Prerpints.org logo
Preprint
Article

A Novel Types of Fuzzy Closed Sets, Separation Axioms, and Compactness via Double Fuzzy Topologies

Altmetrics

Downloads

113

Views

57

Comments

0

A peer-reviewed article of this preprint also exists.

This version is not peer-reviewed

Submitted:

12 May 2024

Posted:

13 May 2024

You are already at the latest version

Alerts
Abstract
In this article, we first defined a stronger form of (r,s)-generalized fuzzy semi-closed sets (briefly, (r,s)-gfsc sets) called (r,s)-g*fsc sets and investigated some of its features. Moreover, we showed that (r,s)-fsc set → (r,s)-g*fsc set → (r,s)-gfsc set, but the converse may not be true. In addition, we explored novel types of fuzzy generalized mappings between double fuzzy topological spaces (U, τ, τ*) and (V, η, η*), and the relationships between these classes of mappings were examined with the help of some illustrative examples. Thereafter, we introduced novel types of higher separation axioms called (r,s)-GFS-regular and (r,s)-GFS-normal spaces with the help of (r,s)-gfsc sets and discussed some topological properties of them. Finally, some novel types of compactness via (r,s)-gfso sets were defined and the relationships between them were introduced.
Keywords: 
Subject: Computer Science and Mathematics  -   Geometry and Topology

MSC:  03E72; 54A05; 54A40; 54C08; 54D15

1. Introduction and Preliminaries

The theory of fuzzy set was first presented by Zadeh [1]. Since then it has been improved and applied in most all the branches of technology and science, where theory of sets and mathematical logic play an important role. Also, many applications of these theory contributed to solving several practical problems in mathematics, social science, engineering, economics, etc. In recent years, many authors have contributed to fuzzy sets theory in the different directions in mathematics such as geometry, topology, algebra, operation research, see [2,3]. The notion of fuzzy sets was used to introduce fuzzy topological spaces in [4]. The study in [4] was particularly important in the development of the field of fuzzy topology, see [5–10]. The authors of [11–18] studied topological structures inspired by the hybridizations of soft sets [19] with fuzzy sets [1] and rough sets [20].
The concept of an intuitionistic fuzzy set was initiated by Atanassov [21,22], which is a generalization of a fuzzy set. Coker [23,24] introduced the concept of an intuitionistic fuzzy topological space based on the sense of Chang [4]. Later, Samanta and Mondal [25,26] gave the definition of an intuitionistic fuzzy topological space based on the sense of Šostak [27]. The name (intuitionistic) was replaced with the name (double) by Garcia and Rodabaugh [28]. The concept of ( r , s ) − g f c sets was introduced and investigated by Abbas [29]. Thereafter, the concept of ( r , s ) − s g f c sets was introduced by Zahran et al. [30] on double fuzzy topological space based on the sense of Šostak. Also, Taha [31] defined the concept of ( r , s ) − g f s c sets and some characterizations were given. So far, lots of spectacular and creative studies about the theories of an intuitionistic fuzzy set have been considered by some scholars, see e. g. [32–36].
The organization of this article is as follows:
  • Firstly, as a stronger form of ( r , s ) − g f s c sets [31], the notion of ( r , s ) − g ⊛ f s c sets is introduced and some properties are investigated. Moreover, we introduce new types of fuzzy mappings between double fuzzy topological spaces and relationships are obtained.
  • Secondly, we define new types of fuzzy separation axioms with the help of ( r , s ) − g f s c sets and establish some of their properties.
  • Finally, some new types of compactness in double fuzzy topological spaces are defined and the relationships between them are specified.
  • In the end, we give some conclusions and make a plan for future works in Section 5.
Throughout this article, nonempty sets will be denoted by V, U, etc. The family of all fuzzy sets on U is denoted by I U , and for μ ∈ I U , μ c ( u ) = 1 − μ ( u ) , for all u ∈ U (where I = [ 0 , 1 ] , I 1 = [ 0 , 1 ) , and I ∘ = ( 0 , 1 ] ). Also, for t ∈ I , t ̲ ( u ) = t , for all u ∈ U .
A fuzzy point u t on U is a fuzzy set, defined as follows: u t ( k ) = t if k = u , and u t ( k ) = 0 for all k ∈ U − { u } . u t is said to belong to a fuzzy set μ , denoted by u t ∈ μ , if t ≤ μ ( u ) . The family of all fuzzy points on U is denoted by P t ( U ) .
A fuzzy set μ is a quasi-coincident with λ , denoted by μ q λ , if there is u ∈ U , such that μ ( u ) + λ ( u ) > 1 , if μ is not quasi-coincident with λ , we denote μ q ¯ λ .
The following results and notions will be used in the next sections:
Lemma 1.1 
([6]). Let U be a nonempty set and ν , μ ∈ I U . Then,
(i) ν q μ iff there is u t ∈ ν such that u t q μ ,
(ii) ν ∧ μ ≠ 0 ̲ if ν q μ ,
(iii) ν q ¯ μ iff ν ≤ μ c ,
(iv) μ ≤ ν iff u t ∈ μ implies u t ∈ ν iff u t q μ implies u t q ν iff u t q ¯ ν implies u t q ¯ μ ,
(v) u t q ¯ ⋁ δ ∈ Δ ν δ iff there is δ 0 ∈ Δ such that u t q ¯ ν δ 0 .
Definition 1.1 
([25,30]). A double fuzzy topology on U is a pair ( η , η * ) of the mappings η , η * : I U → I , which satisfy the following conditions.
(i) η ( ν ) + η * ( ν ) ≤ 1 , for each ν ∈ I U .
(ii) η ( ν 1 ∧ ν 2 ) ≥ η ( ν 1 ) ∧ η ( ν 2 ) and η * ( ν 1 ∧ ν 2 ) ≤ η * ( ν 1 ) ∨ η * ( ν 2 ) , for each ν 1 , ν 2 ∈ I U .
(iii) η ( ⋁ δ ∈ Δ ν δ ) ≥ ⋀ δ ∈ Δ η ( ν δ ) and η * ( ⋁ δ ∈ Δ ν δ ) ≤ ⋁ δ ∈ Δ η * ( ν δ ) , for each { ν δ } δ ∈ Δ ⊂ I U .
The triplet ( U , η , η * ) is said to be a double fuzzy topological space 〈briefly, dfts〉 in the sense of Šostak. η * ( ν ) and η ( ν ) may be interpreted as gradation of nonopenness and openness for ν ∈ I U , respectively.
In a dfts ( U , η , η * ) , the interior of ν ∈ I U , the closure of ν ∈ I U , the semi-closure of ν ∈ I U and the semi-interior of ν ∈ I U will be denoted by I η , η * ( ν , r , s ) , C η , η * ( ν , r , s ) , S C η , η * ( ν , r , s ) and S I η , η * ( ν , r , s ) , respectively [26,32,37].
Definition 1.2 
([37,38]). Let ( U , η , η * ) be a dfts, ν ∈ I U , r ∈ I ∘ , and s ∈ I 1 , then we have
(i) ν is called an ( r , s ) - f s c 〈resp., ( r , s ) - f p c and ( r , s ) - f r c 〉 set if ν ≥ I η , η * ( C η , η * ( ν , r , s ) , r , s ) 〈resp., ν ≥ C η , η * ( I η , η * ( ν , r , s ) , r , s ) and ν = C η , η * ( I η , η * ( ν , r , s ) , r , s ) 〉.
(ii) ν is called an ( r , s ) - f s o 〈resp., ( r , s ) - f p o and ( r , s ) - f r o 〉 set if ν ≤ C η , η * ( I η , η * ( ν , r , s ) , r , s ) 〈resp., ν ≤ I η , η * ( C η , η * ( ν , r , s ) , r , s ) and ν = I η , η * ( C η , η * ( ν , r , s ) , r , s ) 〉.
Definition 1.3 
([29–31]). Let ( U , η , η * ) be a dfts, μ , ν ∈ I U , r ∈ I ∘ , and s ∈ I 1 , then we have
(i) μ is called an ( r , s ) -generalized fuzzy closed 〈briefly, ( r , s ) - g f c 〉 set if C η , η * ( μ , r , s ) ≤ ν whenever μ ≤ ν and η ( ν ) ≥ r , η * ( ν ) ≤ s .
(ii) μ is called an ( r , s ) -semi generalized fuzzy closed 〈briefly, ( r , s ) - s g f c 〉 set if S C η , η * ( μ , r , s ) ≤ ν whenever μ ≤ ν and ν is ( r , s ) - f s o set.
(iii) μ is called an ( r , s ) -generalized fuzzy semi-closed 〈briefly, ( r , s ) - g f s c 〉 set if S C η , η * ( μ , r , s ) ≤ ν whenever μ ≤ ν and η ( ν ) ≥ r , η * ( ν ) ≤ s .
Definition 1.4 
([26,30]). Let h : ( U , τ , τ * ) → ( V , η , η * ) be a mapping, then h is said to be
(i) DF -continuous if τ ( h − 1 ( λ ) ) ≥ η ( λ ) and τ * ( h − 1 ( λ ) ) ≤ η * ( λ ) for each λ ∈ I V .
(ii) DF -open if η ( h ( ν ) ) ≥ τ ( ν ) and η * ( h ( ν ) ) ≤ τ * ( ν ) for each ν ∈ I U .
(iii) DF -closed if η ( h c ( ν ) ) ≥ τ ( ν c ) and η * ( h c ( ν ) ) ≤ τ * ( μ c ) for each ν ∈ I U .
Definition 1.5 
(29,31,37). Let h : ( U , τ , τ * ) → ( V , η , η * ) be a mapping, r ∈ I ∘ , and s ∈ I 1 , then h is said to be
(i) DFS -continuous 〈resp., DFGS -continuous and DFG -continuous〉 if h − 1 ( μ ) is ( r , s ) - f s o 〈resp., ( r , s ) - g f s o and ( r , s ) - g f o 〉 set for each μ ∈ I V with η ( μ ) ≥ r , η * ( μ ) ≤ s .
(ii) DFGS -irresolute 〈resp., DF -irresolute〉 if h − 1 ( μ ) is ( r , s ) - g f s o 〈resp., ( r , s ) - f s o 〉 set for each μ ∈ I V is ( r , s ) - g f s o 〈resp., ( r , s ) - f s o 〉 set.
(iii) DFS -open 〈resp., DFGS -open and DFG -open〉 if h ( ν ) is ( r , s ) - f s o 〈resp., ( r , s ) - g f s o and ( r , s ) - g f o 〉 set for each ν ∈ I U with τ ( ν ) ≥ r , τ * ( ν ) ≤ s .
(iv) DFS -closed 〈resp., DFGS -closed and DFG -closed〉 if h ( ν ) is ( r , s ) - f s c 〈resp., ( r , s ) - g f s c and ( r , s ) - g f c 〉 set for each ν ∈ I U with τ ( ν c ) ≥ r , τ * ( ν c ) ≤ s .
The basic results and notions that we need in the next sections are found in [29–31,39–41].

2. A Stronger Novel form of ( r , s ) − gfsc Sets

Here, we introduce and study a stronger form of ( r , s ) − g f s c sets called ( r , s ) − g ⊛ f s c sets. Also, we show that ( r , s ) − f s c set [37] ⇒ ( r , s ) − g ⊛ f s c set ⇒ ( r , s ) − g f s c set [31], but the converse may not be true. After that, we introduce new types of fuzzy mappings between double fuzzy topological spaces and relationships are obtained.
Definition 2.1. 
Let ( V , η , η * ) be a d f t s , ν , ρ ∈ I V , r ∈ I ∘ , and s ∈ I 1 , then we have:
(i) ρ is called an ( r , s ) -strongly generalized fuzzy semi-closed 〈briefly, ( r , s ) − g ⊝ f s c 〉 if S C η , η * ( ρ , r , s ) ≤ ν whenever ρ ≤ ν and ν is ( r , s ) − g f o set,
(ii) ρ is called an ( r , s ) -strongly* generalized fuzzy semi-closed 〈briefly, ( r , s ) − g ⊛ f s c 〉 if S C η , η * ( ρ , r , s ) ≤ ν whenever ρ ≤ ν and ν is ( r , s ) − g f s o set.
Remark 2.1. 
(i) A fuzzy set ρ ∈ I V is ( r , s ) − g ⊝ f s o if ρ c is ( r , s ) − g ⊝ f s c set.
(ii) A fuzzy set ρ ∈ I V is ( r , s ) − g ⊛ f s o if ρ c is ( r , s ) − g ⊛ f s c set.
Remark 2.2. 
From the previous definition, we can summarize the relationships among different types of fuzzy closed subsets as in the next diagram.
( r , s ) − f s c → ( r , s ) − g ⊛ f s c
↓ ↓
( r , s ) − s g f c ( r , s ) − g ⊝ f s c
↓ ↓
( r , s ) − g f s c
Remark 2.3. 
The converses of the above implications may not be true, as shown by Examples 2.1, 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4.
Example 2.1. 
Let V = { v 1 , v 2 , v 3 , v 4 } and ρ , ν ∈ I V defined as follows: ρ = { v 1 1.0 , v 2 1.0 , v 3 1.0 , v 4 0.0 } and ν = { v 1 0.0 , v 2 0.0 , v 3 1.0 , v 4 1.0 } . Also, ( η , η * ) defined on V as follows:
η ( μ ) = 1 , if μ ∈ { 0 ̲ , 1 ̲ } , 1 2 , if μ = ν , 0 , otherwise ,
η * ( μ ) = 0 , if μ ∈ { 0 ̲ , 1 ̲ } , 1 2 , if μ = ν , 1 , otherwise .
Thus, ρ is ( 1 2 , 1 2 ) − g ⊛ f s c set, but it is not ( 1 2 , 1 2 ) − f s c set.
Example 2.2. 
Let V = { v 1 , v 2 , v 3 , v 4 } and ρ , λ 1 , λ 2 , λ 3 ∈ I V defined as follows: ρ = { v 1 1.0 , v 2 0.0 , v 3 1.0 , v 4 0.0 } , λ 1 = { v 1 0.0 , v 2 1.0 , v 3 1.0 , v 4 1.0 } , λ 2 = { v 1 0.0 , v 2 1.0 , v 3 1.0 , v 4 0.0 } and λ 3 = { v 1 0.0 , v 2 0.0 , v 3 1.0 , v 4 0.0 } . Also, ( η , η * ) defined on V as follows:
η ( μ ) = 1 , if μ ∈ { 0 ̲ , 1 ̲ } , 1 4 , if μ ∈ { λ 1 , λ 2 , λ 3 } , 0 , otherwise ,
η * ( μ ) = 0 , if μ ∈ { 0 ̲ , 1 ̲ } , 1 4 , if μ ∈ { λ 1 , λ 2 , λ 3 } , 1 , otherwise .
Thus, ρ is ( 1 4 , 1 4 ) − g ⊝ f s c set, but it is not ( 1 4 , 1 4 ) − g ⊛ f s c set.
Example 2.3. 
Let V = { v 1 , v 2 , v 3 } and ν , μ 1 , μ 2 ∈ I V defined as follows: ν = { v 1 1.0 , v 2 0.0 , v 3 0.0 } , μ 1 = { v 1 0.0 , v 2 0.0 , v 3 1.0 } and μ 2 = { v 1 1.0 , v 2 1.0 , v 3 0.0 } . Also, ( η , η * ) defined on V as follows:
η ( μ ) = 1 , if μ ∈ { 0 ̲ , 1 ̲ } , 1 2 , if μ ∈ { μ 1 , μ 2 } , 0 , otherwise ,
η * ( μ ) = 0 , if μ ∈ { 0 ̲ , 1 ̲ } , 1 2 , if μ ∈ { μ 1 , μ 2 } , 1 , otherwise .
Thus, ν is ( 1 2 , 1 2 ) − s g f c set, but it is not ( 1 2 , 1 2 ) − g ⊛ f s c set.
Example 2.4. 
Let V = { v 1 , v 2 , v 3 } and ν , μ 1 , μ 2 ∈ I V defined as follows: ν = { v 1 1.0 , v 2 0.0 , v 3 1.0 } , μ 1 = { v 1 1.0 , v 2 0.0 , v 3 0.0 } and μ 2 = { v 1 1.0 , v 2 1.0 , v 3 0.0 } . Also, ( η , η * ) defined on V as follows:
η ( μ ) = 1 , if μ ∈ { 0 ̲ , 1 ̲ } , 1 3 , if μ ∈ { μ 1 , μ 2 } , 0 , otherwise ,
η * ( μ ) = 0 , if μ ∈ { 0 ̲ , 1 ̲ } , 1 3 , if μ ∈ { μ 1 , μ 2 } , 1 , otherwise .
Thus, ν is ( 1 3 , 1 3 ) − g f s c set, but it is not ( 1 3 , 1 3 ) − g ⊛ f s c set.
Remark 2.4. 
In general, ( r , s ) − g f c sets [29] and ( r , s ) − g ⊛ f s c sets are independent concepts, as shown by Example 2.5.
Example 2.5. 
Let V = { v 1 , v 2 , v 3 , v 4 } and ρ , ν , μ 1 , μ 2 ∈ I V defined as follows: ρ = { v 1 0.0 , v 2 1.0 , v 3 0.0 , v 4 0.0 } , ν = { v 1 1.0 , v 2 1.0 , v 3 0.0 , v 4 1.0 } , μ 1 = { v 1 1.0 , v 2 0.0 , v 3 0.0 , v 4 0.0 } and μ 2 = { v 1 1.0 , v 2 1.0 , v 3 0.0 , v 4 0.0 } . Also, ( η , η * ) defined on V as follows:
η ( μ ) = 1 , if μ ∈ { 0 ̲ , 1 ̲ } , 1 2 , if μ ∈ { μ 1 , μ 2 } , 0 , otherwise ,
η * ( μ ) = 0 , if μ ∈ { 0 ̲ , 1 ̲ } , 1 2 , if μ ∈ { μ 1 , μ 2 } , 1 , otherwise .
Thus, ρ is ( 1 2 , 1 2 ) − g ⊛ f s c set, but it is not ( 1 2 , 1 2 ) − g f c set. Also, ν is ( 1 2 , 1 2 ) − g f c set, but it is not ( 1 2 , 1 2 ) − g ⊛ f s c set.
Remark 2.5. 
In general, any intersection of ( r , s ) − g ⊛ f s o sets is not ( r , s ) − g ⊛ f s o , and any union of ( r , s ) − g ⊛ f s c sets is not ( r , s ) − g ⊛ f s c , as shown by Example 2.6.
Example 2.6. 
Let V = { v 1 , v 2 , v 3 , v 4 } and ν , ρ , μ 1 , μ 2 , μ 3 ∈ I V defined as follows: ν = { v 1 1.0 , v 2 0.0 , v 3 1.0 , v 4 1.0 } , ρ = { v 1 0.0 , v 2 1.0 , v 3 1.0 , v 4 1.0 } , μ 1 = { v 1 1.0 , v 2 0.0 , v 3 0.0 , v 4 0.0 } , μ 2 = { v 1 0.0 , v 2 1.0 , v 3 0.0 , v 4 0.0 } and μ 3 = { v 1 1.0 , v 2 1.0 , v 3 0.0 , v 4 0.0 } . Also, ( η , η * ) defined on V as follows:
η ( μ ) = 1 , if μ ∈ { 0 ̲ , 1 ̲ } , 1 3 , if μ ∈ { μ 1 , μ 2 , μ 3 } , 0 , otherwise ,
η * ( μ ) = 0 , if μ ∈ { 0 ̲ , 1 ̲ } , 1 3 , if μ ∈ { μ 1 , μ 2 , μ 3 } , 1 , otherwise .
Thus, μ 1 and μ 2 are ( 1 3 , 1 3 ) − g ⊛ f s c sets, but μ 1 ∨ μ 2 is not ( 1 3 , 1 3 ) − g ⊛ f s c . Also, ρ and ν are ( 1 3 , 1 3 ) − g ⊛ f s o sets, but ρ ∧ ν is not ( 1 3 , 1 3 ) − g ⊛ f s o .
Theorem 2.1. 
Let ( V , η , η * ) be a d f t s , μ , λ ∈ I V , r ∈ I ∘ , and s ∈ I 1 , then λ is ( r , s ) − g ⊛ f s c set iff every μ is ( r , s ) − g f s o set and λ ≤ μ , there is ρ is ( r , s ) − f s c set, such that λ ≤ ρ ≤ μ .
Proof. 
(⇒) Let λ be an ( r , s ) − g ⊛ f s c , λ ≤ μ and μ be an ( r , s ) − g f s o set, then S C η , η * ( λ , r , s ) ≤ μ . Put ρ = S C η , η * ( λ , r , s ) , there is ρ is ( r , s ) − f s c set such that λ ≤ ρ ≤ μ .
(⇐) Assume that λ ≤ μ and μ is ( r , s ) − g f s o set, then by hypothesis, there is ρ is ( r , s ) − f s c set such that λ ≤ ρ ≤ μ , therefore, S C η , η * ( λ , r , s ) ≤ μ . So, λ is ( r , s ) − g ⊛ f s c set. □
Proposition 2.1. 
Let ( V , η , η * ) be a d f t s , μ , λ ∈ I V , r ∈ I ∘ , and s ∈ I 1 , then the following properties hold.
(i) If λ is ( r , s ) − g ⊛ f s c and λ ≤ μ ≤ S C η , η * ( λ , r , s ) , then μ is ( r , s ) − g ⊛ f s c set.
(ii) If λ is ( r , s ) − g ⊛ f s o and S I η , η * ( λ , r , s ) ≤ μ ≤ λ , then μ is ( r , s ) − g ⊛ f s o set.
(iii) If one of the following two cases hold:
(a) λ is ( r , s ) − g ⊛ f s c and ( r , s ) − g f s o .
(b) λ is ( r , s ) − g ⊛ f s c and η ( λ ) ≥ r , η * ( λ ) ≤ s .
Then, λ is ( r , s ) − f s c set.
Proof. 
(i) Let ν be an ( r , s ) − g f s o set and μ ≤ ν , then λ ≤ ν . Since λ is ( r , s ) − g ⊛ f s c set, hence S C η , η * ( λ , r , s ) ≤ ν , but μ ≤ S C η , η * ( λ , r , s ) . Then, S C η , η * ( μ , r , s ) ≤ ν . So, μ is ( r , s ) − g ⊛ f s c set.
(ii) and (iii) are easily proved by a similar way. □
Theorem 2.2. 
Let ( V , η , η * ) be a d f t s , ν ∈ I V , s ∈ I 1 , and r ∈ I ∘ , then the following statements are equivalent.
(i) ν is ( r , s ) − f r o set.
(ii) ν is ( r , s ) − g ⊛ f s c set and η ( ν ) ≥ r , η * ( ν ) ≤ s .
Proof. 
(i) ⇒ (ii) Let μ ∈ I V be an ( r , s ) − g f s o set and ν ≤ μ . Since ν is ( r , s ) − f r o set, then ν ∨ I η , η * ( C η , η * ( ν , r , s ) , r , s ) = ν ≤ μ . So, S C η , η * ( ν , r , s ) ≤ μ , and hence ν is ( r , s ) − g ⊛ f s c set.
(ii) ⇒ (i) Since ν is ( r , s ) − g ⊛ f s c set and η ( ν ) ≥ r , η * ( ν ) ≤ s , then by Proposition 2.1(iii), ν is ( r , s ) − f s c set. But, ν is ( r , s ) − f p o set. Therefore, ν is ( r , s ) − f r o set. □
Theorem 2.3. 
Let ( V , η , η * ) be a d f t s , ρ , μ , ν ∈ I V , s ∈ I 1 , and r ∈ I ∘ , then the following statements are equivalent.
(i) ν is ( r , s ) − g ⊛ f s o set.
(ii) For any μ is ( r , s ) − g f s c set and μ ≤ ν , then μ ≤ S I η , η * ( ν , r , s ) .
(iii) For any μ is ( r , s ) − g f s c set and μ ≤ ν , there is ρ is ( r , s ) − f s o set such that μ ≤ ρ ≤ ν .
Proof. 
(i) ⇒ (ii) Let μ be an ( r , s ) − g f s c set and μ ≤ ν . Then, ν c ≤ μ c , which is ( r , s ) − g f s o set. Hence, S C η , η * ( ν c , r , s ) ≤ μ c implies μ ≤ ( S C η , η * ( ν c , r , s ) ) c . Then, μ ≤ S I η , η * ( ν , r , s ) .
(ii) ⇒ (iii) Let μ be an ( r , s ) − g f s c set and μ ≤ ν . Then, by hypothesis μ ≤ S I η , η * ( ν , r , s ) . Put S I η , η * ( ν , r , s ) = ρ . Hence, μ ≤ ρ ≤ ν .
(iii) ⇒ (i) Let μ be an ( r , s ) − g f s o set and ν c ≤ μ . Then, μ c ≤ ν and by hypothesis, there is ρ is ( r , s ) − f s o set such that μ c ≤ ρ ≤ ν , that is, ν c ≤ ρ c ≤ μ . Therefore, by Theorem 2.1, ν c is ( r , s ) − g ⊛ f s c set. Hence, ν is ( r , s ) − g ⊛ f s o set. □
Definition 2.2. 
Let h : ( U , τ , τ * ) → ( V , η , η * ) be a mapping, then h is said to be
(i) Strongly* double fuzzy generalized semi-continuous 〈briefly, S * DFGS -continuous〉 if h − 1 ( ν ) is ( r , s ) − g ⊛ f s o set for each ν ∈ I V and η ( ν ) ≥ r , η * ( ν ) ≤ s .
(ii) S * DFGS -irresolute if h − 1 ( ν ) is ( r , s ) − g ⊛ f s o set for each ν ∈ I V is ( r , s ) − g ⊛ f s o set.
(iii) S * DFGS -open if h ( ρ ) is ( r , s ) − g ⊛ f s o set for each ρ ∈ I U and τ ( ρ ) ≥ r , τ * ( ρ ) ≤ s .
(iv) S * DFGS -closed if h ( ρ ) is ( r , s ) − g ⊛ f s c set for ρ ∈ I U and τ ( ρ c ) ≥ r , τ * ( ρ c ) ≤ s .
Remark 2.6. 
From the previous definitions, we can summarize the relationships among different types of DF -continuity as in the next diagram.
DF − c o n t i n u i t y
↙ ↘
DFG − c o n t i n u i t y DFS − c o n t i n u i t y
↓ ↓
DFGS − c o n t i n u i t y ⟵ S * DFGS − c o n t i n u i t y
Remark 2.7. 
The converses of the above implications may not be true, as shown by Examples 2.7 and 2.8.
Example 2.7. 
Let V = { v 1 , v 2 , v 3 , v 4 } and ρ , ν ∈ I V defined as follows: ρ = { v 1 0.0 , v 2 0.0 , v 3 1.0 , v 4 1.0 } and ν = { v 1 0.0 , v 2 0.0 , v 3 0.0 , v 4 1.0 } . Define η , η * , τ , τ * : I V ⟶ I as follows:
η ( μ ) = 1 , if μ ∈ { 0 ̲ , 1 ̲ } , 1 2 , if μ = ρ , 0 , otherwise ,
η * ( μ ) = 0 , if μ ∈ { 0 ̲ , 1 ̲ } , 1 2 , if μ = ρ , 1 , otherwise ,
τ ( μ ) = 1 , if μ ∈ { 0 ̲ , 1 ̲ } , 1 2 , if μ = ν , 0 , otherwise ,
τ * ( μ ) = 0 , if μ ∈ { 0 ̲ , 1 ̲ } , 1 2 , if μ = ν , 1 , otherwise .
Thus, the identity mapping i d v : ( V , η , η * ) → ( V , τ , τ * ) is S * DFGS -continuous, but it is not DFS -continuous.
Example 2.8. 
Let V = { v 1 , v 2 , v 3 } and μ 1 , μ 2 , μ 3 ∈ I V defined as follows: μ 1 = { v 1 0.0 , v 2 0.0 , v 3 1.0 } , μ 2 = { v 1 1.0 , v 2 1.0 , v 3 0.0 } and μ 3 = { v 1 0.0 , v 2 1.0 , v 3 1.0 } . Define η , η * , τ , τ * : I V ⟶ I as follows:
η ( μ ) = 1 , if μ ∈ { 0 ̲ , 1 ̲ } , 1 2 , if μ ∈ { μ 1 , μ 2 } , 0 , otherwise ,
η * ( μ ) = 0 , if μ ∈ { 0 ̲ , 1 ̲ } , 1 2 , if μ ∈ { μ 1 , μ 2 } , 1 , otherwise ,
τ ( μ ) = 1 , if μ ∈ { 0 ̲ , 1 ̲ } , 1 2 , if μ = μ 3 , 0 , otherwise ,
τ * ( μ ) = 0 , if μ ∈ { 0 ̲ , 1 ̲ } , 1 2 , if μ = μ 3 , 1 , otherwise .
Thus, the identity mapping i d v : ( V , η , η * ) → ( V , τ , τ * ) is DFGS -continuous, but it is not S* DFGS -continuous.
Lemma 2.1. 
Every S * DFGS -irresolute mapping is S * DFGS -continuous.
Remark 2.8. 
The converse of Lemma 2.1 may not be true, as shown by Example 2.9.
Example 2.9. 
Let V = { v 1 , v 2 } . Define η , η * , τ , τ * : I V ⟶ I as follows:
η ( ρ ) = 1 , if ρ ∈ { 0 ̲ , 1 ̲ } , 1 2 , if ρ ∈ { 0.1 ̲ , 0.3 ̲ } , 0 , otherwise ,
η * ( ρ ) = 0 , if ρ ∈ { 0 ̲ , 1 ̲ } , 1 2 , if ρ ∈ { 0.1 ̲ , 0.3 ̲ } , 1 , otherwise ,
τ ( ρ ) = 1 , if ρ ∈ { 0 ̲ , 1 ̲ } , 1 2 , if ρ = 0.1 ̲ , 0 , otherwise ,
τ * ( ρ ) = 0 , if ρ ∈ { 0 ̲ , 1 ̲ } , 1 2 , if ρ = 0.1 ̲ , 1 , otherwise .
Thus, the identity mapping i d v : ( V , η , η * ) → ( V , τ , τ * ) is S * DFGS -continuous, but it is not S * DFGS -irresolute.

3. Some Novel Higher Separation Axioms

Here, we are going to give the definitions of two types of higher fuzzy separation axioms with the help of ( r , s ) − g f s c sets [31] called ( r , s ) - GFS -regular 〈resp., ( r , s ) - GFS -normal〉 spaces and establish some of their properties.
Definition 3.1. 
A dfts ( U , η , η * ) is said to be
(i) ( r , s ) - GFS -regular iff u t q ¯ μ for each μ ∈ I U is ( r , s ) − g f s c set implies that, there is ν δ ∈ I U with η ( ν δ ) ≥ r , η * ( ν δ ) ≤ s for δ ∈ { 1 , 2 } , such that u t ∈ ν 1 , μ ≤ ν 2 and ν 1 q ¯ ν 2 .
(ii) ( r , s ) - GFS -normal iff μ 1 q ¯ μ 2 for each ( r , s ) − g f s c sets μ δ ∈ I U for δ ∈ { 1 , 2 } implies that, there is ν δ ∈ I U with η ( ν δ ) ≥ r and η * ( ν δ ) ≤ s , such that μ δ ≤ ν δ and ν 1 q ¯ ν 2 .
Theorem 3.1. 
Let ( U , η , η * ) be a d f t s , r ∈ I ∘ , and s ∈ I 1 , then the following statements are equivalent.
(i) ( U , η , η * ) is ( r , s ) - GFS -regular space.
(ii) If u t ∈ λ for each λ ∈ I U is ( r , s ) − g f s o , there is μ ∈ I U with η ( μ ) ≥ r and η * ( μ ) ≤ s , such that u t ∈ μ ≤ C η , η * ( μ , r , s ) ≤ λ .
(iii) If u t q ¯ λ for each λ ∈ I U is ( r , s ) − g f s c , there is μ δ ∈ I U with η ( μ δ ) ≥ r , η * ( μ δ ) ≤ s for δ ∈ { 1 , 2 } , such that u t ∈ μ 1 , λ ≤ μ 2 and C η , η * ( μ 1 , r , s ) q ¯ C η , η * ( μ 2 , r , s ) .
Proof. 
(i) ⇒ (ii) Let u t ∈ λ for each λ ∈ I U is an ( r , s ) − g f s o , then u t q ¯ λ c for ( r , s ) − g f s c set λ c . Since ( U , η , η * ) is ( r , s ) - GFS -regular, there is μ , ν ∈ I U with η ( μ ) ≥ r , η * ( μ ) ≤ s and η ( ν ) ≥ r , η * ( ν ) ≤ s such that u t ∈ μ , λ c ≤ ν and μ q ¯ ν . It implies u t ∈ μ ≤ ν c ≤ λ . Since η ( ν ) ≥ r and η * ( ν ) ≤ s , u t ∈ μ ≤ C η , η * ( μ , r , s ) ≤ λ .
(ii) ⇒ (iii) Let u t q ¯ λ for each λ ∈ I U is an ( r , s ) − g f s c , then u t ∈ λ c for ( r , s ) − g f s o set λ c . By (ii), there is μ ∈ I U with η ( μ ) ≥ r , η * ( μ ) ≤ s such that u t ∈ μ ≤ C η , η * ( μ , r , s ) ≤ λ c . Since η ( μ ) ≥ r and η * ( μ ) ≤ s , then μ is ( r , s ) − g f s o and u t ∈ μ . Again, by (ii), there is μ 1 ∈ I U with η ( μ 1 ) ≥ r , η * ( μ 1 ) ≤ s such that
u t ∈ μ 1 ≤ C η , η * ( μ 1 , r , s ) ≤ μ ≤ C η , η * ( μ , r , s ) ≤ λ c .
It implies λ ≤ ( C η , η * ( μ , r , s ) ) c = I η , η * ( μ c , r , s ) ≤ μ c . Put μ 2 = I η , η * ( μ c , r , s ) , then η ( μ 2 ) ≥ r , η * ( μ 2 ) ≤ s .
So, C η , η * ( μ 2 , r , s ) ≤ μ c ≤ ( C η , η * ( μ 1 , r , s ) ) c , that is, C η , η * ( μ 1 , r , s ) q ¯ C η , η * ( μ 2 , r , s ) .
(iii) ⇒ (i) It is trivial. □
In a similar way, we can prove Theorem 3.2.
Theorem 3.2. 
Let ( U , η , η * ) be a d f t s , r ∈ I ∘ , and s ∈ I 1 , then the following statements are equivalent.
(i) ( U , η , η * ) is ( r , s ) - GFS -normal space.
(ii) If ν ≤ λ for each ν ∈ I U is ( r , s ) − g f s c and λ ∈ I U is ( r , s ) − g f s o set, there is μ ∈ I U with η ( μ ) ≥ r and η * ( μ ) ≤ s , such that ν ≤ μ ≤ C η , η * ( μ , r , s ) ≤ λ .
(iii) If λ 1 q ¯ λ 2 for each ( r , s ) − g f s c sets λ δ ∈ I U for δ ∈ { 1 , 2 } , there is μ δ ∈ I U with η ( μ δ ) ≥ r and η * ( μ δ ) ≤ s , such that λ δ ≤ μ δ and C η , η * ( μ 1 , r , s ) q ¯ C η , η * ( μ 2 , r , s ) .
Theorem 3.3. 
If h : ( U , τ , τ * ) → ( V , η , η * ) is DF -irresolute, DF -open and bijective map, and ( U , τ , τ * ) is ( r , s ) - GFS -regular 〈resp., ( r , s ) - GFS -normal〉 space, then ( V , η , η * ) is ( r , s ) - GFS -regular 〈resp., ( r , s ) - GFS -normal〉 space.
Proof. 
Let v t q ¯ μ for each μ ∈ I V is ( r , s ) − g f s c . Since h is DF -irresolute, DF -open and bijective map, then by Theorem 4.11 [31], h is DFGS -irresolute. Hence, h − 1 ( μ ) is ( r , s ) − g f s c set. Put v t = h ( u t ) . Then, u t q ¯ h − 1 ( μ ) . Since ( U , τ , τ * ) is ( r , s ) - GFS -regular, there is μ δ ∈ I U with τ ( μ δ ) ≥ r , τ * ( μ δ ) ≤ s and δ ∈ { 1 , 2 } such that u t ∈ μ 1 , h − 1 ( μ ) ≤ μ 2 and μ 1 q ¯ μ 2 . Since h is DF -open and bijective map, we have
v t ∈ h ( μ 1 ) , μ = h ( h − 1 ( μ ) ) ≤ h ( μ 2 ) , h ( μ 1 ) q ¯ h ( μ 2 ) .
Hence, ( V , η , η * ) is ( r , s ) - GFS -regular space. The other case follows similar lines. □
Theorem 3.4. 
If h : ( U , τ , τ * ) → ( V , η , η * ) is DF -continuous, DFGS -irresolute closed and injective map, and ( V , η , η * ) is ( r , s ) - GFS -regular 〈resp., ( r , s ) - GFS -normal〉, then ( U , τ , τ * ) is ( r , s ) - GFS -regular 〈resp., ( r , s ) - GFS -normal〉.
Proof. 
Let u t q ¯ λ for each λ ∈ I U is ( r , s ) − g f s c . Since h is DFGS -irresolute closed, h ( λ ) is ( r , s ) − g f s c . Since h is injective, u t q ¯ λ implies h ( u t ) q ¯ h ( λ ) . Since ( V , η , η * ) is ( r , s ) - GFS -regular, there is μ δ ∈ I U with η ( μ δ ) ≥ r , η * ( μ δ ) ≤ s and δ ∈ { 1 , 2 } such that h ( u t ) ∈ μ 1 , h ( λ ) ≤ μ 2 and μ 1 q ¯ μ 2 . Since h is DF -continuous, u t ∈ h − 1 ( μ 1 ) , λ ≤ h − 1 ( μ 2 ) with η ( h − 1 ( μ δ ) ) ≥ r , η * ( h − 1 ( μ δ ) ) ≤ s and δ ∈ { 1 , 2 } and h − 1 ( μ 1 ) q ¯ h − 1 ( μ 2 ) . Hence, ( U , τ , τ * ) is ( r , s ) - GFS -regular. The other case follows similar lines. □
Theorem 3.5. 
If h : ( U , τ , τ * ) → ( V , η , η * ) is DFGS -irresolute, DF -open, DF -closed and surjective map, and ( U , τ , τ * ) is ( r , s ) - GFS -regular 〈resp., ( r , s ) - GFS -normal〉, then ( V , η , η * ) is ( r , s ) - GFS -regular 〈resp., ( r , s ) - GFS -normal〉.
Proof. 
Let v t ∈ μ for each μ ∈ I V is ( r , s ) − g f s o . Since h is DFGS -irresolute and surjective then, there is u ∈ h − 1 ( { v } ) such that u t ∈ h − 1 ( μ ) with ( r , s ) − g f s o set h − 1 ( μ ) . Since ( U , τ , τ * ) is ( r , s ) - GFS -regular, by Theorem 3.1, there is ν ∈ I U with τ ( ν ) ≥ r , τ * ( ν ) ≤ s such that u t ∈ ν ≤ C τ , τ * ( ν , r , s ) ≤ h − 1 ( μ ) . It implies
v t ∈ h ( ν ) ≤ h ( C τ , τ * ( ν , r , s ) ) ≤ μ .
Since h is DF -open and DF -closed, then η ( h ( ν ) ) ≥ r , η * ( h ( ν ) ) ≤ s and η ( h c ( C τ , τ * ( ν , r , s ) ) ) ≥ r . Hence, v t ∈ h ( ν ) ≤ C η , η * ( h ( ν ) , r , s ) ≤ C η , η * ( h ( C τ , τ * ( ν , r , s ) ) , r , s ) ≤ μ . Thus, ( V , η , η * ) is ( r , s ) - GFS -regular. The other case follows similar lines. □

4. Novel Types of Compactness

Here, several types of compactness in double fuzzy topological spaces were introduced and the relationships between them were studied.
Definition 4.1. 
Let ( U , η , η * ) be a d f t s , r ∈ I ∘ , and s ∈ I 1 , then μ ∈ I U is called an ( r , s ) -fuzzy compact iff for each family { λ j ∈ I U | η ( λ j ) ≥ r and η * ( λ j ) ≤ s } j ∈ ϝ , such that μ ≤ ⋁ j ∈ ϝ λ j , there is a finite subset ϝ ∘ of ϝ, such that μ ≤ ⋁ j ∈ ϝ ∘ λ j .
Definition 4.2. 
Let ( U , η , η * ) be a d f t s , r ∈ I ∘ , and s ∈ I 1 , then μ ∈ I U is called an ( r , s ) -fuzzy GS -compact iff for each family { λ j ∈ I U | λ j is ( r , s ) − g f s o } j ∈ ϝ , such that μ ≤ ⋁ j ∈ ϝ λ j , there is a finite subset ϝ ∘ of ϝ, such that μ ≤ ⋁ j ∈ ϝ ∘ λ j .
Lemma 4.1. 
Let ( U , η , η * ) be a d f t s , r ∈ I ∘ , and s ∈ I 1 . If μ ∈ I U is ( r , s ) -fuzzy GS -compact, then μ is ( r , s ) -fuzzy compact.
Proof. 
Follows from Definitions 4.1 and 4.2. □
Theorem 4.1. 
Let h : ( U , τ , τ * ) → ( V , η , η * ) be a DFGS -continuous mapping, r ∈ I ∘ , and s ∈ I 1 . If μ ∈ I U is ( r , s ) -fuzzy GS -compact, then h ( μ ) is ( r , s ) -fuzzy compact.
Proof. 
Let { λ j ∈ I V | η ( λ j ) ≥ r and η * ( λ j ) ≤ s } j ∈ ϝ with h ( μ ) ≤ ⋁ j ∈ ϝ λ j , then { h − 1 ( λ j ) ∈ I U | h − 1 ( λ j ) is ( r , s ) − g f s o } (by h is DFGS -continuous), such that μ ≤ ⋁ j ∈ ϝ h − 1 ( λ j ) . Since μ is ( r , s ) -fuzzy GS -compact, there is a finite subset ϝ ∘ of ϝ , such that μ ≤ ⋁ j ∈ ϝ ∘ h − 1 ( λ j ) . Thus, h ( μ ) ≤ ⋁ j ∈ ϝ ∘ λ j . Hence, the proof is completed. □
Definition 4.3. 
Let ( U , η , η * ) be a d f t s , r ∈ I ∘ , and s ∈ I 1 , then μ ∈ I U is called an ( r , s ) -fuzzy almost compact iff for each family { λ j ∈ I U | η ( λ j ) ≥ r and η * ( λ j ) ≤ s } j ∈ ϝ , such that μ ≤ ⋁ j ∈ ϝ λ j , there is a finite subset ϝ ∘ of ϝ, such that μ ≤ ⋁ j ∈ ϝ ∘ C η , η * ( λ j , r , s ) .
Definition 4.4. 
Let ( U , η , η * ) be a d f t s , r ∈ I ∘ , and s ∈ I 1 , then μ ∈ I U is called an ( r , s ) -fuzzy almost GS -compact iff for each family { λ j ∈ I U | λ j is ( r , s ) − g f s o } j ∈ ϝ , such that μ ≤ ⋁ j ∈ ϝ λ j , there is a finite subset ϝ ∘ of ϝ, such that μ ≤ ⋁ j ∈ ϝ ∘ C η , η * ( λ j , r , s ) .
Lemma 4.2. 
Let ( U , η , η * ) be a d f t s , r ∈ I ∘ , and s ∈ I 1 . If μ ∈ I U is ( r , s ) -fuzzy almost GS -compact, then μ is ( r , s ) -fuzzy almost compact.
Proof. 
Follows from Definitions 4.3 and 4.4. □
Lemma 4.3. 
Let ( U , η , η * ) be a d f t s , r ∈ I ∘ , and s ∈ I 1 . If μ ∈ I U is ( r , s ) -fuzzy compact (resp., GS -compact), then μ is ( r , s ) -fuzzy almost compact (resp., almost GS -compact).
Proof. 
Follows from Definitions 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4. □
Remark 4.1. 
The converse of Lemma 4.3 may not be true, as shown by Example 4.1.
Example 4.1. 
Let V = I , k ∈ N − { 1 } , and ρ , λ k ∈ I V defined as follows:
ρ ( v ) = 1 , if v = 0 , 1 2 , otherwise ,
λ k ( v ) = 0.8 , if v = 0 , k v , if 0 < v ≤ 1 k , 1 , if 1 k < v ≤ 1 .
Also, ( η , η * ) defined on V as follows:
η ( μ ) = 1 , if μ ∈ { 0 ̲ , 1 ̲ } , 2 3 , if μ ≤ ρ , k k + 1 , if μ ≤ λ k , 0 , otherwise ,
η * ( μ ) = 0 , if μ ∈ { 0 ̲ , 1 ̲ } , 1 3 , if μ ≤ ρ , 1 k + 1 , if μ ≤ λ k , 1 , otherwise .
Thus, V is ( 1 2 , 1 2 ) -fuzzy almost compact, but it is not ( 1 2 , 1 2 ) -fuzzy compact.
Theorem 4.2. 
Let h : ( U , τ , τ * ) → ( V , η , η * ) be a DF -continuous mapping, r ∈ I ∘ , and s ∈ I 1 . If μ ∈ I U is ( r , s ) -fuzzy almost GS -compact, then h ( μ ) is ( r , s ) -fuzzy almost compact.
Proof. 
Let { λ j ∈ I V | η ( λ j ) ≥ r and η * ( λ j ) ≤ s } j ∈ ϝ with h ( μ ) ≤ ⋁ j ∈ ϝ λ j , then { h − 1 ( λ j ) ∈ I U | h − 1 ( λ j ) is ( r , s ) − g f s o } (by h is DFGS -continuous), such that μ ≤ ⋁ j ∈ ϝ h − 1 ( λ j ) . Since μ is ( r , s ) -fuzzy almost GS -compact, there is a finite subset ϝ ∘ of ϝ , such that μ ≤ ⋁ j ∈ ϝ ∘ C τ , τ * ( h − 1 ( λ j ) , r , s ) . Since h is DF -continuous mapping, it follows
μ ≤ ⋁ j ∈ ϝ ∘ C τ , τ * ( h − 1 ( λ j ) , r , s )
≤ ⋁ j ∈ ϝ ∘ h − 1 ( C η , η * ( λ j , r , s ) )
= h − 1 ( ⋁ j ∈ ϝ ∘ C η , η * ( λ j , r , s ) ) .
Thus, h ( μ ) ≤ ⋁ j ∈ ϝ ∘ C η , η * ( λ j , r , s ) . Hence, the proof is completed. □
Definition 4.5. 
Let ( U , η , η * ) be a d f t s , r ∈ I ∘ , and s ∈ I 1 , then μ ∈ I U is called an ( r , s ) -fuzzy nearly compact iff for each family { λ j ∈ I U | η ( λ j ) ≥ r and η * ( λ j ) ≤ s } j ∈ ϝ , such that μ ≤ ⋁ j ∈ ϝ λ j , there is a finite subset ϝ ∘ of ϝ, such that μ ≤ ⋁ j ∈ ϝ ∘ I η , η * ( C η , η * ( λ j , r , s ) , r , s ) .
Definition 4.6. 
Let ( U , η , η * ) be a d f t s , r ∈ I ∘ , and s ∈ I 1 , then μ ∈ I U is called an ( r , s ) -fuzzy nearly GS -compact iff for each family { λ j ∈ I U | λ j is ( r , s ) − g f s o } j ∈ ϝ , such that μ ≤ ⋁ j ∈ ϝ λ j , there is a finite subset ϝ ∘ of ϝ, such that μ ≤ ⋁ j ∈ ϝ ∘ I η , η * ( C η , η * ( λ j , r , s ) , r , s ) .
Lemma 4.4. 
Let ( U , η , η * ) be a d f t s , r ∈ I ∘ , and s ∈ I 1 . If μ ∈ I U is ( r , s ) -fuzzy nearly GS -compact, then μ is ( r , s ) -fuzzy nearly compact.
Proof. 
Follows from Definitions 4.5 and 4.6. □
Lemma 4.5. 
Let ( U , η , η * ) be a d f t s , r ∈ I ∘ , and s ∈ I 1 . If μ ∈ I U is ( r , s ) -fuzzy compact (resp., GS -compact), then μ is ( r , s ) -fuzzy nearly compact (resp., nearly GS -compact).
Proof. 
Follows from Definitions 4.1, 4.2, 4.5 and 4.6. □
Remark 4.2. 
The converse of Lemma 4.5 may not be true, as shown by Example 4.2.
Example 4.2. 
Let V = I , 0 < k < 1 , and ν , ρ , λ k ∈ I V defined as follows:
ν ( v ) = 1 2 , if 0 ≤ v < 1 , 1 , if v = 1 ,
ρ ( v ) = 1 , if v = 0 , 1 2 , if 0 < v ≤ 1 ,
λ k ( v ) = v k , if 0 ≤ v ≤ k , 1 − v 1 − k , if k < v ≤ 1 .
Also, ( η , η * ) defined on V as follows:
η ( μ ) = 1 , if μ ∈ { ν , ρ , 0 ̲ , 1 ̲ } , max ( { 1 − k , k } ) , if μ = λ k , 0 , otherwise ,
η * ( μ ) = 0 , if μ ∈ { ν , ρ , 0 ̲ , 1 ̲ } , min ( { k , 1 − k } ) , if μ = λ k , 1 , otherwise .
Thus, V is ( 1 2 , 1 2 ) -fuzzy nearly compact, but it is not ( 1 2 , 1 2 ) -fuzzy compact.
Theorem 4.3. 
Let h : ( U , τ , τ * ) → ( V , η , η * ) be a DF -continuous and DF -open mapping, r ∈ I ∘ , and s ∈ I 1 . If μ ∈ I U is ( r , s ) -fuzzy nearly GS -compact, h ( μ ) is ( r , s ) -fuzzy nearly compact.
Proof. 
Let { λ j ∈ I V | η ( λ j ) ≥ r and η * ( λ j ) ≤ s } j ∈ ϝ with h ( μ ) ≤ ⋁ j ∈ ϝ λ j , then { h − 1 ( λ j ) ∈ I U | h − 1 ( λ j ) is ( r , s ) − g f s o } (by h is DFGS -continuous), such that μ ≤ ⋁ j ∈ ϝ h − 1 ( λ j ) . Since μ is ( r , s ) -fuzzy nearly GS -compact, there is a finite subset ϝ ∘ of ϝ , such that μ ≤ ⋁ j ∈ ϝ ∘ I τ , τ * ( C τ , τ * ( h − 1 ( λ j ) , r , s ) , r , s ) . Since h is DF -continuous and DF -open, it follows
h ( μ ) ≤ ⋁ j ∈ ϝ ∘ h ( I τ , τ * ( C τ , τ * ( h − 1 ( λ j ) , r , s ) , r , s ) )
≤ ⋁ j ∈ ϝ ∘ I η , η * ( h ( C τ , τ * ( h − 1 ( λ j ) , r , s ) ) , r , s )
≤ ⋁ j ∈ ϝ ∘ I η , η * ( h ( h − 1 ( C η , η * ( λ j , r , s ) ) ) , r , s )
≤ ⋁ j ∈ ϝ ∘ I η , η * ( C η , η * ( λ j , r , s ) , r , s ) .
Hence, the proof is completed. □
Lemma 4.6. 
Let ( U , η , η * ) be a d f t s , r ∈ I ∘ , and s ∈ I 1 . If μ ∈ I U is ( r , s ) -fuzzy soft nearly GS -compact (resp., nearly compact), then μ is ( r , s ) -fuzzy soft almost GS -compact (resp., almost compact).
Proof. 
Follows from Definitions 4.3, 4.4, 4.5 and 4.6. □
Remark 4.3. 
We can summarize the relationships among different types of fuzzy compactness as in the next diagram.
GS - compactness → compactness
↓ ↓
nearly GS - compactness → nearly compactness
↓ ↓
almost GS - compactness → almost compactness

5. Conclusion and Future Work

In this article, we have introduced a novel class of generalizations of fuzzy closed subsets called “ ( r , s ) − g ⊛ f s c sets” via double fuzzy topologies and some characterizations have been discussed. Moreover, we have defined novel types of fuzzy mappings and the relationship between these mappings have been introduced with the help of some problems. Also, we have shown that
( r , s ) − f s c ⇒ ( r , s ) − g ⊛ f s c
⇓ ⇓
( r , s ) − s g f c ( r , s ) − g ⊝ f s c
⇓ ⇓
( r , s ) − g f s c
but in general, the converses of the above implications may not be true. Thereafter, “ ( r , s ) - GFS -regular” and “ ( r , s ) - GFS -normal” spaces have been defined as two new notions of higher fuzzy separation axioms and some characterizations of these separation axioms have been obtained. In the end, several novel types of fuzzy compactness in the frame of double fuzzy topologies have been introduced and some properties have been given. Also, the relationship between them have been explored.
In the upcoming papers, we shall discuss the concepts given here in the frames of a fuzzy idealization [42,43] and fuzzy soft r-minimal structures [44,45]. Moreover, we will study the main properties of classical compactness in the frame of double fuzzy topologies.
The authors declare that they have not used Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in the creation of this article.

Data Availability Statement

No data were used to support this article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Zadeh, L.A. Fuzzy sets. Inform. Control 1965, 8, 338–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Zimmermann, H.J. Fuzzy set theory and its applications. Kluwer Acad. Publ., Boston 1991.
  3. Li, H.X.; Yen, V.C. Fuzzy sets and fuzzy decision making. CRC Press, London 1995.
  4. Chang, C.L. Fuzzy topological spaces. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 1968, 24, 182–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Kandil, A.; El-Etriby, A.M. On separation axioms in fuzzy topological spaces. Tamkang J. Math. 1987, 18, 49–59. [Google Scholar]
  6. Kandil, A.; El-Shafei, M.E. Regularity axioms in fuzzy topological spaces and FRi-proximities. Fuzzy Set. Syst. 1988, 27, 217–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Balasubramanian, G.; Sundaram, P. On some generalizations of fuzzy continuous functions. Fuzzy Set. Syst. 1997, 86, 93–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Chetty, P.G. Generalized fuzzy topology. Ital. J. Pure Appl. Math. 2008, 24, 91–96. [Google Scholar]
  9. Das, B.; Chakraborty, J.; Paul, G.; Bhattacharya, B. A new approach for some applications of generalized fuzzy closed sets. Comp. Appl. Math. 2021, 40, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Abu-Gdairi, R.; Nasef, A.A.; El-Gayar, M.A.; El-Bably, M.K. On fuzzy point applications of fuzzy topological spaces. Int. J. Fuzzy Logic Intell. Syst. 2023, 23(2), 162–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Taha, I.M. A new approach to separation and regularity axioms via fuzzy soft sets. Ann. Fuzzy Math. Inform. 2020, 20(2), 115–123. [Google Scholar]
  12. El-Bably, M.K.; El Atik, A.A. Soft β-rough sets and its application to determine COVID-19. Turk. J. Math. 2021, 45(3), 1133–1148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Taha, I.M. Some new separation axioms in fuzzy soft topological spaces. Filomat 2021, 35(6), 1775–1783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Abu-Gdairi, R.; El-Gayar, M.A.; Al-shami, T.M.; Nawar, A.S.; El-Bably, M.K. Some topological approaches for generalized rough sets and their decision making applications. Symmetry 2022, 14, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Ali, M.I.; El-Bably, M.K.; Abo-Tabl, E.A. Topological approach to generalized soft rough sets via near concepts. Soft Computing 2022, 26, 499–509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Al-shami, T.M.; Mhemdi, A.; Abu-Gdairid, R. A novel framework for generalizations of soft open sets and its applications via soft topologies. Mathematics 2023, 11, 1–16. [Google Scholar]
  17. Kaur, S.; Al-shami, T.M.; Ozkan, A.; Hosny, M. A new approach to soft continuity. Mathematics 2023, 11, 1–11. [Google Scholar]
  18. Alshammari, I.; Taha, I.M. On fuzzy soft β-continuity and β-irresoluteness: Some new results. AIMS Mathematics 2024, 9(5), 11304–11319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Molodtsov, D. Soft set theory-first results. Comput. Math. Appl. 1999, 37, 19–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Feng, F.; Liu, X.; Fotea, V.L.; Jun, Y.B. Soft sets and soft rough sets. Info. Sciences 2011, 181(6), 1125–1137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Atanassov, K. Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 1986, 20, 87–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Atanassov, K. New operators defined over the intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 1993, 61, 131–142. [Google Scholar]
  23. Coker, D. An introduction to fuzzy subspaces in intuitionistic fuzzy topological spaces. J. Fuzzy Math. 1996, 4, 749–764. [Google Scholar]
  24. Coker, D. An introduction to intuitionistic fuzzy topological spaces. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 1997, 88, 81–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Samanta, S.K.; Mondal, T.K. Intuitionistic gradation of openness: Intuitionistic fuzzy topology. Busefal 1997, 73, 8–17. [Google Scholar]
  26. Samanta, M.S.K.; Mondal, T.K. On intuitionistic gradation of openness. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 2002, 131, 323–336. [Google Scholar]
  27. Šostak, A.P. On a fuzzy topological structure. In: Proceedings of the 13th winter school on abstract analysis, Section of topology, Palermo: Circolo Matematico di Palermo 1985, 89-103.
  28. Garcia, J.G.; Rodabaugh, S.E. Ordertheoretic, topological, categorical redundancies of interval-valued sets, grey sets, vague sets, intervalvalued; intuitionistic sets, intuitionistic fuzzy sets and topologies. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 2005, 156(3), 445–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Abbas, S.E. (r,s)-generalized intuitionistic fuzzy closed sets. J. Egyptian Math. Soc. 2006, 14, 331–351. [Google Scholar]
  30. Zahran, A.M.; Abd-Allah, M.A.; Ghareeb, A. Several types of double fuzzy irresolute functions. Int. J. Comput. Cognition 2011, 8, 19–23. [Google Scholar]
  31. Taha, I.M. Some properties of (r,s)-generalized fuzzy semi-closed sets and some applications. J. Math. Comput. Sci. 2022, 27(2), 164–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Demirci, M.; Coker, D. An introduction to intuitionistic fuzzy topological spaces in Šostaks sense. Busefal 1996, 67, 67–76. [Google Scholar]
  33. Abbas, S.E.; Krsteska, B. Some properties of intuitionistic (r,s)-T0 and (r,s)-T1 spaces. Int. j. math. math. sci. 2008, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. El-Sanousy, E. (r,s)-(τ1,2,τ1,2*)-θ-generalized double fuzzy closed sets in bitopological spaces. J. Egyptian Math. Soc. 2016, 24, 574–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Bajpai, J.P.; Thakur, S.S. Intuitionistic fuzzy sgp-closed set. Int. j. latest trends eng. technol. 2017, 8(1), 636–642. [Google Scholar]
  36. El-Sanousy, E.; Atef, A. (r,s)-fuzzy g*p-closed sets and its applications. Appl. Math. Inf. Sci. 2022, 16(1), 17–24. [Google Scholar]
  37. Lee, E.P. Semiopen sets on intuitionistic fuzzy topological spaces in Šostaks sense. Int. J. Fuzzy Logic Intel. Sys. 2004, 14, 234–238. [Google Scholar]
  38. Lee, E.P.; Kim, J.I. Fuzzy strongly (r,s)-preopen and preclosed mappings. Commun. Korean Math. Soc. 2011, 26(4), 661–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Thakur, S.S.; Bajpai, J.P. Intuitionistic fuzzy sg-continuous mappings. Int. J. Appl. Math. Anal. Appl. 2010, 5(1), 45–51. [Google Scholar]
  40. Thakur, S.S.; Bajpai, J.P. Semi generalized closed sets in intuitionistic fuzzy topology. Int. Rev. Fuzzy Math. 2011, 6(2), 69–76. [Google Scholar]
  41. Mohammed, F.M.; Noorani, M.S.M.; Ghareeb, A. Several notions of generalized semi-compactness in double fuzzy topological spaces. Int. J. Pure Appl. Math. 2016, 109(2), 153–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Taha, I.M. On r-generalized fuzzy ℓ-closed sets: Properties and applications. J. Math. 2021, 2021, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Taha, I.M. r-fuzzy δ-ℓ-open sets and fuzzy upper (lower) δ-ℓ-continuity via fuzzy idealization. J. Math. Comput. Sci. 2022, 25(1), 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Taha, I.M. Compactness on fuzzy soft r-minimal spaces. Int. J. Fuzzy Logic Intell. Syst. 2021, 21(3), 251–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Taha, I.M. Some new results on fuzzy soft r-minimal spaces. AIMS Math. 2022, 7(7), 12458–12470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
Prerpints.org logo

Preprints.org is a free preprint server supported by MDPI in Basel, Switzerland.

facebook logotwitter logolinkedin logo
MDPI Initiatives
Important Links
Subscribe

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

© 2024 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated