ {xy).
Therefore
~(f+-) = ((x,y) E X x X : y E n{B ~ X : I(B C) ~ {xY}
=((x,y) E X x X: x E I({y})} = [~(f)ls = Us
This shows that Us = ifl(f+-) E lU.
(DU4) Let U = ~(f) E lU with I E lli. It follows from (U4) that there exists
9 E lli such that gog $ I. Now we have
ifl(g) 0 ~(g) = {(x, y) E Xx X : 3z E X S.t. (x, z) E ~(g) and (z, y) E ~(g)}
=((x,y) E X x X: 3z E X s.t. z E g({x}) and y E g({z})}
= ((x,y) E X x X: y E g(g({x}))} = ifl(gog)
~ ~(f) = U.
This shows that there exists V = ~ (g) E lU such that V 0 V $ U. 0
A consequence of these two theorems is that any uniformity on X can be

described, without passing to X x X, in the following way
Definition 2.1.3 Let B denote the family of mappings I : 2x --+ 2x such that:
562 W. Kotze
(i) A ~ f(A) for each A E 2x;
(ii) f (U
iEJ
Ai) = U
iEJ
f(Ai) for each family {AihEJ ~ 2x.
A subset $ ~ B is called a uniformity on X iff it satisfies the following axioms:
(B1) if h,h E $ then there exists hE $ such that h ~ hand h ~ 12;

(B2) if f E $, f ~ g and g E B then g E 1$;
(BS) if f E $ then roo E $, (where f~(A) = n{B E 2x : f(BC) ~ AC} for each
A E 2X);
(B4) if f E $ then there exists g E $ such that gog ~ f i
The pair (X, $) is called a uniform space.
2.2 Coverings
Another approach to uniformity is through covers, as first introduced by Thkey
[19].
Definition 2.2.1 If C is a covering of X, then another covering C1 of X is a

refinement of C iff for every W E C1 , there exists V E C such that W ~ V. We
write
and also say C1 refines C.

A cover C1 is a star refinement of C (or C1 star-refines C) iff for every W E C1
there exists V E C such that St (W, C1 ) ~ V, where
St(W,Ct} ~ U{S E C1 : S n W:f. 0}.
We write
Clearly
Theorem 2.2.2 If K is a family of coverings C of X such that for every C1 , C2 E

K there exists C3 E K such that C3~*Cl and C3 ~* C2 , then {Dc: C E K} is a
base for a diagonal uniformity on X, where
Dc ~f U{V X V: V E C}.
Uniform spaces 563
PROOF.
(DUBl) Given DCl and DC2' choose C3 E K which star-refines both C1 and
C2 • Then Dcs ~ DCl n Dc 2:
If W E C3 , then there exists Q E C1 and V E C2 such that
St(W,C3 ) ~ Q and St(W,C3 ) ~ v. So W x W ~ Q x Q
and W x W ~ V x V and hence W x W ~ DCl n Dc2. Thus
Dcs ~ DCl n DC2'
(DUB2) Clearly ~ ~ Dc for each C E K.
(DUB3) We have (Dc)s = Dc for each C E K.
(DUB4) Given Dc, then choose C1 E K which star-refines C. Then DCl 0
DCl ~ Dc:
We have
DCl 0 DCl = {(x,y) : 3z E X s.t. (x,z) E DCl and (z,y) E DcJ.
Thus (x, z) E Q x Q, (z, y) E V x V for Q, V E C1 and z E Qnv. So

V ~ St (Q, C1 ). Since C1 ~*C, there exists W E C s. t. Q U V ~ W.
Thus (x,y) E W x W and so DCl 0 DC l ~ Dc.
o
We had above:
where T and ~ are bijections. We can now define a map IJ1 : K -t B with K as
in Theorem 2.2.2 as follows:
For C E K, let IJ1(C) : 2x -t 2x be defined by
[1J1(C)] (A) ~f St (A, C) = U{U E C : An U 1:- 0}.

This is well-defined because:
(i) A ~ St (A,C),
(ii)
[q,(C)] (U Ai) = St (U Ai, C)

= U {U E C : Un UAi 1:- 0}
UU{U E C : Un Ai 1:- 0}
564 W. Kotze
So we have
A B
t '11
JC
Can we complete this diagram?
Theorem 2.2.3 If lU is a diagonal uniformity then
3(U) = Cu, U EU
where
Cu = {U[x] : x E X}
is a map from lU into JC.
PROOF.
For U E lU, Cu = {U[x] : x E X} is a cover of X (x E U[x] since ~ ~ U).

Are they members of JC? In other words, does every pair of these have a common
star-refinement?
Take CUi and CU2 with U1, U2 E lU. Then U1 n U2 E lU. Choose U3 E lU such
that U3 0 U3 ~ U1 n U2 and a symmetric U4 E lU such that U4 0 U4 ~ U3 • Then
and
St (U4[X],CU4) U{W E CU4 : U4[x] n W =f:. 0}

= U{U4[Y] : U4[X] n U4[Y] =f:. 0}.
y
So
z E St(U4[X],CU4) ¢::::} 3y, (y,z) E U4 and3w, (x,w) E U4 and (y,w) E U4

¢::::} 3y, (y,z) E U4 and (x,y) E U4 oU4
¢::::} (x, z) E U4 0 U4 0 U4
:::} (x, z) E U1 n U2
¢::::} z E U1[x] n U2[x].
Uniform spaces 565
Note The image of V under 3 in K has the additional property that, if C E 3(V)
and C ~ C', where C' is another covering of X, then there exists a subcover of
C' which is a member of 3(V):
Consider 3(U) = Cu and Cu ~ C'. So for every x E X there exists W. E C'
such that U[x] ~ W",. Then
U = U ({x} x U[x)) ~ U ({x} x W",)

"'EX "'EX
and, since V is a diagonal uniformity, U ({x} x W",) E V. Furthermore,

"'EX
u ({x} x W",)[z) = {y: (z,y) E U ({x} x W",)}

= {y: 3x E X, (z,y) E {x} x W",}
= {y: 3x, z = x, yEW",}
So {W", : x E X}, which is a sub cover of C', is an element of 3(V).

Likewise, if C E 3(V) and C ~. C', then a sub cover of C' is a member of
3(V).
o
Theorem 2.2.4 If K has the additional property that:
C E K and C ~* C' => C' E K
then w(K) E B satisfies (B1), ... (B4) of Theorem 2.1.1.
PROOF.
(BI) Let /I = w(C1 ), h = W(C 2 ) with C1 ,C2 E K. Then there exists Cs E K

such that Cs ~* C1 and Cs ~* C2 • Put h = W(Cs). Then for every A E 2x
[w(Cs)](A) = St (A,Cs) ~ St (A,Cd = [W(Cd](A).
[x E St (A,Cs) ¢:::} 3U E Cs S.t. x E U and UnA ¥- 0

=> 3V E C1 S.t. St(U,Cs) ~ v, x E U, UnA ¥- 0
=> 3V E c1 s.t. x E v, V n A¥-0
¢:::} x E St (A, Cd)
Likewise [w(Cs))(A) ~ [w(C 2 )) (A) for all A E 2x. Hence h ~ /I and fa ~ h

566 w. Kotze
(B2) Let f = w(C),C E K and 9 E B with f :::; g. So
[w(C)](A) = St (A, C) ~ g(A) for all A E 2x.
So {g(C) : U E C} is a cover of X of which C is a star-refinement. By the

additional property of K, we have that 9 = {g(U) : U E C} E K. Furthermore
'11(9) = g:
['11 (9)](A) = St (A, 9)

= U St(x,9) ~ U g({x}) = g(A).
xEA xEA
But also
U St(x,9) = U U{g(U):UEC, {x}ng(U)~0}

xEA xEA
:J U g({x})
xEA
= g( U {x}) = g(A).
xEA
(B3) If f = w(C),C E K, consider

f+-(A) = n {B ~ X : f(B C) ~ AC}
= n {B ~ X : [w(C)](BC) ~ AC}
= n{B~X:St(BC,C)~AC}.
Now St (St (A,C)C,C) ~ AC. So f+-(A) ~ St (A,C).
Conversely, if x E St (A, C) then there exists U E C such that An U ~ 0 and
x E U. Let B ~ X such that St (BC,C) ~ Ae. Then x ¢ Be or x E B. Thus
f+-(A) = St (A,C) = [w(U)](A) = f(A) for all A E 2x or f+- = f = w(C).

(B4) Let f = w(C),C E J( and let U* be a star-refinement of C. Then if
9 = w(C*),
go g(A) = [w(C*) 0 w(C*)](A)
= St(St(A,C*),C*)
C St (A, C) = [w(C)](A) = f(A).
So gog:::; f.
o
Note
In the diagram
Uniform spaces 567
3 0 0 W : JC --+ JC is:
30 0 w(C) = 30 (I)

where
(I) = {(x,y): y E f({x})} = ((x,y): y E St({x},C)} = U

and
3((I)) = {U[x]: x E X}
{{y: (x, y) E U} : x E X}
{St({x},C):XEX}.
We can now define a uniformity on X also as follows:
Definition 2.2.5 A uniformity on X is a family IK of coverings of X satisfying:

(Kl) every two members of IK has a star-refinement in IK,
(K2) if C E IK and C ~* C', then C' E IK.
The pair (X, IK) is called a uniform space.

Definition 2.3.1 Let (X, B1 ) and (Y, B:!) be two uniform spaces in the sense of
Definition 2.1.3 and let <p : X --+ Y be a mapping. Then <p is said to be uniformly
continuous iff for every g E B:! there exists f E Bl such that <p 0 f ::; go <po In
other words
VAE2 x , <pof(A) ~go<p(A).
Definition 2.3.2 Let (X, IKx) and (Y, lKy) be two uniform spaces in the sense
of Definition 2.2.5 and let <p : X --+ Y be a surjective mapping. Then <p is
said to be uniformly continuous iff for every Cy E lKy , there exists Cx E
IKx such that <p(Cx) ~* Cy, where <p(Cx) = {<p(W): W E Cx}.
We can prove:
Theorem 2.3.3 A map (B1 )) --+ (Y, (B:!)) is uniformly continuous
in the sense of Definition 1.3.1.
568 W. Kotze
PROOF.
(=»: Let V E ~(g), 9 E ~. Hence
V = ((YI,Y2) E Y x Y: Y2 E g({Yd)}.
Now by Definition 2.3.1, 3f E lIh such that cp 0 f(A) ~ g(cp(A)) for all
A E 2x. Put
Then
(XI,X2)EU => CP(X2) Ecpof({xI}) Eg(cp(xd)

=> (cp(xI), CP(X2)) E V.
({:: ): Let 9 E ~ and consider
~(g) = ((YI,Y2) E Y x Y: Y2 E g({Yd)}.

By Definition 1.3.1, 3U E ~(Id such that cp x cp(U) ~ ~(g). Put f = 'Y(U).
So VA E 2x,
f(A) = ['Y(U)](A) = UrAl = {X2 EX: 3XI E A s.t. (XI,X2) E U}.

Then cp 0 f(A) = {cp(X2) : 3XI E A s.t. (Xl, X2) E U}. But if (Xl, X2) E U
then (CP(XI)' CP(X2)) E ~(g). SO CP(X2) E g(cp(xI)) and thus cp 0 f(A) ~ go cp(A)
for A E 2x.
o
Theorem 2.3.4 A map cp : (X, l!{x) -t (Y, l!{y) is uniformly continuous in the
sense of Definition 2.3.2 iff cp : (X, ~ 0 W(l!{x)) -t (Y, ~ 0 W(l!{y)) is uniformly
continuous in the sense of Definition 1.3.1.
PROOF.
(=»: Let V E ~ 0 w(l!{y). So V = ~ 0 w(Cy) = {(YI, Y2) : Y2 E St ({yd, Cy)}

for Cy E l!{y. We now have, by Definition 2.3.2, that 3Cx E l!{x such that
cp(Cx) ~* Cy, i. e. Vcp(Q),Q E Cx,3W E Cy such that St(cp(Q),cp(Cx)) ~ W.
Put U = ((XbX2) : X2 E St({xd,Cx)}. Then U E ~ 0 w(l!{x). If Xl E
Q,St({cp(xI)},cp(Cx)) ~ St({CP(XI)}'Cy). SO
(XI,X2) E U => X2 E St({xI},Cx)
=> cp(X2) ESt ({ CP(XI)}, cp(Cx))
=> cp(X2) E St({cp(xd},Cy)
=> (cp(xI), CP(X2)) E V.
({::): Let Cy E l!{y with C~ ~* Cy. Put
V =~ 0 w(C~) = {(YI,Y2): Y2 E St ({yI},C~)}.

Uniform spaces 569
By Definition 1.3.1, 3U E <:P 0 w(C~J for some C~ E OCx such that
(X1,X2) E U :::} (<P(X1),<P(X2)) E V

:::} <P(X2) E St ({ <p(xt}}, C~).
Now 3(U) = {U[x], x E X} E OCx and let Cx E OCx be such that Cx -<*
3(U). Then consider <p(Cx) = {<p(W) : W E Cx}. Now if W E Cx, St (W, Cx)
~ S for some S E 3(U) where S = U[x] for some x E X. So
St(<p(W),<p(Cx)) C <p(U[x])
C St ({<p(x)},C~)
C T for some T E Cy, since C~ -<* Cy.
Thus <p(Cx) -<* Cy.
o
3 Hutton L-fuzzy uniformities

3.1 Basic notions
Developing the idea contained in Definition 2.1.3, Hutton arrived at the follow-
ing concept in [8, 10]:
Definition 3.1.1 Let L be a complete lattice and X be a set. Let B denote the
family of mappings f : LX --+ LX such that:
(i) J-t :::; f(J-t) for each J-t E LX;
(ii) f (V
iEJ
J-ti) Vf(J-ti)
= iEJ for each family {J-tihEJ ~ LX.
A non empty subset U ~ B is called a Hutton L-fuzzy quasi-uniformity on X
iff it satisfies the following axioms:
(HUJ) if It, 12 E U then there exists h E U such that h :::; It and h :::; 12;
(HU2) if fEU, f :::; 9 and 9 E B then 9 E U;
(HU4) if fEU then there exists 9 E U such that gog:::; f;
If the complete lattice L has an order-reversing involution C (i. e.
L is a complete de Morgan algebra) then:
An L-fuzzy quasi-uniformity is called a Hutton L-fuzzy uniformity if
(HU3) if fEU then f- 1 E U, (where f-1(J-t) = !\{II E LX : f(II C) :::; J-tC}

for each J-t E LX).
The pair (X,U) is called a Hutton L-fuzzy (quasi)-uniform space.

570 W. Kotze
1. The reverse order of (HU 4) and (HU 3) above is deliberate to be in

compliance with Definition 2.1.3.
2. In [8] Hutton specified L to be a completely distributive lattice. However,
no distributivity of any kind is needed in the definition given above, which
can be easily shown to be equivalent to Hutton's definition using Definition
1 and Lemmas 1-3 of [8] under the assumption of L being completely
distributive. In particular, complete distributivity guarantees that in the
presence of (HU2), Hutton's intersection axiom is equivalent to (HU1).
Definition 3.1.2 A mappingt.p: (X,Ux) --+ (Y,Uy) is called (quasi-)uniformly

continuous if for every g E Uy there exists f E Ux such that j(J.L) :::; g(t.p(J.L))
for each J.L E LX.
Proposition 3.1.3 Let (X, U) be a Hutton L-juzzy quasi-uniform space. Then

the mapping Int: LX --+ LX defined by Int(J.L) = V{1/ E LX: 3j E U s.t. j(//) :::;
J.L} for each J.L E LX is an L-interior operator (cf. Subsection 6.1 in [7]).
The corresponding L-topology TU = {J.L E LX : Int(J.L) = J.L} is called the
topology generated by U.
Proposition 3.1.4 If a mapping t.p : (X,Ux) --+ (Y,Uy) is (quasi-)unijormly

continuous, then the mapping t.p : (X, TUx) --+ (Y, TUy) is continuous.
3.2 Further results in the case of complete distributivity

of the underlying lattice
In [3] Erceg showed that a Hutton L-fuzzy quasi-uniform space is metrizable (in
his sense) iff the quasi-uniformity has a countable base.
In [13] Katsaras showed (for L = [0,1]), that the [0, l]-topology generated
by a uniformizable crisp topology is Hutton uniformizable.
In [8] Hutton also shows that an L-topological space is uniformizable iff it is
completely regular. (He also characterised complete regularity of a L-topological
space by maps into the fuzzy unit interval I(L)- also a concept due to him.)
Artico and Moresco [1] gave generalisations to L-topological spaces of the
well-known theorems:
1. a completely regular space is normal iff the family of finite open covers is
a basis for a compatible uniformity;
2. a completely regular compact space admits exactly one compatible uni-
formity.
In [8, 11, 16] it is shown that the higher order separation axioms are described
by H-uniformities. In [16] it was shown that for a completely distributive lattice
L with order-reversing involution, the canonical topology on the fuzzy real line
JR.(L) is H-uniformizable. Furthermore, this uniformity induces a pseudometric
Uniform spaces 571
which induces the canonical topology. The result is [18] that JR(L) and I(L) are
metrizable in the Erceg sense.
Fuzzy addition is uniformly continuous with respect to the H-uniformity
which underlies the canonical topology on JR(L) and I(L)j usual addition is uni-
formly continuous with respect to the uniformity which underlies the canonical
L-topology on the reals. Furthermore, if Ll :::= L2 then JR(Ll) is isomorphic to
JR(L2) in some sense [17]. These results are solely dependent on the Hutton
approach.
In [17] Rodabaugh also points out that a Hutton L-uniformity produces a
uniform covering in terms of "shadings". This is in the spirit of our discussions
of equivalent approaches to uniformity in Section 2 above.
4 Lowen fuzzy uniform spaces

4.1 I-Fuzzy uniform spaces
An alternative approach to the concept of a fuzzy uniformity was developed by
Lowen in [14] in the case L = 1= [0,1]. We give a brief outline here. See also
Chapter 9 in this volume.
We recall here some definitions which will be needed in the following.
If u,t/J E I XxX we define,
us(x,y) ~f u(y,x),
(u 0 t/J)(x, y) ~ sup t/J(x, z) 1\ u(z, y).

zEX
If U, V ~ X and u = lu,t/J = Iv then

(lu)s(x,y) = 1 {:::=} lu(Y,x) = 1
{:::=} (y, x) E U
{:::=} (x,y) E Us
{:::=} (lu.)(x,y) = 1.
Therefore (lu)s = Iu•.

(Iv 0 Iu)(x,y) = 1 {:::=} sup Iu(x,z) 1\ Iv(z,y) = I
zEX
{:::=} 3z EX: (x,z) E U and (z,y) E V
{:::=} (x,y) E vo U
{:::=} Ivou(x,y) = 1.
Therefore Iv 0 Iu = Ivou.
Consequently the above definitions are natural generalisations of the stan-
dard notions.
572 W. Kotze
Definitions 4.1.1 A subset U ~ IXxX is called a Lowen fuzzy uniformity on

X iff it satisfies the following properties
(LU1) U is a saturated prefilter;
(LU2) 'V (7 E U, 'V x E X, (7(x, x) = 1 (hence c(U) = 1);

(LU3) 'V (7 E U, (7s E U;
(LUJ,) 'V (7 E U, 'VeE 1o, 3'1/; E U : 'I/; 0 'I/; ~ (7 + e.

The pair (X, U) is called a Lowen fuzzy uniform space.
A subset B ~ IXxX is called a Lowen fuzzy uniform base on X iff it satisfies
the following properties
(LUB1) B is a prefilter base;
(LUB2) 'V (7 E B, 'V x E X, (7(X, x) = 1;

(LUB3) 'V (7 E B, \:je > 0, 3'1/; E B : 'I/; ~ (7s + e;
(LUBJ,) 'V (7 E B, \:je > 0, 3'1/; E B : 'I/; 0 'I/; ~ (7 + e.
Definition 4.1.2 If U is a Lowen fuzzy uniformity on X, then we say that

B ~ U is a base for U iff B is a prefilter base and fj = fs) = U. Where for any
prefilter :F, j denotes the saturation of:F, that is,
Proposition 4.1.3 1. If B is a Lowen fuzzy uniform base then fj is a Lowen

fuzzy uniformity.
2. If B is a base for a Lowen fuzzy uniformity U, then B is a Lowen fuzzy

uniform base.
Proposition 4.1.4 If U is a Lowen fuzzy uniformity on X then
B ~f {(7 E U: (7 = (7s}
is a Lowen fuzzy uniform base for U.
4.2 Fuzzy neighbourhood spaces

In [15) Lowen introduced a special kind of I-topological spaces - so-called fuzzy
neighborhood spaces·. Here we only assemble some facts regarding this type of
neighbourhood spaces.
·See also Section 5 in Chapter 5 in this Volume
Uniform spaces 573
Definitions 4.2.1 A collection {N"'}"'EX, where N", ~ IX lor each x E X, is
called a fuzzy neighbourhood system iff the lollowing conditions are fulfilled lor
each x E X:
(FN1) N", is a saturated prefilter;
(FN2) p.(x) = 1 lor all p. E N", (hence c(N",) = 1);

(FN3) lor each p. E N", and each c E 10 there exists {lI z }zEX such that
II", E N z lor all z E X and
sup II",(Z) /\ IIz (y) :s; p.(y) + c lor all y E X.

zEX
N", is called a fuzzy neighbourhood prefilter on X and the elements 01 N",

are called fuzzy neighbourhoods of x.
A collection {,8"'}"'EX, where ,8", ~ IX lor each x E X, is called a fuzzy
neighbourhood base iff the lollowing conditions are fulfilled lor each x EX:
(FNB1) ,8", is a prefilter base;
(FNB2) p.(x) = 1 lor all p. E ,8",;

(FNB3) lor each p. E ,8", and each c E 10 there exists {lIz }zEX such that
II", E ,8z lor all z E X and
sup II",(Z) /\ IIAy) :s; p.(y) + c lor all y E X.

zEX
,8", is called a fuzzy neighbourhood base in x and elements 01,8", are called
basic fuzzy neighbourhoods of x.
Definition 4.2.2 II N = {N"'}"'EX is a fuzzy neighbourhood system then we

say that,8 = {,8"'}"'EX is a base for N iff lor each x E X, ,8", is a prefilter base
and ,8", =N",.
Proposition 4.2.3 1. II {,8"'}"'EX is a luzzy neighbourhood base, then

{ ,8",} is a fuzzy neighbourhood system.
"'EX
2. II {,8"'}"'EX is a base lor the fuzzy neighbourhood system {N"'}"'EX then
{,8"'}"'EX is a fuzzy neighbourhood base.
Theorem 4.2.4 II N = {N"'}"'EX is a fuzzy neighbourhood system on X then
the mapping
IX --t IX
p. t---+ Ji: X --t I
x t---+ Ji(x) = vEN.
inf sup p. /\ II
is a fuzzy closure operator.

574 w. Kotze
Proposition 4.2.5 If f3 = {f3X},:EX is a base for the fuzzy neighbourhood sys-

tem N = {NxhEX then for each J.L E IX and each x E X we have
71(x) = IIE{3.
inf.. J.L i\ = inf J.L i\ = inf
IJ
liE ({3.)
IJ
IIE{3.
J.L i\ IJ
If N = {Nx}XEX is a fuzzy neighbourhood system then the above fuzzy

closure operator generates a I-topologyH and is denoted by TN.
The I-topological space which is generated by some fuzzy neighbourhood
system, will be called a fuzzy neighbourhood space.
4.3 Fuzzy uniform topology

As in the case of usual uniformities, any Lowen fuzzy uniform space generates
a I-topological space. In particular we'll see that this I-topological space is a
fuzzy neighbourhood space.
We first recall some definitions which will be needed in the following.
For C1 E lXxx, J.L E IX and x E X, we define C1(X) E IX by
C1(X)(y) d~f C1(y,X)
and C1(J.L) E IX by
C1(J.L)(X) ~f sup J.L i\ C1(X) = sup J.L(y) i\ C1(y, x).

yEX
If A <; X and U <; X then
lu(IA)(x) = I ~ sup IA(y) i\ lu(Y,x) = I
yEX
~ 3y E A : (y, x) E U
~xEU[AJ
~ IU[A](x) = 1.
Therefore lu(IA) = lurA]·
Thus the definition of C1(J.L) is a natural generalisation of the standard notion.
Let C1 E IXxX and f3 E h. Then
C1{3 ~f {(x, y) : C1(X, y) > f3}.

In the following lemma we collect some basic facts concerning these opera-
tions.
Lemma 4.3.1 Let C1,'Ij; E lXXX, 1J,J.L E IX, eEl, f3 E h, x E X and n E N.
Then
tConcerning the change of the original terminology proposed by C.L. Chang the reader is
referred to the introduction of Chapter 3.
tSee also Theorem 3.8 in Chapter 5 in this Volume
Uniform spaces 575
(1) v :5 u(v);
(2) (u+c)(v):5 u(v) +c;

(3) u(p. V v) = u(p.) V u(v);
(4) u(t/J(v)) = (uot/J)(v);

(5) sup u(v) 1\ P. = sup P. 1\ us(p.);
(6) (u13 )s = (u s)13;
(7) (u(v))13 = u13 (v13 );

(8) u(x)13 = u~(x);
(9) (u 13 t = (u n )13.
Theorem 4.3.2 Let (X,U) be a fuzzy uniform space. Then the mapping - :
IX -t IX defined by
J1 = inf u(p.)
trEU
is a fuzzy closure operator.
Proposition 4.3.3 If 13 is a base for the fuzzy uniformity U then for all p. E I ~
we have
J1 = int u(p.) = inf u(p.) = inf u(p.)
trEB trE(B) trEB
The above fuzzy closure operator determines an I-topology on X, ru, asso-

ciated with U which is called the fuzzy uniform topology.
Now, we'll see that any fuzzy uniform topological space is a fuzzy neighbour-
hood space.
Theorem 4.3.4 Let (X,U) be a fuzzy uniform space. If we define for each
XEX,
U., ~f {u(x) : u E U} ~ IX,
then {U.,}.,EX is a fuzzy neighbourhood system.
Thus {U"}"EX is a fuzzy neighbourhood system and therefore we can define

the generated fuzzy closure operator.
It is a routine to check that these two fuzzy closure operators are the same
because
J1(X) = trEU
inf u(p.)(x) = inf sup
trEU
p. 1\ u(x) = vEU.
inf sup p. 1\ v
Consequently, any fuzzy uniform topological space is a fuzzy neighbourhood

space.
576 W. Kotze

We can extend the notion of uniform continuity in uniform spaces to the fuzzy
setting in a natural way as follows:
Definition 4.4.1 Let (X, U) and (Y, V) be fuzzy uniform spaces and f : X --+ Y
a mapping. f is said to be uniformly continuous iff
v 'IjJ E V, 30" E U, : (f x f)[O"J :::; 'IjJ
or
V'IjJ E V, (f X f)-l['ljJJ E U.
Proposition 4.4.2 Let (X, U) and (Y, V) be fuzzy uniform spaces and Band
C be bases for U and V respectively. If f : X --+ Y is a mapping, then f is
uniformly continuous if and only if
V'IjJ E C, VEE 10, 30" E B such that 0" - E :::; (f x f)-1['IjJ).
Corollary 4.4.3 Let (X, U) and (Y, V) be fuzzy uniform spaces and f : X --+ Y
a mapping. Then f is uniformly continuous if and only if
V'IjJ E V, VEE 10, 30" E U such that 0" - E :::; (f X f)-l['ljJJ.
Theorem 4.4.4 Let (X,U) and (Y, V) be fuzzy uniform spaces and f: (X,U)
--+ (Y, V) be a uniformly continuous function. Then f : (X, TU) --+ (Y, TV) is
continuous.
Proposition 4.4.5 If f : (X,U) --+ (Y, V) and g : (Y, V) --+ (Z, W) are two
uniformly continuous functions, then (g 0 f) : (X, U) --+ (Z, W) is uniformly
continuous.
5 L- Uniform spaces
Our intension in this section is to present an approach to L-uniformities which
covers U. H6hle's as well as J. Gutierrez Garcia's approach to L-valued unifor-
mities. This approach is based an L-filters developed in Subsection 6.2 in [7J.
For simplicity let us assume that the underlying lattice L is given by a complete
Heyting algebra. In particular, the semigroup operations * and @ coincide and
are determined by 1\ - i.e. * = @ = 1\ (cf. notation in Theorem 6.2.11 in [7]).
Referring to J. Gutierrez Garcia (cf. [4]) we start with the following
Definition 5.1 Let X be a set. A map v : LXxX r--t L is called an

L-uniformity on X iff it satisfies the following properties:
Uniform spaces 577
(GU1) v is an L-filter on X x X.
(GU2) v(f) < 1\ !(x, x) V x E X.

xEX
(GU9) v(f) < v(f-l) where !-l(x,y) = !(y,x) .
(GU4) v(f) ~ V{v(g)lgog~f}

where go g(x, y) = V{g(x, z) A g(z, y) Iz E X} .
We call (X, v) a L-uniform space.
Definition 5.2 Let (X, vt) and (Y, V2) be L-uniform spaces and cp : X I----t
Y be a mapping. Then cp is said to be L-uniformly continuous if
Obviously L-uniform spaces and L-uniformly continuous maps form a category

L-UNIF.
Definition 5.3 (Crisp systems of L-valued entourages)
A I-filter V on X x X (cf. Definition 6.2.9 in [7]) is said to be a crisp system
of L-valued entourages iff V satisfies the following conditions
(V1) d(x, x) = I VxEX, VdEV.
(V2) dE V => d- l E V .
(V9) Vdl E V 3d2 E V s.t. d2 od2 < dl .
We call (X, V) an L-uniform space in the sense of Hohle or LC-uniform space

(where C stands for crisp systems). If (X, Vt) and (Y, V 2 ) be LC-uniform
spaces, then a mapping cp : X I----t Y is said to be L C-uniformly continuous iff
(cp x cp)~(d) E VI Vd E V 2 •
Once again LC-uniform spaces and LC-uniformly continuous functions form a
category LC- UNIF.
Proposition 5.4 Every crisp system V of L-valued entourages on X deter-
mines an L-uniformity Vv by
vv(f) = V( 1\ d(x,y)-+!(x,y»).
dEY (x,y)EXxX
where -+ denotes the "implication" in the underlying Heyting algebra L.

PROOF. Referring to Remark 6.2.3 in [7] it is a matter of routine to check that
(VI) and (V3) imply (GU2) and (GU3). In order to verify (V3) => (GU4) we
proceed as follows: Because of (V3) the the following relation holds:
vv(f) < V( 1\ (dod)(x,y)-+!(x,y»)

dEY (x,y)EXxX
578 W. Kotze
Further we observe:
A (dod)(x, y) -+ f(x, y) = A d(x, z) -+ ( Ad(z, y) -+ f(x, y)).

(x,ylEXxX (x,zlEXXX yEX
Now we define a map fd : X x X t--+ L by
fd(X,Z) = Ad(z,y) -+ f(x,y)

yEX
and observe for all dEY:
fd 0 d ~ f
/\ (dod)(x,y) -+ f(x,y) < I/v(jd) 1\ I/v (d) .
(x,ylEXxX
Hence (GU4) follows.
Referring to Proposition 5.4 it is not difficult to see that LC- UNIF is isomor-
phic to a full subcategory of L- UN IF .
Theorem 5.5 Every L-uniformity 1/ on X induces an L-topology Til on X by
Jlp(h) V 1/(j) 1\ (A f(p, x) -+ h(x)) V hE LX

!ELXXX xEX
where (Jlp)PEX is the L-neighbourhood system corresponding to Til (cf. Subsec-

tion 6.1 in [7]).
PROOF. The L-neighbourhood axioms (UO)-(U3) follow immediately from
(GU1) and (GU2). In order to verify the neighbourhood axiom (U4) (cf. Sub-
section 6.1 in [7]) we proceed as follows:
Jlp(JlJh)) = V l/(g) 1\ (A g(p,z) -+ Jlz(h))

gELXXX zEX
> V (I/(g) 1\ 1/(j)) 1\ (A g(p, z) -+ ( A f(z, x) -+ h(x)) )

g,fELXXX zEX xEX
V (I/(g) 1\ I/(j)) 1\ ( A (g 0 f)(x) -+ h(x)) .

g,fELX xX xEX
Now we invoke (GU4) and obtain: Jlp(h) ~ Jlp(Jl (h)); hence (U4) is verified.
It is not difficult to show that the natural L-topology Til associated with an
L-uniformity 1/ is stratified (cf. Theorem 5.2.7 in [7]). Hence the previous
theorem gives rise to a functor from the category L- UNIF of L-uniform spaces
to the category SL-TOP of stratified L-topological spaces - a category which
can be considered as the L-valued version of R. Lowen's category fts of fuzzy
topological spaces.
Uniform spaces 579
References
[1] G. Artico and R. Moresco, Uniform properties of normal and compact fuzzy
topological spaces, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 132 (1988),514-519.
[2] N. Bourbaki, General Topology, Chapters 1-4, Springer-Verlag, N. Y.
(1980).
[3] M. A. Erceg, Metric Spaces in Fuzzy Set Theory, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 69
(1979), 205-230.
[4] J. Gutierrez Garda, I. Mardonez Perez and M. Burton, The relationship
between various filter notions on a GL-monoid, J. Math. Anal. Appl. (to
appear)
[5] U. Hohle, Probabilistic uniformization of fuzzy topologies, Fuzzy Sets and
Systems 1 (1978), 311-332.
[6] U. Hohle, Probabilistic topologies induced by L-uniformities, Manuscripta
Math. 38 (1982), 289-325.
[7] U. Hohle and A.P. Sostak, Axiomatic foundations of fixed-basis fuzzy
topology (Chapter 3 in this Volume).
58 (1977), 559-571.
[9] B. Hutton, Products of fuzzy topolological spaces, Topology Appl. 11

(1980), 59- 67.
[10] B. Hutton, Uniformities on fuzzy topological spaces (II), Fuzzy Math 3
(1983), 27-34.
[12] J. R. Isbell, Uniform Spaces, Math. Surveys no. 12, AMS, Providence, R.
I. (1964).
[13] A. K. Katsaras, On fuzzy uniform spaces, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 101 (1984),
97-113.
[14] R. Lowen, Fuzzy uniform spaces, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 82 (1981),370-385.
[15] R. Lowen, Fuzzy neighbourhood spaces, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 7 (1982),
165-189.
[16] S. E. Rodabaugh, Separation axioms and the fuzzy real lines, Fuzzy Sets
and Systems 11 (1983), 163-183.
580 w. Kotze
[18] S. E. Rodabaugh, Dynamic topologies and their applications to crisp

topologies, fuzzifications of crisp topologies, and fuzzy topologies on the
crisp real line, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 131 (1988), 25-66.
[19) J. W. Thkey, Convergence and uniformity in topology, Ann. Math. Studies
no. 1, Princeton University Press (1940).
[20] A. Weil, Sur les espaces a structure uniforme et sur la topologie generale,
Act. Sci. et Ind. 551, Hermann, Paris (1937).
[21) S. Willard, General Topology Addison-Wesley, Reading, (1970).
CHAPTER 9
Extensions Of Uniform Space Notions
M. H. BURTON AND J. GUTIERREZ GARcIA*
Introd uction
A large part of mathematics is based on the notion of a set and on binary logic.
Statements are either true or false and an element either belongs to a set or
not. In order to accommodate the idea of a sliding transition between the two
states: true and false, and to generalise the concept of a subset of a given set,
Zadeh introduced the notion of a fuzzy subset in a now-famous paper: [52].
For the record, let us recall that if X is a set and A is a subset of X then the
characteristic function, denoted lA, is defined by
if x E A
if x f/. A.
Thus lA E 2x. In [52], an element f..t E I x, where I denotes the closed unit
interval, was called a fuzzy set in X, with f..t(x) being interpreted as the degree to
which x belongs to the fuzzy set f..t. Since the elements f..t E I x are generalisations
of subsets of X, it is more accurate to refer to them as fuzzy subsets of X and
we shall adopt this terminology here.
It was soon shown that analogues of the basic notions of set theory, such as:
intersection, union and complement, could be defined in such a way that the
resulting theory of fuzzy subsets resembled the structure of ordinary powersets.
Furthermore, in each theorem, if the fuzzy subsets are just characteristic func-
tions, in which case we could say that the fuzzy subset is set-generated, then
the theorem reduces to a standard theorem. In this sense the theory of sets was
extended to the theory of fuzzy sets.
-This work was completed during a visit of J. Gutierrez Garda to Rhodes University in
August 1997. The authors would like thank Prof. W. Kotze for making the arrangements
for the visit and the Foundation for Research Development of South Africa for their generous
support.

582 M.H. Burton and J. Gutierrez Garcia
Since then, mathematicians have been attempting to extend useful math-

ematical theories to the fuzzy setting, replacing subsets by fuzzy subsets and
standard notions by analogous fuzzy notions. The theories of: fuzzy topology,
uniformities, metrics, norms, to name a few, are all under construction. Of
course there are many ways to extend a standard notion and the value of the
resulting theory will be judged by the strength of its links with other theories.
However, one basic requirement of an extension is:
• In the extended theory, if the fuzzy objects referred to by a theorem are

generated by standard objects then the theorem reduces to a standard
theorem.
Our purpose here is to outline how some aspects of the theory of uniform spaces
are being extended to the fuzzy setting. Since a uniform space gives rise to
a topological space and topological spaces provide the appropriate setting for
the abstract study of continuity and convergence, any extension of the theory of
uniform spaces must be linked to a suitable extension of the theory of topological
spaces.
In [34J, R. Lowen extended the theory of convergence in topological spaces to
the realm of stratified I-topological spaces. This was accomplished with the aid
of filters on I x which he called prefilters on X. In [35], the basic theory of fuzzy
neighbourhood spaces is developed. This was a successful attempt to extend
the notion of a topology, defined in terms of neighbourhoods, where families of
filters on IX are the analogues of neighbourhood systems. A similar concept
appeared under the name probabilistic topology in [22, 24J and a comparison of
both structures can be found in [26J.
Fuzzy uniformities have two roots tracing back to R. Lowen [32, 36J and
to B. Hutton [28J. Lowen defined I-fuzzy uniformities as a fuzzification of the
entourage approach to uniformities, while Hutton followed a variation of the cov-
ering approach to uniformities and based his concept of L-fuzzy uniformities on
a completely distributive lattice L provided with an order reversing involution.
A third fuzzification was introduced by U. Hoble in [23, 24J.
We intend to show that the theory of uniform spaces extends to the wider
context of I-fuzzy uniform spaces and we base our investigations on fuzzy neigh-
bourhood spaces and on Lowen's convergence theory. It must be emphasised
that we are therefore dealing with the special case in which the underlying lat-
tice is the real unit interval. In particular, our purpose is to extend the basic
uniform space notions of Cauchy filter, boundedness, precompactness and com-
pleteness to the I-fuzzy uniform space setting. Among other things we prove
the important theorem that a I-fuzzy subset J.l is compact if and only if J.l is
pre compact and complete.
Extensions of uniform space notions 583
1 Preliminaries
We present the basic theorems of fuzzy set theory.
If S ~ I x we define the fuzzy analogues of intersection and union:
(AJL)(x) = /JES
def •f ()
In JL x ,
/JES
def
= sup JL ( x ) .
(VJL)(x)
/JES /JES
We also write inf JL for A JL and sup JL for V JL.

/JES /JES /JES /JES
For JL, v E IX, x E X we define the fuzzy analogues of containment, comple-
ment, empty set and universal set:
JL5:v {=::} '<Ix E X, JL(x) 5: v(x),

def ( )
JL' (x) =l-JLx,
O(x) d~fO
- ,
l(x) ~f 1.
It can be shown that the basic theorems of set theory, such as the associative,
distributive and de Morgan laws, also apply to fuzzy subsets. A notable omission
is the notion of the powerset and the reader is referred to [25] for a discussion
of this and other topics relating to the foundations of fuzzy sets.
Let X and Y be sets, let f : X ~ Y be a function, JL E IX,v ElY. We
define the image, denoted J[JL], of JL and the preimage, denoted f- 1[v], of v by
def
J[JL](Y) sup JL(x)
zE/- 1 [{y}]
r1[v] = vof·
def
That the behaviour of these newly-defined notions mimics the standard

notions is confirmed by the following theorem.
Theorem 1.1 Let X,Y,Z be sets, f: X ~ Y, g: Y ~ Z, JL E IX, v ElY,

A E IZ,:F ~ IX, 9 ~ I Y . Then
1. (g 0 f)[JL] = g[J[JL]] , (g 0 f)-I [A] = f-1[g-1[All;
2. f- 1 [suPIIE9 v] = SUPIlEg f- 1[v], f- 1 [infllEg v] = infllEg f-1[v) ;
9. f [SUP/JEF JL] = sUP/JEF f[JL], f [inf/JEF JL) 5: inf/JEF J[JL);

4· f-1[V /) = (1-1 [v)) I , f[JL/) ~ (I[JL)) I ;
5. VI 5: V2 ==> f-1[vI) 5: f- 1[V2], JL1 5: JL2 ==> f[JL1) 5: f[JL2);

6. f[J-1[vll 5: v with equality if f is surjective;
7. 1-1 [J(jL]] ~ p. with equality il I is injective;

8. 1[/- 1 [v]/\ p.] = v /\ I[p.].
The proofs are routine and some can be found in [45].
If (Xj : j E J) is a family of sets and (p.j : j E J) is a family of fuzzy subsets
with p.j E IX; for each j E J, then we define the product of the fuzzy subsets
by
(II
p.j)((Xj:jEJ))~f /\ p.j(Xj).
jEJ jEJ
If p. E I X and a E I then we define
p.0I. ~f {x EX: p.(x) > a}, p.0I. ~f {x EX: p.(x) ~ a}
and call these the strong a-cut and the weak a-cut of p. respectively. It is often
useful to ascertain which properties of a fuzzy subset are inherited by its a-cuts
and, conversely, which properties of the members of the family, (p.OI. : a E I) (or
the family (p.OI. : a E I)), confer an analagous property on p.. A theorem of the
form
p. has property P ¢::::? 'Va E I, p.0I. has property pI

is called an a-level theorem and such theorems are enormously useful as facil-
itators of proofs of theorems in the extended theory. We record some basic
properties of a-cuts.
Theorem 1.2 Let p., v E IX, S ~ IX. Then
2. p. = sup a /\ 11'0<;
OI.E(O,I)
3. (p./\ v)OI. = p.0I. n vOl., (p. V v)OI. = p.0I. U vOl.;
4. (p. /\ v)OI. = p.0I. n VOl., (p. V v)OI. = p.0I. U VOl.;

2 I-Fuzzy uniform spaces

The necessary facts regarding filters on IX can be found in [9, 26]. Also T -filters
have been defined in the chapter "Axiomatics foundations of fixed-basis fuzzy
topology" (cf. Remark 6.2.3 in [27]) but, for convenience, we record the basics
here.
If IF ~ 2x and :F ~ I x we define
If :F is a filter base on IX we define the characteristic, c(:F), of:F by
C(:F)~f inf sup v.

vE:F
If :F and 9 are filters on I x we say that
If :F '" 9 we say that :F and 9 are compatible, in which case we can define
It is easy to check that :Fvg is the smallest filter on IX which is finer than both
:F and 9 - i.e. :F V 9 is the smallest upper bound of {:F, g}. This observation
does not imply that the set of all filters on I x is a lattice; in particular the
supremum of two different ultrafilters does not exist.
We define
c(F, g)~f { ~~:F V g), if:F '" 9
otherwise.
°
If J.I. :f. then we write (:F, J.I.) instead of the more cumbersome: :F V ({ v } ) .
If :F is a filter base on IX and c(:F) > 0, we define
~ef{
:r
eE10
l}
= sup (J.l.e - c) : (J.l.e)eEIo E :F 0
and, as in [42], we call j the saturation of :F. We say that :F is saturated

if j =:F. The saturation condition is also well known under the name "'-
condition which appears in the (:FI)-axiom of 1-filters (cf. Definition 1.5 in
[24] and Definition 2.8 in [26]). It is not difficult to see that in the particular
case L = I, * = T m , where Tm(x,y) = max{x + y -I,D},
saturated filters with characteristic I are exactly I-filters.
If! : X -t Y, :F is a filter on IX, 9 is a filter on I Y then we define
![:Fl ~f {j[v] : v E :F}, rl[g] ~f {j-l[v] : v E g}

and it is routine to check that J[.1l is a filter base and so is 1-1 [9] if I is
surjective. The reader is referred to [34, 35, 36] for the basic notation and
theory of filters on IX (where the term: "saturation" was not yet employed), as
well as to [9, 21, 15, 16] for more details.
If F is a filter on IX with c(F) > 0 and 0 < a :::; c(F) then we define
Fa d,JJ {vl3 : V E F, (3 < a}.
If 0 :::; a < c then we define
and the reader can check that these are both filters on X.
If IF is a filter on X and a > 0 we define
lFa def
= ({ a1F: F E F }) ,Jl'rnQ def
= { X
vE I : V(3 < a, v 13 E IF} .
and a quick check reveals that these are both filters on IX. Further properties
of these filters are recorded in [9, 21].
If F is a filter on IX we say that (see Definition 3.17 on page 73 in [19]):
F is prime <===? VI-', v E F, (I-' V v E F => v E F or v E F).
We quote two useful results from [34].
TheoreIn 2.1 Let:F be a filter on IX and let
P(F) ~f {9 E IX : 9 is a prime filter and F ~ 9}.
Then P(F) has minimal elements.
If IF is a filter on X we define
1P'(f) ~f {IK : IK is an ultrafilter, IF ~ IK}.
Theorem 2.2 Let F be a filter on IX and let
Pm(F) ~f {9 E P(F) : 9 is minimal }.
Then
This last theorem, which characterises the minimal prime filters finer than
a given filter, has found a number of applications.
Corollary 2.3 There is a bijection between Pm(F) and IP'(Fo). In particular,

every saturated prime filter on IX with characteristic 1 can be identified with
an ultrafilter on X and vice versa.
For a filter :F on IX we define the lower characteristic, c(:F), of:F by
c(:F) ~f inf c(Q).

gE'P~(:F)
Further properties of the lower characteristic can be found in [9].

The convergence theory established in [34, 35] paved the way for the exten-
sion of the notion of a uniform space to the fuzzy setting. The idea is to replace
subsets D ~ X x X with fuzzy subsets a E IXxx. If a,1/J E lXxx, we define
ao1/J by:
(a o1/J)(x,y) ~fsup 1/J(x,z) I\a(z,y)
zEX
and it is easy to check that this reduces to the standard definition in the set-
generated case.
Definition 2.4 In [36} R. Lowen defines a fuzzy uniform space to be a pair

(X, V) where:
(FUSl) V is a saturated filter on IXxx;

(FUS2) 'Va E V, 'Vx E X, a(x,x) = 1;
(FUS3) 'Va E V, as E V ,where as(x,y) = a(y,x) 'Vx,y E X;
(FUS4) 'Va E V, 'Ve: > 0, 31/J E V, 1/J 0 1/J ~ a + e:.
To conform with the latest terminology we call (X, V) an I-fuzzy uniform

space. The basic theory of I-fuzzy uniform spaces is developed by Lowen in
[36, 38, 39] and we give an outline here.
If (X, V) is an I-fuzzy uniform space, a E V and x E X we define
a(x) def= a ( y,x ) and

'Ox ~f {a (x) : a E V}.
Then 'Ox is a fuzzy neighbourhood prefilter (an I-fuzzy neighbourhood filter)

at x and ('Ox: x E X) is a fuzzy neighbourhood system (I-fuzzy neighbourhood
system) in the sense of [35]. It therefore follows, from the theory developed in
[35], that, for J.t E IX
p, =IrEV·vEX
inf sup J.t(y) 1\ a(y, x)
= inf sup J.t 1\ a(x)
IrEV
is the closure of J.t with respect to the I-fuzzy uniform topology, TV, generated
by 'O. In particular, TV is a stratified, transitive I-topology on X (Proposition
5.1 in [26]).
Alternatively, we can define
a(p,) ~f sup p,l\a(x) =sup p,(y) I\a(y,x).

yEX
and
a(F) ~f ({ a(l/) : 1/ E F}).
It then follows that
jl = inf a(p,)
"EV
and so we have a closure operator in terms of [36].

Thus the theory of I-fuzzy uniform spaces is intimately related to the theory
of I-fuzzy neighbourhood spaces and papers on one topic often contain useful
results and insights on the other.
If (X, V) is an I-fuzzy uniform space and F is a filter on IX then we define
the V-adherence of F, denoted adh F, and the V-limit of F, denoted lim F by
v v
adh F ~f inf iJ
v vEF
lim F ~f inf adh Q.
v QEPm(F) V
We collect together some basic facts in the following lemma.
Lemma 2.5 Let (X, V) be an I-fuzzy uniform space, F a filter on IX and

x E X. Then
1. (a%h F) (x) = c(Vx,F);
2. (lim F) (x) = inf c(Vx,Q);

V QEPm(F)
3. If F is prime then lim F =adh F;

v v
4. sup a%h F ::; c(F);
5. sup lim F::; c(F);
6. If F ~ Q then a%h Q ::;a%h F;
7. adh F = sup adh Q;

v QEPm(F) V
8. If F is a filter base on I x and a E V then
adh (F) =adh F =adh j =adh a(F).

v v v v
If ((Xj, 'OJ) : j E J) is a family of I-fuzzy uniform spaces, we define the

product I -Iuzzy unilormity , denoted V = IT 'OJ to be that I-fuzzy uniformity
jEJ
whose sub-basic elements are of the form
The papers [17, 36, 9] contain useful theorems regarding product spaces.
If (X, V) is an I-fuzzy uniform space and F is a filter on IX then we say
that
F is V-convergent {::=:} c(F) = sup lim F.
v
In view of Lemma 2.5(5), this is equivalent to
F is V-convergent {::=:} c(F) :::; sup IW F.

If J.L E IX we say that
F is V-convergent in J.L {::=:} c(F) :::; sup J.L 1\ IW F.

The following proposition is from [35] and is an example of what we might
call an a-level theorem.
Theorem 2.6 II (X, V) is an I -Iuzzy unilorm space, F is a filter on IX and

a :::; c(F) then
va
lim F > a {::=:} Fo -t x.
V -
In the sequel we will see further examples of how these a-level theorems
provide a link between fuzzy and crisp theories.
If (X, V) and (Y, £) are I-fuzzy uniform spaces then they each are endowed
with an I-fuzzy uniform topology, TV and T£ respectively, which is obtained
from the I-fuzzy neighbourhood structure or the associated closure operator as
described above. The continuity of a function I : (X, V) -t (Y, £) is defined in
the natural way. Namely:
I is continuous {::=:} '</1/ E T£, 1-1[1/] E TV.
We say that
I is unilormly continuous {::=:} '</'ljJ E £, (f x f)-1['ljJ] E V

{::=:} '</'ljJE£, 3aEV, (fxf)[a]:::;'ljJ.
If we let US denote the category of uniform spaces with uniformly continuous

maps and let FUS denote the category of I-fuzzy uniform spaces with uniformly
continuous maps, then
Wu: US -t FUS, (X,IIJ)) 1---+ (X,IIJ)l)

is a functor if we let Wu leave maps unchanged. Similarly,

tu: FUS -+ US, (X, V) 1-+ (X,Vl)
is a functor if we let tu leave maps unchanged. The functor Wu embeds the

category US into the category FU S in the sense that tu is a right adjoint for Wu
and hence wu[US] is a coreflective subcategory of FUS (see [14](Theorem 5)).
We call an I-fuzzy uniform space (X, V) uniformly generated if there exists a
uniformity lIJl on X such that (X, V) = wu[(X, lIJl)]. In other words, if V = lIJl1 .
Similarly, a filter F on I x will be called uniformly generated if there exists a
filter 1F on X such that F = 1Fl. We will call a statement about fuzzy subsets
and filters on IX an wu-extension of a uniform space notion if it reduces to a
standard notion if the fuzzy subsets and filters referred to are set-generated and
uniformly generated.
We intend to show that there are wu-extensions of various uniform space
notions to the I-fuzzy uniform space setting.
To start with, we define an I-fuzzy uniform space, (X, V), to be Hausdorff
iff inf fJ = lA, where ~ denotes the diagonal in X x X. This is easily seen to
(jED
be an wu-extension of the standard notion. In [36] this is shown that:
Theorem 2.7 An I -fuzzy uniform space (X, V) is Hausdorff iff for every prime
filter F on I x, (adh F)O is empty or a singleton.
It is interesting to note that the separation condition quoted in the previous

theorem implies T. Kubiak's Hausdorff separation axiom I-T2 (cf. [30], see also
Proposition 4.12 in [31]f ). Further, it is an easy exercise to prove the following
a-level theorem:
Theorem 2.8 An I -fuzzy uniform space (X, V) is Hausdorff iff Va E 10 ,
(X, va) is Hausdorff.
In [8] a method of constructing an I-fuzzy uniformity from a family of uni-

formities is described:
Theorem 2.9 Let (V(a) : a E (0,1)) be a family of uniformities on a set X
satisfying:
1. 0 < f3 ~ a =? V(f3) ~ V(a);
2. Va E (0,1], V(a) = U V(f3).
{3<a
Let
V ~f {fJ E I XxX : Va E (0,1), Vf3 < a, fJ{3 E V(a)}.
Then V is the unique I-fuzzy uniformity on X such that Va E (0,1]' va = V(a).
This theorem was used many times in the development of the theory to
follow.
t Other variations of the Hausdorff separation axiom for L-topoiogicai spaces can be found
in Subsection 6.3 in [27].
3 Cauchy filters
The notion of completeness plays a central role in the theory of uniform spaces
(see [48]) and this, in turn is described in terms of Cauchy filters or nets. The
notions of completeness, precompactness and compactness are linked by the
celebrated theorem
compactness = completeness + precompactness
and in [9, 10, 11] these notions are extended to the context of I-fuzzy uni-
form spaces in such a way that the above theorem still holds. We outline the
development of this theory in the subsequent sections.
IT (X, IIJ)) is a uniform space, a filter IF on X is called IIJ)-Cauchy if it contains
elements which are arbitrarily IIJ)..small. More precisely:
Definition 3.1 IF is IIJ)-Cauchy ¢::=:} VU E IIJ), 3F E IF, F x F ~ U.
In [9] the generalisation of this notion is based on the following theorem.
Theorem 3.2 Let (X, IIJ)) be a uniform space and let IF be a filter on X. Then
IF is IIJ)-Cauchy ¢::=:} VU E IIJ), n n U(K) =f. 0.

lKEP(F) KEK
The proof of this theorem and all other results in this section can be found
in [9]. For an ultrafilter the condition simplifies.
Corollary 3.3 If (X, IIJ)) is a uniform space and IF is an ultrafilter on X then
IF is IIJ)-Cauchy ¢::=:} VU E IIJ), n U(F) =f. 0.

FEr
Definition 3.4 If (X, V) is an I -fuzzy uniform space and F is a filter on IX

we say that
F is V-Cauchy ¢::=:} c(F) $; inf sup inf inf u(v).

uE'V gE'Pm(F) IIEg
We note that if F is prime then Pm(F) = {F} and c(F) = c(F). Therefore
F is V-Cauchy ¢::=:} c(F) $; inf sup inf u(v).

uE'V liEF
The following technical lemma simplifies some of the calculations.
Lemma 3.5 Let (X, V) be an I-fuzzy uniform space and let F be a filter on
IX. Then
1. inf sup inf u(v)

uE'V liEF
=uE'V
inf sup inf
liEF
(17 0 u)(v);
2. inf sup
uE'V
inf inf u(v)
gE'Pm(F) liEF
=uE'V
inf sup inf inf (17 0 u)(v);
gE'Pm(F) IIEg
3. inf sup inf O'(v)

uEV vE:F
=uEV
inf sup adh O'(:F);
V
4. inf sup
uEV
inf inf O'(v)
gE'Pm(:F) vEg
=uEV
inf sup inf
gE'Pm(:F) V
adh 0'(9)
In view of the last lemma, if (X, V) is an I-fuzzy uniform space and :F is a

filter on I x, then
:F is V-Cauchy {:::} c(:F) :::; inf sup inf adh 0'(9).

uEV gE'Pm(.:F) V
If :F is prime then
:F is V-Cauchy {:::} c(:F) :::; inf sup adh O'(:F).

uEV v
We have an a-level theorem for Cauchy filters.
Theorem 3.6 Let (X, V) be an I -fuzzy uniform space and let :F be a filter on
IX with c(:F) = c > 0 and c(:F) = c. Then
:F is V-Cauchy {:::}:Fo is Vl!-Cauchy
{:::} "Ia < c, :Fo is VOt-Cauchy.
Furthermore, if:F is prime then

:F is V-Cauchy {:::}:Fo is VC-Cauchy
{:::} "Ia < c, :Fo is VOt-Cauchy.
In view of the hypothesis of the previous theorem, it is important to note

that the condition: 0 < c(:F) is non-trivial. For example, in the case of an
atomless complete Boolean algebra B, every filter :F on BX fulfils the condition
c(:F) = O.
Corollary 3.7 Let (X, lIJ)) be a uniform space and let IF be a filter on X. Then
IF is lIJ)-Cauchy {:::} F- is W-Cauchy.
The last result confirms that we have a w,,-extension of the standard notion.
Corollary 3.8 Let (X, V) be an I-fuzzy uniform space, IF a filter on X and

a> O. Then
IF is VOt-Cauchy {:::} lFOt is V-Cauchy.
Definition 3.9 If (X, V) is an I -fuzzy uniform space and:F is a filter on IX

then we say that
:F is strong V-Cauchy {:::} "10' E V, "Ie> 0, 3v E:F, v x v :::; 0' + e.
This is the most "natural"generalisation of the notion of a Cauchy filter.
However, it is not the same as the notion that we have just defined. The
terminology is justified by the following theorem.
Theorem 3.10 If (X, V) is an I-fuzzy uniform space and:F is a filter on IX

then
:F is strong V-Cauchy :::}:F is V-Cauchy.
Moreover, if:F is prime then
:F is strong V-Cauchy <=> :F is V-Cauchy.

So the two notions coincide for prime filters. Another example of this coin-
cidence is provided by the following theorem.
Theorem 3.11 Let (X, V) be an I-fuzzy uniform space, IF a filter on X anq

Q > o. Then
1. IF is VOl-Cauchy <=> IFOI is strong V-Cauchy.

2. IFOI is V-Cauchy <=> IFOI is strong V-Cauchy.
Strong Cauchy filters are stable under refinements:
Lemma 3.12 If:F is a strong Cauchy filter and :F ~ 9 then 9 is also strong
Cauchy.
The notion of a strong Cauchy filter on IX is also a wu-extension of the

notion of a Cauchy filter on X:
Theorem 3.13 Let (X, JI}) be a uniform space and IF a filter on X. Then
IF is JI]-Cauchy <=> IFl is strong JI]l-Cauchy.
We establish a necessary condition for a filter to be strong Cauchy.
Theorem 3.14 Let (X, V) be an I -fuzzy uniform space, :F a filter on IX,

c(:F) = c and c(:F) = c> o. Then
1. :F is strong V-Cauchy :::}:Fc is VC-Cauchy;
2. :F is strong V-Cauchy :::}:Fe is VC-Cauchy.
Theorem 3.14 can be used to prove the following result.
Lemma 3.15 There exists an I-fuzzy uniform space (X, V) and a filter:F on
IX which is
1. V-Cauchy but not strong V-Cauchy;
2. V-Cauchy and there is a filter 9 :2 :F, which is not V-Cauchy.

Lemma 3.15 shows that the two notions are not the same. However, in the
sequel we shall see that completeness and precompactness can be described in
terms of prime filters and therefore, since these two different notions coincide
for prime filters, they both generate the same theory.
We show, in the following theorems, that the basic theory of Cauchy filters
on X carries over to this setting. Convergent filters are Cauchy and the same
is true here.
Theorem 3.16 Let (X, V) be an I -fuzzy uniform space, F a filter on IX and

I-' E IX. Then
F is V-convergent in I-' =? F is V-Cauchy.
The following theorems are fuzzy analogues of standard theory.
Theorem 3.17 Let V and E be I-fuzzy uniformities on a set X with V ~ E.

Let F be filter on I x. Then
F is E -Cauchy =? F is V-Cauchy.
Theorem 3.18 Let (X, V) be an I-fuzzy uniform space, F and 9 prime filters
on IX with F ~ g. Then
F is V-Cauchy =? 9 is V-Cauchy.
Theorem 3.19 Let (X, V) and (Y,E) be I-fuzzy uniform spaces, f : X -+ Y

a uniformly continuous function and F a prime V-Cauchy filter on IX. Then
f[F] is a prime E -Cauchy filter base on I Y .
Theorem 3.20 Let ((Xj , Vj) : j E J) be a family of I-fuzzy uniform spaces.

Let X ~f IT Xj, V ~ IT Vj and let F be a prime filter on IX. Then
jEJ jEJ
F is V-Cauchy ¢:::::} 'Vj E J, pj[F] is VrCauchy.
We therefore have an extension of the notion of a Cauchy filter which gen-

erates a theory which is analogous to standard theory. With this in place, we
can assemble the theory of precompact, complete and bounded fuzzy subsets.
4 Precompactness
We follow [17] and define compactness for fuzzy subsets as follows.
Definition 4.1 If (X, V) is an I -fuzzy uniform space and I-' E IX we say:
I-' is V-compact ¢:::::} for each filter F on IX, c(F, 1-') ~ sup (I-' 1\ adh F).
Equivalently
f..L is V-compact {:::::} { for each filter F on IX with f..L E F,

c(F) ~ sup (f..L /\ adh F) .
The next result, which is from [17], characterises compactness in terms of

prime filters.
Theorem 4.2 Let (X, V) be an I-fuzzy uniform space and let f..L E IX. Then
. ""' t { for each prime filter F on X,

f..L tSv-compac {:::::} c(F, f..L) ~ sup (f..L /\ adh F) .
Corollary 4.3 Let (X, V) be an I-fuzzy uniform space and let f..L E IX. Then
. ""' t { for each prime filter F with f..L E F,

f..L tSv-compac {:::::} c(F) ~ sup (f..L /\ adhF).
Definition 4.4 If (X,][J)) is a uniform space and A ~ X we let FP/(X) denote

the collection of finite subsets of X and we say that
A is ][J)-precompact {:::::} 'VU E][J), 3F E FP/(X), A ~ U(F) ~f U U(x).

xEF
Equivalently:
Theorem 4.5 A is ][J)-precompact iff every ultrafilter IF with A E IF is ][J)-Cauchy.
We use Theorem 4.5 as the basis for the definition of a precompact fuzzy
subset.
Definition 4.6 If (X, V) is an I-fuzzy uniform space and f..L E IX we say that
f..L is V-precompact iff every prime filter F on IX with f..L E F is V-Cauchy.
We first check that the definition forms a wu-extension of the crisp notion.
Theorem 4.7 Let (X,][J)) be a uniform space with A ~ X. Then
A is ][J)-precompact {:::::} 1A is ][J)l-precompact.
The proof of this theorem, and all results in this section, can be found in
[11].
The next theorem characterises precompactness in terms of prime filters and
furthermore, in terms of certain types of prime filters.
Theorem 4.8 Let (X, V) be an I -fuzzy uniform space with f..L E IX. Then the
following are equivalent.
1. f..L is V-precompact;
2. for every prime filter :F on IX, c(:F, 1') ~ inf sup adh u(:F);
trEV
3. for every prime filter :F on IX, c(:F, 1') ~ inf sup inf u(v);
trEV liEF
4. for every prime filter:F on IX with I' E :F, c(:F) ~ inf sup inf u(v);
trEV liEF
5. for every prime filter:F on IX with c(:F) = 1, c(:F, 1') ~ trEV

inf sup adh u(:F);
6. for every prime, 1-filter:F on IX, c(:F,I') ~ inf sup adhu(:F);

trEV
7. every prime, saturated filter:F with I' E :F is V-Cauchy.
Next we find an o:-level theorem for precompactness.
Theorem 4.9 Let (X, V) be an I-fuzzy uniform space and let I' E IX. Then
1. I' is V-precompact <==} "10: E 10 , 1'0 is VO-precompact;
2. I' is V-precompact <==} "10: E 10 , 1'0 is VO-precompact;
The next theorem characterises precompactness of fuzzy subsets in a way

which is reminiscent of Definition 4.4.
Theorem 4.10 Let (X, V) be an I-fuzzy uniform space with I' E IX. Then
I' is V-precompact <==} Vu E V, "Ie> 0, 3F E fp/(X), I' ~sup u(y) + e.

yEF
The basic theory of precompact sets lifts to the fuzzy setting, as evidenced
by the following results. Each of these is the fuzzy analogue of a result from the
theory of precompact sets.
Theorem 4.11 Let (X, V) be an I-fuzzy uniform space, n E N, [n] ~f

{1,2, ... ,n} andl',V,ViEIx. Then
1. v ~ I' and I' is V-precompact => v is V-precompact;
2. Vi E [n], Vi is V-precompact =>sup Vi is V-precompact;

iE[n]
3. I' is V-compact => I' is V-precompact.
Theorem 4.12 Let (X, V) be an I -fuzzy uniform space with I' E IX. Then
I' is V-precompact => p. is V-precompact.

Theorem 4.13 Let (X, V) and (Y, £) be I -fuzzy uniform spaces, I' E IX and
let f : X -+ Y be uniformly continuous. Then
I' is V-precompact => f[l'] is £ -precompact.

Theorem 4.14 Let ((Xj, Vj) : j E J) be a family of I -fuzzy uniform spaces

with p.j E IX; for each j E J. Let X ~f IT Xj and V ~f IT V j . Then
jEJ jEJ
1. Vj E J, p.j is Vrprecompact :::} IT p.j is V-precompact;

jEJ
2. l' E IX is V-precompact:::} Vj E J, Pj[p.] is Vrprecompact.
5 Boundedness
We recall the definition of boundedness of subsets of a uniform space.
Definition 5.1 If (X, ll}) is a uniform space, U E ll}, K E Pf(X) and B ~ X,

we define
and we say that
B is I!).bounded {:::::} VU E ll}, 3K E Pf(X), 3n E N, B ~ Un(K).
It follows immediately that a precompact set is bounded. We show that we

can obtain a characterisation of boundedness in terms of filters.
Definition 5.2 If IF is an ultmfilter on a set X we say that
IF is weak I!).Cauchy {:::::} VU E ll}, 3n E N, 3F E IF, F x F ~ un.

We show that weak Cauchy filters are characterised by a condition which is
a weakening of the condition in Theorem 3.2 which characterises Cauchy filters.
Theorem 5.3 Let (X, ll}) be a uniform space and IF an ultmfilter on X. Then
IF is weak ll}-Cauchy {:::::} VU E ll}, 3n E N, n Un(F) =/: 0.

FEIF
The proof of this theorem, and all other results in this section, can be found
in [12]. We show next that bounded sets, like precompact sets (Theorem 4.5),
can be characterised in terms of ultrafilters.
Theorem 5.4 Let (X, ll}) be a uniform space with B ~ X. Then
B is ll}-bounded {:::::} every ultmfilter IF with B E IF is weak ll}-Cauchy.
We can use Theorem 5.4 to validate elementary properties of bounded sets.
Theorem 5.5 Let (X,ll}) be a uniform space, A,B,Bi ~ X,n E N. Then

1. A ~ B, B is ll}-bounded :::} A is ll}-bounded;
2. 'Vi E [n], Bi is IDl-bounded ~ U Bi is IDl-bounded;

iE[n]
9. B is IDl-precompact ~ B is IDl-bounded;
4. B is IDl-bounded ~ fJ is IDl-bounded.
We now extend these notions to the fuzzy setting.
Definition 5.6 If (X, V) is an I-fuzzy uniform space and F is a prime filter

on I X we say that
F is weak V-Cauchy <==> c(F) ~ inf sup sup inf un(v).

uE"D nEN liEF
It follows immediately that a V-Cauchy prime filter on IX is weak V-Cauchy.

We first establish an a-level theorem for weak V-Cauchy prime filters on IX.
Theorem 5.7 Let (X, V) be an I -fuzzy uniform space and let F be a prime
filter on IX with c(F) = c. Then
F is weak V-Cauchy <==> Fo is weak VC-Cauchy.
The following characterisation is the analogue of Definition 5.2.
Theorem 5.8 Let (X, V) be an I-fuzzy uniform space and let F be a prime
filter on I x. Then
F is weak V-Cauchy <==> 'Vu E V, 3c > 0, 3v E N, v x v ~ un + c.
We check that the definition is a wu-extension of the crisp notion.
Theorem 5.9 Let (X, IDl) be a uniform space and let ]F' be an ultrafilter on X.
Then
]F' is weak IDl-Cauchy <==>]F'l is weak HJ>l-Cauchy.
We note some elementary properties of weak-Cauchy filters.
Theorem 5.10 Let (X, V) and (Y,t:) be I-fuzzy uniform spaces. Further let
f : (X, V) -+ (Y, t:) be uniformly continuous and let F be a prime weak V-
Cauchy filter on IX. Then (/[.1']) is a prime weak t: -Cauchy filter on IY.
Theorem 5~11 Let ((Xj, Vj) : j E J) be a family of I-fuzzy uniform spaces,

X ~f IT Xj , V ~f IT Vj and F a prime filter on IX. Then
jEJ jEJ
F is weak V-Cauchy <==> 'Vj E J, Pj[.1'] is weak VrCauchy.
We now extend the notion of boundedness to the fuzzy setting.

Definition 5.12 If (X, V) is an I-fuzzy uniform space we define I-' E IX to be
V-bounded ~ 'Ve > 0, 'Va E V, 3F E P/(X), 3n E N, I-' :::;Sup an(x) + e.

zEF
This definition is a wu-extension of the notion of bounded sets:
Theorem 5.13 Let (X,][J)) be a uniform space and let B ~ X. Then
B is ][J)-bounded ~ IB is W-bounded.
Next we establish the basic theory of bounded fuzzy subsets.
Theorem 5.14 Let (X, V) be an I-fuzzy uniform space, mEN and let
1-', v, Vi E IX. Then
1. V ~ I-' and I-' is V-bounded => v is V-bounded;

2. 'Vi E [m], Vi is V-bounded => sup Vi is V-bounded;
iE[mJ
3. I-' is V-precompact => I-' is V-bounded.
Theorem 5.15 Let (X, V) be an I-fuzzy uniform space and let I-' E IX. Then
I-' is V-bounded => jl is V-bounded.
Theorem 5.16 Let (X, V) and (Y, &) be I -fuzzy uniform spaces and let
f: (X, V) -t (Y, &) be uniformly continuous. Then
I-' is V-bounded => f[l-'] is &-bounded.
The next theorem is the fuzzy analogue of Theorem 5.4
Theorem 5.17 Let (X, V) be an I -fuzzy uniform space and let I-' E IX. Then
I-' is V-bounded ~ every prime filter F with I-' E F is weak V-Cauchy.
We have an o:-level theorem for bounded fuzzy subsets:
Theorem 5.18 Let (X, V) be an I-fuzzy uniform space and let I-' E IX. Then
I-' is V-bounded ~ 'Vo: E 10, 1-'01. is VOl-bounded.
Boundedness of fuzzy subsets can be characterised in terms of prime filters,

as the following theorem shows.
Theorem 5.19 Let (X, V) be an I-fuzzy uniform space with I-' E IX. Then the
1. I-' is V-bounded;
2. for every prime filter F on IX the filter (F,I-') is weak V-Cauchy;
9. for every prime filter:F, c(:F, J-L) ~ inf sup sup inf un(v);
uEV nENIIE:F
4. for every prime filter:F on IX with c(:F) = 1,

c(:F,J-L) ~ inf sup sup inf un(v);
uEV nENIIE:F
5. for every prime, l-filter on IX, c(:F, J-L) ~ inf sup sup inf un(v);
uEV nENIIE:F
6. every prime, saturated filter:F on IX with J-L E :F is weak V-Cauchy.
Finally, we record the behaviour of products of bounded fuzzy subsets.
Theorem 5.20 Let ((Xj, V j ) : i E J) be a family of I-fuzzy uniform spaces

with J-Lj E IX; for each i E J. Let X ~ n Xj and let V ~f n V j . Then
jEJ jEJ
1. Vi E J, J-Lj is Vrbounded ::} n

jEJ
J-Lj is V-bounded;
2. J-L E IX is IIJJ-bounded {:::::} Vi E J, Pj[J-L) is Vrbounded.
6 Completeness.
We recall the definition of completeness.
Definition 6.1 If (X, IIJJ) is a uniform space and A ~ X then A is IIJJ..complete

iff every IIJJ-Cauchy filter IF on X is convergent in A.
With this in mind, we define completeness of fuzzy subsets of an I-fuzzy

uniform space as follows.
Definition 6.2 If (X, V) is an I-fuzzy uniform space and J-L E IX then we

define J-L to be V-complete iff every V-Cauchy filter :F on IX is convergent in
J-L.
We first note that completeness can be characterised in terms of prime filters.
Theorem 6.3 Let (X, V) be an I -fuzzy uniform space with J-L E IX. Then J-L is
V-complete iff every prime V-Cauchy filter 9 on IX with J-L Egis convergent
in J-L.
The proof of this theorem, and all others in this section, can be found in
[10). We next establish an a-level theorem.
Theorem 6.4 Let (X, V) be an I -fuzzy uniform space with J-L E IX. Let
J ~f (0, sup J-L). Then the following are equivalent.
1. I' is V complete;
2. 'Va E J, 'V{3 < a, W, IF is a va - Cauchy filter on X, p,a ElF=>

v f3
3x E p,{3, IF -t x;
9. 'Va E J, 'V{3 < a, W, IF is a va - Cauchy filter on X, p,a ElF=>

v f3
3x E p,{3, IF -t x;
4. 'Va E J, 'V{3 < a, W, IF is a va - Cauchy ultrafilter on X, p,a ElF=>

v f3
3x E p,{3, IF -t x;
5. 'Va E J, 'V{3 < a, W, IF is a va - Cauchy ultrafilter on X, p,a ElF=>

v f3
3x E p,{3, IF -t x.
In the presence of a Hausdorff space, the a-level theorem simplifies consid-

erably.
Theorem 6.5 If (X, V) is a Hausdorff I-fuzzy uniform space and I' E IX then
I' is V-complete {:=} 'Va E (0, sup 1'], p,a is. Va-complete.
The next theorem shows that the Hausdorff condition in Theorem 6.5 is
necessary.
Theorem 6.6 There is an I-fuzzy uniform space (X, V) and a V-complete

I' E IX such that for some a E (0, sup p,j, p,a is not Va-complete.
We note some further characterisations of completeness:
Theorem 6.7 Let (X, V) be an I-fuzzy uniform space with I' E IX. Then the
1. I' is V-complete;
2. for every prime filter :F on IX, (:F,p,) is V-Cauchy =>

(:F,p,) is convergent in 1';
9. for every prime filter:F on IX, (:F,p,) is V-Cauchy =>

c(:F,p,) ~ sup p,l\adh:F;
4. every prime V-Cauchy saturated filter:F on IX with I' E IX

is V-convergent in 1'.
We can characterise completeness in terms of strong-Cauchy filters:

Theorem 6.8 Let(X, V) be an I -fuzzy uniform space and /-L E IX. Then the
1. /-L is V-complete;
2. for every strong V-Cauchy filter F on IX with /-L E F,

c(F) :::; sup (/-LA lim F);
3. for every strong V-Cauchy filter F on IX with /-L E F,

c(F) :::; sup (/-LA adhF).
We next check that the definition is a wu-extension of the crisp notion.
Theorem 6.9 Let (X,~) be a uniform space with A ~ X. Then
A is ~-complete -¢=} lA is ~1 -complete.
We now develop the theory of complete fuzzy subsets of an I-fuzzy uniform

space. The celebrated theorem mentioned at the beginning has a fuzzy analogue,
as recorded in the next theorem.
Theorem 6.10 Let (X, V) be an I -fuzzy uniform space with /-L E IX. Then
/-L is V-compact -¢=} /-L is V-complete and V-precompact.
Closed subsets of complete sets are complete. We have the same situation
here.
Theorem 6.11 Let (X,~) be an I-fuzzy uniform space with /-L,/I E IX. Then
/-L is V-complete and /I is V-closed => /-LA /I is V-complete.

A finite union of complete sets is complete. This result also carries over.
Theorem 6.12 Let (X, V) be an I -fuzzy uniform space, K a finite set and
/-Li E IX for each i E K. Then
Vi E K, /-Li is V-complete => sup /-Li is V-complete.

iEK
Complete subsets of Hausdorff spaces are closed. This theorem, too, has its
counterpart.
Theorem 6.13 If (X, V) is a Hausdorff I-fuzzy uniform space and /-L E IX is

V-complete then /-L is V-closed.
Corollary 6.14 Let (X, V) be a Hausdorff I-fuzzy uniform space with

/-L, /I E I x. Then
1. if /-L, /I are V-complete then /-LA /I is V-complete;

2. if P, is V-complete and v :S p, then
v is V-complete {:::=:> v is V-closed.
Complete subsets of uniform spaces are stable with respect to the formation
of closures. A similar situation pertains to I-fuzzy uniform spaces.
Theorem 6.15 Let (X, V) be an I-fuzzy uniform space with p, E IX. Then
P, is V-complete =} p. is V-complete.
Finally, a product of complete sets is complete. This result also extends to
the fuzzy setting.
Theorem 6.16 Let ((Xj, V(j)) : j E J) be a family of I-fuzzy uniform spaces

andletJ.L(j)EI X foreachjEJ. LetX~n Xj andletV~fn V(j). Then
jEJ jEJ
'Vj E J, p,(j) is V(j)-complete =} II p,(j) is V-complete.

jEJ
We have seen that the notions of: Hausdorff, Cauchy, precompactness,

boundedness and completeness can be extended from the setting of uniform
spaces to that of I-fuzzy uniform spaces in such a way that the basic theorems
have fuzzy analogues. The theory of I-fuzzy uniform spaces is still develop-
ing and, for further enhancements to the theory, the reader is referred to the
work of: T. M. G. Ahsanullah, G. Artico, M. H. Burton, O. A. EI-Tantaway,
J. Gutierrez Garcia, K. A. Hashem, U. H6hle, A. Kandil, A. S. Mashour, R.
Moresco, M. A. de Prada Vicente, R. Lowen, E. Soetens, A. S6stak, P. Wuyts,
which can be found in [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 20, 21, 24, 29,
37, 41, 42, 44, 49, 50, 5~.
Recently, in [14], M. H. Burton, M. A. De Prada Vicente and J. Gutierrez
Garcia defined the notion of a generalised uniform space and the category, GUS,
of generalised uniform spaces is, rather surprisingly, shown to be isomorphic to
the category, FUS, of I-fuzzy uniform spaces. The way in which the categories:
US, of uniform spaces, FU Sand GUS embed into the newly-defined category,
SUS, of super uniform spaces [20] is detailed in [21]. The process of extending
the theory of uniform spaces to the category SUS is under way.
References
[1] T. M. G. Ahsanullah, Some results on fuzzy neighborhood spaces, Pure
Math. Manuscript 4 (1985),97-106.
[2] T. M. G. Ahsanullah, On fuzzy neighborhood groups, J. Math. Anal. Appl.

130 (1988), 237-251.
[3] T. M. G. Ahsanullah, On fuzzy neighborhood modules and algebras, Fuzzy

Sets and Systems 35 (1990), 219-229.
[4] T. M. G. Ahsanullah, On the small invariant fuzzy neighborhood groups,

Bull. Cal. Math. Soc. 84(5) (1992), 457-465.
[5] T. M. G. Ahsanullah, On fuzzy uniform semigroups, Preprint.
[6] G. Artico and R. Moresco, Fuzzy proximities compatible with Lowen uni-
formities, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 21 (1987), 85-98.
[7] G. Artico and R. Moresco, Fuzzy uniformities induced by fuzzy proximities,

[8] M. H. Burton, The relationship between a fuzzy uniformity and its family
of a-level uniformities, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 54(3) (1993), 311-315.
[9] M. H. Burton, Cauchy filters and prefilters, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 54(3)
(1993),317-331.
[10] M. H. Burton, Completeness in fuzzy uniform spaces, Quaestiones Math.

16(1) (1993), 13-36.
[11] M. H. Burton, Precompactness in fuzzy uniform spaces, Quaestiones Math.

16(1) (1993),37-49.
[12] M. H. Burton, Boundedness in uniform spaces and fuzzy uniform spaces,

Fuzzy Sets and Systems 58(2) (1993), 195-207.
[13] M. H. Burton, The fuzzy uniformisation of function spaces, Quaestiones

Math. 20(3) (1997), 283-290.
[14] M. H. Burton, M. A. De Prada Vicente and J. Gutierrez Garcia, Generalised
uniform spaces, J. Fuzzy Math. 4(2) (1996),363-380.
[15] M. H. Burton, M. Muraleetharan, J. Gutierrez Garcia, Generalised filters

1, To appear in Fuzzy Sets and Systems.
[16] M. H. Burton, M. Muraleetharan, J. Gutierrez Garcia, Generalised filters

2, To appear in Fuzzy Sets and Systems.
[17] J. J. Chadwick, A generalised form of compactness in fuzzy topological

spaces, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 162(1) (1991),92-110.
[18] J. J. Chadwick, Relative compactness and compactness of general subsets of

an I-topological space, Quaestiones Mathematicae 14(4) (1991),491-507.
[19] G. Gierz, K.H. Hofmann, K. Keimel, J.D. Lawson, M. Mislove and D.S.
Scott, A Compendium of Continuous Lattices (Springer-Verlag, Berlin,
Heidelberg, New York 1980).
[20] J. Gutierrez Garcia and M. A. de Prada Vicente, Super uniform spaces,

Quaestiones Math. 20(3) (1997), 291-307.
[21] J. Gutierrez Garcia, M. A. De Prada Vicente and M. H. Burton, Embeddings

into the category of super uniform spaces, Quaestiones Math. 20(3) (1997),
311-326.

245.
[23] U. Hohle, Probabilistic uniformization of fuzzy topologies, Fuzzy Sets and

Systems 1 (1978),311-332.
[24] U. Hohle, Probabilistic topologies induced by L-fuzzy uniformitites, Ma-

nuscripta Math. 38 (1982), 289-323.
[25] U. Hohle, L. N. Stout, Foundations of fuzzy subsets, Fuzzy Sets and Systems
40 (1991), 257-296.
[26] U. Hohle, Characterization of L-topologies by L-valued neighborhoods

[27] U. Hohle and A. Sostak, Axiomatic foundations of fixed-basis fuzzy topology


58 (1977), 559-571.
[29] A. Kandil, K. A. Hashem and N. N. Morsi, A level-topologies criterion for

Lowen fuzzy uniformizability, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 62 (1994), 211-226.
[30] T. Kubiak, On L-Tychonoff spaces, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 73 (1995),

25-53.
[31] T. Kubiak, Separation axioms: Extension of mappings and embedding of

spaces (In this Volume).
[32] R. Lowen, Topologies ftoues, C.R. Acad. Sci. 278 (1974),925-928.
[33] R. Lowen, A comparison of different compactness notions in fuzzy toplogical

spaces, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 64(2) (1978),447-454.
[34] R. Lowen, Convergence in fuzzy topological spaces, General Topology and

its Applications 10 (1979), 147-160.
[35] R. Lowen, Fuzzy neighbourhood spaces, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 7 (1982),
165-189.
[36] R. Lowen, Fuzzy uniform spaces, J. Math. Anal. App1.82 (1981), 370-385.
606 M.H. Burton and J. Gutierrez Garcia.
[37] R. Lowen,On the Existence of Natural Non-topological, Fuzzy Topological

Spaces, R & E 11
( Heldermann Verlag, Berlin 1985).
[38] R. Lowen and P. Wuyts, Completeness, compactness and precompactness in
fuzzy uniform spaces: Part 1, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 90(2) (1982),563-581.
[39] R. Lowen and P. Wuyts, Completeness, compactness and precompactness in

fuzzy uniform spaces: Part 2, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 92(2) (1983),342-371.
[40] M. Macho Stadler and M. A. de Prada Vicente, Fuzzy convergence versus

convergence, Bull. Cal. Math. Soc. 85 (1993),437-444.
[41] A. S. Mashour, N. N. Morsi, O. A. EI-Tantaway, Fuzzy neighbourhood syn-

topogenous structures, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 43 (1991), 219- 234.
[42] N. N. Morsi, Nearness concepts in fuzzy neighbourhood spaces and in their

fuzzy proximity spaces, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 31 (1989),83-109.
[43] A. Sostak, Basic structures of fuzzy topology, J. Math. Sciences, 78(6)

(1995),662-701.
[44] E. Soetens and P. Wuyts, A characterisation of fuzzy uniform spaces by
coverings, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 180 (1993), 275-302.
[45] R. H. Warren, Neighbourhoods, bases and continuity in fuzzy topological

spaces, Rocky Mountain J. Math. 8(3) (1978),459-470.
[46] R. H. Warren, Fuzzy topologies characterised by neighbourhood systems,
Rocky Mountain J. Math. 9(4) (1979),761-764.
[47] R. H. Warren, Convergence in fuzzy topology, Rocky Mountain J. Math.
13(1) (1983), 31-36.
[48] S. Willard, General Topology (Addison-Wesley, Reading, Menlo Park, Lon-
don, Amsterdam, Ontario, Sydney 1970).
[49] P. Wuyts and R. Lowen, On Separation axioms in fuzzy topological spaces,
fuzzy neighbourhood spaces and fuzzy uniform spaces, J. Math. Anal. Appl.
93(1) (1983),27-41.
[50] P. Wuyts, On the determination of fuzzy topological spaces and fuzzy neigh-
bourhood spaces by their level-topologies, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 12 (1984),
71-85.
[51] P. Wuyts, On level-topologies and maximality of fuzzy topological spaces,
[52] L. A. Zadeh, Fuzzy sets, Information and Control 8 (1965),338-353.
CHAPTER 10
Fuzzy Real Lines And Dual Real Lines

As Poslat Topological, Uniform, And Metric
Ordered Semirings With Unity
s. E. RODABAUGH
Introd uction
Nontrivial examples of objects and morphisms are fundamentally important
to establishing the credibility of a new category or discipline such as lattice-
dependent or fuzzy topology; and often the justifications of the importance of
certain objects and the importance of certain morphisms are intertwined. In
[33], we established classes of variable-basis morphisms between different fuzzy
real lines and between different dual real lines, but left untouched the issue of
the canonicity of these objects. In this chapter, we attempt to demonstrate
the canonicity of these spaces stemming from the interplay between arithmetic
operations and underlying topological structures. We shall summarize the def-
initions of fuzzy addition and fuzzy multiplication on the fuzzy real lines and
indicate their joint-continuity-along with that of the addition and multiplica-
tion on the usual real line-with respect to the underlying poslat topologies, as
well as the quasi-uniform and uniform continuity (in the case of fuzzy addition
and addition) with respect to the underlying quasi-uniform, uniform, and metric
structures. These results not only help establish fuzzy topology w.r.t. objects,
but enrich our understanding of traditional arithmetic operations.
We now expand on the foregoing paragraph by touching on various historical
and philosophical considerations.
It is a truism that the usual real line ffi. and unit intervalli have been seminal
in the development of traditional axiomatic mathematics, and these spaces have
been rightly recognized as canonical or universal examples. To cite some familiar
facts justifying such status for these spaces, we have from general topology that

608 S. E. Rodabaugh
both spaces are absolute (and absolute neighborhood) retracts and extendors
for normal spaces, and IT is an absolute (and absolute neighborhood) retract for
Tihonov spaces (though not an extendor for such spaces-this means normality
is strictly stronger than Tihonov); classical algebra tells us that JR is, up to
isomorphism, the only order-complete field; and category theory indicates that
IT is a universal object in the sense that K-HAUS-TOP is the compact hull of
IT. And there is much additional confirmation from classical analysis and applied
mathematics.
l,From the earliest days of fuzzy sets it was recognized that the mathematics
of fuzzy sets needed counterparts to, or generalizations of, JR and IT. Several
approaches to generalization emerged:
(1) Generalize these spaces by considering poslat (or lr) topologies on a set
of "fuzzy numbers" [1-2,4,7,9,11-13,35];
(2) Generalize these spaces by considering traditional topologies on a set of

"fuzzy numbers" [5, 19-20];
(3) Generalize these spaces by considering poslat (or lr) topologies on the
usual real numbers [30-31].
In regard to (1), a controversy presented itself: should fuzzy numbers be

"probability density" functions on JR, with the attendant restrictions of conti-
nuity and convexity, requirements preventing the usual real numbers from being
"crisp" fuzzy numbers and tying such numbers explicitly to IT as the only allowed
codomain of these numbers; or should fuzzy numbers be generalized "probabil-
ity distributions" on JR, allowing any traditional number to be viewed as a crisp
number or "step function" and allowing any complete quasi-monoidallattice L
as the codomain of such numbers? A further related fundamental issue: with the
first viewpoint of (1), a standard poslat topology was never defined; while with
the second viewpoint of (1), a standard topology (with various enrichments) was
standard ab initio (with La deMorgan quasi-monoidallattice). When all these
issues are considered, it is not surprising that the second viewpoint-that fuzzy
numbers are "generalized probability distributions"-has completely dominated
in the mathematics and mathematical foundations of fuzzy sets and fuzzy logic.
The most common implementation of (1) is the L-fuzzy unit interval IT (L) of [9]
and the related L-fuzzy real line JR(L) [4]. We point that [19-20] gives an impor-
tant confirmation of the second point of view by showing the deep connections
between IT (L) and the well-known Helly spaces of traditional topology.
While the generalizations d la (1) are "second-order", i.e. the both the num-
bers are (essentially) fuzzy subsets and the topology comprises fuzzy subsets, the
generalizations d la (2) and (3) are "first-order". To be more precise, [5] views
fuzzy numbers along the lines of (1), but with L = IT, so that fuzzy numbers
comprise a subset of the Tihonov cube ITIR, in which case the fuzzy numbers can
be endowed with the traditional subspace topology inherited from the Tihonov
cube; so this yields the generalization d la (2). A closely related notion [19-20]
involves the Helly spaces of traditional topology-fuzzy numbers along the lines
Fuzzy real lines 609
of H(L) are viewed, modulo a quotient operation, as a traditional subspace of

a classical product space L R, which is deeply related (via the Kubiak-Lowen
functors [20]) to H(L) .
Now the generalization d la (3) uses the operators which generate the poslat
topology of JR(L) to generate a "dual" poslat topology, or co-topology, on JR
and H; such a topology is available for each deMorgan quasi-monoidallattice L.
It is shown in [30-31] that JR(L) and JR are essentially dual spaces.
The currently known extent to which JR (L) successfully generalizes JR stands
thusly: JR (L) and H(L) are absolute extendors of perfectly normal L-topological
spaces [16-18, 22] for L a meet-continuous deMorgan algebra, are To for any
deMorgan algebra and L-sober for L a complete Boolean algebra [32, 35], are L-
T2 for L a deMorgan algebra [21], are HR-regular through HR-perfectly normal
for L a deMorgan frame [21, 22], and are metrizable for L a Hutton algebra
[14, 27, 35]; and arithemetic operations have been developed for JR(L) which
are compatible with its canonical topology and uniform structure (the latter
in the addition case) for L a complete deMorgan chain [26-29]. And JR with
each of its dual topologies possesses a full range of separation axioms as well as
compatible arithmetic operations (namely the usual operations) [3D-31] under
various lattice-theoretic conditions on the base L.
It is the purpose of this chapter to give a plenary summary of the properties
of the spaces JR (L) and JR with respect to arithmetic operations, including the
interplay between arithmetic operations and underlying topological structures.
Thus we shall summarize the definitions of fuzzy addition and fuzzy multiplica-
tion on the fuzzy real lines and indicate their joint-continuity-along with that
of the usual addition and multiplication-on the usual real line with respect
to the underlying standard poslat topologies and co-topologies, as well as the
quasi-uniform and uniform continuity (in the case of the fuzzy addition and
addition) with respect to the underlying quasi-uniform, uniform, and metric
structures. These results enrich our understanding of the topological properties
of the traditional arithmetic operations on IR.
It should be mentioned that new, alternative models JR* (L) and ll* (L) of
the fuzzy real lines and unit intervals, in keeping with approach (1) above, have
just been constructed which are fundamentally related to JR(L) and II (L).
(1) The Klein fuzzification machinery of [11-13] constructs fuzzy real lines
and unit intervals for all Hutton algebras L in which .l is meet-irreducible.
These models are L-homeomorphic to JR (L) and H(L) when L is a complete
deMorgan chain. This machinery also constructs a fuzzy complex plane
(JR x JR) (L).
(2) The L-2-soberification functors of [35] construct fuzzy real lines JR* (L) and
unit intervals H* (L) for all semiframes L, along with jointly-continuous
fuzzy additions and multiplications, which are L-homeomorphic to JR(L)
and II (L) when L is a complete Boolean algebra. This machinery also
constructs a fuzzy complex plane (JR x JR)* (L).
The investigation of these new models is a future area of development.
610 S. E. Rodabaugh
Uniform continuity in the sense of Hutton may be found in [10, 14, 29].
Throughout this chapter, we follow the notations of [8,33,34] regarding various
types of lattices and monoids, powerset operators, and L-continuity. We point
out that the definitions of JR(L), II (L), and their respective L-topologies can be
made within the general context of DQML, the category of deMorgan quasi-
monoidallattices [33], but that most of the development has been in the lattice-
theoretic setting (with ® :: /\). It remains an open question as to how much of
this development can be done for other choices of ®.
1 Preliminary notions of lR ( L) and lR as poslat

spaces
This section reviews basic definitions, notation, and tools fundamental to the
algebraic, topological, and uniform structure of the fuzzy real lines. All other
needed definitions (e.g. of various categories of lattices) can be found in [33].
The L-fuzzy real line JR(L), for L E IDQMLI equipped with order-
reversing involution " is formally defined as the set of all equivalence classes
[A] of antitone maps A : JR -+ lL satisfying the boundary conditions
VA(t)::T, I\A(t)::.L
tER tER
where the equivalence identifies two such maps A, J.1, iff Vt E lR, ). (t+) :: J.1, (t+) .
Where it causes no confusion, we often write A for [A]. The canonical overlying
L-topology T (L) is generated from the subbase
where
oCt : JR(L) -+ L by oCt (A) :: (A (t-))'
Vl t : JR(L) -+ L by Vlt (A) :: A(t+)
The L-unit intervallI (L) is that subset of JR(L) in which each [A] satisfies
A (0-) = T and A (1+) = .L, and which inherits the subspace L-topology from
T (L). See [33] for a formal treatment of subbase and subspace.
The canonical L-quasi-uniform and L-uniform structures on JR(L) are given
by the Hutton, or uniform covering approach, to fuzzy uniformities, as detailed
in [10, 14, 27, 29]. We now summarize these structures on JR(L). For L a
completely distributive deMorgan algebra, i.e. a Hutton algebra, create
13 == {Bo :LR(L) -+ LR(L) IcE lR, c > °}

C == { Co : LR(L) -+ LR(L) IcE lR, c > °}
by
Be (a) = ~t-e , t = V{8 E JR: a :::; (.~s)'}
Ce (a) = 'ct+e , t = 1\ {8 E JR : a :::; (~s)'}
Then B [C] is a basis for the "right-handed" ["left-handed"] quasi-uniformity
Q9'\ (L) [Q.c (L)] generating the "right-handed" ["left-handed"] L-topology
79'\ (L) [7.c (L)] on JR(L), i.e. the L-topology
{='=.,I} U {~t : t E JR} [{='=.,I} U {'ct: t E JR}]

Using the ~-operator of Definition 2.4 of [28] based on Raney's Theorem,
is the basis of the canonical uniformity U (L) generating the canonical L-topo-
logy 7(L) defined above. For convenience' sake we denote this basis B~C.
These structures generate the canonical Erceg fuzzy pseudo-metric [3] on
(the L-hyperspace of) JR(L), which because of the L-To axiom enjoyed by all
fuzzy real lines [32], should be regarded as the canonical metric on JR (L). Since
B ~ C is a symmetric basis of U (L) having the property that
(Be ~Ce) 0 (B6 ~C6):::; BeH ~CeH

the Erceg metric dL : LR.(L) x LR.(L) -+ JR on JR(L) is defined by
If we choose characteristics of singleton subsets of crisp numbers
a = X{[>'r]}' b = X{[>..]}
then
dL (a, b) = IT - 81
So each such dL extends the Euclidean metric on IR as carried over to JR{..L, T}.
The metric topology 7 (dL) turns to be 7 (L).
The L-dual real line is JR furnished with the canonical L-topology Co-7 (L)
generated from the subbase
{,c>., ~>. : [A] E JR(L)}
where
,c>. : JR -+ L by ,C>. (t) = (A (t-))'
~>.:JR-+L by ~>.(t)=A(t+)
As for the associated canonical L-quasi-uniform, L-uniform, and L-metric struc-

tures on IR, we need two digressions (and their notation): the embeddings of JR
into the fuzzy real lines; and the extended fuzzy real lines.
612 S. E. Rodabaugh
The embeddings of JR into each of (JR (L) , L, T (L)) and (lR, L, Co-T (L)) for
L = {..L, T} are given in [33], the former sending r E JR to [Ar) , where
A (t) ={ T, t <r
r ..L, t > r
If in the definition of JR (L) we require only that representatives A of [A)
are antitone maps, i.e. do not require the boundary conditions, and define the
(subbasis for) the canonical L-topology formally as for JR(L), then we have a
space, denoted lE (L) or (lE (L) ,L, T (L)), that is L-homeomorphic to IT (L). For
this reason we calllE (L) the L-extended (fuzzy) real line. The same ordering
put on JR (L) in the next section extends to lE (L) and makes it a complete lattice,
whereas JR(L) is conditionally complete. Further, we can use lE(L) to create
the dual topology Co-T (L) defined above on lR: if we define a dual L-topology
on JR by using
{,c", 9t" : [A) E lE(L)}
as a subbasis, the resulting topology is the same as Co-T (L) defined above [30).
While the extended lines lE(L) are of interest in their own right [30), we
shall regard them only as a tool to describe the L-quasi-uniform and L-uniform
structures on JR. In order to do this, we first define a specially restricted form
offuzzy addition on lE(L).
The fuzzy addition on JR (L) (and implicitly on lE (L)) as discussed in Section
4 below requires L a chain. However, translation of fuzzy numbers by crisp
numbers in lE(L) (and JR(L)) can be defined for any de Morgan quasi-monoidal
lattice. Let [A) E lE(L) and [Ar], for r E JR, be given (recall previous paragraph),
and put
(A EI"~r)(t) = A (t - r), [A) EB [Ar) = [A EB Ar]
This definition is a restriction of the fuzzy addition of Section 4 (as extended to
lE(L)).
We can now define the L-quasi-uniform and L-uniform structures on lR. It
will be seen that these are dual to their counterparts on JR (L) . For c > 0, recall
A£ is a crisp number as in the paragraphs above. For L a completely distributive
deMorgan algebra, i.e. a Hutton algebra, create
co-B == {E", : LR -t LR IcE JR, c> o}
co-C == {C", : LR -t LR IcE JR, c > o}
by
E", (a)= 9t"EJ)"" where [A) = 1\ {[IL) E lE(L): a:::; ('cIL)'}
C", (a) = 'c"EJ)"<_'l' where [A] = V{[IL) E lE(L) : a :::; (9tIL ),}
Then co-B [co-C] is a basis for the canonical dual "right-handed" ["left-handed"]
quasi-uniformity co- Q'.R (L) [co- Q.c (L)) generating the canonical dual "right-
handed" ["left-handed") L-topology Co-T'.R (L) [Co-T.c (L)) on JR(L), i.e. the L-
topology
{.:L,I} U {9t" : [AJ E JR(L)} [{.:L, I} U {,c" : [A) E JR(L)})
Again, appeal to the the Ll-operator cited above shows
is the basis of the canonical dual uniformity co-U (L) generating the canonical
dual L-topology co-r (L) defined above. For convenience' sake we denote this
basis
(co-B) Ll (co-C)
These structures generate the canonical Erceg fuzzy pseudo-metric [3] on (the
L-hyperspace of) lR, which because of the L-To axiom enjoyed by IR [30]-a
consequence of IR satisfying the traditional To axiom-should be regarded as
the canonical L-metric on lIt Since (co-B) Ll (co-C) is a symmetric basis of
co-U (L) having the property that
(B>'e Ll C>'e) 0 (B>.& Ll C>.&) ~ B>'eG1>.& Ll C>'eG1>.&
the Erceg metric dL : LR. x LR -+ IR on IR is defined by
If we choose characteristics of singleton subsets of real numbers r and 8, i.e.

choose
a = X{r}, b = X{s}
then
dL (a, b) = Ir - 81
So each such dL extends the Euclidean metric on IRj and the metric topology
r(dL) turns to be co-r (L).
2 Basic tools for fuzzy arithmetic operations

This section summarizes well-known tools necessary to study many algebraic
and topological properties of IR(L) [7, 11-13, 20, 26, 28, [95] in 32], including
the hypergraph functor. While these tools are used to study separation, com-
pactness, and connectedness in IR(L), we shall be concerned only with their
application to the construction and continuity of arithmetic operations. It is
convenient to have the following subsets of L:
LC = {Q E L: Q is comparable to each element of L}

Lb = {QE L : < f3 /\'y
Q < f3 or < 'Y}
=} Q Q
La = Lb nLc
We note that the condition .1 E Lb holds iff .1 is meet-irreducible.
614 S. E. Rodabaugh
2.1 Lemma (Representatives of fuzzy numbers). Each [A] contains a left-

continuous representative and a right-continuous representative, denoted A_
and A+, respectively. The following holds: [A] = [IL] ¢} A+ .= IL+ ¢} L = IL_.
2.2 Lemma (Partial order and order completeness). Putting [A] :::; [IL] ¢}
A+ :::; IL+, it follows that [A] :::; [IL] ¢} A+ :::; IL+ ¢} L :::; IL-. The following hold:
(1) this relation is a partial order on JR(L);
(2) (ViAi)+ = ViAt and (l\iAi)- = l\iAi;and

(3) (JR(L),:::;) is conditionally complete.
The next results summarize the fundamental link between a fuzzy number
and those rays and intervals of the traditional real line which characterize that
fuzzy number. This link is very powerful if L is a complete deMorgan chain.
2.3 Lemma (Fuzzy numbers and intervals). Let a, f3 E La and [AJ, [IL] E
JR(L) .
(1) 3a(A,a) E [-00,+00] such that Vleft continuous member of [A],
A (t) < a' ¢} t > a (A, a)
(2) 3b(A,a) E [-00,+00] such that Vright continuous member of [A],
A(t) > a¢} t < b(A,a)

(3) The following are equivalent:
(i) to = a (A, a) [b (A, a)] ;

(ii) for each representative A of [A] ,
t > to [< to] => A(t) < a' [> aJ and

t < to [> toJ => A(t) ~ a' [:::; aJ
(iii) for some representative A of [A] , the conclusion of (ii) holds.
(4) For L a complete deMorgan chain, the following are equivalent:
(i) [A] = [:::;] [IL];

(ii) Va E L, a (A, a) = [:::;] a (IL, a);
(iii) Va E L, b (A, a) = [:::;] b (IL, a) .
(5) a < f3 => { b (A, (3) :::; b (A, a) " a (A, f3') ,
- b (A, f3') Va (A, a) :::; a (A, a) .
(6) a < f3 => a (A, f3') :::; b (A, a) .
(7) a ~ {.1, T} => a (A,.1) :::; b (A, a) :::; a (A, a') :::; b (A,.1) .
Fuzzy rea11ines 615
(8) (b(A,a) ,a(A,a» C Af- {a} C [b(A,a) ,a(A,a)].

(9) For L a complete deMorgan chain, the following hold:
(i)
(a (A,.l) ,b (A, .l» C U{[b (A, a) ,a (A, a')] : a E L - {.l, Tn

C [a (A,.l) ,b (A, .l)]
(ii) b (A, a) = V{a (A, (3') : (3 E L, a < {3};
(iii) a(A,a') = A {b(A,{3): {3 E L, {3 < a};
(.) (3~a+ => a(A,{3'»),,(A,a)- and
IV (3)" a- => b (A, (3) ~ a (A, a')+
We now give results which select and restate precisely those properties most
germane to the characterization and generation of fuzzy numbers.
2.4 Lemma (Operators generated by fuzzy numbers). Let L be a com-

plete deMorgan chain and [A] E IR(L). Then there are operators a (A, ), b (A, ) :
L --t [-00, +00] satisfying the following properties:
(1) a (A, ) is isotone, b (A, ) is antitone;

(2) a (A, T) = +00, b (A, T) = -00;
(3) a ~ {.l, T} => a (A, a) ,b (A, a) E (-00, +00);
(4) a ~ {.l, T} => a(A,.l):5 b(A,a):5 a(A,a'):5 b(A,.l);
(5) b (A, a) = V{a (A, (3') : a < {3}, a (A, a') = A{b (A, (3) : {3 < a}.
2.5 Lemma (Operators generated by crisp numbers). Let .l E Lb. Then

[A] E 1R{.l, T} <=> 3r E lR, a(A,.l) = r = b(A,.l), in which case A = Ar as
classes.
2.6 Lemma (Operators generating fuzzy numbers). Let L be a complete

deMorgan chain and suppose there are operators a, b : L --t [-00, +00] satisfying
(1) a is isotone, b is antitone;

(2) a (T) = +00, b (T) = -00;
(3) a ~ {.l, T} => a(a) ,b(a) E (-00,+00);
(4) a ~ {.l, T} => a(.l) :5 b(a):5 a(a'):5 b(.l);
616 S. E. Rodabaugh
(5) b(a) = V {a (,8') : a < ,8}, a (a') = A {b (,8) : ,8 < a}.

If we define p: [-00, +00]-+ L by
T, t~a(..l)
p(t) ={ V{a:tE[b(a),a(a')]}, a(..l)<t~b(..l)
..l, b(..l) < t
and define A : IR -+ L by
A = P IIR
then the following hold:
(I) p and A are well-defined left-continuous maps;

(II) [A] E IR(L);
(III) the fundamental identities hold:
VaEL, a(A,a)=a(a) andb(A,a)=b(a)
2.7 Remark. If we replace" V" in the definition of p in Lemma 2.6 by " A",
then both p and A become right-continuous maps equivalent to those of the
Lemma, i.e. generating the same fuzzy number as a class.
2.8 Discussion (Hypergraph functor). Let L be a complete chain, and let

L-TOP be the fixed-basis category of L-topological spaces and L-continuous
maps between (in the sense of Chang-Goguen-see [8, 33] for definitions and
notation). Given (X,1') E IL-TOPI, and! E L-TOP, we define the following
maps and functor, all denoted S:
S (X) =X x (L - {T})
S:Lx-+P(S(X)) by S(u)={(x,a):u(x»a}
S(1') = {S(u): u E 1'}, S(X,1') = (S(X) ,S(1'))
S (f) = ! x idL_{T}, i.e. S (f) (x, a) = (f (x), a)
Then S : L-TOP -+ TOP by these definitions is a functor with the dis-
tinctive property of morphism-invertibility, which we now describe. Let
(X,1') ,(Y, 0') E IL-TOPI and ! E SET (X, Y). Then morphism-invertibility
means that
! : (X,1') -+ (Y,O') in L-TOP {::} S (f) : S (X, 1') -+ S (Y, 0') in TOP
Thus the hypergraph functor reduces certain issues of L-continuity to issues of

traditional continuity; and it also shows the richness of L-continuity, for the asso-
ciated continuity is not with respect to the traditional topologies {U : Xu E 1'} ,
Fuzzy rea11ines 617
{V : Xv E a} respectively hidden inside 7, a, but rather with respect to the

much richer traditional topologies S (7) ,S (a).
The hypergraph functor as presented above appears in [23, 25, 32, 36] under
the restriction of L being a complete chain. Attempts to weaken this restriction
appear in [31], but much more significant generalizations are developed in [15];
and yet other versions are given in [8].
The above lemmas are the workhorses of this chapter, which may be regarded
as an outline of their applications to certain algebraic, topological, and uniform
questions concerning both JR (L) and its dual JR.
3 lR(L) as L-topological and L-uniform additive

monoid
Throughout this section L is a complete deMorgan chain. The primary refer-
ences are [26, 28].
3.1 Discussion (Interval arithematic construction of fuzzy addition).

Let [A], [p.] E JR(L) be given. The strategy is to use these fuzzy numbers to
define operators which then generate the fuzzy number which is their sum.
Define a, b: L -+ [-00, +00] by
a (a) = a (A, a) + a (p., a), b (a) = b (A, a) + b (p., a)

Then it can be shown from the operators a (A, ), a (p., ), b (A, ), b (p., ) having
the properties of Lemmas 2.3-2.4 that the operators a, b satisfy the hypotheses of
Lemma 2.6. So from Lemma 2.6 we obtain a well-defined map p: [-00, +00]-+
L which we then restrict to JR to obtain a map we denote A E9 p.. In accordance
with Lemma 2.6, A E9 P. : JR -+ L is a left-continuous map such that [A E9 p.] E
JR (L) and the fundamental identities obtain:
{ a (A E9 p., a) = a (A, a) + a (p., a) (3.1)

b (A E9 p., a) = b (A, a) + b (p., a)
We define fuzzy addition by
[A] E9 [p.] = [A E9 p.]
3.2 Example. Let L = II == [0,1] with a' = 1- a,
1, t:51
2 - t, l<t<2
0, t~2
618 s. E. Rodabaugh
1, t::::;2
5- 2t, 2 < t < 5/2
0, t ~ 5/2
Then [A] EfJ [IL] = [A EfJ IL] , where
1, t::::; 3
(A EfJ IL) (t) ={ 3 - 2t/3, 2 < t < 9/2
0, t ~ 9/2
The fundamental identities (3.1) above easily prove many important prop-
erties of EfJ.
3.3 Definition (Consistency). We say that * : JR(L) x JR(L) ~ JR(L) is

consistent iff 'c/ [A], [IL], [p], [u] E JR(L) and 'c/O'. E L, it is the case that
a (A, a) = a (p, a) and a (IL, a) = a (u, a) => a (A * IL, a) = a (p * u, a)

and
b (A, a) = b(p, a) and b(IL, a) = b (u, a) => b(A * IL, a) = b (p * u, a)
3.4 Theorem (Uniqueness of EfJ). EfJ is the unique, consistent extension to

JR(L) of the usual + on JR as transferred to JR{l., T} '---t JR(L).
3.5 Theorem (Additive structure of (JR(L) , EfJ)). (JR(L) , EfJ) is an abelian,

cancellation monoid with identity [Ao]. A fuzzy number [A] has an additive
inverse iff it is crisp, i.e. iff 3r E JR, [A] = [Ar] E JR{l., T}.
The order-theoretic properties of the usual addition, the fundamental identi-

ties (3.1), and the morphism-invertibility of the hypergraph functor mix nicely
together to give the shortest known proof [26] of the subbasic-continuity of
EfJ on JR(L) x JR(L) equipped with the Goguen-Wong [6, 37] product topology
7 (L) X7 (L), which is the categorical L-product topology guaranteed by L-TOP
being topological [8, 33]. That is,
S (EfJ)~ (8 (.Ct )) E S (7 (L) x 7 (L)), 8 (EfJ)~ (8 (~8)) E S (7 (L) x 7 (L))
loFrom [33], this suffices to say that EfJ is jointly L-continuous. Thus we have:
3.6 Theorem (Topological properties of EfJ). EfJ : JR(L) x JR(L) ~ JR(L)

is jointly L-continuous w.r.t. the canonical L-topology 7 (L) on JR(L) and the
L-product topology 7 (L) x 7 (L) on JR(L) x JR(L).
loFrom [24] comes an alternative description of EfJ on JR(L), namely the con-
volution approach.
3.7 Discussion (Convolution approach to ED). Let [>'), [IL) E JR(L) with
>., IL : JR -+ L left-continuous maps. Define
(>. ED IL)(t) = V (>. (r) "IL (s)) (3.7)

r+s=t
-+ L is left-continuous, that [>' ED IL) E JR (L), and

It can be shown that>. ED IL : JR
that this ED coincides with that described above. We then define
[>') ED [IL) = [>' ED IL)

Some algebraic properties are obtained directly from the convolution (3.7). The
fundamental identities (3.1) of the interval arithmetic approach can be derived
from the convolution (3.7), from which the other properties immediately follow.
As for the joint (subbasic-)continuity of ED, this can obviously be derived from
the fundamental identities as discussed above. But there is another proof of
continuity using the convolution directly-it can be shown that the pre-images
of the subbasic sets are as follows:
EDt-- (.Ct ) = V «11'1);:- (.cr ) " (11'2);:- (.c,)) (3.7a)

r+s=t
EDt-- (!}tt) = V «11'1);:- (!1tr)" (11'2);:- (!}t,)) (3.7b)

r+,=t
l,From 3.7(a,b) follows the subbasic-continuity of ED, and hence its continuity as
indicated above. Even though this proof seems formally more direct than the
hypergraph functor proof [26) outlined above Theorem 3.6, it is much longer
in actual detail, showing the power of the categorical and interval arithmetic
approach. The main utility, then, of the convolution approach is not in the
continuity of ED, but in the way it combines synergistically with the interval
arithmetic approach (fundamental identities) in [29) to build the uniform con-
tinuity of ED.
3.8 Discussion (Setting uniform continuity up). The canonical uniformity

U (L) on JR(L) generates via the reverse L-powerset operators
(11'1);:- , (11'2);:- : LR(L)xlR(L) +- LR(L)
of the projections
11'1,11'2: JR(L) x JR(L) -+ JR(L)
the canonical L-product quasi-uniformity QU(L)xU(L) on JR(L) x JR(L) [29),
which both induces the canonical L-product topology T (L) x T (L), as well as the
canonical L-product uniformity U (L) xU (L), on JR(L) x JR(L). Since L-quasi-
uniform continuity implies both L-continuity and L-uniform continuity-when
the topology and uniformity are both generated from the quasi-uniformity, the
620 s. E. Rodabaugh
L-quasi-uniform continuity of EEl would then guarantee both its L-continuity and
its L-uniform continuity. This quasi-uniform continuity of EEl requires using both
approaches to fuzzy addition-that of the fundamental identities of (3.1), and
that of the convolution of (3.7), together with the order properties of +, the
identities of (3.7a,b), the fuzzy points of ~(L) x ~(L), and the properties of
the ~ operator. Thus we obtain:
3.9 Theorem (Quasi-uniform and uniform properties of EEl).

EEl : ~(L) x ~(L) -+ ~(L) is jointly L-quasi-uniformly continuous w.r.t. the
canonical L-uniformity U (L) on ~(L) and the canonical L-product quasi-uni-
formity QU(L)xU(L) on ~(L) x ~(L). Hence, the following hold:
(1) EEl : ~(L) x ~(L) -+ ~(L) is jointly L-uniformly continuous w.r.t. the
canonical L-uniformity U (L) on ~(L) and the canonical L-product uni-
formity U (L) xU (L) on ~(L) x ~(L).
(2) EEl : ~(L) x ~(L) -+ ~(L) is jointly L-continuous w.r.t. the canonical
L-topology T(L) on ~(L) and the L-product topology T(L) x T(L) on
~(L) x ~(L).
3.10 Remark. We have now discussed three distinct proofs of the L-continuity
of EEl: that stemming from the fundamental identities and the hypergraph func-
tor; that stemming from the convolution; and that stemming from the quasi-
uniform continuity of EEl (which in turn stems from both the fundamental iden-
tities and the convolution).
3.11 Summary (Additive structure on ~(L)).
(~(L),~, T (L),U (L), dL, EEl)
is an L-topological, uniform, metric, abelian, cancellation, conditionally order-

complete monoid with identity.
3.12 Discussion (Further results on EEl). The reader may wish to pursue
other topics developed in the literature. For example, a fairly complete anal-
ysis of fuzzy translations is known [26]. Despite the lack of additive inverses
for all fuzzy numbers, all translations are bijections; and all fuzzy translations
are L-continuous (and L-uniformly continuous). There are classes of transla-
tions for which the inverse mapping is L-continuous iff the translation is by
a crisp number. However, for these translations, the inverse mapping always
enjoys a weakened L-continuity strictly between traditional continuity and full
L-continuity. Characterizations of this weakened L-continuity are known from
the fundamental identities and the hypergraph functor.
4 JR (L) as L-topological complete fuzzy hyper-

field
As in the preceding section, L is a complete de Morgan chain. The description
of the multiplicative aspects of JR (L) is much less tractable than the descrip-
tion of the additive side. Accordingly, the plan of attack for this section is as
follows. First, we define the decomposition of L-numbers into their "negative"
and "positive" parts. Second, we give a motivation of the definition of fuzzy
multiplication from the requirement of distributivity over fuzzy addition. Third,
we present the formal definition of fuzzy multiplication, together with the asso-
ciated fundamental identities. And fourth, we catalog a few properties of fuzzy
multiplication, including its joint L-continuity.
The eventual goal of this section is the result that JR (L) is an L-topological,
complete fuzzy hyperfield. A full description of the multiplicative aspects of
JR (L), let alone the full axiomatization of the additive and multiplicative aspects
together defining [complete] fuzzy hyperfield, is quite beyond the scope of
this section-the nine multi-part postulates defining this structure are given
in [28], the primary reference for this section. Essentially, a [complete] fuzzy
hyperfield is a set with an "addition" and "multiplication", where that set de-
composes into two disjoint subsets, the subset of crisp elements and the subset
of fuzzy elements; the crisp elements form a [complete] ordered field; the entire
set forms a conditionally complete, ordered commutative semi-ring with unity
whose identities are crisp elements; and a variety of properties hold, including
several relationships between the crisp and fuzzy elements. Furthermore, an
L-topological [complete] fuzzy hyperfield is a [complete] fuzzy hyperfield
in which the addition and multiplication are jointly L-continuous with respect
to some L-topology on the fuzzy hyperfield and the Goguen-Wong categorical
L-product topology. In the case of JR(L), the crisp elements precisely comprise
the usual real line JR embedded as JR{J., T} '-+ JR(L); the addition and multipli-
cation are EEl and 8, where EEl is that of Section 3 and 8 is that defined sequens;
and the L-topology is the canonical T (L) defined in Section l.
We may speak of the fuzzy hyperfield as an extension of the field of its
crisp elements. If a fuzzy hyperfield is complete, then the field of its crisp
elements is field-isomorphic and order-isomorphic to JR. So each complete fuzzy
hyperfield is an extension of R But it is shown in [28] that there are uncountably
many complete fuzzy hyperfield extensions of JR, at least one for each complete
deMorgan chain L having at least three elements, and there are uncountably
many L-topological complete fuzzy hyperfield extensions of JR, at least two for
each complete deMorgan chain having at least three elements. This leads us to
state:
4.0 Open Question. If the topological aspects are ignored and the lattice L
is fixed, is there a unique complete fuzzy hyperfield extension of JR?
4.1 Definition (Decomposition of L-numbers). Let [A] E JR(L) and put

622 s. E. Rodabaugh
A+,A- : IR -+ L by
+ { T t~O A-(t)={ A(t), t~O

A (t)= A(t): t>O .1., t >0
Note that [A+], [A-] E IR(L) and depend only on the class [A].
4.2 Lemma (Addition of decomposants).
4.3 Discussion (Motivation of definition of multiplication). Let

[A] , [J.t] E IR(L), and assume that fuzzy multiplication, written either with 0
or with juxtaposition, can be defined so that it is distributive over Ea. Then we
would have
AJ.t = (A+ Ea A-) (J.t+ Ea J.t-)

= A+J.t+EaA+J.t-EaA-J.t+EaA-J.t-
The goal is to define 0, and then redescribe it by these four partial products,
denoted respectively Pl,P2,P3,P4, in combination with Ea.
4.4 Discussion (Construction of fuzzy mUltiplication). Let [A],

[J.t] E IR(L) be given. The strategy is to use these fuzzy numbers to define
operators which then generate the fuzzy number which is their product. Define
a, b : L -+ [-00, +00] by
a (a) = a (A+,a) a (J.t+,a) +b(A+,a)a(J.t-,a)
+ a (A-, a) b (J.t+, a) + b (A -, a) b (J.t-, a)
b(a) = b(A+,a)b(J.t+,a) +a(A+,a)b(J.t-,a)

+ b (A - , a) a (J.t+ , a) + a (A - , a) a (J.t - , a)
Then it can be shown from the eight operators
a(A+, ),a(A-, ),a(J.t+, ),a(J.t-,)
b(A+, ),b(A-, ),b(J.t+, ),b(J.t-,)
having the properties of Lemmas 2.3-2.4 that the operators a, b satisfy the
hypotheses of Lemma 2.6. So from Lemma 2.6 we obtain a well-defined map
p: [-00, +00]-+ L which we then restrict to IR to obtain a map we denote A0J.t.
In accordance with Lemma 2.6, A 0 J.t : IR -+ L is a left-continuous map such
that [A 0 J.t] E IR(L) and the fundamental identities obtain:
a(A0J.t,a) = a (A+,a) a (J.t+,a) +b(A+,a)a(J.t-,a)
+a (r ,a) b (J.t+,a) + b (A- ,a) b (J.t- ,a) (4.4a)
b ().. 0 f-t, a) b ()..+,a) b (f-t+,a) + a ()..+,a) b (f-t-,a)

+b ().. - , a) a (f-t + , a) + a ().. - , a) a (f-t - , a) (4.4b)
We define fuzzy multiplication by
4.5 Example. Let L = IT == [0,1] with a' = 1 - a, adopt the convention that
2)" means )..2).. (where )..2 is crisp 2) and )..2 means )..).., and let).. be the "fuzzy
zero" given by
I, t<-l
)..(t) ={ t(1-t), -l<t<l
0, t> 1
where the definition at each endpoints can be either way because of the equiv-
alence relation. Then )..2 is the "fuzzy zero" given by
t <-2
-2 <t <0
0<t<2
t>2
and 2)" is the "fuzzy zero" given by
I, t <-2
)..(t) ={ t(2-t), -2 < t <2
0, t>2
As with EEl, the fundamental identities (4.1) of 0 are instrumental in proving

many important properties of 0.
4.6 Theorem (Some multiplicative structures of (IR(L), 0)). (IR(L), 0)

is an abelian monoid with identity [)..l] satisfying the fuzzy cancellation law:
if
=
[)..] ¢ ffio (L) == ncr] E IR(L) : cr (0+) Tor cr (0-) ...L} =
and [f-t], [p] E IR(L), then
)..f-t =)..p =} f-t =p
(The classes in ffio (L) are called fuzzy zeroes.)
4.7 Theorem (Algebraic structure of (IR(L),~, EEl, 0)). (IR(L),~, EEl, 0)

is a complete fuzzy hyperfield on the crisp real line (IR { ...L, T} , ~, +, .) for each
complete deMorgan chain L with ILl ~ 3. In particular, 0 is distributive over
EEl.
624 S. E. Rodabaugh
4.8 Definition (Piece-wise consistent operations). We say that

* : JR(L)xJR(L) -t JR(L) is piece-wise consistent (PC) iff'v' [A], [J.L], [p], [0'] E
JR (L) and 'v' a E L, all the following implications hold:
a (.~+,a) = a (p+,a) and a (J.L+,a) = a (0'+, a) =?
a(A+*J.L+,a) =a(p+*O'+,a)
b(A+,a) =b(p+,a) andb(J.L+,a) =b(O'+,a) =?
b(A+*J.L+,a) =b(p+*O'+,a)
b(A+,a) =b(p+,a) and a (J.L-,a) =a(O'-,a) =?
a(A+*J.L-,a) =a(p+*O'-,a)
a(A+,a) =a(p+,a) andb(J.L-,a) =b(O'-,a) =?
b(A+ *J.L-,a) = b(p+ *O'-,a)

a (A-,a) =a(p-,a) andb(J.L+,a) =b(O'+,a) =?
a(A-*J.L+,a) =a(p-*O'+,a)
b(r,a) =b(p-,a) and a (J.L+,a) =a(O'+,a) =?
b(A-*J.L+,a) =b(p-*O'+,a)
b(A-,a) =b(p-,a) andb(J.L-,a) =b(O'-,a) =?
a(A-*J.L-,a) =a(p-*O'-,a)
a(A-,a) =a(p-,a) and a (J.L-,a) =a(O'-,a) =?
b(A-*J.L-,a) =b(p-*O'-,a)
4.9 Examples (Piece-wise consistent operations on JR(L». There are

uncountably many natural PC binary operations on JR (L) . For example:
(1) any constant map from JR(L) x JR(L) to JR(L) is PC; and
(2) each of the projections 71'1,71'2 : JR (L) x JR (L) -t JR (L) is PC.
4.10 Theorem (Uniqueness of 0). 0 is the unique PC extension to JR(L)

of the usual· on JR, as transferred to JR{l., T} ~ JR(L), which distributes over
Ea.
To properly address the joint L-continuity of 0, we formally define the partial

products maps
as follows:
Analogous to the fuzzy addition case, the order-theoretic properties of the usual
multiplication, the fundamental identities (4.4), and the morphism-invertibility
of the hypergraph functor mix together to give manageable proofs that each Pi
is jointly L-subbasic continuous. So each of these maps is jointly L-continuous.
4.11 Lemma (Topological properties of partial products). Each of
is jointly L-continuous w.r.t. the canonical L-topology T (L) on IR(L) and the
L-product topology T(L) x T(L) on IR(L) x IR(L).
Since we have that composition of L-continuous maps is L-continuous, that

EEl is jointly L-continuous, and that the cross of two L-continuous maps is jointly
L-continuous [6, 37], the previous lemma and the identity
guarantee the following theorem.
4.12 Theorem (Topological properties of 8). 8: IR(L) x IR(L) -t IR(L)

is jointly L-continuous w.r.t. the canonical L-topology T (L) on IR(L) and the
L-product topology T (L) x T (L) on IR(L) x IR(L).
4.13 Summary (Multiplicative structure on IR(L)). (IR(L),::;,T(L),8)

is an L-topological, abelian, conditionally order-complete monoid with identity
and fuzzy cancellation; and (IR(L),::;, T (L), EEl, 8) is an L-topological fuzzy hy-
perfield, which includes being a commutative semiring with unity. (See remarks
at the beginning of this section.)
4.14 Discussion (Further results on 8). The reader may wish to pursue
other topics developed in the literature. These include the nine postulates of
a fuzzy hyperfield and a fairly complete analysis of fuzzy contractions and ex-
pansions [28]. The topological behavior of the latter is analogous to that of
fuzzy translations, including the inverse of certain contractions and expansion
being L-continuous and having inverses which enjoy a weakened L-continuity
strictly between traditional continuity and full L-continuity. Characterizations
of this weakened L-continuity rest on the fundamental identities (4.4) and the
hypergraph functor.
626 S. E. Rodabaugh
5 ~ as L-uniform additive group and L-topolo-

gical field
Since the algebraic and order-theoretic aspects of JR are well-known, the main
point is the L-topological behavior of the arithmetic operations, namely the joint
L-continuity of the arithmetic operations w.r.t. the canonical co-topologies.
Such results enrich our topological understanding of these arithmetic operations.
The primary references are [30-31].
5.1 Theorem (Topological properties of +). + : JR x JR -+ JR is jointly

L-continuous w.r.t. the canonical L-topology co-r (L) on JR and the L-product
topology co-r (L) x co-r (L) on JR x JR.
5.1.1 Outline of the hypergraph functor proof. The following lemma is key
to both the hypergraph functor proof and the convolution proof given sequens:
if a E L, [A] E JR(L), and to,so E JR with to +so > a(A,a) [< b(A,a)], then
3 [/L] , [v] E JR (L) satisfying:
(1) [A] = [/L] EEl [v];

(2) to> a (/L,a) , So > a(v,a) [to < b(/L,a), So < b(v,a)].
Now it can be shown that V£)" 9't)"we have
which establishes via morphism-invertibility the subbasic continuity of +, hence

its continuity by [33]. The crucial step relates S (£),) to
S ((71"1);: (9'tI') 1\ (71"2);: (9't v ))

where [A] = [/L] EEl [v], using the order-theoretic properties of EEl, the above
lemma, and the fundamental identities of EEl. This gives the shortest proof to
the L-continuity of +, but is closely elated to the following convolution proof.
5.1.2 Outline of the convolution proof. Using the lemma in 5.1.1, one can
show that
+f- (£),) = V ((71"1);: (£1') 1\ (71"2);: (£v)) (5.1.2a)

I'EBv=),
+f- (9't),) = V ((71"1);: (9'tI') 1\ (71"2);: (9't v )) (5.1.2b)

I'EBv=),
l.From 5.1.2(a,b) comes the subbasic continuity of + and hence its joint L-con-
tinuity.
5.1.3 Outline of quasi-uniform and uniform continuity proof. The

canonical (dual) uniformity co-U (L) on JR generates, via the reverse L-powerset
operators
of the projections
71'1, 71'2 : JR x JR -+ JR,
the canonical L-product quasi-uniformity Qco-U(L) x co-U(L) on JRx JR [30], which
both induces the canonical L-product topology CO-I (L) x CO-I (L), as well as the
canonical L-product uniformity co-U (L) x co-U (L), on JR x lR. Since L-quasi-
uniform continuity implies both L-continuity and L-uniform continuity-when
the topology and uniformity are both generated from the quasi-uniformity, the
L-quasi-uniform continuity of + would then guarantee both its L-continuity and
its L-uniform continuity. This quasi-uniform continuity of + requires using the
fundamental identities (3.1) of fuzzy addition, the order properties of +, the
identities 5.1.2(a,b), the fuzzy points of JR x JR, and the properties of the A
operator.
5.1.4 Outline of the stratification functor proof. The L-characteristic

functor G~ : TOP -+ L- TOP, the fixed-basis restriction of G)( of [33], is defined
as follows: given (X, 'I) E ITOPI and f E TOP,
G~ ('I) = {Xu: U E 'I}, G~ (X, 'I) = (X,G~ ('I)), G~ (f) = f
And the L-stratification functor Gf : L-TOP -+ L-TOPk, the fixed-basis
restriction of the functor G)( of [33], is defined as follows: given (X, I) E
IL-TOPI andf E L-TOP,
Gf(I)=IV{g,:aEL}, Gf(X,I) = (X, Gf(I)) , Gf(f)=f
It can be shown that each of these functors has morphism-invertibility, i.e.
f: (X, 'I) -+ (Y,6) in TOP ¢? G~ (f) : G~ (X, I) -+ G~ (Y,O') in L-TOP
f: (X, I) -+ (Y,O') in L-TOP ¢?Gf (f): Gf (X, I) -+ Gf (Y,O') in L-TOPk

Letting G~ : TOP -+ L-TOPk [31,33] by
L
Gw = G kL oG)(L
it follows that G~ is also morphism-invertible. Trivially G~ preserves products;
and from Theorem 5.2.1 of [33] we have G k is a right-adjoint and so preserves
products, and hence the restriction Gf preserves products. Thus G~ preserves
products. Now the following results from [30-31] apply these properties of G~ to
the question of the joint L-continuity of + on JR x JR equipped with CO-I (L) x co-
I (L):
628 S. E. Rodabaugh
(1) for each complete deMorgan algebra L, C(}-T (L) c Gt ('r), where 'r is the
traditional topology on lR;
(2) for each complete deMorgan chain L, C(}-T (L) :J Gt ('r), i.e. C(}-T (L) =
Gt ('r).
Since + is continuous on JR x JR equipped with 'r x 'r, the joint L-continuity of

+ on JR x JR equipped with C(}-T (L) x C(}-T (L) now follows.
Sequens, let M : JR x JR -+ JR denote the traditional multiplication on JR; and

for i = 1,2,3,4, put
(t, s) E ith quadrant

Mdt, s) = { t~: otherwise
Then M = L:i Mi. Because of the properties of the L-product topology and the
L-continuity of + from Theorem 5.1, M is jointly L-continuous iff each Mi is
joint L-continuous.
We now state the joint L-continuity of M as our next theorem, following
which we briefly discuss the three different proofs of the joint L-continuity of
M.
5.2 Theorem (Topological properties of M). M : JR x JR -+ JR is jointly

L-continuous w.r.t. the canonical L-topology C(}-T (L) on JR and the L-product
topology C(}-T (L) X C(}-T (L) on JR x JR.
5.2.1 Outline of the hypergraph functor proof. An analogue of the lemma
in 5.1.1 relating + to EEl must be proved for each Mi relative to Pi. For example,
the "a(A,a)" lemma for MI reads as follows: if a E L, [A] E JR(L), and
to,so E JR with to,so > 0 and toso > a(A,a), and if [p] E JR(L) is defined by
p(t) =A+ (t- G) (toso -a(A+,a)))
then 3 [p,] , [v] E JR (L) satisfying:
(1) [p] = [p,]8 [v] ;

(2) to> a (p"a) , So > a(v,a).
Then this lemma and the "b(A,a)" lemma for M I , together with the order-
theoretic properties of PI, the fundamental identities of PI, and the hypergraph
functor are used to prove the joint L-continuity of MI. Similar proofs can be
given for the other Mi's. And so the joint L-continuity of M on JR follows.
5.2.2 Outline of the convolution proof. Using the lemmas from 5.1.2, a
proof analogous to the convolution proof of + can be made for M.
5.2.3 Outline of the stratification functor proof. The set-up of the proof
outlined in 5.2.4 immediately proves that M is jointly L-continuous on IRj this
is because M is jointly continuous on IR with its traditional topology.
We therefore formally state:
5.3 Summary. (lR,~, co-r (L) ,co-U (L) ,dL, +) is an L-topological, uniform,
metric additive group, and (lR, ~, co-r (L) , +, M) is a complete, ordered, metric,
L-topological field.
See [31] for open questions concerning other possible families of canonical
dual-topologies on IR stemming from alternate L-topologies on IR(L).
References
[1] D. Dubois and H. Prade, Operations on fuzzy numbers, Internat. J. Sys-
tems Sci. 9 (1978), 613-626.
[2] D. Dubois and H. Prade, Fuzzy real algebra: some results, Fuzzy Sets and
Systems 2 (1979), 327-348.
[3] M. Erceg, Metric spaces in fuzzy set theory, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 69
(1979), 205-230.
[5] R. Goetschel, Jr. and W. Voxman, Topological properties of fuzzy num-
bers,Fuzzy Sets and Systems 10 (1983), 87-99.
[6] J. A. Goguen, The fuzzy TychonofJ Theorem, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 43
(1973), 734-742.
[7] U. Hable, Probabilitische Metriken auf der Menge der nicht negativen
Verteilungsfunktionen, Aequationes Mathematicae 18 (1978), 345-356.
[8] U. Hahle and A. Sostak, Axiomatic foundations of fixed-basis fuzzy topo-
logy (Chapter 3 in this Volume).

50 (1975), 74-79.

58 (1977), 559-57l.
[11] A. J. Klein, a-Closure in fuzzy topology, Rocky Mount. J. Math. 11

(1981) 553-560.
630 s. E. Rodabaugh
[12] A. J. Klein, Generating fuzzy topologies with semi-closure operators, Fuzzy

[13] A. J. Klein, Generalizing the L -fuzzy unit interval, Fuzzy Sets and Sys-
tems 12 (1984) ,271-279.
[14] W. Kotze, Uniform spaces (Chapter 8 in this Volume).
[15] W. Kotze and T. Kubiak, Fuzzy topologies of Scott continuous functions

and their relationship to the hypergraph functor, Quaestiones Mathemati-
cae 15(1992), 175-187.
[16] W. Kotze and T. Kubiak, Inserting L-fuzzy-valued functions, Mathema-

tische Nachrichten 164(1993), 5-11.
[17] T. Kubiak, Extending continuous L-real valued functions, Math. Japon

31 (1986), 875-887.
[18] T. Kubiak, L-fuzzy normal spaces and Tietze Extension Theorem, J. Math.
Anal. Appl. 125 (1987), 141-153.
[19] T. Kubiak, The fuzzy unit interval and the Helly space, Math. Japonica
33 (1988), 253-259.
[20] T. Kubiak, The topological modification of the L-fuzzy unit interval, in:
" Applications of Category Theory to Fuzzy Subsets" , S. E. Rodabaugh et
al.,editors, ( Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht 1992).
[21] T. Kubiak, On L-Tychonoff spaces, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 73(1995),

25-53.
[22] T. Kubiak, Separation axioms: extension of mappings and embeddings of

[23] R. Lowen, A comparison of different compactness notions in fuzzy topo-

logical spaces, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 64 (1978), 446-454.
[24] R. Lowen, On (JR(L) , ffi), Fuzzy Sets and Systems 10 (1983),203-209.
[25] S. E. Rodabaugh, The Hausdorff separation axiom for fuzzy topological

spaces, Topology and its Applications 11 (1980), 319-334.
[26] S. E. Rodabaugh, Fuzzy addition in the L-fuzzy real line, Fuzzy Sets and
Systems 8 (1982), 39-51.
[27] S. E. Rodabaugh, Separation axioms and the L-fuzzy real lines, Fuzzy Sets
and Systems 11 (1983), 163-183.
[28] S. E. Rodabaugh, Complete fuzzy topological hyperfields and fuzzy multipli-

cation in the fuzzy real lines, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 15 (1985), 285-310.
Fuzzy rea11ines 631

[30] S. E. Rodabaugh, Dynamic topologies and their applications to crisp to-

pologies, fuzzification of crisp topologies, and fuzzy topologies on the crisp
[31] S. E. Rodabaugh, Lowen, para-Lowen, and 0: -level functors and fuzzy

topologies on the crisp real line, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 131 (1988), 157-
169.
[32] S. E. Rodabaugh, Point-set lattice-theoretic topology , Fuzzy Sets and
Systems 40 (1991), 297-345.
[33] S. E. Rodabaugh, Categorical foundations of variable-basis fuzzy topology

[34] S. E. Rodabaugh, Powerset operator foundations for poslat fuzzy set the-
[35] S. E. Rodabaugh, Separation axioms: representation theorems, compact-

ness, and compactifications (Chapter 7 in this Volume).
[36] E. S. Santos, Topology versus fuzzy topology, Preprint, Youngstown State

University (1977).

Anal. Appl. 45 (1974), 512-21.
CHAPTER 11
Fundamentals of a Generalized Measure Theory
E. P. KLEMENT AND S. WEBER
Introduction
In this chapter, we try to present a coherent survey on some recent attempts

in building a theory of generalized measures. Our main goal is to emphasize
a minimal set of axioms both for the measures and their domains, and still
to be able to prove significant results. Therefore we start with fairly general
structures and enrich them with additional properties only if necessary.
Concerning the algebraic basis, our starting point is a bounded lattice, and
the uncertainty measure essentially preserves this structure, i.e., only the usual
boundary conditions and the isotonicity are required. Each measure of this type
can be represented in terms of a probability measure on the set of all pseudo-
realizations. Although this representation is not unique in general, it allows us
to introduce a well-defined integral of lattice-valued real numbers with respect
to an uncertainty measure as the Lebesgue integral of its quasi-inverse with
respect to a representing probability. For this purpose, the richer structure
of a De Morgan algebra turns out to be useful. This integral generalizes the
Choquet integral and, subsequently, the classical Lebesgue integral. Moreover,
it is possible to prove a monotone convergence theorem (Section 1).
If the uncertainty measure is specified to be a plausibility, then the repre-
sentation becomes unique on a smaller set, namely, the set of realizations, thus
extending Shafer's classical result (Section 2).
Next we consider valuations as a further specification of plausibilities. In this
context, the integral is additive, where the representing probability is concen-
trated on the set of coherent realizations, i.e., lattice homomorphisms. For this
result, some distributivity of the lattice L is required. This parallels the situa-
tion in the classical Stone represent ion theorem were also coherent realizations
are used (Section 3).

634 E. P. Klement and S. Weber
In the framework of MV-algebras, a natural concept of additivity of uncer-

tainty measures emerges, leading to special valuations and, therefore, preserving
all the preceding results (Section 4).
Finally, measures on tribes of fuzzy subsets of a set X are presented. Many
important tribes (e.g., those with respect to Frank t-norms with the notable
exception of the minimum) turn out to be MV-algebras. However, these tribes
are equipped with an additional semigroup operation which is respected by
these measures. In this special setting it is possible to represent a measure as a
Lebesgue integral with respect to its restriction to the collection of crisp sets in
the tribe, the integrand being some Markov kernel (Section 5).
For the lattice theoretical background we usually refer to [4], concerning
probability and the theory of l1-additive measures to [1, 15]. Our exposition
does not contain the proofs of the results, but we try to give at least one precise
reference in each case.
1 Uncertainty measures and integration
For a measure theory, as developed in this section, a minimal requirement for

the domain of measures is a bounded lattice (L, :::;), i.e., a lattice (L,:::;) with
universal bounds 0 and 1. If we consider measures with non-negative values
only, the isotonicity (together with suitable boundary conditions) seems to be a
minimal requirement. Since most results can be proven for finite measures only,
we even can restict ourselves, without loss of generality, to normalized measures.
Definition 1.1 Let (L, :::;) be a bounded lattice.

(i) A function m : L --t [0,1] is called an uncertainty measure on L if it
(Ml) m(O) = 0, m(l) = 1, (Boundary condition)
(M2) a :::; f3 =} m(a):::; m(f3). (Isotonicity)
(ii) If (L, :::;) is a l1-complete lattice, then an uncertainty measure m on L is

called l1-smooth if for each non-decreasing sequence (an)nEN in L we have
(M3) supm(a n ) = m( Van). (l1-smoothness )

nEN nEN
A special case of a l1-smooth uncertainty measure was studied in [39]. It is

remarkable that even in this general setting each uncertainty measure (where no
additivity is required) can be represented by suitable probability (i.e., additive)
measures. In order to prepare this, we first introduce the concept of pseudo-
realizations [22, Definition 4.1(a)], which can be seen as suitable generalizations
of the events in a random experiment.
Fundamentals of a Generalized Measure Theory 635
Definition 1.2 Let (L,~) be a bounded lattice. A function w : L ---+ {O, I}

is called a pseudo-realization if it fulfills
(Rl) w(O) = 0, w(l) = 1, (Boundary condition)
(R2) a ~ (3 ~ w(a) ~ w((3). (Isotonicity)
The set of all pseudo-realizations will be denoted PR(L).
The set PR(L) forms a compact subspace of the product space {O,I}L,
where {O, I} is equipped with the discrete topology. It therefore makes sense to
consider regular Borel probability measures [1] on PR(L) (also called random
sets in L [31]).
The following general representation theorem can be found in [22, Proposi-
tion 4.1] (observe that the stronger hypothesis of L being a De Morgan algebra
is not used in the proof of this proposition).
Theorem 1.3 For each uncertainty measure m on a bounded lattice L there

exists a regular Borel probability measure P on the space PR(L) of all pseudo-
realizations such that for all a E L
P({w E PR(L) I w(a) = I}) = m(a). (1)

If L is (J-complete and m (J-smooth, then for each non-decreasing sequence
(a n )nE!I1 in L
P({w E PR(L) I for all n EN w(a n ) =0 and w( Van) = I}) = O. (2)

nE!I1
In general, there is no unique regular Borel probability measure P repre-

senting an uncertainty measure m on L (for a unique representation in a more
special setting see Section 2).
Example 1.4 Consider the bounded lattice L = {O, a, (3,1} with a, (3 ~ {O, I},
aV (3 = 1 and al\(3 = 0, and define the uncertainty measure m on L by m(a) = a
and m((3) b with a, b E ]0,1[. We have exactly four pseudo-realizations,
namely,
Wl = X{a,Jj,l}, W2 = X{a,l},
W3 = X{Jj,l}, W4 = X{l},
where XM denotes the characteristic function of the set M. Then there are in-
finitely many probability measures P on the set of pseudo-realizations satisfying
(1), specified by
P({wr}) =p, P({W2}) =a - p,

P({W3}) = b - p, P( {W4}) =1 - (a + b) + p,
with p E [max(a + b - 1,0), min (a, b)].
Since for a reasonable concept of an integral some complementation is useful,

we start here with the following structure.
Definition 1.5
(i) A triple (L,:::;, 1.) is called a De Morgan algebra if (L,:::;) is a lattice with
universal bounds 0 and 1, and 1. : L --+ L is an order reversing involution.
We shall call a1. the complement of a.
(ii) Two elements a, (3 of a De Morgan algebra are said to be orthogonal if
a :::; (31..
Special and important examples of De Morgan algebras are quantum De

Morgan algebras [22, Definition 2.1], weakly orthomodular lattices [4], Girard
algebras (called integral, commutative Girard monoids in [20]) and MV-algebras
[10] (see Section 4), Boolean algebras, and tribes of fuzzy sets [9, Definition 2.5]
(see Section 5).
The structure of the bounded lattice (L,:::;) in Example 1.4 can be enriched
to that of a De Morgan algebra in several ways. One possibility is to put (3 = a1.,
in which case we obtain a Boolean algebra (which can be related to a simple
random experiment, e.g., tossing a coin). Another possibility is a1. = a and
(31. = (3. Note, however, that the pseudo-realizations are always independent of
the choice of the complement.
When trying to build an integration theory based on uncertainty measures
on L, the so-called L-valued real numbers [17] turn out to be appropriate inte-
grands. Observe that [0, 1]-valued real numbers were expected to be "numbers
of the future" in [35, page 123]. An important mathematical tool when dealing
with them is the concept of a quasi-inverse [37, 38].
Definition 1.6 Let (L,:::;, 1.) be a u-complete De Morgan algebra.

(i) A map F : lR. --+ L is called an L-valued real number if F satisfies the
following conditions:
V F(-n) = 1, " F(n) = O.
nEN nEN
for all r E lR. : V F(s) = F(r). (Right continuity)
sEQnjr,oo[
An L-valued real number F is said to be non-negative if " F( -~) = 1.

nEN
The set of L-valued real numbers will be denoted 1J(JR.,L), and the set of
non-negative L-valued real numbers 1J+(JR., L).
(ii) The quasi-inverse F(q) : PR(L) --+ [-00,00] of an L-valued real number
F is defined by
F(q)(w) = inf{r E Q I w(F(r)) = OJ.

Remark 1.7
(i) A canonical embedding jlR : JR ---* D(JR, L) is given by jlR(x) = H x , where
Hx : JR ---* L is defined by
Hx(r)={l ifrE]-oo,x[,
o if r E [x, 00[,
and for each w E PR(L) we have (Hx)(q)(w) = x.

(ii) There is a canonical embedding h : L ---* D(JR, L) defined by j d ex) = Fa,
where Fa : JR ---* L is given by
if r E ]-00,0[,
if r E [0, 1[,
if r E [1, 00[,
and (Fa)(q) = X{wEPR(L)lw(a)=l}·
(iii) Right continuous, non-increasing probability distribution functions and

[0, l]-valued real numbers are the same mathematical objects.
(iv) Let X be a non-empty set and A be a o--algebra of subsets of X. Then A-
valued real numbers can be identified with A-measurable functions from
X to JR in the following sense. If 'P : X ---* JR is an A-measurable function,
then F : JR ---* A defined by
F(r) = {x E X I 'P(x) > r} (3)
is an A-valued real number. Vice versa, if F : JR ---* A is an A-valued

real number, then the mapping 'P : X ---* JR defined by
'P(x) = inf{r E JR I x fJ. F(r)} (4)
is an A-measurable function, and for all r E JR equation (3) holds. More-

over, we have
'P = F(q) 0 jx, (5)
where the embedding jx : X ---* PR(A) is given by Ux(x))(A) = XA(X)

for each A E A.
The representation of uncertainty measures in terms of regular Borel proba-

bility measures on the space of pseudo-realizations and the quasi-inverse, which
is a monotone and, therefore, measurable function on this space, suggests the
following concept of an integral (note that this integral always exists and is
well-defined [22, Lemma 5.2]).
Definition 1.8 Let (L,~,.L) be a a-complete De Morgan algebra. If m is an

uncertainty measure on L and F a non-negative L-valued real number, then the
integral of F over L with respect to m is defined by
J Fdm = J F(q) dP,

L PR(L)
where P is some regular Borel probability measure on PR(L) which represents

m in the sense of Theorem 1.3, and F(q) is the quasi-inverse of F.
Remark 1.9 An immediate consequence of Remark 1.7(ii) and Theorem 1.3

is that for each a E L we get
J
L
Fa dm = m(a),
i.e., the integral is an extension of the measure m. Moreover, the integral is also
isotone with respect to the integrand (the order on V(lR, L) is just the pointwise
usual order).
In the case if m is a a-smooth uncertainty measure, the rather abstract

integral on the right hand side of Definition 1.8 can be written in a more familiar
way [22, Proposition 5.1).
Theorem 1.10 If m is a a-smooth uncertainty measure on a a-complete De

Morgan algebra L, the integral in Definition 1.8 can be written as
J J
00
Fdm = m(F(t)) d>.(t) ,

L 0
where>. is the Lebesgue measure on Ii.
Remark 1.11
(i) If L equals a a-algebra A of subsets of a non-empty set X as discussed in
Remark 1.7(iv) then we have
J
00
Fdm =/ m({x E X I cp(x) > t})d>.(t),

A 0
where F and cp are related via (3). This means that the integral reduces
to the Choquet integral [11) of the measurable function cp : X ~ [O,oo[
with respect to m.
(ii) If, in addition, m is a probability measure on A, then we obtain just the

Lebesgue integral of cp with respect to m.
Observe that the least upper bound of two L-valued real numbers equals just
the pointwise join thereof. This allows us to formulate a monotone convergence
theorem (for a proof see [22, Proposition 5.2]).
Theorem 1.12 Let m be a a-smooth uncertainty measure on a De Morgan

algebm L, and let (Fn)nEN be a non-decreasing sequence in V+(IR,L) such that
also V Fn E V+(IR,L). Then
nEN
sup
nEN
j Fn dm = j( VFn) dm.
nEN
L L
In general, a lattice structure on V(IR, L) can be introduced if L is a De

Morgan algebra which satisfies the additional condition that the meet 1\ is dis-
tributive over countable joins:
(F 1\ G)(r)= V{F(s) 1\ G(s) Is E Q n ]r, oo[},

(F V G)(r) = F(r) V G(r).
The sublattice V+ (1R, L) has a universal lower bound, namely H o, but no upper
bound. This drawback could be overcome considering [0,00] rather than [0,00[,
in which case also the formulation of the preceding theorem would be slightly
simpler.
2 Plausibility measures
Definition 2.1 Let (L,::;) be a bounded lattice. An uncertainty measure
m on L is called a plausibility measure if for each non-empty finite subset
{al,a2, ... ,an} of L we have
n n i
(PL) m( 1\ ai) < E (_I)i-l E m( V ajk)'
i=1 i=1 l~il<···<ji~n k=1
Remark 2.2
(i) Each possibility measure [13], i.e., a function m : L ~ [0,1] satisfying
(Ml) such that for all a,f3 E L
m(a V 13) = max(m(a), m(f3)) ,
is a plausibility measure. The converse is not true in general (see Exam-
ple 2.5 below).
(ii) If L equals the class of fuzzy subsets [O,I]X of a non-empty set X, fix
Vo E [O,I]X with sup{vo(x) I x E X} = 1. Then mvo : [O,I]X -+ [0,1]
given by
mvo(lL) = sup{min(IL(x),Vo(x)) I x E X}
is a u-smooth possibility measure (vo is then called the possibility distri-
bution of mvo [45]).
Definition 2.3 Let (L,::;) be a bounded lattice. A function w : L -+ {O, I}

is called a realization if it fulfills (Rl) and for all a, {3 E L
(R3) w(a V {3) = max(w(a),w({3)).
The set of all realizations will be denoted R(L).
Obviously, each realization is a pseudo-realization. The representation of a

plausibility measure by a probability on the set of pseudo-realizations according
to Theorem 1.3 is still not unique. However, uniqueness can be achieved if we
restrict ourselves to realizations. For a proof see [22, Theorem 4.1] and, in a
more restrictive setting, [19, 21] (compare also [18, 36]).
Theorem 2.4 For each plausibility measure m on a bounded lattice L there

exists a unique regular Borel probability measure P on the space PR(L) of all
pseudo-realizations such that for all a E L the representation property (1) holds
and the support of P is contained in the subspace of all realizations, i.e.,
P(R(L)) = 1.
Example 2.5 Consider again the bounded lattice L and the uncertainty mea-
sure m of Example 1.4. Obviously, m is a plausibility measure if and only if
a + b ~ 1 (but never a possibility measure). Since R(L) = {Wl>W2,W3}, the
unique probability measure P representing m with P(R(L)) = 1 is obtained if
we put p = a + b - 1, i.e.,
P({wl})=a+b-l, P({W3}) = 1- a.
If the De Morgan algebra satisfies some kind of distributivity then the inte-
gral somehow reflects the structure of the underlying plausibility measure [22,
Proposition 5.3].
Theorem 2.6 Let m be a u-smooth plausibility measure on a De Morgan al-

gebra L which satisfies the additional condition that the meet 1\ is distributive
over countable joins. Then for each non-empty finite subset {H, F 2 ,·· . ,Fn} of
v+ (lR, L) we have
3 Valuations
Definition 3.1 Let (L,::::;) be a bounded lattice. An uncertainty measure m

on L is called a valuation if for all 0:, f3 E L we have
(VAL) m(o: 1\ (3) + m(o: V (3) = m(o:) + m(f3).
Remark 3.2
(i) If the bounded lattice L is a chain, then trivially each uncertainty measure
on L is a valuation.
(ii) Each valuation m on a distributive bounded lattice L is also plausibility
measure [22, Proposition 3.5].
For valuations, we can obtain a unique representation by a probability mea-

sure with an even smaller support with a richer structure (a lattice homomor-
phism rather than a semi-lattice homomorphism), in analogy to the classical
situation [22, Corollary 4.1].
Definition 3.3 Let (L,::::;) be a bounded lattice. A realization w : L - t {O, 1}

is called coherent if for all 0:, f3 E L
(R4) w(o: 1\ (3) = min(w(o:),w(f3)).
The set of all coherent realizations will be denoted CR( L ).
Theorem 3.4 Let m be a plausibility measure on a bounded lattice Land P

the unique regular Borel probability measure on the space PR(L) such that for
all 0: E L the representation property {1J holds. Then m is a valuation if and
only if the support of P is contained in the subspace of all coherent realizations,
i.e.,
P(CR(L)) = 1.
Example 3.5 Reconsider the bounded lattice L and the uncertainty measure
m of Examples 1.4 and 2.5. Of course, m is a valuation if and only if a + b = 1.
Since CR(L) = {W2' W3}, the unique probability measure P representing m with
P(CR(L)) = 1 is obtained if we put p = 0, i.e.,
P({W3}) = 1- a.
There is a canonical extension of the addition of non-negative real numbers

to V+(lR,L) (see, e.g., [16]).
Definition 3.6 Let (L,::;, 1.) be a a-complete De Morgan algebra which satis-
fies the additional condition that the meet /\ is distributive over countable joins.
Then the sum F EB G of F, G E V+ (lR, L) is defined by
(FEBG)(r) = V{F(rl) /\G(r2) I rl,r2 E Q,rl +r2 > r}.
Remark 3.7
(i) It is not difficult to see that (V+(lR,L),EB) is a commutative semigroup
with unit element Ho.
(ii) For all F,G E V+(lR.,L) and for all wE CR(L) we have (for a proof see
[22, Lemma 5.4])
Again, the same type of distributivity allows us to obtain the additivity of

the integral with respect to valuations [22, Proposition 5.4].
Theorem 3.8 Let (L, $, 1.) be a a-complete De Morgan algebra which satisfies
the additional condition that the meet /\ is distributive over countable joins, and
let m be a valuation on L. Then for all F, G E V+(lR., L) we have
!
L
(F EB G)dm = !
L
F dm + !
L
G dm.
4 Additive measures on MV-algebras
Definition 4.1
(i) A quadruple (L,::;, n, -+) is called a bounded, integral, residuated, commu-
tative i-monoid [4] if the following conditions are satisfied:
(a) (L,::;) is a bounded lattice with universal bounds 0 and 1;

(b) (L, n) is a commutative monoid with unit element 1;
(c) For the binary operation -+ and for all Ci., f3, 'Y E L we have
(Residuation)
(ii) A bounded, integral, residuated, commutative i-monoid (L,:::;, n, -+) is

called a Girard algebra if for all 0 E L
(0 -+ 0) -+ 0 = o. (Involution)
(iii) A Girard algebra (L, :::;, n, -+) is called an MV-algebra if for all 0, (3 E L
(3 n ((3 -+ 0) = 0/\(3. (Divisibility)
In this chapter, we shall not deal with Girard algebras which are not MV-
algebras. Girard algebras play, however, a crucial role in the context of condi-
tioning operators (see Chapter 12).
Remark 4.2
(i) The operation -+ in a bounded, integral, residuated, commutative i-
monoid is usually called the residual implication.
(ii) In a Girard algebra it is possible to define the residual complement 1. and
the dual operation U associated with n by, respectively,
01.= 0 -+ 0,
o U (3 = (01. n (31.)1..
(iii) Each Girard algebra and, subsequently, each MV-algebra is a De Morgan

algebra, and orthogonality is equivalent to disjointness with respect to n,
i.e.,
o :::; f31. <=::} 0 n f3 = o.
(iv) The definition of MV-algebras given above is equivalent to the original
definition in [10], where + (addition), . (multiplication) and - (comple-
mentation) were used rather than u, nand 1., respectively.
(v) An MV-algebra is a Boolean algebra if and only if n = /\.
Example 4.3
(i) Take the unit interval [0,1], the operation n = TL, i.e., the Lukasiewicz
t-norm defined by
TL(a, b) = max (a + b -1,0), (6)

and the Lukasiewicz implication given by
a -+ b = min(1 - a + b, 1),
then ([0,1],::;, n, ~) is an MV-algebra. Observe that here the residual

complement J. and the dual operation U are given by, respectively,
aJ. = 1- a,
aU b = min(a + b, 1).
(ii) The class [O,I]X of all fuzzy subsets of a non-empty set X, equipped
with the pointwise extensions of the operations in (i), is also an MV-
algebra. Moreover, each semi-simple MV-algebra is isomorphic to a sub-
MV-algebra of [0, I]X for some set X (see [2, 3, 10]). A complete charac-
terization of MV-algebras, using nonstandard real-valued functions, was
given in [12].
In the following we list some of the more important properties of MV-

algebras. In particular, property (v) below establishes a generalization of the
classical disjoint decomposition of elements in L. This will be crucial in the
context of additive uncertainty measures.
Remark 4.4 In an MV-algebra (L,::;, n, ~) the following properties hold [10,

20,41]:
(i) (L,::;) is a distributive lattice,
(ii) an aJ. =0 and aU aJ. = 1,
(iii) a ~ 13 = aJ. U 13,
(iv) (13 ~ a) ~ a = a V 13,
(v) 13 = (a 1\ 13) U (aJ. n 13).
Definition 4.5 Let (L,::;, n, ~) be an MV-algebra. An uncertainty measure

m on L is said to be additive if
(ADD) m(a U 13) = mea) + m(j3) whenever an 13 = o.
It is interesting to note that for functions m : L -+ [0,1], where L is an

MV-algebra, the additivity (ADD) implies the isotonicity (M2). The following
result states that additive uncertainty measures on MV-algebras are special
valuations [22, Proposition 3.4]. Moreover, on MV-algebras (ADD) is equivalent
to a property, which in general is strictly stronger ([41, Proposition 2.1]). Also,
additive uncertainty measures on MV-algebras are naturally related to measures
on AF C*-algebras [34].
Theorem 4.6 Let m be an uncertainty measure on an MV-algebra L. Then

we have:
(i) If m is additive then m is a valuation.
(ii) m is additive if and only if for all 0:, (3 EL
m(o: n (3) + m(o: U (3) = m(o:) + m«(3).
5 Measures on tribes of fuzzy sets

In this section, we shall consider uncertainty measures on certain classes of
fuzzy subsets [43] of a non-empty set X, which are described by their so-called
membership functions J.t : X --t [0, 1] (of course, in this context each crisp
subset A of X will be identified with its characteristic function XA).
Operations on fuzzy sets are usually based on t-norms [35], i.e., binary op-
erations T on [0,1] such that ([0, 1],~, T) is a commutative, ordered semigroup
with unit element 1. The most important examples of continuous t-norms are
the minimum, the product, and the Lukasiewicz t-norm TL given in (6). For
each s E ]0, 1[ U ]1, oo[ the Frank t-norm T8 [14] is given by
T 8 (a, b) -- Iog, (1 + (sa - 1) (sb

1
- 1))
.
s-
The limit cases for s going to 0, 1 and 00 are minimum, product and TL,
respectively, and we shall simply write for them To, Tl and Too in this context.
For each left continuous t-norm T, the quadruple ([0, 1],~, T, ~) is a boun-
ded, integral, residuated, commutative i-monoid, where the residual implication
~ can be computed by
a ~ b = Vic E [0,1]1 T(a,c) ~ b}.

Among the Frank t-norms, only TL leads to an MV-algebra in which case we
have aJ. = 1 - a (see Example 4.3(i)).
However, for an arbitrary t-norm T the dual t-conorm S is defined by
S(a, b) =1- T(l - a, 1 - b).
Within the class of continuous t-norms, the pairs of Frank t-norms and their dual
t-conorms (together with the ordinal sums thereof [35]) are the only solutions
of the functional equation [14]
T(a, b) + S(a, b) = a + b,
a fact which will be crucial in the following. For this reason, we shall restrict
ourselves to Frank t-norms only.
When working with fuzzy sets, the order as well as t-norms and t-conorms
are extended pointwise.
Definition 5.1 Let n = Ts be a Frank t-norm for some s E [0,00]' and let
T ~ [O,l]X be a class of fuzzy subsets of the non-empty set X containing the
empty set and such that for all J-L, 1/ E T we have
J-L n 1/ E T,
and define the complement of J-L E T by
J-L1.(X) = 1- J-L(x).
If (T,::;, 1.) is a a-complete De Morgan algebra, then the quadruple (T, ::;, n, 1.)
will be called a Ts-tribe on X.
In the light of [9, Proposition 2.7], Ts-tribes in the sense given above are
exactly Ts-tribes in the sense of [9, Definition 2.5], see also [23, 25]. Note,
however, that tribes were introduced there with respect to arbitrary t-norms.
The following considerations therefore remain valid for all (measurable) t-norms.
Remark 5.2
(i) Trivially, each a-algebra of subsets of X is a Ts-tribe for each s E [0,00].
In particular, for each Ts-tribe T, the set T" of all crisp subsets of X
contained in T is a a-algebra, and hence a Ts-tribe.
(ii) Conversely, given a a-algebra A of crisp subsets of X, the family A" of
all A-measurable fuzzy subsets of X is a Ts-tribe for each s E [O,ooJ.
(iii) A Ts-tribe T is said to be generated if there exists a a-algebra A such that
T = A".
In the properties listed below the special structure of the Frank t-norms and
t-conorms is essential.
Remark 5.3
(i) By definition, To-tribes are exactly a-complete De Morgan algebras.
(ii) If s E ]0,00[, then each Ts-tribe is a TL-tribe, i.e., an MV-algebra [9,
Proposition 2.7(i)].
(iii) If s E ]0,00], a Ts-tribe T on X is generated if and only if it contains all
constant fuzzy subsets of X [9, Proposition 3.3].
(iv) For s E ]0,00] and for each Ts-tribe T we also have T ~ (TV)", i.e.,
each element in T is TV -measurable [9, Theorem 3.2]. Additional results
concerning Ts-tribes can be found in [28, 32, 33].
Definition 5.4 Let (T, ::;, n, .L) be a T.-tribe for some s E [0,00]. A a-smooth
uncertainty measure m on T is called a T. -measure on T if for all p" 1/ E T we
have
(TM) m(p, n 1/) + m(p, U 1/) = m(",) + m(//).
Remark 5.5
(i) Each Ts-measure is a a-smooth valuation, i.e., a To-measure [26].
(ii) Each TL-measure on a Ts-tribe T with s E ]0,00] is a a-smooth additive
uncertainty measure on (the MV-algebra) T.
(iii) Each Ts-measure satisfies an additivity property analogous to (ADD) (in-
troduced in the context of MV-algebras only) which, however, is signifi-
cantly weaker than (TM) with the obvious exception if n = TL.
We have essentially three types of Ts-measures m on tribes T of fuzzy sets:

in descending order of generality they are valuations (for arbitrary s E [0,00]),
Ts-measures with s E ]0,00], and additive uncertainty measures (in the case
s = 00). Accordingly, there are three representation theorems where m(p,)
can be written as a (Lebesgue) integral with respect to the restriction of m
to the crisp sets in T, and where the integrand depends on '" in a way which
corresponds to the respective level of generality.
The most general representation theorem uses the powerful concept of a TV-
Markov kernel [1]. In our situation, a TV -Markov kernel is a two-place function
K : X x (B n [0, 1[) --+ [0,1] which is TV -measurable in its first component,
and a probability measure on B n [0, 1[ in its second component. A complete
proof can be found in [9, Theorem 5.8]' see also [24].
Theorem 5.6 Let T be a generated (To-)tribe on X. Ifm: T --+ [0,1] is a a-
smooth valuation on T, then there exists a unique probability m on TV, namely,
the restriction of m to TV, and an m-almost everywhere uniquely determined
TV -Markov kernel K such that for all '" E T
m(",) =/ K(x, [0, ",(x)[) dm(x).

x
Recall that each Ts-measure on a generated tribe is also a a-smooth valua-

tion. Therefore, the Markov kernel representation given in Theorem 5.6 applies
to all Ts-measures on generated tribes.
The other extreme are additive uncertainty measures on a Tvtribe (i.e,
on an MV-algebra) T which have the simplest possible integral representation
(which is just the construction suggested in [44]) even in the case of a non-
generated TL-tribe T. A full proof can be found in [9, Theorem 6.2], compare
also [5, 6, 7, 8, 26, 27].
Theorem 5.7 Let T be a TL-tribe on X. If m : T -+ [0,1] is a (1-smooth

additive uncertainty measure on T, then there exists a unique probability m on
TV, namely, the restriction of m to TV, such that for all J.L E T
m(J.L) = J J.Ldm.
x
The intermediate case, i.e., s E ]0,00[, leads to a representation of Ts-

measures on generated tribes where the corresponding Markov kernel has a
rather special form (which is independent of the index s). Again, a proof ap-
peared in [9, Theorem 7.1], an earlier version in [26].
Theorem 5.8 Let Ts be a Frank t-norm with s E ]O,oo[ and T be a generated

(1'8 -) tribe on X. If m : T -+ [0, 1] is a Ts -measure on T, then there exists
a unique probability m on TV, namely, the restriction of m to TV, and an m-
almost everywhere uniquely determined r
-measurable function f : X -+ [0,1]
such that for all J.L E T
m(J.L) = J [f + (1- f) . J.L] dm.

{I'>O}
Concluding remarks
Following the main lines sketched in the introduction, we could of course not
cover all possible aspects of generalized measures.
In particular, the range of all measures was the unit interval equipped with
the usual addition. Several generalizations, e.g., decomposable measures where
the addition is replaced by an Archimedean t-conorm, have not been mentioned
here [29, 30, 40].
The concept of the additivity of an uncertainty measure is not as clear when
we leave the safe ground of MV-algebras. This is of particular interest in the
context of conditioning operators, where Girard algebras appear in a very natu-
ral way. First steps into this directions were done in [22, 42] and in Chapter 12.
References
[1] H. Bauer, Probability Theory and Elements of Measure Theory. Academic
Press, London, 1981.
[2] L. P. Belluce, Semi-simple algebras of infinite valued logic and bold fuzzy
set theory, Can. J. Math., 38:1356-1379,1986.
[3] L. P. Belluce, Semi-simple and complete MV-algebras, Algebra Universalis,

29:1-9, 1992.
[4] G. Birkhoff, Lattice Theory. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, 1973.
[5] D. Butnariu, Additive fuzzy measures and integrals. I, J. Math. Anal. Appl.,
93:436-452, 1983.
[6] D. Butnariu, Decomposition and range for additive fuzzy measures, Fuzzy
Sets and Systems, 10:135-155, 1983.
[7] D. Butnariu, Non-atomic fuzzy measures and games, Fuzzy Sets and Sys-
tems, 17:39-52, 1985.
[8] D. Butnariu, Additive fuzzy measures and integrals. III, J. Math. Anal.
Appl., 125:288-303, 1987.
[9] D. Butnariu and E. P. Klement, Triangular Norm-Based Measures and

Games with Fuzzy Coalitions. Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1993.
[10] C. C. Chang, Algebraic analysis of many valued logics, 7rans. Amer. Math.
Soc., 88:467-490, 1958.
[11] G. Choquet, Theory of capacities, Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble), 5:131-

292, 1953/1954.
[12] A. Di Nola, Representation and reticulation by quotients of MV algebras.

Ricerche di Matematica Napoli, 40:291-297, 1991.
[13] D. Dubois and H. Prade, Possibility Theory. An Approach to Computerized

Processing 01 Uncertainty. Plenum Press, New York, 1988.
[14] M. J. Frank, On the simultaneous associativity of F(x, y) and x+y-F(x, y).

Aequationes Math. 19:194-226, 1979.
[15] P.R. Halmos, Measure Theory. Van Nostrand-Reinhold, New York, 1950.
[16] U. Hahle, MaJ3e auf unscharfen Mengen, Z. Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie

verw. Gebiete, 36:179-188, 1976.
[17] U. Hahle, Representation theorems for L-fuzzy quantities, Fuzzy Sets and
Systems, 5:83-107, 1981.
[18] U. Hahle, A mathematical theory of uncertainty, in: Fuzzy Sets and Possi-
bility Theory. Recent Developments, R. R. Yager (ed.), pp. 344-355. Perg-
amon Press, New York, 1982.
[19] U. Hahle, Remark on entropies with respect to plausibility measures, in:

Cybernetics and Systems Research, R. Trappl (ed.), pp. 735-738. North-
Holland, Amsterdam, 1982.
[20] U. H6hle, Commutative, residuated l-monoids, in: Non-Classical Logics

and Their Applications to Fuzzy Subsets. A Handbook of the Mathemati-
cal Foundations of Fuzzy Set Theory, U. H6hle and E. P. Klement (eds.),
pp. 53-106. Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1995.
[21] U. H6hle and E. P. Klement, Plausibility measures - a general framework
for possibility and fuzzy probability measures, in: Aspects of Vagueness,
H. J. Skala, S. Termini and E. Trillas (eds.), pp. 31-50. Reidel, Dordrecht,
1983.
[22] U. H6hle and S. Weber, Uncertainty measures, realizations and entropies,

in: Random Sets: Theory and Applications, J. Goutaias, R. P. S. Mahler,
H. T. Nguyen (eds.), pp. 259-295. Springer, Heidelberg, 1997.
[23] E. P. Klement, Fuzzy a-algebras and fuzzy measurable functions, Fuzzy Sets
and Systems, 4:83-93, 1980.
[24] E. P. Klement, Characterization of finite fuzzy measures using Markoff-

kernels, J. Math. Anal. Appl., 75:330-339, 1980.
[25] E. P. Klement, Construction of fuzzy a-algebras using triangular norms, J.

Math. Anal. Appl., 85:543-565, 1982.
[26] E. P. Klement, Characterization of fuzzy measures constructed by means

of triangular norms, J. Math. Anal. Appl., 86:345-358, 1982.
[27] E. P. Klement, R. Lowen and W. Schwyhla, Fuzzy probability measures,
Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 5:21-30, 1981.
[28] E. P. Klement and M. Navara, A characterization of tribes with respect to

the Lukasiewicz t-norm, Czechoslovak Math. J., 47:689-700, 1997.
[29] E. P. Klement and S. Weber, Generalized measures, Fuzzy Sets and Sys-
tems, 40:375-394, 1991.
[30] E. P. Klement and S. Weber, An integral representation for decomposable
measures of measurable functions, Aequationes Math., 47:255-262, 1994.
[31] G. Matheron, Random Sets and Integral Geometry, Wiley, New York, 1975.
[32] R. Mesiar, Fundamental triangular norm based tribes and measures, J.

Math. Anal. Appl., 177:633-640, 1993.
[33] R. Mesiar and M. Navara, Ts-tribes and Ts-measures, J. Math. Anal. Appl.,
201:91-102,1996.
[34] D. Mundici, Averaging the truth value in Lukasiewicz logic, Studia Logica,
55:113-127,1995.
[35] B. Schweizer and A. Sklar, Probabilistic Metric Spaces. North-Holland, Am-
sterdam, 1983.
[36] G. Shafer, A Mathematical Theory of Evidence. Princeton University Press,

Princeton, 1976.
[37] H. Sherwood and M. D. Taylor, Some PM structures on the set of distribu-
tion functions, Rev. Roumaine Math. Pures Appl., 19:1251-1260, 1974.
[38] A. Sklar, Fonctions de repartition it n dimensions et leurs marges, Publ.
Inst. Statist. Univ. Paris, VIII:229-231, 1959.
[39] M. Sugeno, Theory of Fuzzy Integrals and its Applications. PhD Thesis,
Tokyo Institute of Technology, 1974.
[40] S. Weber, ..l-decomposable measures and integrals for Archimedean t-

conorms ..l, J. Math. Anal. Appl., 101:114-138,1984.
[41] S. Weber, Conditioning on MV-algebras and additive measures, Part I,
Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 92:241-250, 1997.
[42] S. Weber, Conditioning on MV-algebras and additive measures, Part II, in:
Fuzzy Sets, Logics and Reasoning about Knowledge, D. Dubois, H. Prade,
E. P. Klement (eds.), Kluwer, Dordrecht (in press).
[43] L. A. Zadeh, Fuzzy sets, Inform. Control, 8:338-353, 1965.
[44] L. A. Zadeh, Probability measures of fuzzy events, J. Math. Anal. Appl.,

23:421-427,1968.
[45] L. A. Zadeh, Fuzzy sets as a basis for a possibility theory, Fuzzy Sets and
Systems, 1:3-28, 1978.
CHAPTER 12
On Conditioning Operators*
U. HORLE AND S. WEBER
Introduction
The construction of conditional events (so-called measure-free conditioning) has
a long history and is one of the fundamental problems in non-deterministic sys-
tem theory (cf. [6]). In particular, the iteration of measure-free conditioning
is still an open problem. The present paper tries to make a contribution to
this question. In particular, we give an axiomatic introduction of conditioning
operators which act as binary operations on the universe of events. The corre-
sponding axiom system of this type of operators focus special attention on the
intuitive understanding that the event '0: given {3' is somewhere in "between"
'0: and /3' and'/3 implies 0:'. A detailed motivation of these axioms can be found
in Section 2 and Proposition 6.4.
A further problem of measure-free conditioning is to express the uncertainty
of conditional events. Referring to Lewis' Triviality Result (cf. [4]), it is inter-
esting to see that standard methods from probability theory (e.g. conditional
probabilities) can not be applied to this type of question. In our paper we
overcome this problem by applying a concept of generalized probability theory
which is not based on Boolean algebras, but on MV-algebras (see also previous
Chapter 11 in this volume). In this context, we are able to show that Lewis'
Triviality Result does not hold; i.e. there exist (additive) uncertainty measures
which are compatible with certain conditioning operators.
The paper is organized as follows: After presenting the lattice-theoretic pre-
requisites (Section 1) we define conditional events (0: II (3) as ordered intervals
in the case of MV-algebras. In Section 3, we construct the canonical Girard
extension of any Girard algebra (cf. Main Theorem 3.1). Subsequently, in
Section 4 we show that there exists an intimate relationship between condition-
ing operators and mean value functions which are compatible with the residual
"In the memory of Anne Weber

654 U. Hohle and S. Weber
complement in the underlying Girard algebra. In Section 5, the existence of

conditioning operators on the canonical Girard algebra extension is established
(cf. Theorem 5.3) which includes all interval based, conditional events (cf. Re-
mark 5.6). Finally, Section 6 deals with the relationship between uncertainty
measures and conditioning operators in which mean value measure extensions
playa significant role (cf. Theorem 6.8).
1 Lattices of events
Let (L,:::;) be a bounded lattice - i.e. (L,:::;) is a lattice provided with uni-
versal bounds 0, 1. With regard to possible applications to probability theory
we interpret elements of L as events. In this context the universal upper (lower,
resp.) bound represents the sure (impossible, resp.) event. In order to deal with
various non-classical logical systems, we enrich the structure of bounded lattices
as follows:
Definition 1.1 (a) A triple (L,:::;, n) is called a bounded, integral, residuated,

commutative £-monoid iff the following conditions are satisfied:
(i) (L,:::;) is a bounded lattice.
(ii) (L, n) is a commutative monoid.
(iii) There exists a further binary operation -+: L x L t---+ L provided with
the following property:
f3n, : :; a¢=} , :::; f3 -+ a . (Residuation)
(iv) The upper universal bound 1 acts as unity w.r.t. n. (Integrality)

D
It is easy to see that the binary operation appearing in (iii) is uniquely

determined by the residuation property; hence -+ is also called the residual im-
plication. Further, in any bounded, integral, residuated, commutative £- monoid
the universial lower bound 0 acts as zero, and the semigroup operation n is
distributive over finite meets.
Definition 1.2 (Girard algebra) A bounded, integral, residuated, commu-

tative £-monoid 9 = (L,:::;, n) is called a Girard algebra iff the following axiom
is satisfied:
(a -+ 0) -+ 0 a . (Involution)
D
Conditioning operators 655
In any Girard algebra the residual complement and the dual operation asso-
ciated with n can be defined by
In case of disjoint (or orthogonal) events,
aJ..(3 ¢:::::? an(3 =0 ,
the disjoint union will be denoted by aU (3 .
Definition 1.3 (MV -algebras)

(a) A Girard algebra 9 is called an MV-algebra iff the following axiom is sat-
isfied:
(3 n ((3 -+ a) = a 1\ (3 . (Divisibility)
(b) An MV-algebra is called a Boolean algebra iff n = 1\ .
(c) An MV-algebra M = (L,~, n) has square roots iff there exists a unary
operation r : L 1---+ L satisfying the following conditions
(SI) r(a) n r(a) =a ,
(S2) (3 n (3 ~ a :=} (3 ~ r(a) o
It is easy to see that the unary operation r is uniquely determined by the

axioms (81) and (82). Therefore r is also called the square root operation on
L. Obviously Boolean algebras have always square roots, and the square root
operation coincides with the identity map in this context.
An MV -algebra M is called strict iff M has square roots and the square
root operation r satisfies the following additional condition:
(83) (r(O)).L = r(O) (Strictness)

In this context it is interesting to see that any MV -algebra with square roots
is a either Boolean algebra or a strict MV -algebra algebra or a product of a
Boolean algebra and a strict MV-algebra (cf. Theorem 2.21 in [1]).
In the following propositions we collect fundamental properties of Girard
and MV-algebras. Their proofs can be found in Section 2 in [1] or in [7] or, in
the context of Conditioning, in [8, 9].
Proposition 1.4 In a Girard algebra (L,~, n) the following properties hold:

(aJ an((3V,) = (an(3) V (an,)
656 U. Wihle and S. Weber
(b) (3 -+ a = (3 -+ ((3 n ((3 -+ a)) .
(c) (3-+a = (31. U a = (31. U(al\(3)

(d) The lower universal bound 0 acts as unity w. r. t. U.
(e) aU a1. = 1 .
(a 1\(3)1.
Proposition 1.5 In an MV -algebra (L,:S, n) the following properties hold:
(a) (L,:S) is a distributive lattice.
(b) a n ((3 1\ 'Y) = (a n (3) 1\ (a n 'Y)
(c) ((3 -+ a) -+ a = a V (3 . (MV -Property)

(d) (3 = (a 1\ (3) U (a1. n (3) . (Disjoint Decomposition)
(e) a-+(an(3) = a1.V(3 .
Proposition 1.6 In a strict MV -algebra (L,:S, n) the following properties

hold:
(a) a:Sr(a) a:S(3 r(a) :s r((3) .
(b) r((3 -+ a) = r((3) -+ r(a)
(c) (r(a1.))1. = r(a) n r(O) , r(a) n r(a1.) = r(O)
(d) (r(a) n r((3))1. = r(a1.) n r((31.)
(e) r(a) = aU (r(a) )1. .
2 Interval based conditional events in the case

of MV - algebras
Let M = (L,:S, n) be an MV-algebra, and let a and (3 be events of L. The
problem of defining the conditional event 'a given (3' deals with the intuitive
understanding that 'a given (3' is neither the conjunction of a and (3 nor the
implication '(3 implies a', but 'a given (3' is somewhere located between the
conjunction and the implication of a and (3. This understanding motivates the
following definition: For any event 0:, f3 E L the interval based conditional event
(0: II (3) of 0: given f3 is defined as the order interval:
(0: II (3) = [0: 1\ f3 , f3 -+ 0:] .
The set of all such conditional events will be denoted by L. This construction
was introduced in [3] for Boolean algebras and further developed in [6], and for
MV-algebras in [8]. Because of Proposition 1.5(c) we have the following
Lemma 2.1 (Interval representation)

Order intervals of MV -algebras (L,::;, n) are in a one- to-one correspondence
to conditional events in L via:
[0:,,] = (0:11,-+0:) .
o
Further , it is easy to see that the set L of conditional events extends the set
L of (unconditional) events in the following sense:
(11) (0: 111) = {o:} ,

(12) (0: II (3) = (r 118) ¢::=.} 0:1\f3 =,1\ 8 , f3 =8 .
A special case of (12) is the subsequent relation:
(12') (0: 1\ f311 (3) = (0: II (3) .
In order to extend the partial ordering from the set L of all (unconditional)
events to the set L of all (interval based) conditional events, it follows imme-
diately from (11) that we cannot use the set-inclusion. We make the following
choice:
(0: II (3) ~ (r II 8) ¢::=.} 0: 1\ f3 ::; , 1\ 8 , f3 -+ 0: ::; 8 -+, ,
The reflexivity and transitivity of ~ is evident. The anti-symmetry follows

from (12) and Proposition 1.5(c). Moreover we observe:
0: < f3 (0: 111) ~ (f3 111) j
hence ~ fulfils the desired properties. Some order-theoretic aspects of (L,~)

are collected in:
Lemma 2.2 (Lattice extension)

(a) The following mono tonicity properties hold:
(19) 0:1::; 0:2 => (0:1 II (3) ~ (0:2 II (3) ,
(14) f31::; f32 , 0: 1\ f32 ::; 0: 1\ f31 => (0: II (32) ~ (a II (31)
(b) Furthermore, (£,~) is a bounded lattice. Inparticular, the lattice operations

and universal bounds are given by
(a II ,8) 1\ (r II 8) = [(a 1\,8) 1\ (r 1\ 8) , (,8 -t a) 1\ (8 -t "Y) 1
(a II ,8) V (r II 8) = [(a 1\ ,8) V (r 1\ 8) , (,8 -t a) V (8 -t "Y) 1
6 = (0111) = {OJ i = (1111) = {I}
(c) (L,~) is a sublattice of (£, ~) .
PROOF. The assertions follow immediately from the definitions.
o
In the following considerations we are interested in extending also the

monoidal structure of the given MV-algebra M = (L,~, n) to (£,~). Re-
ferring to the definition of the partial ordering ~ the immediate natural choice
seems to be the following binary operation 6. on £ defined as follows:
(a II ,8) 6. (r II 8) = [(a 1\ ,8) n (r 1\ 8) , (,8 -t a) n (8 -t "Y) 1.
It is not difficult to show that (£,~, 6.) is a bounded, integral residuated,
commutative f-monoid. Because of
(a 11,8)* = (a II ,8) -t (0111) = (a.L n,8 111)
the residual complement is not involutory; hence (£,~, 6.) fails to be a Girard
algebra. On the other hand there exists an order reversing involution ' : L f----t L
on £ which is determined by
(2.1)
Since ' is obviously an extension of the residual complement in L, we ask the
following
Question: Does there exist a Girard algebra structure 9 on (£,~) such that
the residual complement in 9 coincides with the order reversing involution
defined in (2.1) and such that the given MV-algebra is a Girard subalgebra of
g?
As the following theorem shows we can give an affirmative answer to the previous
question:
Theorem 2.3 (Girard algebra extension)
There exists a binary operation n on £ such that.M = (£,~, n) is a Girard
algebra. In particular, n and the corresponding residual implication -t are given
by
(a II ,8) n (r II 8) =
[(a 1\,8) n ("Y 1\ 8) , «a 1\,8) n (8 -t "Y» V «,8 -t a) n (r 1\ 8» 1,
(a II ,8) -t (r II 8) =
[ (,8 V 8) -t f, (,8 n 8) -t f 1, where f = (,8 -t a) -t (r 1\ 8) .
Further the residual complements are determined by:
where, particularly:
(0 II 0)1- = (0 II 0) = L .
Finally the dual operation U associated with n has the following form:
(a \\ {3)U(r \\8) = [((a/\/3)U(8 -+ ,))I\(({3 -+ a)U(r1\8)) , ({3 -+ a)u(8 -+ ,)] .
PROOF. The assertion follows immediately from Lemma 2.1 and the Main
Theorem 3.1.
o
Corollary 2.4 Let M = (L, $, n) be an MV -algebra, and Nt = (L,~, n)
be the Girard algebra extension from Theorem 2.3. Then:
Nt is an MV -algebra <:==} M is a Boolean algebra.
PROOF. The assertion follows immediately from Lemma 2.1 and Corollary
3.2.
o
Remark 2.5 (Boolean case) Let L = $ be a Booelan algebra. Referring
to Remark 3.3 infra it is interesting to see that every interval based conditional
event of lR can be represented by a continuous 3-valued map. In this sense
conditional events are special lattice-valued maps.
o
3 Canonical extension of Girard algebras

In this subsection we show that the construction in Theorem 2.3 can be extended
to any Girard algebra. Since order intervals [a,,8] can be identified with ordered
pairs (a,,8) with a $ ,8, we first fix the following notation and terminology:
Let (] = (L, $, n) be a Girard algebra. Then the set
L1 = {(a,,8)ELxL: a$,8}
will be called the canonical extension of L where L is identified with its diagonal
LtJ. = {(a, a) : a E L} . Further we provide L1 with the partial ordering $
which arises as restriction from the product ordering on L x L - i.e.
(a,{3) $ (r,8) <:==} a $, , ,8 $ 8 .

Obviously (L1' S) is a bounded lattice, and the lattice-theoretic operations and

universal bounds are given by
(a,;3) 1\ h,6) = (al\" ;31\6)

(a,;3) V h,6) = (aV" ;3v6)
(0,0) = ° (1,1) = 1 .
If we identify L with its diagonal LA, then (L, S) is a sublattice of (L1' S).
Main Theorem 3.1 (Canonical Girard algebra extension)

Let 9 = (L, S, n) be a Girard algebra structure. Then there exists a unique
binary operation on L1 (also denoted by n) satisfying the following conditions:
(i) 91:= (L 1,S,n) is a Girard algebra,

(ii) (a,a) n (;3,;3) = (an;3, an;3) ,
(iii) (0, a).l. = (a.l., 1) .
In particular the monoidal structure of 91 is given by:
(a,;3) n h,6) = (a n" (a n 6) V (;3 n,) ) (3.1)

(a,;3) -+ h,6) = ((a -+,) 1\ (;3 -+ 6), a -+ 6) (3.2)
(a,;3).l. = (f3.l., o.l.) . (3.3)
(a,;3) U h,6) = ( (0 U 6) 1\ (;3 U,) , ;3 U 6 ) (3.4)
PROOF. (a) Let @ be any binary operation on L1 satisfying (i)-(iii). First

we show:
(a, a) -+ (0,1) = (a.l. , 1) (3.5)
Let us choose an element h,6) E L1 satisfying the following condition
(*) (a,a) @ h,6) < (0,1).

Because of (i) the binary operation @ is distributive over finite joins; hence we
obtain:
[(a, a) @ h, ,)] V [(a, a) @ (0,6)] < (0,1) .
Now we apply (ii) and the integrality (cf. (i)) of @ and obtain that the relation
(*) is equivalent to (an"an,) S (O,I);-i.e. , S a.l.. Hence the
relation (3.5) follows from the residuation property of 91 (cf. (i)). (b) Because
of Condition (iii) and Proposition 1.4(c) we conclude from (3.5)
(a, a) @ (0,1) = (0, a)

Now we invoke the associativity of @ and obtain from the previous relation:
(a,a) @ (0,/3) [(a, a) @ ((3, (3)] @ (0,1)

(an(3, an(3) @ (0,1) (0, an (3) .
Now we apply again the distributivity of @ over finite joins
(a1,(3d @ (a2,(32)
[(a1,a1)@(a2,a2)] V [(a1,a1)@(0,(32)] V [(0,(31)@(a2,a2)]V
V [(0,(31)@(0,(32)] =
(a1 n a2 , (a1 n (32) V ((31 n a2)) V [(0, (31) @ (0, (32)]
hence the relation (3.1) follows from the observation
(0, (31) @ (0, (32) < (0,1) @ (0, 1) = (0,0) .
(c) Because of formula (3.1) it is a matter of routine to check that (L1,n) is

a commutative monoid. In order to verify the residuation property we proceed
as follows: Let us consider an element (f, J) E L1 satisfying the following
condition:
Because of (3.1) and the componentwise defined partial ordering the relation
(**) is equivalent to
Now we invoke the residuation property of 9 and obtain:
Because of a2 S (32 it is not difficult to verify (3.2). Further (3.3) is a special

case of (3.2) , and (3.4) follows immediately from (3.1) and (3.3).
o
Let 91 be the Girard algebra constructed in Theorem 3.1. If we identify L

with its diagonal LA, then it is easy to see that the given Girard algebra 9 is
a Girard subalgebra of 91. Therefore 91 is called the canonical Girard algebra
extension of 9.
Corollary 3.2 Let 9 be a Girard algebra, and 91 be its canonical Girard al-
gebra extension. Then the following assertions are equivalent:
(i) 91 is an MV -algebra.
(ii) 9 is a Boolean algebra.
PROOF. (a)( (i) => (ii)) Let a be an element of L. Because of (ana, 1) <
(a, 1) the divisibility property implies
(ana, 1) (a, 1) n «a, 1) -+ (ana, 1))

Now we apply (3.1) and (3.2) and obtain
(a n a, 1) (a, 1) n ((a -+ (a n a)), 1)
= (a n a, (a V (a -+ (a n a))))
Since 9 is a subalgebra of 91, 9 is also an MValgebra. Therefore we can
derive from Proposition 1.5(e) and (*) the following relation
1 = a V (a -+ (a n a)) = a V a1. ,
hence the distributivity of n over finite joins implies the idem potency of a
w.r.t. n; i.e. 9 is a Boolean algebra.
(b) ((ii) => (i)) Let us assume (a1,;31) ::; (a2,;32). Since 9 is a Boolean
algebra, it is not difficult to verify the following relations:
= a2 1\ (a2 -+ (1) 1\ (;32 -+ ;3d

;31 (at l\;3d V (a2 l\;3d = [(a2 -+ ad 1\ ;31J V [(a2 1\ ;3dJ =
[;321\ (a2 -+ (1) 1\ (;32 -+ ;31)J V [a2 1\ (a2 -+ ;3dJ
Now we refer to (3.1) and (3.2) and obtain:
hence the divisibility property is verified.

o
Remark 3.3 (Representation by 3-valued maps) Let 9 = (Jffi,:::;, 1\) be

a Boolean algebra. Then Corollary 3.2 shows that the canonical Girard exten-
sion 91 of 9 is an MV- algebra. Moreover, it follows immediately from (3.1)
that for every event (a,;3) E Jffi1 its square (a, j3) n (a, j3) is idempotent w.r.t
n. Hence Proposition 4.12 and Proposition 2.6(xii) in [lJ (see also Lemma 6.2
in [1]) imply that 91 is a semisimple MValgebra - a result which was first
established by H.T Nguyen, I.R. Goodman and E.A. Walker [6J. Further, let
3 = {O,~, I} be the MV-algebra consisting of three elements (which is obvi-
ously the canonical Girard extension of the Boolean algebra 2 of two elements
(cf. Remark 2.I(c) in [2])), and let (X,7) be the Stone space corresponding
to Jffi. Then it is not difficult to show that the canonical Girard 91 extension
of (Jffi,:::;, 1\) is isomorphic (in the sense of MV-algebras) to the MV-algebra of
all 7-continuous maps f : X r--t 3 where 3 is provided with the discrete
topology.
o
4 Conditioning and mean value generation

Definition 4.1 (Axioms for conditioning operators)
Let 9 = (L,~, n) be a Girard algebra. A binary operation I: Lx L t---+ L is
called a conditioning operator on 9 iff I satisfies the following axioms:
(CI) (a 11) =a ,
(C2) (,8n (,8 ~ a) 1,8) = (a 1,8) ,
(C3) 01 ~ 02 ==? (01 1,8) ~ (02 1,8) ,
(C4) ,81 ~ ,82 , ,82 n (,82 ~ a) ~ ,81 n (,81 ~ a) ==? (a I ,82) ~ (a I ,81) ,
(C5) (a I ,8)1.. = (01.. n,8I,8) , particularly, (0 I 0)1.. = (0 I 0) .
o
Remark 4.2
(a) Boolean algebras L do not admit conditioning operators, because L has
no selfcomplemented element which could serve as (0 I 0) in axiom (C5) .
Moreover, MV-algebras without a selfcomplemented element do also not admit
conditioning operators.
(b) We will show in Section 5 that in a wide class of Girard algebras the exis-
tence of conditioning operators is guaranteed.
o
For the sake of completeness we quote Lemma 2.1 in (2):
Lemma 4.3 Every conditioning operator fulfills the following property:
,8 n (,8 ~ a) < (a I ,8) < ,8 ~ a .
Definition 4.4 (Mean values in Girard algebras)

Let 9 = (L,~, n) be a Girard algebra. A a mean value function is an isotone,
idempotent binary (not necessarily commutative) operation on L - i.e. a map
C : L x L t---+ L satisfying the following axioms
(i) C(o, a) =a , (Idempotency)
(ii) C(01,,81) ~ C(02,,82) whenever 01 ~ 02,,81 ~ ,82. (Isotonocity)

A mean value function C is said to be compatible with the residual complement
in L iff C satisfies the following additional condition
664 U. Hahle and S. Weber
Theorem 4.5 Let g = (L,~, n) be a Girard algebra and C be a mean value

function on L which is compatible with the residual complement in L. Then C
induces a conditioning operator I on L by
(a I ,8) = C ( ,8 n (,8 -+ a) , ,8 -+ a )
PROOF. The axiom (Cl)and (C2) follow from the idempotency of C, and
Proposition 1.4(b). Further, it is easy to see that the axioms (C3) and (C4) are
an immediate consequence of the isotonicity of C. In order to verify (C5) we
first refer to Proposition 1.4(c) and observe:
Now we apply the residual complement compatibility of C and obtain:
The type of conditioning operator constructed in Theorem 4.5 is called a

mean value based conditioning operator.
For the case of MV-algebras the construction was introduced in [9]. In this
special situation we will now show that there exists a close relationship between
a certain class of conditioning operators and mean value functions.
Theorem 4.6 (Mean values and measure-free conditioning)

Let M = (L,~, n) be an MV -algebra and I be a conditioning operator. Then
the follwoing assertions are equivalent:
(i) is a mean value based conditioning operator.
(ii) satisfies the following condition
(C3 /) al ~ a2 =:} (al /\ "I I "I -+ ad < (a2 /\ "I I "I -+ (2) .
PROOF. (a) ((i) =:} (ii» Referring to the construction in Theorem 4.5 we
obtain from Proposition 1.5(c):
(a /\ "I I "I -+ a) = C(a /\ "I, ("( -+ a) -+ (a /\ "I» = C(a /\ "I, "I) .

If we fix 'Y E L, then the isotonicity of C implies (C3') .

(b) ((ii) ==:} (i)) The given conditioning operator determines a map
C: LxLt---+L by
C(a,f3) = (aAf3 I f3-+a)

We show that C is a mean value function on L which is compatible with the
residual complement. The idempotency of C follows immediately from (Cl).
Further, the condition (C3') guarantees the isotonocity of C in its first variable.
In order to verify the isotonocity in its second variable we proceed as follows: Let
us fix a triple (a, f31, f32) with f31 ::; f32. The divisibility axiom of MValgebras
implies
(f3 -+ a) n ((f3 -+ a) -+ (a A IS)) = (f3 -+ a) A a A IS = a A IS •
Hence the triple ((a A f31) , f31 -+ a , f32 -+ a) satisfies the hypothesis of Axiom
(C4). Therefore (C3) and (C4) imply
C(a,f31) < ((a Af31) I f32-+a) < C(a,f32) ;
hence the isotonicity of C in its second variable is verified. Finally, we conclude

from (C2), (C5) and the divisibility axiom:
(C(a, ;3))1- ((a1- n (f3 -+ a» I (f3 -+ a»

= ((a1-Af31-) I (a1--+f31-» = C(f31-,a1-) .
Now it is sufficient to show that C induces I in the sense of Theorem 4.5.

Once again we apply (C2), the divisibility and MV-property of MV-algebras
and obtain:
C(f3 n (f3 -+ a) , f3 -+ a) = C(a A f3, f3 -+ a)

= (aAf3 I (f3-+a)-+(aAf3»
= (aAf3 I (f3V(aAf3») = (a I f3)
o
Example 4.7 (Mean value functions)

(a) Let M = (L,::;, n) be an MV-algebra with a (unique) selfcomplemented
element a - i.e. a1- = a. Further let (L,::;) be a chain. Then the map
C : L x L t---+ L defined by
aV f3 : aVf3::;a}
C(a,f3) = { aAf3 : a < aAf3
a : elsewhere
is a mean value function on L which is compatible with the residual complement.

666 u. Hahle and S. Weber
(b) Let M = (L,:::;, n) be a strict MV- algebra, and r be the square root
operation on L. Then the map C : Lx L f---t L defined by
C(a,(3) =r(a)nr«(3) 'V a, (3 E L
is a mean value function on L. Because of Proposition 1.6(d) C is compatible

with the residual complement. In particular, C is commutative and bisymmet-
ric operation. (cf. Section 5 in [9])
o
5 Measure-free conditioning on canonical exten-

sions of Girard algebras
Even though not every Girard algebra admits an conditioning operator (cf.
Remark 4.2(a)), we show in this section that there exist conditioning operators
on the canonical Girard algebra extension of any Girard algebra. In this sense
we give a non-dogmatic and far reaching solution to all of the problems arising
in measure-free conditioning - e.g. the construction of the iteration of the
conditioning process.
We start with a fundamental observation:
Lemma 5.1 (Mean value functions on the canonical extension)

Let 9 = (L,:::;, n) be a Girard algebra and 91 = (L1':::;' n) the canonical
Girard algebra extension of 9 (cf. Theorem 3.1). Every mean value function B
on L (in the sense of Definition 4.4) induces a mean value function C on L1
by:
C ( (a, (3) , (f,o)) = (B(a, 13 Ivy) , (B(o.L, f3.L A ,.L) ).L) .
Moreover, C on L1 is compatible with the residual complement in L1 (w.r.t
91) and satisfies the further property:
(D) C( (a,a), (f,,)) = (a,,) whenever a <, .

o
The proof of the previous lemma is straight forward and can be left to the
reader. What is more important in this context, is the observation that every
Girard algebra admits mean value functions.
Remark 5.2 (Existence of mean value functions) Let 9 = (L,:::;, n) be

a Girard algebra. Then the following maps B1 and B2 defined by
are mean value functions on L. Further the corresponding mean value functions
Ci on L1 (i = 1,2) (in the sense of Lemma 5.1) are given by
Cd (a,,8) , (,),,8» = (a, 8)

C2 ( (a,,8) , (,),,8» = (,8 A "y , ,8 V "y )
o
Theorem 5.3 (Existence of conditioning operators)

Let 9 = (L,~, n) be a Girard algebra. Then there exist conditioning operators
on the canonical Girard algebra extension 91 = (L1'~' n) of 9 {cf. Theorem
3.1}.
PROOF. See Theorem 4.5, Lemma 5.1 and Remark 5.2.

o
A more specific result is the following
Theorem 5.4 Let 91 = (L1'~' n) be the canonical Girard algebra extension

on 9. Then there exists a mean value function C on L1 which is compatible
with the residual complement in L1 and satisfies the condition {D} in Lemma
5.1 Further the mean value based conditioning operator I corresponding to C
{cf. Theorem 4.5} satisfies the additional diagonal property:
{DP} «a,a) I (,8,,8» = (,8n(,8-+a),,8-+a) .

PROOF. The assertion follows immediately from the constructions in Theo-
rem 4.5, Lemma 5.1. and Remark 5.2
o
Proposition 5.5 Let 9 = (L,~, n) be a Girard algebra and 91 = (L1'~' n)
be the canonical Girard algebra extension {Theorem 3.1}. Then any conditioning
operator I on L1 satisfying the diagonal property {DP} listed in Theorem 5.4
leads to a mapping II: L x L f---t L1 , given by:
(a 11,8) = «a,a) I (,8,,8» = (,8n(,8-+a),,8-+a) ,

which satisfies the following properties:
{Dl} (a 111) = (a, a) ,

{D2} (,8n(,8-+a) 11,8) = (a 11,8) ,
{D3} a1 ~ a2 => (a1 11,8) ~ (a2 11,8) ,
{D4} ,81 ~ ,82 , ,82 n (,82 -+ a) ~ ,81 n (,81 -+ a) => (a II ,82) ~ (a 11,81) ,
{D5} (a II ,8).L = (a.L n,8 11,8) ,particularly, (0 II O).L = (0 II 0) = (0,1) .
PROOF. Since 9 is a Girard subalgebra of 91 the properties (D1) - (D5)

follow immeadiately from (C1) - (C5).
o
Remark 5.6 The values (a II (3) E L1 of the mapping II: Lx L t---+ L1 from
Proposition 5.5 can be called conditional events. Furthermore, Proposition 5.5
extends the interval approach from Section 2, making the obvious identifications
comparing the properties (D1)-(D5) with (11), (121), (13)-(15) (d. Section
2). Therefore we used the same symbol II abusing the notation.
o
6 Uncertainty measures and measure-free con-

ditioning
Let 9 = (L,::;, n) be a Girard algebra, and .L and U be the residual complement
and the dual operation associated with n. A map m : L t---+ [0,1] is called an
uncertainty measure iff m satisfies the following conditions (d. Section 3 in [2]
and Chapter 11):
(M1) m(O) = 0 , m(l) = 1.
(M2) a:::; (3 ==> m(a):::; m«(3) .

If m is an uncertainty measure, then the entity mea) is usually interpreted as
the uncertainty that the event a occurs. Here an uncertainty measure m will
be called additive iff m satisfies the additonal axiom
a.Ln (a U (3) = (3 and (3.L n (a U (3) = a
(M3)
==> mea U (3) = mea) + m«(3)
An uncertainty measure m is said to be strictly positive iff 0 < mea) for all
a "I O.
Remark 6.1 (a) Every additive uncertainty measure m on a Girard algebra

fulfils the following property
m(a.L) = 1 - mea) .
(b) In the case of MV-algebras, the divisibility property implies that an uncer-
tainty measure m is additive iff m satisfies the more intuitive axiom
(M4) an (3 = 0 ==> mea U (3) = mea) + m«(3) ,

i.e. if m is a state in the sense of D. Mundici (cf. [5]), see also Chapter 11 in
this volume. But, in general, (M4) is a stronger property than (M3). 0
The (non-trivial) problem of additivity in Girard algebras will be discussed

in a forthcoming paper.
In the present section we are rather interested in the problem to what extent
conditioning operators are related to conditional probability measures. In the
case of Boolean algebras there is a long history of attempts (cf. [6]). The main
point seems to be Lewis' Triviality Result (cf. [4]), namely there does not exist
any binary operation <> on a Boolean algebra 18 with at least eight elements
such that the following relation holds for all probability measures m on 18 :
(
m a <>
13) -- m(a 1\ 13)
m(f3) whenever m(f3) > 0.
This fits naturally with Remark 4.2(a). In the following considerations we in-
vestigate Lewis Triviality Result in the realm of MV -algebras provided with a
selfcomplemented element. First we start with a definition:
Definition 6.2 Let I be a conditioning operator on an MV -algebra M =

(L,:::;, n), and m be a strictly positive uncertainty measure on M. Then m
is said to be a conditional uncertainty measure w.r.t. I iff the following relation
holds
= {
~
(eM) m(a 113) ---.n(i1J f3=J O }
1
2" 13=0
o
Example 6.3 On the real unit interval [0,1) we consider a binary operation n
which is determined by Lukasiewicz' arithmetic conjunction, i.e.
a n 13 = max(a + 13 - 1, 0) .
Then M = ([0,1),:::;, n) is an MV-algebra. Further, the binary operation
defined by
(a I 13) f3=J O }
13=0
is a conditioning operator on M, based on the mean value function C ,given
by
C(a, 13) = {a+O<2"~-,6 (a,f3) =J (0,1) }
(a,f3) = (0,1)
which is compatible with the residual complement a.L = 1 - a. Obviously,
the identity map id of [0,1) is a conditional uncertainty measure w.r.t. this
conditioning operator which is also additive. 0
670 u. Hahle and S. Weber
Proposition 6.4 (Motivation of the axioms (CI),(C2) and (C5))

Let M = (L,~, n) be an MV -algebra, I be a binary operation on L satisfying
the axioms (C3) and (C4), and :F be a non empty family of strictly positive,
additive uncertainty measures m on M satisfying (CM) s.t. :F separates
points in L , i. e.
Ir/(a,(3) E L x L with a:j:. (3 3m E:F: m(a) :j:. m«(3) .
Then I is a conditioning operator on M, and all m E:F are (additive) con-

ditional uncertainty measures w.r.t. I.
PROOF. Let us fix an uncertainty measure mE :F. Then we obtain imme-

diately from (Ml) and (CM):
m(a 11) = m(a) m(a/\(31 (3) = m(a I (3) .
Since :F separates points in L, the binary operation satisfies necessarily the

axioms (Cl) and (C2). In order to verify (C5) we proceed as follows: First,
according to Remark 6.1(b), we apply the additivity axiom (M4) to the disjoint
decomposition of (3 from Proposition 1.5(d) and obtain
m( a.L n (3) = m«(3) - m( a /\ (3)
Then we embark on (CM) and apply again the additivity of m:
m«a I (3)1.) =1- m(a I (3) = m«(3) - m(a /\ (3) = m(a.L n (3 I (3) .
m«(3)
Since :F separates points in L, the axiom (C5) follows. Now, because of (CM),
it is trivial that in this context all m E :F are conditional uncertainty measures
w.r.t. the conditioning operator I .
o
Addition. Because Example 6.3 it is important to note that in general the
hypothesis of the previous proposition is non empty.
In the following conderations we investigate the relationship between con-

ditioning operators and uncertainty measures. We start with the following im-
portant observation (cf. Proposition 3.6 in [2]):
Theorem 6.5 (Additive measure extension in the Boolean case)

Let 9 = (B,~, /\) be a Boolean algebra, and m be a probability measure on
9. Further let 91 = (~,~, n) be the canonical MV - algebra extension of 9.
Then m has a unique extension to an additive uncertainty measure m on 91 ,
i.e. there exists a unique additive uncertainty measure in on 91 such that the
restriction of in to 1m coincides with m. In particular, in is given by
in(a,f3) = ~ . (m(a) + m(f3»)

o
Remark 6.6 Let 9 = (1m,~, /\) be a Boolean algebra with at least four ele-
ments. Further let 91 be the canonical MV -algebra extension of g. Then there
exist strictly positive probability measures m on 9 such that their (unique)
additive extension in to 91 is not a conditional uncertainty measure w.r.t. any
conditioning operator 1 on 91 . For simplicity let us consider the following
Example: 1m = {0, {w}, {w}, {w,w}} and m({w}) = m({w}) = t where
we assume w =J w. Further we consider the following pairs in 91 :
a = ({w},{w}) , 13 = ({w},{w,w}) 1 = ({w,w}, {w,w})

Then the values of the additive extension in of m are given by (cf. Theorem
6.5):
in(a) = ~ in (13) = ! in(1) = 1.
Now, let 1 denote any conditioning operator on 91. Then the axioms (C1)
and (C4) imply a = (a 1 1) ~ (a 1 13). We put 'Y = a.L n (a 1 13) and
assume that in is a conditional uncertainty measure w.r.t. I. Now we invoke
the additivity of in and obtain:
in(-y) = in(a 1 13) - in(a) = 1.i

2 3
1
2" = 1
6
Since Theorem 6.5 implies that ~ cannot be in the range of in, we conclude
that in is not a conditional uncertainty measure w.r.t. I.
o
It follows from the previous Remark 6.6 that already on canonical MV-algebra
extensions the additivity of uncertainty measures and the compatiblity of uncer-
tainty measures with conditioning operators in the sense of Definition 6.2 are
mutually exclusive concepts. One way to overcome this obstacle is to remem-
ber that a non-trival (generalized) measure theory is also possible w.r.t. non-
additive uncertainty measures (cf. Section 4 and Section 5 in [2] or Chapter
11 in this volume). Therefore, if we drop the additivity axiom, we obtain the
following partially positive result:
Theorem 6.7 (Conditional uncertainty measure extension)

Let 9 = (L,~, n) be an MV -algebra and 91 be the canonical Girard alge-
bra extension of 9. Further let m be a strictly positive, additive uncertainty
measure on 9, and let I be a conditioning operator on 91 which satisfies the

diagonal property {DP} {cf. Theorem 5.4}. Then there exists an uncertainty
measure (m) on 91 satisfying the following properties
{i} m(a, a) m(a) ,i.e. m is an extension of m,
{ii} m((a,a) I (f3,f3)) = m( Ot/\{3 , Ot/\(3)

m({3,{3)
whenever 13 > 0.
In particular, m can be given by
m(a)
m(a,f3) = 1 - m(f3) + m(a)
whenever (a,f3):j:. (0,1).
PROOF. (i) is obvious, and (ii) follows immediately from (DP) and the
additivity of m.
o
The Theorem 6.5 and Theorem 6.7 are dealing implicitly with the extension of
uncertainty measures from a given Boolean algebra to its canonical MV-algebra
extension. It is interesting to see that these constructions are special cases of
the following general theorem:
Theorem 6.8 (Mean value measure extensions)

Let 9 =(L,::;, n) be a Girard algebra and 91 be the canonical Girard algebra
extension of 9. Further let M be a mean value function on [0,1]. Each
uncertainty measure m on 9 can then be extended to an uncertainty measure
m on 91, via:
m(a, 13) M (m(a) , m(f3) )
Furthermore, if M is compatible with the usual complement in [0,1] {i.e. 1 - x

is the complement of x }, then we have
1-m(a,f3)
Finally, it it is interesting to observe that the arithmetic mean (cf. Theorem

6.5) and the mean value function which appears in Theorem 6.7 are members
of a large family of mean value functions constructed in Example 4.2 in [9].
References
[1] U. H6hle, Commutative, residuated £- monoids, in: Noncioassicallogics and
Their Applications to Fuzzy Subsets (eds. U. H6hle and E.P. Klement), 53-
106 (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, Dordrecht 1995).
[2] U. Hohle and S. Weber, Uncertainty measures, realizations and entropies,

in: Random Sets: Theory and Applications (eds. J. Goutsias, R.P.S.
Mahler, H.T. Nguyen), 259-295 (Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, Berlin, New
York 1997).
[3] B.O. Koopman, The axioms and algebra of intuitive probability, Ann. Math.
41 (1940), 269-292.
[4] D. Lewis, Probabilities of conditionals and conditional probabilities, Philo-

sophical Review 85 (1976),297- -315.
[5] D. Mundici, Averaging the truth value in Lukasiewicz logic, Studia Logica
55 (1995), 113-127.
[6] H.T. Nguyen, I.R. Goodman and E.A. Walker, Conditional Inference and
Logic for Intelligent Systems: A Theory of Measure-Free Conditioning
(North-Holland, Amsterdam 1991).
[7] K.I. Rosenthal, Quantales and Their Applications (Longman, Burnt Mill,
Harlow 1990).
[8] S. Weber, Conditioning on MV-algebras and additive measures, Part I,
[9] S. Weber, Conditioning on MV-algebras and additive measures, Part II,

in: Fuzzy Sets, Logics and Reasoning about Knowledge (eds. D. Dubois,
H. Prade, E.P. Klement), in press (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston,
Dordrecht) .
CHAPTER 13
Applications Of Decomposable Measures
E. PAP
Introduction
We shall give a brief overview of some applications of special non-additive mea-
sures - so-called decomposable measures including the corresponding integration
theory, which form the basis for pseudo-analysis. We present applications to op-
timization problems, nonlinear partial differential equations, optimal control.
We want to stress here some of the advantages of pseudo-analysis. Based on
a unique theory we present a unified treatment of various (usually nonlinear)
problems arising in such fields as system theory, optimization, difference equa-
tions, partial differential equations, control theory. The important fact is that
this approach gives also solutions in the form which are not achieved by other
theories ( for example, Bellman difference equation, Hamilton-Jacobi equation
with non-smooth Hamiltonians and discontinuous initial data). In some cases
this method enables us to obtain exact solutions of mostly nonlinear equations
in a form which is similar to the case of linear equations.
Some obtained principles (e.g. the principle of pseudo-linear superposition)
allows us to transfer methods of linear equations to the theory of nonlinear
equations.
Pseudo-analysis uses many mathematical tools from different fields as func-
tional equations, variational calculus, measure theory, functional analysis, opti-
mization theory, semiring theory, etc. and is still undergoing a rapid develop-
ment in various directions (cf. [4,14,19,23,32,35,41]).
1 Non-additive measures and integrals

1.1 Null-additive measures
Let V be a family of subsets of a given set X such that 0 E V. A very general
class of non-additive measures is determined by the following definition:

676 E. Pap
A set function m : V -t [0,00] with m(0) = 0 is called null-additive, if and

only if
m(A U B) = m(A) whenever A, B E V, A n B =0 and m(B) = O.

A detailed study of null - additive set functions can be found in [32, 41]. A set
function m : D -t [0,00] is called monotone iff
m(A) :::; m(B) whenever A ~ B, A, B E V.
In applications monotone (positive) set functions are usually called fuzzy mea-
sures (see [14, 39, 41]). Recently there is obtained a close relation between some
classes of non-additive measures and random sets, see [15].
Positive monotone set functions vanishing at the empty set were investigated
by G.Choquet (1953-1954). He introduced an integral, which generalizes the
Lebesgue integral. Let m be a monotone positive set function defined on a (7-
algebra ~ .. The Choquet integral of a non-negative measurable function f on
A E ~ is given by (see [8, 14, 32, 15])
Jf J
00
(C) dm = m(An{xlf(x) ~r})dr.

A o
In 1974 Sugeno introduced another type of integral on a given subset A C X
defined as follows (cf. [39])
(5) J
A
f(x)dm sup
rE[O,+oo]
min[r, m(A n {xlf(x) ~ r})] .
In various applications both integrals are usually called fuzzy integrals.
1.2 Pseudo operations

1.2.1 Real setting
Now we restrict our interest to a special subclass of null-additive set functions
determined by decomposable measures (see [10,14,18,17,27,28,29,32,39,40,
41,42]). This measures are based on pseudo-addition and serve as an important
tool in pseudo-analysis.
We shall start with the operations on the real interval [0,1]. At-norm
(short for triangular norm) is a function T : [0,1]2 -t [0,1] such that
(T1) T(x, y) = T(y,x) (Commutativity)
(T2) T(x,T(y,z)) = T(T(x,y),z) (Associativity)
(T3) T(x, y) < T(x, z) whenever y :::; z (Monotonicity)
(T4) T(x,l) = x (Boundary Condition)

Applications of decomposable measures 677
Example 1.2.1 The following are the most important t-norms
TM(X, y) = min (x, y) TL(x,y) = max(O,x + y -1)
Tp(x,y) = xy Tw(x,y)
= {min(x, y) if max(x, y) =1
o otherwise.
o
The dual concept of operation can be defined as follows: A t-conorm (short for
triangular conorm ) is a function S : [0,1]2 -+ [0,1] such that
(Sl) S(x,y) = S(y,x) (Commutativity)
(S2) Sex, S(y, z)) = S(S(x,y),z) (Associativity)
(S3) S(x,y) < S(x,z) fory~z (Monotonicity)
(S4) S(x,O) = x (Boundary Condition)

We see that t-norms and t-conorms differs only by the boundary conditions.
Example 1.2.2 The following are the most important t-conorms :
SM(X,y) = max(x,y) SL(x,y) = min(l,x+y)

max(x,y) if min(x,y) =0
Sp(x,y) = x+y-xy Sw(x,y) = { 1 otherwise.
o
Many other important t-norms and t-conorms can be found in [12, 17]. The
basic connectives in fuzzy logic and their corresponding operations in fuzzy set
theory are based on triangular norms and triangular conorms (cf. [9, 14, 13]).
We extend now the considered interval for the previous operations. Let [a, b]
be a closed ( in some cases semiclosed) subinterval of [-00, +00]. We consider
here a total order ~ on [a, b] (although it can be taken in the general case a
partial order, see subsection 1.2.2). The operation EEl (pseudo-addition) is a
function EEl : [a, b] x [a, b] -+ [a, b] which is commutative, nondecreasing, asso-
ciative and has a zero element, denoted by O.
Let [a,b]+ = {x : x E [a,b], x ~ O}. The operation 0 (pseudo-multiplication)
is a function 0 : [a, b] x [a, b] -+ [a, b] which is commutative, positively nonde-
creasing, Le. x ~ y implies x 0 z ~ y 0 z, z E [a, b]+, associative and for which
there exist a unit element 1 E [a, b], Le., for each x E [a, b]
10x = x.
We suppose, further, 00 x = 0 and that 0 is a distributive pseudo-multi-

plication with respect to EEl, i.e.
x 0 (y EEl z) = (x 0 y) EEl (x 0 z).

678 E. Pap
The structure ([a, b], 61, 0) is called a semiring (see [7,12,20,32]).

In this paper we will consider only special semirings with the following con-
tinuous operations:
Case I : Pseudo-addition 61 is idempotent and pseudo-multiplication is not
idempotent.
(i) X61y=min(x,y), x0y=x+y,
on the interval (-00, +00]. We have 0 = +00 and 1 = O.
(ii) x61y=max(x,y), x0y=x+y,
on the interval [-00, +00). We have 0 = -00 and 1 = O.

Case II : Both operations are not idempotent. Semirings with pseudo-
operations defined by a monotone and continuous generator 9 (see [1, 25, 29,
32]). In this case we will consider only strict pseudo-additions 61 - Le. 61 is
continuous and strictly increasing in (a, b) x (a, b).
By Aczel's representation theorem (see [1], see also [21, 26]) for each strict
pseudo - addition 61 there exists a monotone function 9 (generator for 61 ) ,
g: [a,b]-t [-00,00] (or with values in [0,00]) such g(O) = 0 and
u 61 v = g-l(g(U) + g(v)).
Using a generator 9 of a strict pseudo-addition 61 we can define a pseudo-
multiplication 0 by
u 0 v = g-l(g(U)g(v)).
This is the only way to define a pseudo-multiplication 0, which is distributive
with respect to a given pseudo-addition 61 generated g.
Case III : Both operations are idempotent. Let 61 = max and 0 = min on
the interval [-00, +00].
1.2.2 General setting

We can give a more general formulation of the preceding real situation.
Let P be a non-empty set equipped with a partial order ~ . The operation 61 is
a function 61 : P x P -t P which is commutative, nondecreasing, associative and
has a zero element, denoted by o. Let P+ = {x : x E P, x ~ O}. The operation
o is a function 0 : P x P -t P which is commutative, positively nondecreasing,
i.e., x ~ y implies x 0 z ~ y 0 z, z E P+, associative and for which there exist
a unit element 1 E P, Le., for each x E P
10x = x.
We suppose, further, 00 x = 0 and that 0 is distributive with respect to 61,

Le.,
=
x 0 (y 61 z) (x 0 y) 61 (x 0 z).
The structure (P, 61, 0) is called a commutative semiring. ( [23], [32]). We sup-
pose that P is a complete lattice. The order convergence of nets on P induces
the order topology. We consider on P a metric d for which we require a

compatibility with the introduced topology in the following sense: the conver-
gence of a net in the order topology is equivalent with the convergence with
respect to the metric dj the monotonicity of the metric, i.e., x :::; y implies
d(x, y) == sUPZE[Z,y] sup(d(x, z), d(z, y))j and which satisfies at least one of the
following conditions:
(a) d(x 61 y, x' 61 y') :::; d(x, x') + d(y, y')
(b) d(x 61 y, x' 61 y') :::; maxi d(x, x'), d(y, Y'n.
Example 1.2.3 Let (JRU {_oo})n be endowed with the partial order :::; deter-
mined by
Xi :::; Yi Vi == 1, ... ,n .
Then ((JR U {_oo})n, 61, 8) with x 61 y == sup(x, y) and

x 8 y == (Xl + Y1, ... ,Xn + Yn) is a semiring. We can introduce the following
metrics which are compatible with the order
n
d(x,y) == :L)emax(Zi,Yi) _ emin(zi,Yi))
i=l
or
n
d(x, y) == ~)arctan(max(xi' Yi)) - arctan(min(xi, Yi))).
i=l
Example 1.2.4 Let (JRU {+oo})n be endowed with the partial order:::; deter-
mined by
Xi :::; Yi Vi == 1, ... ,n .
Then ((JR U {+oo})n, 61, 8) with x 61 y == inf(x,y) and

x 8 y == (Xl + Y1, ... ,X n + Yn) is a semiring. We can introduce the following
metric which is compatible with the order
n
d(x,y) == :L)e-min(zi,Yi) _ e-max(zi,Yi)).
i=l
o
The results in next subsection can be formulated also in the general semiring
settings, but we restrict ourself to the real case.
1.3 Pseudo-integral
Let X be a non-empty set. Let E be a o--algebra of subsets of X.
A set function m : E -+ [a, b]+ (or semiclosed interval) is called ffi-decom-
posable measu.re iff the following axioms hold:
(Ml) m(0) = 0
(M2) m(A U B) = m(A) ffi m(B) whenever An B = 0 .
00
(M3) If An ~ An+! ,then m( U An) = sup m(An)) - i.e. m
n=l n
is continuous from below (cf. [9, 42]).
In the case when ffi is idempotent, it is possible that m is not defined on an
empty set. A ffi-decomposable measure m is 0- - ffi-decomposable, i.e.,
00 00
m(U Ai) = E9m(Ai)

i=l i=l
hold for any sequence {Ai} of pairwise disjoint sets from E.
Let m be a ffi-decomposable measure. We suppose that ([a, b], ffi) and

([a, b], 0) are complete lattice ordered semigroups. Further, we suppose that
[a, b] is endowed with a metric d compatible with sup and inf, i.e., lim sup Xn = x
and lim inf Xn =x imply limn-too d( x n, x) = 0, and which satisfies at least one
of the following conditions:
(a) d(x ffi y, x' ffi y') :::; d(x, x') + d(y, y')
(b) d(x ffi y, x' ffi y') :::; max{d(x, x'), d(y, y')}.
Both conditions (a) and (b) imply that:
d(xn,Yn) -+ 0 implies d(xn ffi Z, Yn ffi z) -+ O.
Let f and h be two functions defined on the interval [c, dJ and with values in
[a, b]. Then, we define for any x E [c, dJ (f ffi h)(x) = f(x) ffi h(x), (f 0 h)(x) =
f(x) 0 h(x) and for any A E [a, b] (A 0 f)(x) = A0 f(x).
We define the characteristic function with values in a semiring
0, x ~A
XA (x) ={ 1, xEA
A mapping e : X -+ [a, b] is an elementary (measu.rable) function if it has the

following representation
E9 ai 0
00
e= XAi for ai E [a, b]

i=l
and Ai E }:; disjoint if EEl is not idempotent.

Let e be a positive real number, and Be [a, b]. A subset {In of B is a e-net
in B if for each x E B there exists If such that d( Ii, x) ~ e If we have If ~ x,
then we shall call {Ii} a lower e-net. If Ii ~ li+l holds, then {Ii} is monotone.
The pseudo-integral of a bounded measurable function f : X --t [a, b], for
which, if EEl is not idempotent for each e > 0 there exists a monotone e-net in
f(X), is defined by
["fJ f
ix
0 dm = lim
n-+oo
r
ix
fIJ CPn(x) 0 dm,
where {CPn} is the sequence of elementary functions constructed in [28, 32].
Remark 1.3.1 If we replace decomposable measures by general fuzzy mea-

sures, then in a similar way it is possible to construct a general integral [14, 17,
24, 27, 41] which covers also the Choquet and Sugeno integral.
2 Pseudo-convolution and pseudo-Laplace

transform
2.1 Pseudo-convolution
We have introduced in the papers [36, 38] (see also [3, 4, 23]) the notion of the
pseudo-convolution of functions.
Let G be subset of IR such that (G, +) is a group with unit element 0 and
G+ = {x : x E G, x ~ O}. We shall consider functions whose domain will be G.
Definition 2.1.1 The pseudo-convolution of the first type of two functions

f : G --t [a, b] and h : G --t [a, b] with respect to a (1 - EEl-decomposable measure
m and x E G+ is given in the following way
where Gt = {(u, v)lu + v = x, v E G+, u E G+}, mh = m in the case of sup-

decomposable measure m(A) = SUP:z:EA h(x) (and in the case ofinf-decomposable
measure m(A) = inf:Z:EA h(x)) and dmh = h 0 dm in the case of EEl-decompos-
able measure m, where EEl has an additive generator 9 and 9 0 m is the Lebesgue
measure ( g-calculus (32j).
We consider also the second type of pseudo-convolution:
f * h(x) = IafIJ f(x - t) 0 dmh(t).
for x E G.
682 E.Pap
We shall denote f * h also by Jf!! f(x - t) <:) h(t)dt. The pseudo-convolution is a

commutative and associative operation.
Example 2.1.2
(I) (i) For the semiring ((-oo,oo],min,+) the integral is given by
(f!! f <:) dm = inf (f(x) + h(x)) ,

iR xER
where the function h defines the inf-decomposable measure m. The

domain of functions will be JR (or some subset of JR) and the domain of
the semiring can be any subinterval of (-00,00] which contains 0 and
00. The zero element for the EB is 00 and the unit element for the <:) is
O. The pseudo-delta function is given by
8min ,+(x) = { 1 (= 0) if x = 0,
o (= 00) if x "I O.
The pseudo-delta function is the unit element for the operation of

pseudo-convolution of first type
f * h(x) = 09:::;x
inf (f(x - t) + h(t)).
(ii) For the semiring ([-00,00), max, +) the pseudo-integral with respect to
a sup-decomposable measure m, m(A) = SUPxEA h(x), is given by
iR
rf <:) dm = sup(f(x) + h(x)) ,
xER
and the pseudo-convolution of second type of the functions f and h will

be
f * h(x) = sup(f(x - t) + h(t)).
xER
(II) The pseudo-convolution of first type in the sense of the g-integral , i.e.,
when the pseudo-operations are represented by a generator 9 as x EB y =
g-l(g(X) + g(y)) and x <:) y = g-l(g(X)g(y)), is given in the following way
f * h(x) = (f!! f(t) <:) h(x - t)dt

i[o,x]
= g-1(1x g(g-l(g(f(t)) . g(h(x - t))))dt).
In the sequel, generators 9 will be monotone and continuous functions. For

such functions g-1(g(8)) = g(g-1(8)) = 8 holds. The pseudo-convolution
of first type then becomes
(f * h)(x) = g-l (10'' g(f(t)) . g(h(x - t))dt).
Hence
(f * h)(x) = g-l(((g 0 1) * (g 0 h))(x)), i.e. go (f * h) = (g 0 1) * (go h),

where * is the classical convolution.
(III) (a) For the semiring ([-00,00], max, min) the integral is given by
JR
rf
fIJ
8 dm = sup(min(f(x), h(x)),
zER
where the function h defines the sup-decomposable measure m. The

domain of functions will be IR (or some subset of IR) and the domain
of the semiring can be any subinterval of [-00, 00]. The zero element
for the EEl is -00 and the unit element for the 8 is +00. The pseudo-
delta function is given by
8max,min(x) = { 1 (= +00) if x = 0,
o (= -00) if x f:. O.
The pseudo-delta function is the unit element for the operation of

convolution f * h(x) = sUPo9~z(min(f(x - t), h(t))) .
(b) For the semiring ([-00,00], min, max) the integral is given by
Jr
fIJ
f 8 dm = inf (max(f(x) , h(x))) ,
R zER
where the function h defines the inf-decomposable measure m. The

domain of functions will be IR (or some subset of IR) and the domain of
the semiring can be any subinterval of [-00, +00]. The zero element
for the EEl is +00 and the unit element for the 8 is -00. The pseudo-
delta function is given by
8min ,max(x) = { 1 (= -00) if x = 0,

o (= +00) if x f:. o.
The pseudo-delta function is the unit element for the pseudo-

convolution of first type f * h(x) = info<t<z(max(f(x - t), h(t))) .
o
Remark 2.1.3 In many different mathematical theories as in optimization,
probabilistic metric spaces, information, fuzzy numbers, system theory there are
684 E.Pap
some basic operations with functions. We can consider all these operations as
some kind of generalized pseudo-convolutions, which are based on some pseudo-
operations ( see [37]).
2.2 Pseudo-Laplace transform

Let P be a semiring either of I) type or II) or III) type from subsection 1.2.1
and (G, +) a subgroup of (JR, + ). We shall use the results from [36].
Definition 2.2.1 The pseudo-chamcter of the group (G, +), G c JR is a con-

tinuous map {: G -+ P, of the group (G,+) into semiring (P,ffi,<:)), with the
property
{(x + y) = {(x) <:) {(y), x, y E G.
Theorem 2.2.2 Let { be a pseudo-chamcter of the group (G, +), G c JR. Then
we have
I) If ffi E {max, min}, then
a) for <:) = +, that {(x, c) = c . x,
b) for <:) =', that {(x,c) = CZ (= ekz , where k = Inc).
II) If ffi is with an additive genemtor 9 such that x ffi y = g-l(g(X) + g(y)),
then we have
III) a) If ffi = max and <:) = min, then {(x, c) = coo

b) If ffi = min and <:) = max, then {(x, c) = c.
Proof. I) (i) In this case the equation {(x + y) = e(x) <:) {(y) reduces on the
Cauchy functional equation
{(x + y) = {(x) + {(y)

which has the solution (see [1]) {(x, c) = cx.
(ii) The general equation reduces on the following form
{(x + y) = {(x) . {(y)
which has the solution (see [1]) {(x, c) = cZ •
II) The equation
{(x + y) = {(x) <:) {(y)
reduces by the representation of the operation <:) on the following functional
equation
i.e.,
g({(x + y)) = g({(x)) . g({(y)).
Hence
(g 0 ~)(x + y)) = (g 0 ~)(x) . (g 0 O(y),
which has the solution (see [1]) (g 0 ~)(x) = aX, i.e., ~(x,a) = g-1(e x1na ).
III) (i) In this case the equation ~ (x + y) = ~ (x) 8 ~ (y) reduces on the
functional equation
~(x + y) = min(~(x), ~(y))
which has the solution ~(x, c) = c.

(ii) The general equation reduces on the following form
~(x + y) = max(~(x), ~(y))

which has the solution ~(x, c) = c.
o
Definition 2.2.3 The semiring B(G, P) consists in the cases I) and III) of the
bounded ( with respect to the order in P) functions, and the case II) of functions
I : G --+ P with the property go fELl (G) (the space L1 (G) consists of Lebesgue
integrable functions which satisfy the condition IG I/(x)ldx < +00. )
Let It and h be from B (G, P). We introduce the following operations
(It EEl h)(x) = It (x) EEl h(x), xEG
(It * h)(x) = ($ It (x - t) 8 h(t)dt, x EG

lGn[o,x]
(pseudo-convolution) .
For A E P, and I E B(G, P) we define (A 8 f)(x) = A8 I(x), x E G.
Definition 2.2.4 Pseudo-Laplace transform £$(1) of a function I E B(G,P)

is defined by
(£$ I)(z) = {$ (~(x, z) 8 f(x))dm(x),
lGn[o,oo)
where ~ is the pseudo-character. For cases I) and III) we consider also pseudo-
Laplace transform taking in the pseudo-integral the whole G instead ofGn[O, 00).
Example 2.2.5 We give some examples, where the numeration correspond to

the subsection 1.2.1.
I) (i)
(£$ f)(z) = inf (-xz + I(x)),
x~o
II) g-Laplace transform

686 E.Pap
o
We have proved in [36] the pseudo-exchange formula
We shall prove here the exchange formula only for one case. For other cases see
[36].
I) (ii) We have
Cffi(h * 12Hz) = sup( -zx + (h * h)(x))

z~O
= sup[-zx + sup (h(x - t) + h(t))]

z~O 09::;z
= sup sup [-zx + (h(x - t) + 12 (t))]
z~009::;z
= supsup[-z(x - t + t) + h(x - t) + 12 (t)]

t~O z~t
= supsup[-z(x - t) + h(x - t) - zt + h(t)]

t~O z~t
= sup[sup[-z(x - t) + h(x - t)] + (-zt + 12 (t))]

t~O z~t
= sup[ sup [-z(x - t) + h(x - t)] + (-zt + h(t))]

t~O z-t~O
= sup[sup[-zs + h (s)] + (-zt + h(t))]

t~O .~o
sup (-zs + h (s)) + sup( -zt + h(t))

.~o t~O
= cffi(jt}(z) + Cffi(h)(z)
= Cffi(jt}(z) 8 Cffi(h)(z)
We have used the equality supt(a+h(t)) = a+suPt h(t), and that the supremum
is invariant with respect to translation, Le., sUPz f(x) = sUPz_t f(x - t).
o
In the paper [36] the following theorem for inverse pseudo-Laplace transform
was proved.
Theorem 2.2.6 If for Cffi(j) = F, there exists (Cffi)-l(F), then it has the
following form for the cases I, II:
(i)
((Cffi)-l(F))(x) = inf(xz + F(z)),
z~O
(ii)
((Cffi)-l(F))(x) = sup(xz + F(z)).
z~O
We have for 0 = product

(i)
(ii)
((CEll)-I(F))(x) = sup(eXZF(z)),
Z~O
II)
i.e.,
Remark 2.2.1 All considerations can be extended also to the case

(G,+) c (IRn,+).
3 Optimization
In this section we give first an example of an application of pseudo-analysis to
the theory of optimization ([5, 36]).
Example 3.1 We intend to find the maximum of the utility function
on the domain
R = {(XI,X2, ""XN): Xl + X2 + ... + XN = X, Xi 2:: 0, i = 1, ... ,N}.

Such problems often occur in mathematical economics and operation research.
Let
f(x) = max[/I(xd + !2(X2) + ... + fN(XN)] .
R
Applying the pseudo-Laplace transform (for the case ffi = max and 0 = +)
F(z) = (CEIl f)(z) = max( -xz + f(x))
X~O
we obtain by the pseudo-exchange formula (by induction)

N
cEIl (f) = ECEll(h) .
i=l
Applying the inverse of the pseudo-Laplace transform
= min(xz + F(z))
z~O
688 E.Pap
we obtain the solution
Further, there are some pseudo-integral representations of nonlinear operators

which occurs in dynamical programming ( [4, 12, 19, 23, 32, 38]).
Example 3.2 In the optimization problems often occurs the following operator
which we shall call Bellman operator. Let X and Y be arbitrary non-empty
subsets of llt Let k E C(X x Y).
Then the operator B : C(Y) -+ C(X) is defined by
(Bf)(x) = max(k(x,y)
yEY
+ f(y)).
Using the pseudo-integral with respect to EB = max and 8 = + we can rewrite
the preceding operator in the form
(Bf)(x) = [fB k(x,y)dmj = [fB k(x,y) 8 f(y)dy.

D
A set 8 is a semimodule over the semiring P if (8, EB) is a commutative semigroup

with the neutral element 0 and a multiplication 8 : P x 8 -+ 8 which for all
0.,(3 E P,x,y E 8 satisfies the conditions: (i) (0. 8 (3) 8 x = 0. 8 ((38 x); (ii)
0. 8 (x EB y) = (0. 8 x) EB (f3 8 y); (iii) 08 x = 0. 8 0 = O. If S is endowed with
some topology we suppose that the involved operations are continuous.
The non-linear operator B is pseudo-linear in the following sense
Definition 3.3 Let B(X, P) denote the semimodule of all functions from X
into the semiring (P, EB, 8) from cases (1)-(IlI) from Example 2.1.2, such that
IxfB f(x)dm E P,
wherem is aU-EB-decomposable measure. A mappingT: B(Y,P) -+ B(X,P)
is pseudo-linear if the following conditions are satisfied
T(O) = 0; T(fEBh) = T(f)EBT(h); T()..8f) = )..8T(f) ().. E P, f, hE B(Y, P)).
The Bellman operator B can be extended on the whole B(Y, P) by
(Bf)(x) = sup(k(x,y) + f(y)).
yEY
As it is well-known from classical linear functional analysis the representation of

a linear operator on function spaces as integral operator is crucial. In the same
spirit now we represent pseudo-linear operators by pseudo-integral ( [38]). We
restrict ourselves to those cases in which the pseudo-addition EB is idempotent,
i.e., max or min (cases (I) and (III) in Example 2.1.2).
Theorem 3.4 Let P be one of the semirings from cases (I) or (III) from Exam-
ple 2.1.2, with the property that for every bounded subset {aoJ of P and A E P
we have
EBa(A 0 aa) = A 0 EBaaa·
If T : B(Y, P) -+ B(X, P) is a pseudo-linear operator, then it satisfies the
condition
if and only if there exists a unique function k E B(X x Y, P) such that
(Tf)(x) = [$ k(x,y) 0 f(y)dy.
4 Morphism between probability calculus and

decision calculus
We have to stress also the very close relation of the probability and the dynamic
programming which is achieved by pseudo-analysis ( see [3, 4, 19]).
It is well-known that for the Gaussian law Nm,q, with mean m and standard
deviation a, the following convolution rule hold
where * is the usual convolution. In the dynamic programming specially in the

decision theory the quadratic form Qm,q defined for m E lR and a E [0,00)
1 x-m
Q(x) = 2"(-a-)2 for a f:. 0
and
for x = m
Qo,o(x) = { ~oo otherwise
plays important role. In [4] it was given the analogous pseudo-convolution rule.
Theorem 4.1
with respect to the pseudo-convolution * based on the operations EEl = min and
0=+.
Remark 4.2 Hence there exists a morphism between the family of quadratic
forms endowed with the pseudo-convolution based on (min, +) and the family
of exponentials of quadratic forms endowed with the classical convolution. This
morphism is a special case of the Cramer transform.
690 E. Pap
Definition 4.3 The Cramer transform C is a function from M, the set of pos-
itive measures, into Cx , the set of mappings from IR into i convex, lower semi-
continuous and proper, defined by
C = (-CEll) 0 log oC,

where Ell = min and C is the classical Laplace transform.
Theorem 4.4 If /l1,/l2 EM, then
where * is the classical convolution.
Remark 4.5 The morphism from Theorem 4.4 gives a tool adapted to opti-
mization analogous to probability calculus, for more details see [2, 3, 4, 19]).
So, e.g.,it was introduced the cost measure K as a mapping from the set U
of all open sets of a topological space U into [0,00] endowed with the operations
(min, +) such that
K(U) = 0, K(0) = +00, K(U An) = i~f K(An)

n
for every sequence (An) from U. Then as analogy of the conditional probability
the conditional cost excess to take the best decision in A knowing that it have
to be taken in B as
K(AIB) = K(A n B) - K(B)
was introduced. A decision vector is a mapping from U into IRn . o
5 Hamilton-Jacobi equation with non-smooth

Hamiltonian
5.1 Two examples
In this section we show how the theory of pseudo-decomposable measures and
their corresponding integrals (pseudo-analysis) together with the pseudo-linear
superposition principle can be applied to some non-linear partial differential
equations.
Example 5.1.1 An important nonlinear partial differential equation is the

Burgers equation for a function u = u(x, t)
for x E IR and t > 0, with the initial condition u(x,O) = uo(x), where c is the
given positive constant. We intend to apply the g-calculus with the generator
g(u) = e-v./c ([29,30,32]) to this equation. The corresponding pseudo-addition

and the distributive pseudo-multiplication are given by
u ffi v = _cln(e-V./c + e- v / C) , u8 v =u + v .
Then for solutions Ul and U2 the function (Al 8 Ul) ffi (A2 8 U2) is also a solution
of Burgers equation.
The solution of the given initial problem is
u(x, t) = 2In(211'"ct)
C
8
IE!) [(X-S)2]
2t 8 uo(s) ds,
where the integral is given by
IE!) f(x) dx = -cln (I e-/(x)/c dX) .
The operator L : u -+ Uo is self-adjoint with to respect to the scalar product
(u,v)E!) = LE!) u(x) 8v(x)dx.

o
Example 5.1.2 Taking c -+ 0 in the Burgers equation we obtain the Hamilton-
Jacobi equation
au +~ (au) 2 = o.
at 2 ax
Then for solutions Ul and U2 the function (Al 8 ut) ffi (A2 8 U2), where
u ffi v = min(u, v)
and
u8v = u+v,
is also a solution of the preceding Hamilton-Jacobi equation. o
5.2 General case

We extend now the pseudo-superposition principle to a more general case.
Theorem 5.2.1 If Ul and U2 are solutions of the Hamilton-Jacobi equation
au(x, t)
at +
H(au
ax,x,t
) = 0, (1)
where HE C(JRn+2) and ~: is the gradient ofu, then (A18ul)ffi(A28u2) is also

a solution of the Hamilton-Jacobi equation (1), with respect to the operations
ffi = min and 8 = +.
692 E.Pap
Proof. First, it is obvious that U + >. is a solution of (1) if U is a solution of (1).

Now, it is enough to prove that Ul EEl U2 = min(ul, U2) is a solution of (1) if Ul
and U2 are solutions of (1). We can represent Ul EEl U2 in the following form
where 1l is the Heviside function defined by
1l(x) ={ ~ forx~O
for x < O.
Putting Ul EEl U2 in the left side of (1) we obtain
a«Ul - U2)1l(U2 - Ul)) aU2 H(a(Ul - U2)1l(U2 - ud) aU2 ) (2)

at + at + ax + at ,x, t .
Using the equality
we transform (2)
aUl aU2 aU2 aUl aU2 aU2
( at - at )(1-1l(U2- Ul))+ at +H« ax - ax )1l(U2- Ul)+ ax ,x,t). (3)
Now we use the following obvious equality for any arbitrary function F
F(v + 1l(s)w) = F(v) + (F(v + w) - F(v))1l(s).
Taking in the preceding equality F = H, v = ~ and w = ~ - ~ and using

this in (3) we obtain
(~- ~)1l(U2 - ud + ~ + (H(~,x,t)

(4)
-H(~,x,t))1l(U2 -ud +H(~,x,t).
We can easily write (4) in the form
aUl aUl aU2 aU2

(ax +H(8x",x,t))(1-1l(u2- ud)+( at +H( at ,x,t))(1-1l(U2- Ul)). (5)
Since Ul and U2 are solutions of (1) we obtain that (5) reduces identically to
zero, what means that Ul EEl U2 is a solution of the equation (1).
o
More details can be found in [32, 36, 23].
We consider now the following Cauchy problem for the Hamilton-Jacobi
(-Bellman) equation
~~+H(~~)=O , u(x,O)=uo(x) (6)

where x E lin, and the function H : lin -+ li is convex ( hence by boundedness

of H it is also continuous ). For control theory the important examples of the
Hamiltonian H are non-smooth functions, e.g., max and 1.1. The approach with
pseudo-analysis avoids the use of the so called "viscosity solution" method,
which does not give the exact solution of (6) (see [22]). We apply now the
methods of pseudo-analysis.
For that purpose we define the family of operators {Rt}t>o, for a function
uo(x) bounded from below in the following way
u(t,x) = (Rtuo)(x) = zERn

inf (uo(z) - t.CI1 (H)(:"'="':')),
t
(7)
where CfIJ is considered on the whole lin. The operator R t is pseudo-linear

with respect to E9 = min and 8 = +. We denote by L ( or L(q), q E lin)
the transformation L(H)(q) = sup (pq - H(P)), which is called also Legendre
pERn
transform of H. Note that
L(H)(q) = -CfIJ(H)(q),
where CfIJ(H)(q) = pERn
inf (-pq + H(P)). We note that L is also convex for H
convex, but it can be discontinuous.
Let So (lin) be the space of continuous functions f : lin -+ P ( P is of
type I (i), III ) with the property that for each c > 0 there exists a compact
subset K C lin such that d(O, inf f(x)) < c, with the metric D(f,g) =
xERn\K
suPxd(f(x),g(x)). Let Co(lin) be the subspace of So(lin) offunctions f with
compact support suppo = {x : f(x) i: O}.
First we suppose that Uo is smooth and strongly convex. We use the notation
(x, y) and IIxil for the scalar product and Euclidean norm in lin, respectively.
For a function F : lin -+ [-00, +00] its subgradient at a point u E lin is a point
wE lin such that F(u) is finite and
(w, v - u) + F(u) ~ F(v)

for all v E lin, see [11]. Then we have by [19].
Lemma 5.2.2 Let uo(x) be smooth and strongly convex and there exists b > 0
such that for all x the eigenvalues of the matrix u~(x) of all second derivatives
are not less than b. Then
1°) For every x E lin, t > O,there exists a unique ~(t,x) E lin such that
x-elt,x) is a subgradient of the function H at the point u~(~(t,x)) and
(Rtuo)(x) = uo(~(t, x)) + tL(H)(x - ~(t, x)). (8)

t
2°) The function ~(t,x) for t > 0 satisfies the Lipschitz condition on compact
sets, and lim~(t,x) = x.
t--+O
694 E. Pap
3°) The Cauchy problem (6) has a unique C 1 solution given by (8), and
~~ (t, x) = u~(~(t, x)).

Sketch of the proof.
10) The uniqueness of a point ~(t, x) with the desired properties follows from
the definition of the subgradient.
We shall prove now the existence of ~(t, x) which satisfies (8). For that purpose
we shall prove that if ~(t, x) is the ( unique) point at which the infimum in (7),
by strong convexity of uo(~), is taken, then x-eit,x) is a subgradient of H at
u~(~). This point ~(t, x) satisfies the following variational inequality ( see [11]):
(u~(~), 1] -~) + tL(x ~ 1]) - tL(x ~ ~) ~ 0 (9)
for every 1]. Taking fW = 9 and h = T' we have

(u~(~), f(~)) - L(f(O) ~ (u~(~), h) - L(h)
for all h. Since H is the Legendre transform of L, we obtain that the left-hand
side of the last inequality is equal to H(u~(~)), i.e.,
H(u~(~)) + L(f(~)) = (u~(~), f(~)). (10)
But the last equation is the characteristic of the subgradient ([11]). Therefore
f(~) = 9 is a subgradient of the function H at u~(~).
2°) By (9) we obtain at ~ = ~(t,x) and 1] = ~(7,y)

(u~(~), x~~ _ y~1])+L(y~1])_L(x~~) ~O,
(u' (1]) y - 1] _ x - ~) + L( x - ~) _ L( Y - 1]) > O.

0'7 t t 7-
Adding these two inequalities we obtain after some calculations
(u~(O - u~(1]), 7X - ty) ~ (u~(~) - u~(1]), 7~ - t1]), (11)
i.e.
(u~(~) - u~(1]), 7(X - y) + (7 - t)(y -1])) ~ 7(U~(~) - u~(1]), ~ -1]). (12)
We prove:
(i) If (x, t), (y, t) belong to some compact subset C of the half-space
{(t, x) : mn , t > O}, then ~,1] also belong to some compact subset of IRn.
First we remark that limllqll--++oo L(q) = +00, since L(q)

IIplI=l
~ max (pq - H(P)).
Therefore there exists r > 0 such that L(q) > L(O) for IIqll ~ r. Let C be a
compact subset of {(t, x) : t > 0, x E JRn }. Then there exists a compact subset
K of JRn, such that for ~ ¢ K and (t, x) E C, we have uo(e) > uo(x) and
II~II ~ A. Hence
uo(~) + tL(x ~ ~) > uo(x) + tL(O).

Therefore for (t, x) E C the point ~(t, x) of infimum in (7) belongs to K, and so
u(t,x) = min(uo(e)
{EK
+ tL(x - ~)).
t
Using (i) we have the inequalities
(u~(~) - U~(77),~ -77) ~ 811~ -7711 2 ,
lIu~(e) - u~(77)11 ~ 211~ - 7711· max lIu~(8)1I·

9E[{,1I]
Hence by (11) we have for 7 >t

811~ -7711 2 7 ~ 2>.(71Ix - yll + (7 - t)lIy - 771J)11~ - 7711,
where>. = >'(C) is some constant.Therefore ~(t,x) satisfies the Lipschitz condi-
tion on compact sets.
11~(t,x)11 is bounded for an arbitrary but fixed x and t < to. We have
limt--+o~(t,x)= x.
3°) The uniqueness of a C1 solution follows from the fact that H(P) satisfies
the Lipschitz condition
By (10) we can rewrite (7) in the following form
where ~ = ~(t,x). Hence by 2°) the function u(t,x) is continuous and satisfies
the initial condition.
Let R> r (r is from 2°)) such that the ball QR = {q : IIqll ~ R} contains
the set {q = ~ : (t,x) E C,~ E K}. We construct a sequence of smooth
strictly convex functions Ln : JRn -t lR, such that it is monotone increasing and
pointwise convergent in QR to L, and Ln(q) > Ln(O) for every n for IIqll ~ r.
Let Hn be the Legendre transform of Ln. Hn is also smooth and strictly convex
and so the lemma trivially holds for the Cauchy problem
au au
at + Hn(ax) = 0, (13)
u(O, x) = uo(x).
696 E. Pap
We denote by ~n(t, x) the corresponding function by 1°) to Hn. The function

X - ~n(t,X))
Un (
t, )
X = Uo (~n (t, X)) + tLn ( ---'---'---'-
t
is the smooth solution of (13) with ~(t, x) = uh(~n(t, x)). We have ~n(t, x) E K
for (t, x) E C and every n. Therefore
Un(t, x) = min(uo(~)
~EK
+ tLn(x - ~ )).
t
Hence the sequence {un (t, x)}, (t, x) E C, of smooth functions is non decreasing
and bounded above by u(t, x). Therefore it converges for (t, x) E C, i.e., u(t, x) =
lim un(t, x) ::; u(t, x).
n-+oo
We have for (t, x) E C
lim ~n(t,x)
n-+oo
= ~(t,x)
and u(t, x) = u(t, x). Let ~n = ~n(t, x) and ~ = ~(t, x).
By the monotonicity of the sequence {Un} and continuity of the members
Un, it follows the uniform convergence of the sequence {un} to u on compact
set C. Consequently the sequence {~n} converges uniformly, since
x-~ x-~
lu(t,x) - un(t,x)1 ~ (uo(~) + Ln(-t-)) - (UO(~n) + Ln( T ) )
~ ~II~ - ~nI12.
So we have proved that the sequence {un (t, x)} of smooth functions converges
uniformly to u(t, x) on C, and their derivatives ~(t, x) = uh(~n(t, x)) and
8u n = -Hn (Uo
7ft I ( (
~n t,x)
))
= Ln (x- t- -~n) - X -t ~n
(uoI ( ~n ) , - -)
= !(un(t,x) - UO(~n) - (u~(~n),x - ~n))

t
converge uniformly to uhWt,x)) and -H(uh(~(t,x))), respectively. Therefore
u(t, x) is the C 1 solution of the Cauchy problem (6).
o
The dual semimodul (So(JRn ))* is the semimodul of continuous pseudo-linear
P-valued functionals on So(JRn ) (with respect to pointwise operations). Analo-
gously the dual semimodul (Co (JRn ))* is the semimodul of continuous pseudo-
linear P-valued functionals on Co (JRn) (with respect to pointwise operations).
We need the following representation theorem, see [19].
Theorem 5.2.3 Let f be a function defined on JRn and with values in the semi-
ring P of type I) (i) or III). Further let a functional mf ; Co(lRn) -+ P be given
by
Then
1) The mapping f t--+ m f is a pseudo-isomorphism of the semimodule of lower

semicontinuous functions onto the semimodule (JRn ). Co
2) The space Sois isometrically isomorphic with the space of bounded func-
tions, i. e., for every mit, m h E So
(JRn) we have
sup d(1I (x), h(x)) = sup{ d(mlt (h), mh (h)) : h E Co(JRn ), D(h, 0) ~ I}.
'"
3) The functionals mit and mh are equal if and only if Clii = Clh, where
Clf(x) = sup{'Ij;(x) : 'Ij; E C(JRn),'Ij; ~ n.

The Cauchy problem
au H(- au) =0 (14)

at + ax '
u(O, x) = uo(x),
is the adjoint problem of the Cauchy problem (6). Referring to Lemma 5.2.2
the classical resolving operator R;
of the Cauchy problem (14) on the smooth
convex functions is given by
{-x
(R;uo)(x) = inf(uo({)
e
+ tL(--)).
t
We note that R; is the adjoint of the resolving operator R t with respect to
bipseudo-linear functional
tJ) f 8 hdm.
J[1.n
Then in analogy to the theory of linear partial differential equation we can
introduce the notion of a generalized weak solution (using Theorem 5.2.3).
Definition 5.2.4 Let Uo be a bounded from below function Uo : JRn --+ lRU{ +oo}
and muo the corresponding functional ( see [36j) from So
(lRn ). The generalized
weak pseudo-solution of the Cauchy problem (6) is a continuous function from
below (Rtuo)(x) which is defined uniquely by mR,uo(<p) = muo(R;<p) for all
smooth convex functions <po
We can construct the solution for the case in which Uo is a smooth strictly
convex function by Lemma 5.2.2. Then it follows by Theorem 5.2.3 and Defini-
tion 5.2.4 (see [19], [36]).
Theorem 5.2.5 For an arbitrary function uo(x) bounded from below the weak
pseudo-solution of the Cauchy problem (6) is given by
x-z
(Rtuo)(x) = (RtCluo)(x) = inf(Cluo(z)
z
- tC$(H)(--)),
t
where
Clf(x) = supN(x) : 'Ij; E C(JRn),'Ij; ~ n.
698 E.Pap
References
[1] J. Aczel, Lectures on Functional Equations and their Applications (Aca-
demic Press, New York 1966).
[2] M. Akian, J.-P. Quadrat and M. Viot, Bellman processes, in: 11th Inter-
national Conference on Analysis and Optimization of Systems: Discrete
Event Systems, Lecture Notes in Control and Information Sciences 199
(Springer-Verlag, Berlin, NewYork 1994).
[3] R. Azencott, Y. Guivarc'h and R.F.Gundy, Ecole d'ete de Saint Flour 8 ,
Lecure Notes in Mathematics (Springer-Verlag, Berlin 1978).
[4] F. Baccelli, G. Cohen, G.J. Olsder, J.-P. Quadrat, Synchronization and
Linearity: An Algebra for Discrete Event Systems (John-Wiley and Sons,
New York 1992).
[5] R.E. Bellman and S.E. Dreyfus, Applied Dynamic Programming (Princeton
University Press, Princeton 1962).
[6] G. Choquet, Theory of capacities., Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble) 5 (1953),
131-292.
[7] R.A. Cuninghame-Green, Minimax Algebra, Lecture Notes in Economics
and Math. Systems 166 ( Springer-Verlag, Berlin, New York 1979).
[8] D. Denneberg, Non-Additive Measure and Integral (Kluwer Academic Pub-
lishers, Dordrecht 1994).
[9] D. Dubois and H. Prade, Fuzzy Sets and Systems: Theory and Applications
(Academic Press, New-York 1980).
[10] D. Dubois and H. Prade, A class of fuzzy measures based on triangular
norms, Internat. J.Gen. System 8 (1982), 43-61.
[11] N. Ekeland and R. Temam, Convex Analysis and Variational Problems
(North-Holland, Amsterdam 1976).
[12] J.S. Golan, The Theory of Semirings with Applications in Mathematics and
Theoretical Computer Sciences, Pitman Monog. and Surveys in Pure and
App1. Maths. 54, (Longman, New York 1992).
[13] S. Gottwald, Many-valued logic (Chapter 1 in this Volume).
[14] M. Grabisch, H. T. Nguyen and E.A. Walker, Fundamentals of Uncertainty
Calculi with Applications to Fuzzy Inference (Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Dordrecht, Boston, London 1995) .
[15] U. Hahle and S. Weber, Uncertainty measures, realizations and entropies,
in: " Random Sets: Theory and Applications" (Eds. J. Goutsias et a1.), IMA
Volumes in Mathematics and its Applications 97, p. 259-295 (Springer-
Verlag, New York 1997).
[16] E.P. Klement, R. Mesiar and E. Pap, On the relationship of associative

compensatory operators to triangular norms and conorms, Internat. J.
Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems 4 (1996), 25-36.
[17] E.P. Klement, R. Mesiar and E. Pap, Triangular norms (to appear).
[18] E.P. Klement and S. Weber, Generalized measures, Fuzzy Sets and Systems
40 (1991), 375-394.
[19] V.N. Kolokoltsov and V.P. Maslov, Idempotent Analysis and Its Applica-
tions (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Boston, London 1997).
[20] W. Kuich, Semirings, Automata, Languages (Springer-Verlag, 1986).
[21] C.H. Ling Representation of associative functions, Publ. Math. Debrecen

12 (1965), 189-212.
[22] P.L. Lions, Generalized solutions of Hamilton-Jacobi equations (Pitman,

London 1982).
[23] V.P. Maslov, S.N. Samborskij (eds.), Idempotent Analysis, Advances in So-
viet Mathematics 13 (Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, Rhode Island 1992).
[24] R. Mesiar, Choquet-like integrals, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 194 (1995), 477-
488.
[25] R. Mesiar and J.Rybarik, PAN-operations, Fuzzy Sets and Systems 74

(1995),365-369.
[26] P.S. Mostert and A.L. Shields, On the structure of semigroups on a compact
manifold with boundary, Ann. of Math. 65 (1957), 117-143.
[27] T. Murofushi and M. Sugeno, M., Fuzzy t-conorm integral with respect to
fuzzy measures: Generalization of Sugeno integral and Choquet integral,
[28] E. Pap, Integral generated by decomposable measure, Univ. u Novom Sadu

Zb. Rad. Prirod.-Mat .. Fak. Ser. Mat. 20,1 (1990), 135-144.
[29] E. Pap, g-calculus, Univ. u Novom Sadu Zb. Rad. Prirod.-Mat. Fak. Ser.
Mat. 23,1 (1993), 145-150.
[30] E. Pap, Solution of nonlinear differential and difference equations, Proc. of

EUFIT '93, Vol. 1 (1993),498-504.
[31] E. Pap, Nonlinear difference equations and neural nets, BUSEFAL 60

(1994), 7-14.
[32] E. Pap, Null-Additive Set Functions (Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dor-

drecht, Boston, London, 1995) .
700 E. Pap
[33] E. Pap, Pseudo-analysis as a base for soft computing, Soft computing 1

(1997), 61-68.
[34] E. Pap, Decomposable measures and nonlinear equations, Fuzzy Sets and
Systems 92 (1997), 205-221.
[35] E. Pap, Solving nonlinear equations by non-additive measures, Nonlinear
Analysis Theory Meth. Appl. 30 (1997),31-40.
[36] E. Pap and N. Ralevic, Pseudo-Laplace transform, Nonlinear Analysis The-
ory Meth. Appl. (to appear).
[37] E. Pap and I. Stajner, Generalized pseudo-convolution in the theory of
probabilistic metric spaces, information, fuzzy numbers, optimization, sys-
tem theory, Fuzzy Sets and Systems (to appear).
[38] E. Pap and N.Teofanov, Pseudo-delta functions and sequences in optimiza-

tion theory, Yug. J. Oper. Res. 8 (1998), 111-128.
[39] M. Sugeno, Theory of fuzzy integrals and its applications, Ph.D. Thesis
(Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, 1974).
[40] M. Sugeno and T. Murofushi, Pseudo-additive measures and integrals, J.
Math. Anal. Appl. 122 (1987), 197-222.
[41] Z. Wang and G.J. Klir, Fuzzy Measure Theory (Plenum Press, New York
1992).
[42] S. Weber, i.-decomposable measures and integrals for Archimedean t-co-
norm, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 101 (1984), 114-138.
CHAPTER 14
Fuzzy Random Variables Revisited
D. A. RALEscu*
Introduction
Fuzzy-valued functions, as an extension of set-valued functions, were considered
in connection with a categorical theory of fuzzy sets, since the mid 1970's (see
Negoita and Ralescu [16]. Indeed, even earlier, fuzzy-valued functions with some
special properties were studied: fuzzy relations (Zadeh [28]).
However, fuzzy-valued functions defined on a probability space, came at a
later date. Different concepts: fuzzy variables, linguistic variables, fuzzy random
sets, fuzzy random variables, probabilistic sets, were introduced in the late
1970's.
Feron [5] defined a fuzzy random set as a random element with values L-fuzzy
sets in a topological space. However, he only studied some algebraic properties,
and he did not define any concept of expected value.
Nahmias [15] defined fuzzy variables as ordinary random variables on a space
endowed with both a probability and a possibility measure. His is not a concept
of fuzzy-valued function.
Hirota [6], defined probabilistic sets, but he did not discuss any concept of
expected value, and he concentrated on properties which are very similar to
those of fuzzy relations.
K wakernaak [13] introduced the concept of fuzzy random variable whose
values are fuzzy sets on the real line. His concept of measurability is such,
however, that it cannot be extended beyond fuzzy numbers in Ilt As a matter
of fact, that concept of measurability is not the proper concept needed in this
framework (see later). Also his extensive discussion is often obscuring in what is
the simplest example of fuzzy random variable (i.e. a family of random intervals
in 1R).
'Research supported by the National Science Foundation Grant INT-9303202.

702 D.A. Ralescu
Since 1980 (see the early papers [20], [21]) we have defined and studied the
concept of fuzzy random variable (FRV) whose values are fuzzy subsets of JRn
(or, more generally, of a Banach space). We have investigated the proper notions
of measurability, integrability, metric concepts. We have defined the expected
value and studied limit properties (Puri and Ralescu [19]). Our concept is much
more general, and it includes [13].
An important subject in this framework is that of limit theorems for fuzzy
random variables (e.g. strong law of large numbers and central limit theorem).
In [21] we have announced a strong law of large numbers (SLLN) for fuzzy
random variables in JRn. Independently, Kruse [11] proved an SLLN for fuzzy
random variables whose values are convex fuzzy numbers (in JR). His methods,
however, cannot be used in more general cases and his SLLN does not include
the corresponding result for random sets, thus it does not include the classical
SLLN.
The result announced in [21] was proved by Klement, Puri, and Ralescu [9],
[10]. Note that the latter result is valid for fuzzy subsets of JRn , not necessarily
convex. It completely subsumes the result of Kruse [11] (see below) and it
extends the SLLN for random sets of Artstein and Vitale [1].
Miyakoshi and Shimbo [14] gave a result similar to that of [11].
Let us recall that Klement, Puri and Ralescu [9], [10] were the first to prove
a central limit theorem (CLT) for fuzzy random variables in JRn.
A few years later, Boswell and Taylor [3] gave a CLT by using the concept
of FRV of Kwakernaak [13] and a new concept of independence that they have
proposed. We show below that their concept of independence is so strong that
it collapses and so their result is nothing else but the classical CLT for random
variables!
A law oflarge numbers for fuzzy variables (Nahmias, [15]) was given by Stein
and Talati [23]. However, their result is just the well known Bernoulli law of
large numbers.
Niculescu and Viertl [17] have proved an extension of the Bernoulli law of
large numbers for a very particular (essentially translates of a single membership
function) kind of fuzzy random variables in JR. We show that their result is a
simple consequence of the Klement, Puri, Ralescu SLLN. That also gives us the
extension of the Bernoulli law to more general fuzzy sets in JRn .
Interesting extensions of the SLLN were obtained by Inoue [7]. An in-depth
study of the expected value was done in [27] and various measurability con-
cepts were investigated by Butnariu [4]. An ergodic theorem for fuzzy random
variables in Banach space appears in Ban [2].
Recently, a number of papers have "rediscovered" some of the old results
(a sample of these papers: [24], [29], [30]). Essentially, they do not contain
anything new.
The remainder of this paper contains: Section 2, in which we very briefly de-
scribe the mathematical framework we need and we state the Klement, Puri, and
Ralescu SLLN; Section 3, in which we critically discuss various other concepts
and results as suggested above. Finally, in Section 4 we explore the Brunn-
Minkowski and the Jensen inequalities for fuzzy random variables.
Fuzzy random variables 703
1 The law of large numbers

Let (0, A, P) be a probability space, and let F(JRn) be the space of all fuzzy sets
U : JRn -+ [0,1] whose levels Lexu = {xlu(x) 2: a} are compact, and nonempty
for a > 0, and whose support is compact. Let doo be the distance in F(JRn)
(first introduced in Puri and Ralescu [18]):
doo(u,v) = SUpdH(Lexu,Lexv) (1)

ex>o
where dH is the Hausdorff distance. Let d1 be the distance [9]:
d1(u,v) = fa1 dH(Lexu,Lexv)da (2)
Definition 1.1 ([21, 19]) Any measurable map X : 0 -+ F(JRn) is called a

fuzzy random variable (FRV).
Definition 1.2 ([21, 19]) The expected value of the FRV X is the unique fuzzy
set EX such that Lex(EX) = E(LexX) for a E [0,1]' where E(LexX) is the Kudo
[12] integral (see [1]).
Theorem 1.3 (SLLN of [9J, [10]). Let {Xklk 2: I} be independent and identi-
cally distributed FRV's such that EI!suppX111 < 00. Then
d (Xl + X2: ... + Xn, E(COX1)) -+ 0 (3)
almost surely.
Here d stands for d1 or doo (in the latter case we have to assume that {X k }
are separably valued).
2 Critical discussion of other results

(a) Kwakernaak [13] coined the term fuzzy random variable. He defined his
concept for F(JR) only, i.e. X : 0 -+ F(JR). His measurability concept cannot
be extended to F(JRn); actually that measurability concept is unrelated to any
of the (equivalent) measurability concepts for spaces of sets (cf. [8]).
For example, consider the random set
X = [A,B] U [C,D]
where A, B, C, D : 0 -+ JR, and A, D are measurable, while B = -C are non-
measurable, and A :S B :S 0 :S C :S D. Then X is an FRV in the sense of
Kwakernaak, but the distance dist (0, X) = C is not measurable.
Actually, in the sense of Definition 1.1, in the particular case n = 1 and
convex values, an FRV X has levels LexX = [Uex , Vex], where Uex , Vex are ordinary
random variables.
704 D.A. Ralescu
(b) The Kruse LLN [11] is proved for FRV's which are convex and valued in a
subset FI ~ F(JR). Also convergence is pointwise convergence of the membership
functions. The first drawback is that space FI does not include the ordinary
intervals - thus this SLLN does not extend the classical SLLN of probability
theory.
At any rate, it is possible to show that in FI convergence in metric doc
implies pointwise convergence, thus the SLLN of [9] contains the result of [11].
Actually, pointwise convergence of levels implies pointwise convergence of
the membership functions:
Proposition 2.1 Let Un, U be fuzzy subsets of JR, with compact and convex lev-
els.
If Laun -+ Lau for every a> 0 (convergence in dH) then Un -+ U pointwise.
Proof: Let Xo E lR; we have three cases:

(1) 0 < u(xo) < 1. Let e be such that 0 < e < u(xo). Then Xo E Lu(zo)-eU
and, since Lu(zo)-eUn -+ Lu(zo)-eU we get Xo E Lu(zo)-eUn for n large
enough. Thus un(xo) ~ u(xo) - e. Similarly, since Xo ¢ Lu(zo)+eu, we
get Xo ¢ Lu(zo)+eun for n large, i.e. un(xo) < u(xo) + e. In conclusion,
u(xo) - e ~ un(xo) < u(xo) + e for n large enough, thus un(xo) -+ u(xo)
in this case.
(2) u(xo) = O. For e > 0, since Xo ¢ LeU, it follows that Xo ¢ Leun for n large
enough. Thus un(xo) -+ u(xo) = O.
(3) u(xo) = 1. This case is dealt with similarly to case (2) and the proof ends.
Note: The above proof is correct only if Un, U belong to FI (as defined in
[11]).
Another problem is that we don't really know if class FI is closed with
respect to operations of fuzzy arithmetic, and if X E FI whether EX E FI or
not? The proper framework is to use a distance between fuzzy sets, such as (1)
or (2).
(c) The Boswell-Taylor CLT [3]. These authors also use the Kwakernaak
FRV concept, but they define their own notion of independence. Let us briefly
show that this independence concept is so strong that it can only be satisfied
if the FRV's are ordinary random variables. So their result collapses into the
classical, well known CLT.
We don't even have to consider FRV's; random sets will suffice. Their con-
cept is: X, Yare "independent" if every selector f E X and every selector g E Y
are independent. They do this, to obtain E(XY) = EX ·EY, for "independent"
X, Y. It is not difficult to show
Proposition 2.2 (i) if X, {~} are "independent", then X = {77} (i.e. X is a

single random variable).
(ii) If X, Y are "independent", then X = {77}, Y = {~}.
FUzzy random variables 705
Proof:
(i) Let us assume, without loss of generality, that E~ ~ O. Let X = [U, V]

where U, V are random variables. Then
if ~ ~ 0
{O· [U,v] { [~U,~V]
[~V,~U] if ~<O
= [~U,~V]Ice~o) + [~V,~U]Ice<o)
[~U IC~~o) + ~V IC~<o), ~V ICe~o) + ~U IC~<o)]
where I denotes indicator functions.
Since ~, [U, V] "independent" implies ~, U independent and ~, V indepen-
dent, we obtain
E( {O . [U, V]) = [EU· E(Oce~o)) + EV· E(Oce<o)) ,

EU . E(~IC~<o)) + EV . E(~Ice~o))]
Since {~} "independent" of [U, V] implies {~- E~} "independent" of [U, V],
we can assume E~ = o. Then E({O· [U, V]) = E~· E[U, V] = {OJ. The
above calculation now implies
EU· E(OC~~o)) + EV(Oce~o)) = 0 (*)
(since E~ = E(Oce~o)) + E(Oce<o)) = 0).

Assume E(~Ice~o)) = J{e~o} ~dP i- 0 (otherwise, since ~ ~ 0 on the
integration set, equality to zero would imply ~ = 0 almost everywhere on
{~ ~ OJ, i.e. that ~ ~ 0, contrary to our assumption). Thus (*) gives
EU=EV.
But V - U ~ 0 (since [U, V] is an interval!), thus V - U is nonnegative
and has expectation E(V - U) = 0; it follows that V = U = TJ almost
everywhere, i.e. that X = [U, V] = {TJ} (a single random variable).
(ii) Let X = [A, BJ, Y = [e, D] be "independent" and let ~ E [e, D] be

a selector. Then ~ is "independent" of [A, B]. It follows from (i) that
[A, B] = {TJ} must be a single random variable. Now the hypothesis of (ii)
becomes {TJ} in dependent of [e, D]. Again, by using (i), it follows that
e = D. In conclusion A = Band e = D, i.e. both X and Yare single
random variables.
(d) The Niculescu- Viertl {17} extension of the Bernoulli LLN can be deduced
as a particular case of the Klement, Puri, Ralescu SLLN (Theorem 1). Their
k
idea is to extend LIA(Xi) = "total number of Xi'S which belong to A" (where
i=l
A c lR, Xl, ... , Xk E lR) to fuzzy sets, by using the extension principle. It can be
shown that, at least for the class :FA of membership functions u such that sup A u
706 D.A. Ralescu
k
and sUPx U are both attained, their concept can be expressed as 2:)A(Ui) =
i=l
"number of Ui'S which belong to A" .
Then, a simple application of the Klement, Puri, Ralescu SLLN (Theorem
1) gives: If {Xiii 2: I} are i.i.d. FRV's valued in :FA, then
k
If we take L1A(Ui) as the definition for "the number of ui's which belong to
i=l
A" (which agrees with the other definition if the ui's are numbers or ordinary
sets), then the restriction of values to :FA is unnecessary, and we obtain the
general result.
Incidentally, the restriction A c IR is also unnecessary and we can assume
AclRn.
Also the restriction (of [17]) to continuous membership functions is unnec-
essary. Actually that restriction would imply that the classical Bernoulli LLN
is not a particular case of the result in [17].
Actually an application of Theorem 1.3 gives us the more general result
1
- L v(X
n
i) -+ E(v(Xt})
n i=l
almost surely, where v is a fuzzy set. Here the sum is interpreted as "number
of Xi's which are v" (e.g. "number of short people who are smart").
3 The Brunn-Minkowski and the Jensen in-

equalities
We first define the volume of a fuzzy set U E F(lRn) as
(4)
where Vn inside the integral is ordinary volume. Note that this concept of
volume depends on the dimension n. We can now prove
Theorem 3.1 (The Brunn-Minkowski inequality for fuzzy sets): Let u, v E
F (IRn ). Then
Vn[AU + (1- A)V] 2: [A (Vn(u)//n + (1- A)(Vn(v))l/nr (5)
where Vn denotes the volume of a fuzzy set.

Proof: We have successively
Vn[Au + (1 - A)v] = [{ (Vn(L" (Au + (1 _ A)v)))l/n dO] n

1[0,1]
= [{ Vn (AL"u + (1 _ A)Lav))l/n dO] n

1[0,1]
> [{ [A (Vn (L"u))l/n + (1 - A) (Vn(L"v)l/n] dO] n

1[0,1]
= [A (Vn(U))I/n + (1- A) (Vn(V))I/nr .

We have used the classical Brunn-Minkowski inequality as well as L,,(Au +
(1 - A)V)= ALau + (1 - A)L"v.
It now follows that for a fuzzy random variable X we have
Vn(EX) ~ (E(VnX?/n)n (6)
which extends the result for random sets in [25].
Our next goal is to extend the Jensen inequality to FRV's. The main result
is
Theorem 3.2 If X is an FRV and cp is a convex function cp : F(JRn) -+ JR {i.e.
cp(AU + (1 - A)V) ~ Acp(U) + (1 - A)cp(v)) then we have
cp(EX) ~ Ecp(X) (7)
Proof: Let us consider first that X is a simple FRV
(8)
i=1
where Ui E F(JRn) and (Ai)i form a partition of O. Then (7) becomes
cp [~P(Ai)Ui] ~ ~ cp(ui)P(A i) (9)
which is true since it follows by induction from the convexity of cpo

If X is now an integrable FRV, Le. ElisuppXII < 00 (which we assume in
this Theorem), the result follows by using a Lebesgue dominated convergence
result (see, for example, [21], [19], or [10]).
An important example of such a convex function cp is the Steiner point map;
in that case cp is actually additive and positively homogeneous (Le. "linear").
For this choice of cp (7) becomes an equality.
Our extension of the Jensen inequality seems to be unknown even if X is a
random set.
Potential applications of these inequalities are in the field of statistics with
inexact data and, more specifically, at the evaluation of the power function of
statistical tests based on fuzzy data (see the recent papers [22] and [26]).
708 D.A. RaIescu
4 Conclusions
We showed that the proper concept of fuzzy random variable [19] (in IRn or in
a Banach space) involves distances on spaces of fuzzy sets and measurability of
random elements valued in a metric space.
The most general limit theorems for fuzzy random variables are those in [10];
all other results in this direction can be derived from them.
Finally, we extended the Brunn-Minkowski and the Jensen inequalities to
fuzzy random variables.
Acknowledgements. While working on this paper I greatly benefitted from

many interesting discussions with Anca Ralescu, as well as from the kind hos-
pitality of Michio Sugeno.
References
[1] Artstein, Z. and Vitale, R.A. A strong law of large numbers for random
compact sets, Ann. Prob. 3(1975) 879-882.
[2] Ban, J. Ergodic theorems for random compact sets and fuzzy variables in
Banach spaces, F. Sets Syst. 44(1991) 71-82.
[3] Boswell, S.B. and Taylor, M.S. A central limit theorem for fuzzy random
variables, F. Sets Syst. 24(1987) 331-344.
[4] Butnariu, D. Measurability concepts for fuzzy mappings, F. Sets Syst.

31(1989) 77-82.
[5] Feron, R. Ensembles aleatoires Hous, C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris Ser. A 282(1976)
903-906.
[6] Hirota, K. Concepts of probabilistic sets, F. Sets Syst. 5(1981) 31-46.
[7] Inoue, H. A strong law of large numbers for fuzzy random sets, Fuzzy Sets
Syst. 41(1991) 285-291.
[8] Klein, E. and Thompson, A.C. Theory of Correspondences, Wiley, New

York,1984.
[9] Klement, E.P., Puri, M.L., and Ralescu, D.A. Law of large numbers and
central limit theorem for fuzzy random variables, in R. Trappl (ed.): Cy-
bernetics and Systems Research 2 (Elsevier, 1984) 525-529.
[10] Klement, E.P., Puri, M.L. and Ralescu, D.A. Limit theorems for fuzzy
random variables, Proc. R. Soc. London A 407(1986) 171-182.
[11] Kruse, R. The strong law of large numbers for fuzzy random variables, Inf.
Sciences 28(1982) 233-241.
[12] Kudo, H. Dependent experiments and sufficient statistics, Natur. Sci. Rep.
Ochanomizu Univ. 4(1953) 151-163.
[13] K wakernaak, H. Fuzzy random variables - 1. Definitions and theorems, Inf.
Sciences 15(1978) 1-29.
[14] Miyakoshi, M. and Shimbo, M. A strong law of large numbers for fuzzy
random variables, F. Sets Syst. 12(1984) 133-142.
[15] Nahmias, S. Fuzzy variables, F. Sets Syst. 1(1978) 97-110.
[16] Negoita, C.V. and Ralescu, D.A. Applications of Fuzzy Sets to Systems
Analysis, Wiley, New York, 1975.
[17] Niculescu, S.P. and Viertl, R. Bernoulli's law of large numbers for vague
data, F. Sets Syst. 50(1992) 167-173.
[18] Puri, M.L. and Ralescu, D. A. Differentielle d'une fonction Boue, C.R.
Acad. Sci. Paris, Serie I, 293(1981) 237-239.
[19] Puri, M.L. and Ralescu, D.A. Fuzzy random variables, J. Math. Analysis
Applic. 114(1986) 409-422.
[20] Ralescu, D.A. Fuzzy random variables, Table ronde sur Ie Bou, Lyon,
France, June 1980.
[21] Ralescu, D.A. Fuzzy logic and statistical estimation, Proc. Second World
Conf. on Math. at the Service of Man, Univ. Politecnica de Las Palmas,
June 1982, pp. 605-606.
[22] Ralescu, D.A. and Ralescu, A.L. Fuzzy sets in statistical decision-making,
Proc. Internat. Fuzzy Eng. Symp., Yokohama, Nov. 1991, 153-16l.
[23] Stein, W.E. and Talati, K. Convex fuzzy random variables, F. Sets Syst.
6(1981) 271-283.
[24J Stojakovic, M. Fuzzy random variables, expectation, and martingales, J.
Math. Analysis Applic. 184(1994) 594-606.
[25J Vitale, R.A. The Brunn-Minkowski inequality for random sets, J. Mult.
Analysis 33(1990) 286-293.
[26] Watanabe, N. and Imaizumi, T. A fuzzy statistical test offuzzy hypotheses,
F. Sets Syst. 53(1993) 167-178.
[27] Xue, X., Ha, M., and Ma, M. Random fuzzy number integrals in Banach
spaces, F. Sets Syst. 66(1994) 97-11l.
[28] Zadeh, L.A. Fuzzy sets, Inf. Control 8(1965) 338-353.
[29] Zhang, D. and Guo, C. The countable additivity of set-valued integrals and
F-valued integrals, F. Sets Syst. 66(1994) 113-117.
710 D.A. Ralescu
[30] Zhang, W.X., Li, T., Ma, J.F., and Li, A.J. Set-valued measure and fuzzy
set-valued measure, F. Sets Syst. 36(1990) 181-188.
Index
A Change of basis, 164-165,290-292,

314-325
Abelian lattice-ordered groups, 44, 45 Classical logic, 6-8, 51-53
Adherent map, 193 (Co-fuzzy) duals, 371-378
Adherent point, 192-193 Co-stratification, 230-232
Adjoint Functor Theorem (AFT), 92, Coherent lattices, 512-513
93,95,282 Compact Hausdorff spaces, 51&-520
Adjunction Inequalities (AI), 95 passim
Adjunctions, 93-94, 280-282 Compact regular locales, 51&-520
Archimedean t-norms, 17-18, 19--21 Compactification, 484-490
Associativity, 118 Cech-Stone method, 210, 219, 483,
485-486,489,523
separation axioms, 481-483,
B 500-509
Compactification reflectors, 482, 483
Backward powerset operators, fixed-basis topologies, 523-535
101-102 variable-basis topologies, 535-549
Bivalence, 6, 12 Compactness, 120-121, 192-199, 261
Bold conjunction, 16 Complete chains, 231
Boolean algebra, 6, 7-8, 47, 194-197 Complete Heyting algebras, 129,
and distributive lattices, 144-146, 180-181,202-206
520-522 Complete MV-algebras, 129, 176-177,
Bounded commutative BCK-algebras, 207-221
44 Completely L-regular spaces, 452-457
Bounded lattices, 634-636,641-642 Completeness theorem, 81, 600-603
Boundedness,597-600 Conditional events, 140-141,654,
Brunn-Minkowski inequality, 706-707 656-659
Burgers equation, 690-691 Conditioning operators, 653, 663-666
on canonical Girard algebra
extensions, 666-668
c uncertainty measures and, 668-672
Conjunction connectives, 16-21, 35, 38
Cauchy filters, 591-594 Connectives, 14-29
Cech-Stone (Stone-Cech) Constant fuzzy subsets, 287
compactification, 210, 219, 483, Continuity, 118, 120, 423-424
485-486,489,523 subbasic, 300-301, 302, 303-304,
Central limit theorem (CLT), 702 364-365
Chang-Goguen tological spaces, 276 Continuous L-real functions, 446-447,
448-452
712 Index
Convergence theory, 124, 125-126, Fuzzy continuity axiom, 297, 306-307

171-202,260,581 Fuzzy homeomorphisms, 326-328
idempotency in, 238, 240-243 Fuzzy hyperfields, 621-625
L-fuzzy topologies, 125,233-259 Fuzzy logic, 67-82, 74
Convolution, 627 axiomatisation method, 77-80
Cramer transform, 689-690 semantics, 8, 9, 67-68,74-76
syntactic considerations, 8-9, 68,
76-77
D Fuzzy multiplication, 622-623
Fuzzy neighborhood systems,
De Morgan algebras (DMRG), 48-49, 233-239,253,572-575
284,285,636--639 Fuzzy open maps, 326
Decomposable measures, 675-697 Fuzzy random variables, 701-708
Decomposition, 101,621-622 Fuzzy real lines, 361-368, 607-608,
Designated truth degrees, 10-11,60 610
Diagonal uniformities, 554-556, arithmetic operations, 613-629
559-560 as complete fuzzy hyperfields,
Disjoint sum categories, 291 621-625
Disjunction connectives, 23-25, 38 duals of, 371-378
Distributive lattices, 206 as poslat spaces, 610-613
Booleanization ot: 144-146,520-522 Fuzzy set algebra, 64-65, 645-648
Post algebras, 47-48 Fuzzy set theory, 6, 581-582, 583-584
Stone representation theorems, many-valued logic and, 5-6, 63-67
144,483,489,512-515, Fuzzy uniform topology, 574-575, 582
520-522 Fuzzy unit intervals, 361-368,
Dual real lines, 371-378 607-608
Dynamic duals, 372 duals of, 371, 378
E G
Embeddings, 333-340 passim, Galois connection, 124,210

358-359 Gelfand quantales, 128-129
functorial, 346-357 General extension theorem, 469
Endomorphism-saturated spaces, Generalized measures, 633-648
280,314-322,322-324 Generalized operators, 99
Enriched lattices, 132-141, 159-165, Girard algebras, 643, 654-656,
263 658-672 passim
GL-monoids, 129-131, 137, 138-139
with square roots, 181-182
F Godelimplication, 25, 26, 33
Gadel systems, 33-35
Fibre-smallness, 324-325 Ground equalities, 288
Filter monads, 117, 119-120
First-order logic, 6, 51-63
Fixed-basis fuzzy topology. See H
fiLII -fuzzy topologies
Forward powerset operators, 102-103 Hamilton-Jacobi equation, 690-697
Frames, 203, 276-277 Hausdorff separations, 187-188, 194,
Fundamental theorem, 109-110 258-259, 261, 515-520 passim
Future contigencies, 12 Heyting algebras, 26, 50, 129,
Fuzzification, 496-500, 582 180-181,202-206
Fuzzy addition, 617-618 Homeomorphisms, 325-328
Fuzzy associative memories (FAM), Hutton L-fuzzy uniformities, 569-571
112-114 Hypergraph functor, 616-617, 626, 628
Index 713
I representation theorems, 243-246,

512-515
I-fuzzy uniform spaces, 571-572, 582, L-interior operators, 171-174, 260
585-590 l-monoids, 49-51
I-topologies, 582 L-neighborhood systems, 120,
Idempotency, 117, 118-119, 124, 127, 171-174,207-208,260
129,210,238 axioms, 199-202
in convergence theory, 238, 240-243 characterizing L-topologies, 389,
Idempotent hulls, 141-144, 241 405-420,429-430
Identity, 58-63,66-67 L-normal spaces, 458-459
Images, 193, 437 insertion and extension theorems,
L-filter, 186-187 463-468
Implication connectives, 25-29, L-realline, 444-446,459-460,611,612
31-33,39-40 monotone subsets, 442-444
Injective MV-algebras, 45 L-regular spaces, 452-457 passim
Insertion and extension theorems, L-sets,436,447-448
460-471 images and inverse images, 437
Interior operators, 171-174,260 separation of, 448-450
fuzzy, 233-239 L-stable subsets, 205-206
local, 247-253 L-topologies, 124, 153-156, 193,
Internalized change-of-basis, 259-264 passim, 434-442
290-292,314-325 characterized by L-valued
neighborhoods, 389, 405-420,
429-430
J compactness, 120-121, 192-199,261
complete Heyting algebras, 129,
J-connectives, 15 180-181,202-206
Jensen inequality, 707 complete MV-algebras, 129,
176-177,207-221
continuous extension, 187-192,
K 217-218,262,439-440,470-471
convergence theory, 124, 125-126,
Klein fuzzification, 496-497 171-202,260
coreflective subcategories, 161>-171
dense subspaces, 203-204
L embedding,471-476
Hausdorff separations, 187-188,
L-continuous extension, 187-192, 194,258-259,261,515-520
217-218,262,439-440,470-471 passim
L-filters, 173-187,200,260,393-402 insertion and extension theorems,
images and inverse images, 186-187 460-471
L-fuzzy filters, 239-240, 253-258 lower semicontinuous maps, 221-233
L-fuzzy interior operators, 233-239 probabilistic, 262, 429-430
L-fuzzy neighborhood systems, real unit intervals in, 425-429, 445
233-239,253 rigid,208-221
L-fuzzy real line, 610 sobriety,490-500
L-fuzzy topologies, 124, 146-153, 262 spatiality, 491-492
contiguity relations, 416 stratified, 125, 165-171, 192-199,
convergence theory, 125,233-259 259,402-425,441-442
coreflective subcategories, 157-165 subspaces,439,445,446
enriched, 159-165 transitive, 402-425
extensional, 157-159,240-259 universal, 475-476
generated by random bases, L-ultrafilters, 180, 181, 183-184
152-153 L-unit interval, 610
Lattice-ordered monoids. See l-monoids
714 Index
Lattice-theoretic structures, 117, with square roots, 141-144, 184,

127-146,242,284-286,378 186,199,208-221,259
enriched, 132-141,263 MY-chains, 42-43
A111-algebras, 391-393 MY-equation, 42
quantales, 128-131, 390
See also Distributive lattices;
L-fuzzy topologies; N
L-topologies; Poslat topologies
Law oflarge numbers, 703 Negation connectives, 21-23, 36
Limit map, 193 Neighborhood systems, 117-118. See
Limit point, 192-193, 240 also Fuzzy neighborhood systems;
Lindenbaum algebra, 6, 47 L-neighborhood systems
Local L-interior operators, 247-253 Non-additive measures, 675-681. See
Locales, 205-206, 276-277 also Decomposable measures
compact regular, 515-520 Normal spaces, 458-459
Localic functor, 352 insertion and extension theorems,
Logical consequences, 11-12 463-468
Logical validity, 7-8, 11-12 Normality axioms, 507-509
Lowen fuzzy uniformities, 571-576 Null-additive measures, 675-676
Lower semicontinuous, lattice-valued
maps, 221-233
Lukasiewicz algebras, 44, 46 o
Lukasiewicz conjunction, 16, 25
Lukasiewicz first-order logic, 53-56, Open maps, 325, 326
59,61 Openness, 124
Lukasiewicz implication, 25, 26, 31, Optimization theory, 687-689
32,33
Lukasiewicz systems, 13, 30-33, 41,
78-82 p
Plausibility measures, 639-640

M Point-set lattice theoretic topology. See
Poslat topologies
Many-valued logic, 8-9, 12-14 Pointwise almost everywhere
algebraic structures, 9, 41-51 convergence, 204-205
axiomatisation methods, 39-40, Poslat topologies, 93, 287, 295,
57-58 359-382
first-order logic, 51-63 duals, 371-372
fuzzy set theory and, 5-6, 63-67 functorial embeddings, 346-357
with graded consquences, 73-82 fuzzy real lines as, 610-613
identity, 58-63, 66-67 powerset operators, 99-105
propositional systems, 6, 13, 15, weakly stratified, 368-370
30-40 Po slat variable-basis theory, 340-342
semantics, 51-52 Possibility measures, 639
soundness conditions, 67-73, 82 Post algebras, 36-37, 47-48
syntactics, 51 Powerset operators, 91-99, 286-287,
Membership degrees, 63-64 289
Menger space, 429 for fixed-basis poslat set theories,
Monoidallogic, 37-39, 56, 62-63 99-105
Monoidal mean operator, 135-136, fuzzy associative memories and,
206 112-114
A111-algebras, 41-45,129,176-177, ground isomorphism
207-221, 390 characterization, 110-112
additive measures, 642-645 for variable-basis poslat set
theories, 105-110
Index 715
Probabilistic L-topologies, 262, Stone representation theorems, 144,

429-430 483,489,512-515,520-522
Product algebras, 46-47 Stratification functor, 627-628
Product logic, 35-36 Stratified L-topologies, 125, 165-171,
Propositional logics, 7-8, 30-40 192-199,259,402-425,441-442
Pseudo-analysis, 675-697 Strictly monotone t-norms, 18
in optimization theory, 687-689 Strong law oflarge numbers (SLLN),
probability and dynamic 702, 703
programming in, 689-670 Strongly enriched L-fuzzy topologies,
Pseudo-convolution, 681-684 161-165,263
Pseudo-integral, 680-681 Strongly stratified L-topologies,
Pseudo-Laplace transform, 684-687 166-171
Pseudo operations, 676-679 Subbasic continuity, 300-301, 302,
303-304,364-365
Syntactic approaches, 7, 8--9, 39, 51,
Q 68, 76-77
Quantales, 128--131,390
with square roots, 132-137, T
177-178, 191-192
See also GL-monoids t-norms, 17-23,30
Quasi-monoidallattices, 284, 285 Tietze-Urysohn extension theorem,
465-467,470
Transitivity, 402-425
R Truth degree functions, 14-15,30,60
for conjunction connectives, 16-21,
Random variables, 208 35
Raney's theorem, 206 and disjunction connectives, 23-25
Regular spaces, 187-188,452-457 for implication connectives, 25-29,
Regularity axioms, 501-507 31-33,39-40
Residuated l-monoids (rl-monoids), for negation connectives, 21-23, 36
49-51 Truth degrees, 8, 9-10
Restricted completeness theorem, 81 designated, 10-11,60
Rosser-Turquette axiomatisation membership degrees as, 63-64
method, 39, 57-58 Truth value, 7-8, 12
Tychonofftheorem, 197-198,457,472,
474
s
Semantics, 7, 8, 9, 67-68, 74-76 U
in many-valued logic, 51-52
Semicontinuous L-real functions, Uncertainty measures, 634-639,
446-447 668--672
Semiframes (SFRM), 284, 285 Uniform spaces, 553, 554-557,
Semilocales (SLOC), 284, 285 571-572,582,585-590
Separation axioms boundedness,597-600
compactification, 481-483, 500-509 completeness, 600-603
L-normalspaces,458-459 coverings, 562-567
L-regular spaces, 187-188,452-457 diagonal, 554-556,559-560
Sobriety, 378--382, 490-500 families of functions, 557-562
Soundness conditions, 67-73, 82 Hutton L-fuzzy uniformities,
Spatial locales, 205-206 569-571
Spatiality, 491-492 L-valued, 576-578
Stone-Cech compactification. See Lowen fuzzy uniformities, 571-576
Cech-Stone compactification precompactness, 594-597
716 Index
Uniformly continuous functions, 557, subspaces, 333

567-569,576 Variable-basis topology, 92
Unit intervals, 361-368, 371, 378, categorical frameworks, 294-314
425-429,445,607-608,610 compactification reflectors, 535-549
Universal L-topological spaces, embeddings, 333-340 passim
475-476 endomorphism-saturated spaces,
Urysohn embedding theorem, 474 280,314-317,322-324
Urysohn extension theorem, 469 ground categories, 277,287-294
initial structures and morphisms,
32~331
V isomorphisms, 325-328 passim
sobertlications, 378-382
V-lift,308-313 subspaces,32~331
Valuations, 641-642
Variable-basis fuzzy topology, 92,
273-287 w
categorical frameworks, 273,
294-314 Weak star-regularity, 210, 215-217
embeddings, 333-340 passim, Weak stratification functor, 349, 357
358-359
endomorphism-saturated spaces,
317-322,322-324 z
ground categories, 287-294
initial structures and morphisms, Zadeh Extension Principle, 92,
329,331-333 102-103
isomorphisms, 325-328 passim Zadeh powerset operators, 92, 114

Mathematics of Fuzzy Sets: Logic, Topology, and Measure Theory

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mathematics of Fuzzy Sets: Logic, Topology, and Measure Theory

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

MATHEMATICS OF FUZZY

LOGIC, TOPOLOGY, AND MEASURE

FUNDAMENTALS OF FUZZY SETS, edited by Didier Dubois and Henri Prade

STEPHEN ERNEST RODABAUGH

Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Printed on acid-free paper.

Didier DUBOIS Henri PRADE

The mathematics of fuzzy sets is the mathematics of lattice-valued maps. Lat-

U. Höhle et al. (eds.), Mathematics of Fuzzy Sets

Chapter 12 develops the important theory of conditioning operators and its

[12] L.A. Zadeh, Fuzzy sets, Information and Control 8 (1965),338-353.

Many-Valued Logic And Fuzzy Set Theory

U. Höhle et al. (eds.), Mathematics of Fuzzy Sets

Having determined suitable families of connectives, particular systems of

disjunction, negation are chosen as n, u, *, respectively, and validity of a well

1.2 Truth degrees

Wo =def {x E QIO:::; x:::; I} or Woo =def {x E ]RIO:::; x:::; I}. (3)

for some integer m ~ 2.

1.3 Designated truth degrees

1.4 Logical validity and logical consequence

One defines that a sentence H is a logical consequence of a set 1: of sentences,

2 Outline of the history

Proposition 3.1 A necessary condition for the functional completeness of a

It is an interesting problems for many-valued propositional logics then to

Theorem 3.2 A system 5 of finitely many-valued propositional logic with truth

Theorem 3.3 A system 5 of finitely many-valued propositional logic with truth

3.1 The J-connectives

3.2 Conjunction connectives

etl(U,V) =def min{u, v}. (8)

et2(U, v) =def max{O, u + v - I} (9)

and is known as LUKASIEWICZ (arithmetic) conjunction or bounded product,

Figure 1: Truth table characterisations of conjunction connectives

et3(U, v) =def U· v. (10)

t archimedean iff for all u, v E (0,1) there exists some (11)

with the power notation uin) defined by

For continuous t-norms there is a much simpler characterisation of archimedean-

Proposition 3.4 A continuous t-norm t is archimedean iff t( u, u) < u holds

A further important class of t-norms are the strictly monotone t-norms,

u <v => t(u,w) < t(v,w). (13)

t*(x,y) =def I:(2Xn+Yn-n)-1

with reference to the binary expansions x = 2:~=o 2- Xn and y = 2:~=o 2- Yn

and the nilpotent minimum tl of FODOR [23] defined by

Obviously, one has additionally for any t-norm t the inequality

to ~ t ~ etl = min (16)

with the ordering ~ of the (binary) functions taken pointwise.

tF,O(U,V) =def lims--+o utF,sv min{u,v},

Definition 3.2 Suppose that ([ai, bi])iEI is a countable family of non-overlap-

f(-l) (z) =def sup{x E [0,1)1 f(x) > z}

f(-l)(Z) _ { f - 1 (z), if z E [O,f(O))

t(u,v) = f(-l) (j(u) + f(v)). (22)

And this generating function f is uniquely determined up to a positive factor by

Conversely, each binary function is a continuous archimedean t-norm which

f(u) + f(v) E rg (1) U (1(0),00)

for all u, v E [0,1), then by (22) an archimedean t-norm is determined.

So we may ask for another representation theorem for strict t-norms. To

Theorem 3.8 A continuous t-norm t is strict iff there exists an automorphism

3.3 Negation connectives

The present discussion, however, considers POST'S cyclic operation non2 as a

Definition 3.3 A function n : [0,1] -t [0,1] is called negation function iff n

n(n(u» =u for all u E [0,1] (27)

It is interesting to remark that the inverse function n- l of each strict nega-

and thus obviously a kind of dual to nona.

IlL! HI --p (H2 --p Hd,