2. IFSs and Similarity Measures
We firstly review the basic notations of FSs and IFSs. Let be a non-empty universal set of real numbers .
Definition 1. An FS A over X is defined aswhere the membership function is for . We use FS(X) to denote the set of all FSs over X. Definition 2. An IFS A over X is defined aswhere the membership function and non-membership function of belonging to the set A satisfy The degree of hesitancy associated with each is defined asmeasuring the lack of information or certitude. The set of all IFSs over X is denoted by IFS(X). We now briefly review some operations involving IFSs.
Definition 3. Let and be two IFSs. Then:
- 1.
if and only if and for ;
- 2.
if and only if and for ;
- 3.
The complement of A is defined as ;
- 4.
We denote the pure intuitionistic fuzzy set by .
For the fuzzy set , for , and for the pure intuitionistic fuzzy set, for .
We now recall the definition of similarity measures between two IFSs.
Definition 4. A similarity measure should satisfy the following properties:
- 1.
;
- 2.
if and only if ;
- 3.
;
- 4.
If , then and .
In the literature, the existing transformed FN-based similarity measures between two IFSs and , for , are reviewed as follows.
Zhang and Yu’s similarity measure [9] iswhere is the weight of element , , for , ,and two symmetric triangular FNsandfor . Chen and Chang’s similarity measure [13] is
where is the weight of element , , for , and Define two membership functions of the transformed right-angled triangular FNs and obtained from the IFS of element belonging to the IFS A as followsand Then, the degree of similarity between and and the difference of the areas between and are respectivelyandwhere for . Among these transformed FN-based similarity measures, the most distinctive is that the form of the transformation technique is symmetric triangular FN for and right-angled triangular FN for . Chen and Chang indicated that if or for some , then Zhang and Yu’s similarity measure has the division by zero problem. Therefore, this paper focuses on Chen and Chang’s similarity measure .
3. Chen and Chang’s Similarity Measure
This section will present an algorithm of computing for and for . The major part of computing is . For simplicity, assume that , and the abbreviated notations of , , and are then denoted by , , and , respectively.
Without loss of generality, assume that
If , since , we can swap A and B. Four cases are considered as follows.
Case 1: .
Case 2: .
We compute
by decomposing it into three parts:
and it follows that
and
so
Case 3: .
We calculate
by decomposing it into four parts, as follows:
where
obtained from
.
Case 4: or .
If
, a similar argument shows that
We observe that case 4 is a special one of case 1. The mechanics of computing are listed as follows (Algorithm 1).
Algorithm 1 |
Input and . Output . |
Step 0 If , swap A and B. |
Step 1 Set and . |
Step 2 If or or , then
|
else if , then
|
Else
|
We illustrate some concrete examples with various and .
Example 1. and , , . From the definition of , it follows thatandso This result coincides with that of Algorithm 1. From and , it implies that is an increasing function of a and a decreasing function of for . For , associated and can attain the maximum value .
Example 2. and , , . The definition of givesandso This result coincides with that of Algorithm 1. Comparedwith that of example 1,which is consistent with our intuition, for , . For the case of , we get Example 3. , and , , . Using Algorithm 1, we obtainand is an increasing function of and v and a decreasing function of from , , and . For , we can attain the maximum value with and . For , we have with and . From , , and , the behaviors of are the same as those of . We also havewhich is consistent with our intuition. Example 4. , , and , . Applying Algorithm 1, we getand Applying an exhaustive search for and , we get , which is consistent with our intuition. Additionally, is a decreasing function of and is a decreasing function of a and .
Example 5. , , and , , , , . Applying Algorithm 1 yieldsandwhich is consistent with our intuition. For , we have . Additionally, is an increasing function of and v and a decreasing function of . is an increasing function of , v and and a decreasing function of . Example 6. and , . We have is a decreasing function of . We can attain the maximum value for and minimum value for , which are inconsistent with our intuition.
4. General Counterintuitive Test Problems
Much literature has been written on the counterintuitive examples for the similarity measures between two IFSs. Two typical counterintuitive examples are (I)
for
,
and (II)
for
,
. Tang and Yang [
22] proposed the following six general test problems to analyze the counterintuitive behaviors of similarity measures.
Test problem 1 (T1)
, , , satisfying .
Test problem 2 (T2)
, , , , , satisfying .
Test problem 3 (T3)
, , , , , , satisfying .
Test problem 4 (T4)
, , , satisfying .
Test problem 5 (T5)
, , , , , , , satisfying .
Test problem 6 (T6)
, , , , , satisfying .
For the specific , we also propose the following general test problem to analyze its counterintuitive behaviors.
Test problem 7 (T7)
, , , , satisfying .
We now analyze the counterintuitive behaviors of similarity measure
for seven general test problems. For test problems T1 and T2 with
, we apply Algorithm 1 to establish
and
T1 and T2 are not counterintuitive test problems for with and . A symmetric argument shows that T1 and T2 are not counterintuitive ones for with and . Therefore, T1 and T2 are not counterintuitive test problems for with and .
For test problem T3 with
, we get
and
It follows that for . A similar argument shows that for . Therefore, T3 is not a counterintuitive test problem for with .
For test problem T4,
and
imply that T4 with
is not a counterintuitive test problem for
.
For test problem T5 with
, from
and
it follows that
for
or
. The case of
is a trivial one. For
, we can see that
,
, and
for
,
satisfying
is a counterintuitive test problem for
.
For test problem T6 with
, we now use Algorithm 1 to obtain
and
Since for , it follows that T6 is not a counterintuitive test problem for .
We now apply Algorithm 1 with test problem T7 to deduce that
and
so
Then, T7 is a counterintuitive test problem for .
Therefore, the counterintuitive test problems for Chen and Chang’s similarity measure are (1) , , and for , satisfying , and (2) , , and for , satisfying .
5. Counterintuitive Test Problem with
This section presents the counterintuitive test problems of Chen and Chang’s similarity measure
for the case that
,
IFS(
X). Chen, Cheng and Lan [
14] proposed some counterexamples with
for
. More precisely, given
, we have
or
, contradicting Definition 4. For test problems with
, this section proposes some general counterexamples satisfying
. A symmetric argument shows the similar results of
which are omitted in this paper.
From
, we have
and
. Without loss of generality, assume that
For simplicity, we assume that
Using Algorithm 1 yields
and
Four cases of , , and satisfying are distinguished: (I) and , (II) , (III) and (IV) .
First, consider the case I:
and
, so we have
,
and
for
,
,
. Applying Algorithm 1 gives
and
It implies that if
then
. Therefore, if
,
, and
for
,
,
a,
c,
α,
γ ≤ 0 , we have
.
In the case of II:
, we get
It implies that if
then
. If
, then
, in contradiction to
. If
, then
, in contradiction to
. Also if
, then
. Therefore, if
then
.
For the case of III:
, we have
It implies that if
then
.
We now analyze case IV. Substituting
into
gives
From
and
it follows that
attains the maximum value
, and for , , satisfying .
For case IV, we illustrate some concrete examples with various values of .
Example 7. Consider four subcases (1) and ; (2) and ; (3) and and (4) and . Some sample values of and are given as follows for each subcase. The values of and are (0.6567, 0.01, 0.3433, 0.6567) and 0.0183 for and , (0.59, 0.01, 0.31, 0.59) and 0.0144 for and , (0.39, 0.01, 0.21, 0.39) and 0.02 for and , and (0.39, 0.01, 0.21, 0.39) and 0.005 for and . Therefore, these four values of are counterintuitive ones satisfying for case IV.
Therefore, consider three IFNs , , and satisfying for , , , , . Four cases of A, B, and C satisfying are distinguished: (I) and ; (II) l (III) ; and (IV) , , , and . The corresponding counterexamples with satisfying are (I) , , and for , , ; (II) , , and for , , , , ; (III) , , and for , , , ; and (IV) , , and for , , .