A functional representation of the capacity multiplication monad
Taras Radul
Abstract.
Functional representations of the capacity monad based on the max and min operations were considered in [10] and [7]. Nykyforchyn considered in [8] some alternative monad structure for the possibility capacity functor based on the max and usual multiplication operations.
We show that such capacity monad (which we call the capacity multiplication monad) has a functional representation, i.e. the space of capacities on a compactum X can be naturally embedded (with preserving of the monad structure) in some space of functionals on C(X,I). We also describe this space of functionals in terms of properties of functionals.
MSC 2010 Mathematics Subject Classification:
18B30, 18C15, 28E10, 54B30
Institute of Mathematics, Casimirus the Great University of Bydgoszcz, Poland;
Department of Mechanics and Mathematics, Ivan Franko National University of Lviv,
Universytettska st., 1. 79000 Lviv, Ukraine.
e-mail: [email protected]
Key words and phrases: Monad, capacity, fuzzy integral, triangular norm.
1. Introduction
Functional representations of monads (i.e. natural embeddings into RC(X,S) which preserves a monad structure where S is a subset of R) were considered in [11] and [12]. Some functional representations of hyperspace monad were constructed in [13] and [14].
Capacities (non-additive measures, fuzzy measures) were introduced by Choquet in [1] as a natural generalization of additive measures. They found numerous applications (see for example [2],[4],[16]). Categorical and topological properties of spaces of upper-semicontinuous capacities on compact Hausdorff spaces were investigated in [9]. In particular, there was built the capacity functor which is a functorial part of a capacity monad M based on the max and min operations.
Well known is the Choquet integral, which is, in fact, some functional representation of the functor M, i.e., the space of capacities MX can be naturally embedded in RC(X). But this representation does not preserve the monad structure.
Nykyforchyn using the Sugeno integral provided a functional representation of capacities as functionals on the space C(X,I) which preserves the monad structure [7]. Some modification of the Sugeno integral yields a functional representation of capacities as functionals on the space C(X) [10].
Let us remark that the min operation is a triangular norm on the unit interval I. Another important triangular norm is the multiplication operation. Nykyforchyn build in [8] a capacity monad based on the max and multiplication operations. (Let us remark that recently Zarichnyi proposed to use triangular norms to construct monads [20]). The main aim of this paper is to find a representation of the monad from [8]. We use a fuzzy integral based on the max and multiplication operations for this purpose.
2. Capacities and monads
By Comp we denote the category of compact Hausdorff
spaces (compacta) and continuous maps. For each compactum X we denote by C(X) the Banach space of all
continuous functions ϕ:X→R with the usual sup-norm: ∥ϕ∥=sup{∣ϕ(x)∣∣x∈X}. We also consider on C(X) the natural partial order.
In what follows, all spaces and maps are assumed to be in Comp except for R,
the spaces C(X) and functionals defined on C(X) with X compact Hausdorff.
We recall some categorical notions (see [15] and [17]
for more details). We define them only for the category Comp. The central notion is the notion of monad (or triple) in the sense of S.Eilenberg and J.Moore.
A monad [3] T=(T,η,μ) in the category
Comp consists of an endofunctor T:Comp→Comp and
natural transformations η:IdComp→T (unity),
μ:T2→T (multiplication) satisfying the relations μ∘Tη=μ∘ηT=1T and μ∘μT=μ∘Tμ. (By IdComp we denote the identity functor on the
category Comp and T2 is the superposition T∘T of
T.)
Let T=(T,η,μ) be a monad in the category Comp. The
pair (X,ξ) where ξ:TX→X is a map is called a T-algebra if ξ∘ηX=idX and ξ∘μX=ξ∘Tξ. Let (X,ξ), (Y,ξ′) be two T-algebras. A map
f:X→Y is called a T-algebras morphism if ξ′∘Tf=f∘ξ.
A natural transformation ψ:T→T′ is called a morphism
from a monad T=(T,η,μ) into a monad T′=(T′,η′,μ′)
if ψ∘η=η′ and ψ∘μ=μ′∘ηT′∘Tψ. If all of the components of ψ are monomorphisms then
the monad T is called a submonad of T′ and ψ is
called a monad embedding.
Let A be a subset of X. By F(X) we denote the family of all closed subsets of X. Put I=[0,1].
We follow a terminology from [9].
A function ν:F(X)→I is called an upper-semicontinuous capacity on X if the three following properties hold for each closed subsets F and G of X:
-
ν(X)=1, ν(∅)=0,
-
if F⊂G, then ν(F)≤ν(G),
-
if ν(F)<a, then there exists an open set O⊃F such that ν(B)<a for each compactum B⊂O.
A capacity ν is extended in [9] to all open subsets U⊂X by the formula ν(U)=sup{ν(K)∣K is a closed subset of X such that K⊂U}.
It was proved in [9] that the space MX of all upper-semicontinuous capacities on a compactum X is a compactum as well, if a topology on MX is defined by a subbase that consists of all sets of the form O−(F,a)={c∈MX∣c(F)<a}, where F is a closed subset of X, a∈[0,1], and O+(U,a)={c∈MX∣c(U)>a}, where U is an open subset of X, a∈[0,1]. Since all capacities we consider here are upper-semicontinuous, in the following we call elements of MX simply capacities.
A capacity ν∈MX for a compactum X is called a necessity (possibility) capacity if for each family {At}t∈T of closed subsets of X (such that ⋃t∈TAt is a closed subset of X) we have ν(⋂t∈TAt)=inft∈Tν(At) (ν(⋃t∈TAt)=supt∈Tν(At)). (See [19] for more details.) We denote by M∩X (M∪X) a subspace of MX consisting of all necessity (possibility) capacities. Since X is compact and ν is upper-semicontinuous, ν∈M∩X iff ν satisfy the simpler requirement that ν(A∩B)=min{ν(A),ν(B)}.
If ν is a capacity on a compactum X, then the function κX(ν), that is defined on the family F(X) by the formula κX(ν)(F)=1−ν(X∖F), is a capacity as well. It is called the dual
capacity (or conjugate capacity ) to ν. The mapping κX:MX→MX is a homeomorphism and an involution [9]. Moreover, ν is a necessity capacity if and only if κX(ν) is a possibility capacity. This implies in particular that ν∈M∪X iff ν satisfy the simpler requirement that ν(A∪B)=max{ν(A),ν(B)}. It is easy to check that M∩X and M∪X are closed subsets of MX.
The assignment M extends to the capacity functor M in the category of compacta, if the map Mf:MX→MY for a continuous map of compacta f:X→Y is defined by the formula Mf(c)(F)=c(f−1(F)) where c∈MX and F is a closed subset of X. This functor was completed to the monad M=(M,η,μ) [9], where the components of the natural transformations are defined as follows: ηX(x)(F)=1 if x∈F and ηX(x)(F)=0 if x∈/F;
μX(C)(F)=sup{t∈[0,1]∣C({c∈MX∣c(F)≥t})≥t}, where x∈X, F is a closed subset of X and C∈M2(X) (see [9] for more details).
It was shown in [5] that M∪ and M∩ are subfunctors of M and if we take corresponding restrictions of the functions μX, we obtain submonads M∪ and M∩ of the monad M.
The semicontinuity of capacities yields that we can change sup for max in the definition of the map μX. More precisely, existing of max follows from Lemma 3.7 [9]. For a closed set F⊂X and for t∈I put Ft={c∈MX∣c(F)≥t}. We can rewrite the definition of the map μX as follows μX(C)(F)=max{C(Ft)∧t∣t∈(0,1]}.
Let us remark that the operation ∧ is a triangular norm. It seems naturally to consider instead ∧ another triangular norm. Define the map μ∙X:M2X→MX by the formula μ∙X(C)(F)=max{C(Ft)⋅t∣t∈(0,1]}. (Existing of max as well follows from Lemma 3.7 [9].)
Proposition 1**.**
The natural transformation μ∙ does not satisfy the property μ∙∘μ∙M=μ∙∘Mμ∙.
Proof.
Consider X={a,b}, where {a,b} is a two-point discrete space. Define A1∈M2X as follows A1(α)=1 iff α⊃{a}21 and A1(α)=0 otherwise for α∈F(MX). Define A2∈M2X as follows A2(α)=1 iff α=MX, A2(α)=21 iff α⊃{a}1 and A1(α)=0 otherwise for α∈F(MX). Now, define ℷ∈M3(X) by the formula ℷ(Λ)=21ηM2X(A1)(Λ)+21ηM2X(A2)(Λ) for Λ∈F(M2X).
We have μ∙X∘M(μ∙X)(ℷ)({a})=max{ℷ((μ∙X)−1({a}t))⋅t∣t∈(0,1]}. It is easy to see that μ∙X(A1)=μ∙X(A2)=21. Then ℷ((μ∙X)−1({a}21))⋅21=1⋅21=21. Hence we obtain μ∙X∘μ∙MX(ℷ)({a})≥21.
On the other hand μ∙X∘μ∙MX(ℷ)({a})=max{μ∙MX(ℷ)({a}t))⋅t∣t∈(0,1]}=max{max{ℷ(({a}t)s)⋅s∣s∈(0,1]}⋅t∣t∈(0,1]}. The function δ(s,t)=ℷ(({a}t)s) is nonincreasing on both variables. We have δ(s,t)=0 for each (s,t) such that s>21 and t>21. Moreover δ(1,21)=δ(21,1)=21. Hence μ∙X∘μ∙MX(ℷ)({a})=max{max{ℷ(({a}t)s)⋅s∣s∈(0,1]}⋅t∣t∈(0,1]}=41.
∎
Remark 1**.**
Since the triple M∙=(M,η,μ∙) does not form a monad, the problem of uniqueness of the monad M stated in [9] is still open.
But things may turn out differently if we restrict the map μ∙X to the set M∪(M∪X)⊂M(MX). It is easy to see that for such restriction we can consider the sets At in the definition of the map μ∙X as subsets of M∪X. It was deduced from some general facts that the triple M∪∙=(M∪,η,μ∙) is a monad [8]. For sake a completeness we give here a direct proof.
Lemma 1**.**
We have μ∙X(M∪(M∪X))⊂M∪X for each compactum X.
Proof.
Consider any A∈M∪(M∪X) and B, C∈F(X). Since Bt and Ct are subsets of M∪X, we have (C∪B)t=Ct∪Bt. Then μ∙X(A)(B∪C)=max{A((C∪B)t)⋅t∣t∈(0,1]}=max{A(Ct∪Bt)⋅t∣t∈(0,1]}=max{max{A(Ct)⋅t∣t∈(0,1]},max{A(Bt)⋅t∣t∈(0,1]}=max{μ∙X(A)(B),μ∙X(A)(C)}.
∎
We will use the notation μ∙X also for the restriction μ∙X∣M∪2X.
Theorem 1**.**
The triple M∪∙=(M∪,η,μ∙) is a monad.
Proof.
It is easy to check that η and μ∙ are well-defined natural transformations of corresponding functors. Let us check two monad properties.
Take any compactum X, ν∈M∪X and A∈F(X). Then we have μ∙X∘ηM∪X(ν)(A)=max{ηM∪X(ν)(At)⋅t∣t∈(0,1]}=ν(A) and μ∙X∘M∪(ηX)(ν)(A)=max{M∪(ηX)(ν)(At)⋅t∣t∈(0,1]}=max{ν((ηX)−1(At))⋅t∣t∈(0,1]}=max{ν(A)⋅t∣t∈(0,1]}=ν(A). We obtain the equality μ∙∘M∪η=μ∙∘ηM∪=1M∪.
Now, consider any ℷ∈M∪3(X) and A∈F(X). Put a=μ∙X∘M∪(μ∙X)(ℷ)(A)=max{ℷ((μ∙X)−1(At))⋅t∣t∈(0,1]} and b=μ∙X∘μ∙M∪X(ℷ)({a})=
=max{μ∙M∪X(ℷ)(At))⋅t∣t∈(0,1]}=max{max{ℷ((At)s)⋅s∣s∈(0,1]}⋅t∣t∈(0,1]}.
There exists t0∈(0,1] such that a=ℷ((μ∙X)−1(At0))⋅t0. We have (μ∙X)−1(At0)={A∈M∪2(X)∣μ∙X(A)≥t0}={A∈M∪2(X)∣ there exists c∈(0,1] such that A(Ac)⋅c≥t0}={A∈M∪2(X)∣ there exists c∈(0,1] such that A(Ac)≥ct0}. Since ℷ is a possibility capacity, there exists A0∈M∪2(X) and c0∈(0,1] such that A0(Ac0)≥c0t0 and ℷ((μ∙X)−1(At0))=ℷ({A0}). But then we have a≤ℷ((Ac0)c0t0)⋅t0=ℷ((Ac0)c0t0)⋅c0t0⋅c0≤b.
On the other hand choose p0, z0∈(0,1] such that b=ℷ((Ap0)z0)⋅p0⋅z0. Since ℷ is a possibility capacity,
there exists B0∈(Ap0)z0 such that ℷ((Ap0)z0)=ℷ({B0}). We have B0(Ap0)≥z0, hence μ∙X(B0)(A)≥z0⋅p0. Then we obtain b=ℷ({B0})⋅p0⋅z0≤ℷ((μ∙X)−1(Ap0⋅z0))⋅p0⋅z0≤a.
∎
3. Functional representation of the monad M∪∙
A monad F=(F,η,μ) is called an IL-monad if there exists
a map ξ:FI→I such that the pair (I,ξ) is an
F-algebra and
for each X∈Comp there exists a point-separating family of
F-algebras morphisms {fα:(FX,μX)→(I,ξ)∣α∈A} [12].
There was defined a monad VI in [12], which is universal in the class of IL-monads. By VIX we denote the power IC(X,I). For a map ϕ∈C(X,I)
we denote by πϕ or π(ϕ) the
corresponding projection πϕ:VIX→I. For each map f:X→Y
we define the map VIf:VIX→VIY by the formula
πϕ∘VIf=πϕ∘f for ϕ∈C(Y,I).
For a compactum X we define components hX and mX of natural transformations by πϕ∘hX=ϕ and πϕ∘mX=π(πϕ) for all ϕ∈C(X,I)). The triple VI=(VI,h,m) forms a monad in the
category Comp and for each monad F there exists a monad embedding l:F→VI if and only if F is IL-monad [12]. Moreover, for a compactum X the map lX:FX→VIX is defined by the conditions πϕ∘lX=ξ∘Fϕ for each ψ∈C(X,I).
Theorem 2**.**
The monad M∪∙ is an IL-monad.
Proof.
Define the map ξ:M∪I→I by the formula ξ(ν)=max{ν([t,1]⋅t∣t∈(0,1]}. We can check that the pair (I,ξ) is an M∪∙-algebra by the same but simpler arguments as in the proof of Theorem 1.
Consider any compactum X and two distinct capacities ν, β∈M∪X. Then there exists A∈F(X) such that ν(A)=β(A). We can suppose that ν(A)<β(A). Since ν and β are possibility capacities, there exist a, b∈A such that ν({a})=ν(A) and β({b})=β(A). Choose a point t∈(ν(A),β(A)). Put B={x∈X∣ν({x})≥t}. Since ν is a possibility capacity and ν(X)=1, B is not empty. Since ν is upper semicontinuous, B is closed. Evidently, B∩A=∅. Choose a function φ∈C(X,I) such that φ(B)⊂{0} and φ(A)⊂{1}. Then πφ∘lX(ν)=ξ∘M∪φ(ν)=max{M∪φ(ν)([s,1]⋅s∣s∈(0,1]}=max{ν(φ−1[s,1])⋅s∣s∈(0,1]}≤t<β(A)≤β(φ−1{1})⋅1≤πφ∘lX(β). It is easy to check that πϕ∘lX=ξ∘M∪ϕ:M∪X→I is an M∪∙-algebras morphism.
∎
Hence we obtain an monad embedding l:M∪∙→VI such that πφ∘lX(ν)=max{ν(φ−1[s,1])⋅s∣s∈(0,1]} for each compactum X, ν∈M∪X and φ∈C(X,I).
Let X be any compactum. For any c∈I we shall denote by cX the
constant function on X taking the value c. Following the notations of idempotent mathematics (see e.g., [6]) we use the
notation ⊕ in I and C(X,I) as an alternative for max.
We will use the notation ν(φ)=πφ∘lX(ν) for ν∈VIX and φ∈C(X,I).
Consider the subset SX⊂VIX consisting of all functionals ν satisfying the following conditions
- (1)
ν(1X)=1;
2. (2)
ν(λ⋅φ)=λ⋅ν(φ) for each λ∈I and φ∈C(X,I);
3. (3)
ν(ψ⊕φ)=ν(ψ)⊕ν(φ) for each ψ, φ∈C(X,I).
Let us remark that properties 1 and 2 yield that ν(cX)=c for each ν∈SX and c∈I.
Theorem 3**.**
lX(M∪X)=SX.
Proof.
Consider any ν∈M∪X. Put υ=lX(ν). Then we have υ(1X)=
=max{ν((1X)−1[s,1])⋅s∣s∈(0,1]}=max{ν(X)⋅s∣s∈(0,1]}=1.
Take any c∈I and φ∈C(X,I). For c=0 the Property 2 is trivial. For c>0 we have υ(cφ)=max{ν((cφ)−1[s,1])⋅s∣s∈(0,1]}=max{ν(φ−1[cs,1])⋅cs∣s∈(0,1]}⋅c=c⋅υ(φ).
Consider any ψ and φ∈C(X,I). We have υ(ψ⊕φ)=max{ν((ψ⊕φ)−1[s,1])⋅s∣s∈(0,1]}=max{ν(ψ−1[s,1]∪φ−1[s,1])⋅s∣s∈(0,1]}=max{(ν(ψ−1[s,1])⊕ν(φ−1[s,1]))⋅s∣s∈(0,1]}=υ(ψ)⊕υ(φ). We obtained lX(M∪X)⊂SX.
Take any υ∈SX. For A∈F(X) put ΥA={φ∈C(X,I)∣φ(a)=1 for each a∈A}. Define ν:F(X)→I as follows ν(A)=inf{υ(φ)∣φ∈ΥA} if A=∅ and ν(∅)=0. It is easy to see that ν satisfies Conditions 1 and 2 from the definition of capacity.
Let ν(A)<η for some η∈I and A∈F(X). Then there exists φ∈ΥA such that υ(φ)=χ<η. Choose ε>0 such that (1+ε)χ<η. Put δ=1+ε1 and ψ=min{δX,φ}. Then υ(ψ)≤υ(φ)=χ and υ((1+ε)ψ)≤(1+ε)χ<η. Put U=φ−1(δ,1]. Evidently U is an open set and U⊃A. But for each compact K⊂U we have (1+ε)ψ∈ΥK. Hence ν(K)<η.
Finally take any A, B∈F(X). Evidently ν(A∪B)≥ν(A)⊕ν(B). Suppose ν(A∪B)>ν(A)⊕ν(B). Then there exists φ∈ΥA and ψ∈ΥB such that ν(A∪B)>υ(φ)⊕υ(ψ)=υ(φ⊕ψ). But φ⊕ψ∈ΥA∪B and we obtain a contradiction. Hence ν∈M∪X.
Let us show that lX(ν)=υ. Take any φ∈C(X,I). Denote φt=φ−1[t,1]. Then lX(ν)(φ)=max{inf{υ(χ)∣χ∈Υφt}⋅t∣t∈(0,1]}=max{inf{υ(tχ)∣χ∈Υφt}∣t∈(0,1]}. For each t∈(0,1] put χt=min{t1φ,1X}∈Υφt. We have tχ≤φ, hence υ(tχ)≤υ(φ). Then we have inf{υ(tχ)∣χ∈Υφt}≤υ(φ) for each t∈(0,1], hence lX(ν)(φ)≤υ(φ).
Suppose lX(ν)(φ)<υ(φ). Choose any a∈(lX(ν)(φ),υ(φ)). Then for each t∈(0,1] there exists χt∈Υφt such that υ(tχt)<a. Choose ε>0 such that (1+ε)a<υ(φ). Put δ=1+ε1. Choose n∈N such that δn<υ(φ). Put ψn+1=δXn and ψi=δi−1χδi for i∈{1,…,n}. We have υ(ψi)<υ(φ) for each i∈{1,…,n+1}. Put ψ=⊕i=1n+1ψi. Then υ(ψ)=⊕i=1n+1υ(ψi)<υ(φ). On the other hand φ≤ψ and we obtain a contradiction.
∎
Hence we obtain, in fact, that the monad M∪∙ is isomorphic to a submonad of VI with functorial part acting on compactum X as SX. Let us remark that this monad is one of monads generated by t-norms considered by Zarichnyi [20]. Thus the following question seems to be natural: can we generalize the results of this paper to any continuous t-norms?