Fuzzy Inf. Eng.

(2013) 2: 129-146
DOI 10.1007/s12543-013-0137-1
ORIGINAL ARTICLE

New Operations over Hesitant Fuzzy Sets

Rajkumar Verma · Bhu Dev Sharma

Received: 23 July 2012/ Revised: 23 February 2013/

Accepted: 19 March 2013/
© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg and Fuzzy Information and Engineering Branch of the Operations
Research Society of China
2013

Abstract Hesitant fuzzy sets are considered to be the way to characterize vague
phenomenon. Their study has opened a new area of research and applications. Set
operations on them lead to a number of properties of these sets which are not evident
in classical (crisp) sets make the area mathematically also very productive. Since
these sets are defined in terms of functions and set of functions, which is not the
case when the sets are crisp, it is possible to define several set operations. Such a
study enriches the use of these sets. In this paper, four new operations are envisaged,
defined and taken up to study a score of new identities on hesitant fuzzy sets.

Keywords Fuzzy sets · Fuzzy multisets · Intuitionistic fuzzy set · Vague sets · Hes-
itant fuzzy sets

1. Introduction
Fuzzy set theory proposed by Zadeh [1] has found successful applications in various
fields because of its capability to model non-statistical imprecise or vague phenom-
ena. Interval-valued fuzzy sets [2], Intuitionistic fuzzy sets [3, 4], type-2 fuzzy sets
[5-9], type-n fuzzy sets [5], fuzzy multisets [6] and vague sets [10] are some of the
further extensions of fuzzy sets. The concept of intuitionistic fuzzy sets introduced
by Atanassov [3, 4] is interesting and useful in modeling several real life problems.
An intuitionistic fuzzy set has three associated defining functions, namely the mem-
bership function, the non-membership function and the hesitancy function. The basic
concepts of intuitionistic fuzzy set theory and its practical applications can be found
in [3, 4] and [11-19].
Recently, Torra and Narukawa [20] and Torra [21] proposed the concept of hesitant
fuzzy sets, a new generalization of fuzzy sets, permitting an element to have, not just
one, but a set of several possible membership values.They also discussed relationships
Rajkumar Verma () · Bhu Dev Sharma
Department of Mathematics, Jaypee Institute of Information Technology, A-10, Sector-62, Noida-201307,
India
email: rkver83@gmail.com
130 Rajkumar Verma · Bhu Dev Sharma (2013)

among hesitant fuzzy sets and other generalizations of fuzzy sets such as intuitionistic
fuzzy sets, type-2 fuzzy sets, and fuzzy multisets. Some set theoretic operations such
as union, intersection and complement on hesitant fuzzy sets have also been proposed
by Torra [21]. It may be mentioned that hesitant fuzzy sets can reflect the human’s
hesitancy more objectively than the other classical extensions of fuzzy sets.
We note further study on hesitant fuzzy sets. Xia and Xu [22] made an intensive
study of hesitant fuzzy information aggregation techniques and their applications in
decision making. They also defined some new operations on hesitant fuzzy sets based
on the interconnection between hesitant fuzzy sets and the intuitionistic fuzzy sets.
To aggregate the hesitant fuzzy information under confidence levels, Xia et al. [23]
developed a series of confidence induced hesitant fuzzy aggregations operators. Fur-
ther, Xia and Xu [24, 25] gave a detailed study on distance, similarity and correlation
measures for hesitant fuzzy sets and hesitant fuzzy elements respectively. Xu et al.
[26] developed several series of aggregation operators for hesitant fuzzy information
by using quasi-arithmetic means. Recently, Zhu et al. [27] have proposed the geo-
metric Bonferroni mean operator under hesitant fuzzy environment and have applied
it to solve multi-criteria decision making problems.
From the above analysis, we can see that hesitant fuzzy sets are a useful tool for
dealing with uncertainty and vagueness. Interestingly, it is possible to define new
operations and properties of these sets, which must make them more important and
applicable. In this paper, we propose four new operations on hesitant fuzzy sets and
study their properties.
The paper is organized as follows: In Section 2, some basic definitions related
to intuitionistic fuzzy sets and hesitant fuzzy sets are briefly discussed. In Section
3, four new operations on hesitant fuzzy sets have been proposed. In Section 4,
some properties of the proposed operations on hesitant fuzzy sets are proved and our
conclusions are briefly presented in Section 5.
2. Preliminaries
Intuitionistic fuzzy set (IFS), as a generalization of fuzzy set (FS), was introduced by
Atanassov [3, 4]. It assigns to each element degrees of membership, non-membership
and hesitancy. IFSs are found more powerful than FSs in dealing with vagueness and
uncertainty.
We give below some definitions related to intuitionistic fuzzy sets and hesitant
fuzzy sets.
Definition 1 (Intuitionistic fuzzy set) [3] An intuitionistic fuzzy set à in a finite uni-
verse of discourse X = (x1 , · · · , xn ) is defined as
 
à = { μà (x), νà (x) |x ∈ X}, (1)
where the functions μà (x) and νà (x) respectively denote the degrees of membership
and non-membership of x ∈ X to the set Ã, with the conditions
0 ≤ μà (x) ≤ 1, 0 ≤ νà (x) ≤ 1, 0 ≤ μà (x) + νà (x) ≤ 1. (2)
For each IFS à on X, if πà (x) = 1 − μà (x) − νà (x), x ∈ X, then πà (x) represents the
degree of hesitance of x to Ã. πà (x) is also called intuitionistic index.
Fuzzy Inf. Eng. (2013) 2: 129-146 131

Obviously, in the above case when πà (x) = 0, i.e., νà (x) = 1 − μà (x) ∀ x ∈ X, then
IFS set à becomes just a fuzzy set. Thus, fuzzy sets are the special cases of IFSs.
Next, for an element x in Ã, Xu and Yager [25] named the pair (μà (x), νà (x)) as
intuitionistic fuzzy value (IFV) and denoted it by α = (μα , να ).

Definition 2 (Set operations on IFVs) [4, 28] Let IFV(X) denote the family of all
IFVs defined on the universe X, and let α, β ∈ IFV(X) be given as

α = (μα , να ), β = (μβ , νβ ).

Then nine set operations are defined as follows:

(i) αc = (να , μα );
(ii) α ∪ β = (max(μα , μβ ), min(να , νβ ));
(iii) α ∩ β = (min(μα , μβ ), max(να , νβ ));
(iv) α ⊕ β = (μα + μβ − μα μβ , να νβ );
(v) α ⊗ β = (μα μβ , να + νβ − να νβ );
 μα + μβ να νβ 
(vi) α @ β = , ;
2 2
√ √
(vii) α $ β = μα μβ , να νβ );
 2μα μβ 2να νβ 
(viii) α # β = μα + μβ , να + νβ .
2μα μβ 2να νβ
In (viii), we shall accept that = 0 if μα = μβ = 0, and = 0 if
μα + μβ να + νβ
ν α = νβ = 0 .
 μ +μ ν +ν 
(ix) α ∗ β = 2(μα μ +β 1) , 2(να ν +β 1) .
α β α β

Next we define the notion of hesitant fuzzy sets (HFSs), which was introduced by
Torra and Narukawa [20] and Torra [21]. An HFS permits membership degree of an
element to be a set of several possible values between 0 and 1. This expresses a re-
alistic situation where different criteria/persons are attached in analyzing the process
of decision making.

Definition 3 (Hesitant fuzzy set) [21] Let X = (x1 , · · · , xn ) be a fixed set, a hesitant
fuzzy set (HFS) A in X is represented mathematical as:

A = { x, hA (x) |x ∈ X}, (3)

where hA (x) is a set of some values in [0, 1], denoting a possible membership degrees
of the element x ∈ X to the set A.

Example 1 Let X = (x1 , x2 , x3 ) be a reference set. Also let hA (x1 ) = {0.2, 0.4, 0.5},
hA (x2 ) = {0.3, 0.4, 0.6} and hA (x3 ) = {0.5, 0.2, 0.3} denote the membership degree sets
of xi (i = 1, 2, 3) to the set A respectively. Then A is a HFS, namely

A = { x1 , {0.2, 0.4, 0.5} , x1 , {0.3, 0.4, 0.6} , x1 , {0.5, 0.2, 0.3} }. (4)
132 Rajkumar Verma · Bhu Dev Sharma (2013)

Torra [21] further defined the empty hesitant set and the full hesitant fuzzy set as
follows:

A◦ = { x, hA◦ (x) |x ∈ X}, where hA◦ = {0} ∀ x ∈ X, (5)

•
A = { x, hA• (x) |x ∈ X}, where hA• = {1} ∀ x ∈ X. (6)

For convenience, Xia and Xu [22] named the set h = hA (x) as a hesitant fuzzy element
(HFE). We will represent the family of all hesitant fuzzy elements defined on X by
HFE(X).
Further, Torra [21] showed that the envelop of an HFE is an IFV, defined as fol-
lows:
Definition 4 Given an h ∈ HFE(X), we define the Aenv (h) as the envelope of h that
can be represented mathematically as

Aenv (h) = (h− , 1 − h+ ), (7)

where
h− = min{γ | γ ∈ h} and h+ = max{γ | γ ∈ h}. (8)
Next, on the HFSs defined above, we mention the set operations.
Definition 5 (Set operations on HFEs) Let h, h1 and h2 ∈ HFE(X), Torra [21] de-
fined complement,
 union, and intersection operations as follows:
(i) hc = {1 − γ};
γ∈h
 
(ii) h1 ∪ h2 = max{γ1 , γ2 } = {γ1 ∨ γ1 };
γ1 ∈h1 γ1 ∈h1
γ2 ∈h2 γ2 ∈h2
 
(iii) h1 ∩ h2 = min{γ1 , γ2 } = {γ1 ∧ γ1 }.
γ1 ∈h1 γ1 ∈h1
γ2 ∈h2 γ2 ∈h2

Finally, we mention the four other set operations of the algebraic nature on hesitant
fuzzy elements.
Definition 6 Let h, h1 and h2 ∈ HFE(X) and λ > 0, Xia and Xu [22] defined four
operations 
on HFEs as follows:
(i) hλ = {γ λ };
γ∈h

(ii) λh = {1 − (1 − γ) λ };
γ∈h

(iii) h1 ⊕ h2 = {γ1 + γ2 − γ1 γ2 };
γ1 ∈h1
γ2 ∈h2

(iv) h1 ⊗ h2 = {γ1 γ2 }.
γ1 ∈h1
γ2 ∈h2

With this background, concepts and definitions, in the next section, we propose
four new operations on HFEs and study their properties.
Fuzzy Inf. Eng. (2013) 2: 129-146 133

3. Four New Operations on HFEs

Definition 7 Let h1 and h2 ∈ HFE(X), we propose the following operations on HFEs

as follows:
  γ 1 + γ2
(i) h1 @ h2 = ;
γ ∈h
2
1 1
γ2 ∈h2
 √
(ii) h1 $ h2 = { γ1 γ2 };
γ1 ∈h1
γ2 ∈h2
  2γ1 γ2
(iii) h1 # h2 = for which we shall accept that if γ1 = γ2 = 0, then
γ ∈h
γ1 + γ2
1 1
γ2 ∈h2
2γ1 γ2
= 0.
γ1 + γ2
  γ1 + γ2
(iv) h1 ∗ h2 = .
γ ∈h
2(γ1 γ2 + 1)
1 1
γ2 ∈h2

Obviously, for every two HFEs h1 and h2 , (h1 @h2 ), (h1 $h2 ), (h1 #h2 ) and (h1 ∗ h2 )
are also HFEs.
Example 2 Let h1 (x) = (0.2, 0.4, 0.6) and h2 (x) = (0.4, 0.8, 1.0) be two hesitant fuzzy
elements. Then we have

0.2 + 0.4 0.4 + 0.8 0.6 + 1.0
• (h1 @h2 )(x) = , , = {0.3, 0.6, 0.8}.
2 2 2
√ √ √
• (h1 $h2 )(x) = 0.2 × 0.4, 0.4 × 0.8, 0.6 × 1.0 = {0.2828, 0.5657, 0.7746}.

2 × 0.2 × 0.4 2 × 0.4 × 0.8 2 × 0.6 × 1.0
• (h1 #h2 )(x) = , ,
0.2 + 0.4 0.4 + 0.8 0.6 + 1.0
= {0.2667, 0.5333, 0.7500}.

0.2 + 0.4 0.4 + 0.8 0.6 + 1.0
• (h1 ∗ h2 )(x) = , ,
2 × (0.2 × 0.4 + 1) 2 × (0.4 × 0.8 + 1) 2 × (0.6 × 1.0 + 1)
= {0.2778, 0.4545, 0.7500}.

With these operations, several results follow.

Theorem 1 For every h ∈ HFE(X), h◦ and h• respectively, the hesitant empty ele-
ment and hesitant full element, the following are true,
(i) h @ h = h;
(ii) h $ h = h;
(iii) h # h = h;
(iv) h $ h◦ = h◦ ;
(v) h $ h• = h;
(vi) h # h◦ = h◦ ;
134 Rajkumar Verma · Bhu Dev Sharma (2013)

(vii) Aenv (h) @ Aenv (h) = Aenv (h);

(viii) Aenv (h) $ Aenv (h) = Aenv (h);
(ix) Aenv (h) # Aenv (h) = Aenv (h).

Proof These results follow directly from the definitions.

Theorem 2 For h1 , h2 ∈ HFE(X),

(i) h1 @ h2 = h2 @ h1 ;
(ii) h1 $ h2 = h2 $ h1 ;
(iii) h1 # h2 = h2 # h1 ;
(iv) h1 ∗ h2 = h2 ∗ h1 ;
(v) Aenv (h1 @ h2 ) = Aenv (h2 @ h1 );
(vi) Aenv (h1 $ h2 ) = Aenv (h2 $ h1 );
(vii) Aenv (h1 # h2 ) = Aenv (h2 # h1 );
(viii) Aenv (h1 ∗ h2 ) = Aenv (h2 ∗ h1 );
(ix) Aenv (h1 @ h2 ) = Aenv (h1 ) @ Aenv (h1 ).

Proof These also follow from definitions.

Theorem 3 For h1 , h2 ∈ HFE(X),

(i) (hc1 @ hc2 )c = h1 @ h2 ;
(ii) Aenv (hc1 @ hc2 ) = Aenv (hc1 ) @ Aenv (hc2 );
(iii) ((Aenv (h1 ))c @ (Aenv (h2 ))c )c = Aenv (h1 ) @ Aenv (h2 );
(iv) ((Aenv (h1 ))c $ (Aenv (h2 ))c )c = Aenv (h1 ) $ Aenv (h2 );
(v) ((Aenv (h1 ))c # (Aenv (h2 ))c )c = Aenv (h1 ) # Aenv (h2 );
(vi) ((Aenv (h1 ))c ∗ (Aenv (h2 ))c )c = Aenv (h1 ) ∗ Aenv (h2 ).

Proof In the following, we prove (i), (ii) and (iii), results (iv), (v) and (vi) can be
proved analogously.
(i) From definitions in (5) and (7), we have
   c
(hc1 @ hc2 )c = {1 − γ1 } @ {1 − γ2 }
γ1 ∈h1 γ2 ∈h2
  1 − γ1 + 1 − γ2 c
=
γ1 ∈h1
2
γ2 ∈h2
 2 − (γ1 + γ2 )
= 1−
γ1 ∈h1
2
γ2 ∈h2
  γ1 + γ 2
=
γ ∈h
2
1 1
γ2 ∈h2

= h1 @ h2 .
Fuzzy Inf. Eng. (2013) 2: 129-146 135

This proves (i).

(ii) Using definitions in (4), (5) and (7), we have

(1 − γ1 ) + (1 − γ2 )
Aenv (hc1 @ hc2 ) = Aenv | γ1 ∈ h1 , γ2 ∈ h2
2
1 − h−1 + 1 − h−2 1 − h+1 + 1 − h+2
= ,1 −
2 2
1 − h−1 + 1 − h−2 h+1 + h+2
= ,
2 2
= (1 − h−1 , h+1 ) @ (1 − h−2 , h+2 )
= Aenv (hc1 ) @ Aenv (hc2 ).

This proves (ii).

(iii) From definitions in (4), (5) and (7),

((Aenv (h1 )c @ (Aenv (h2 )c )c = ((h−1 , 1 − h+1 )c @ (h−2 , 1 − h+2 )c )c ,

= ((1 − h+1 , h−1 ) @ (1 − h+2 , h−2 ))c
1 − h+1 + 1 − h+2 h−1 + h−2 c
= ,
2 2
h + h2 1 − h1 + 1 − h+2
− − +
= 1 ,
2 2
= (h−1 , 1 − h+1 ) @ (h−2 , 1 − h+2 )
= Aenv (h1 ) @ Aenv (h2 ).

This proves (iii) and the theorem.

Note 1 : One can easily verify that

(i) (hc1 $ hc2 )c  h1 $ h2 ;
(ii) (hc1 # hc2 )c  h1 # h2 ;
(iii) (hc1 ∗ hc2 )c  h1 ∗ h2 ;
(iv) Aenv (h1 $ h2 )  Aenv (h1 ) $ Aenv (h2 );
(v) Aenv (h1 # h2 )  Aenv (h1 ) # Aenv (h2 );
(vi) Aenv (h1 ∗ h2 )  Aenv (h1 ) ∗ Aenv (h2 );
(vii) Aenv (hc1 $ hc2 )  Aenv (hc1 ) $ Aenv (hc2 );
(viii) Aenv (hc1 # hc2 )  Aenv (hc1 ) # Aenv (hc2 );
(ix) Aenv (hc1 ∗ hc2 )  Aenv (hc1 ) ∗ Aenv (hc2 ).

Theorem 4 For h1 , h2 and h3 ∈ HFE(X), we have the following identities:

(i) (h1 ∪ h2 ) @ h3 = (h1 @ h3 ) ∪ (h2 @ h3 ) ;
(ii) (h1 ∩ h2 ) @ h3 = (h1 @ h3 ) ∩ (h2 @ h3 ) ;
136 Rajkumar Verma · Bhu Dev Sharma (2013)

(iii) (h1 ∪ h2 ) $ h3 = (h1 $ h3 ) ∪ (h2 $ h3 ) ;

(iv) (h1 ∩ h2 ) $ h3 = (h1 $ h3 ) ∩ (h2 $ h3 ) ;
(v) (h1 ∪ h2 ) # h3 = (h1 # h3 ) ∪ (h2 # h3 ) ;
(vi) (h1 ∩ h2 ) # h3 = (h1 # h3 ) ∩ (h2 # h3 ) ;
(vii) (h1 ∪ h2 ) ∗ h3 = (h1 ∗ h3 ) ∪ (h2 ∗ h3 ) ;
(viii) (h1 ∩ h2 ) ∗ h3 = (h1 ∗ h3 ) ∩ (h2 ∗ h3 ) ;
(ix) (h1 @ h2 ) ⊕ h3 = (h1 ⊕ h3 ) @ (h2 ⊕ h3 ) ;
(x) (h1 @ h2 ) ⊗ h3 = (h1 ⊗ h3 ) @ (h2 ⊗ h3 ) .

Proof We prove (i), (iii), (v), (vii) and (ix), results (ii), (iv), (vi), (viii) and (x) can
be proved analogously.

(i) Using definitions in (5) and (7), we have

   
(h1 ∪ h2 ) @ h3 = max{γ1 , γ2 } @ {γ3 }
γ1 ∈h1 γ3 ∈h3
γ2 ∈h2
  max(γ1 , γ2 ) + γ3
=
γ ∈h
2
1 1
γ2 ∈h2
γ3 ∈h3
 
γ1 + γ3 γ2 + γ3
= max ,
γ1 ∈h1
2 2
γ2 ∈h2
γ3 ∈h3

= (h1 @ h3 ) ∪ (h2 @ h3 ).

This proves (i).

(iii) From definitions in (5) and (7), we have

   
(h1 ∪ h2 ) $ h3 = {max{γ1 , γ2 } $ {γ3 }
γ1 ∈h1 γ3 ∈h3
γ2 ∈h2
 
= max(γ1 , γ2 ) γ3
γ1 ∈h1
γ2 ∈h2
γ3 ∈h3
  
= max (γ1 γ3 ), (γ2 γ3 )
γ1 ∈h1
γ2 ∈h2
γ3 ∈h3

= (h1 $ h3 ) ∪ (h2 $ h3 ).

This proves (iii).

Fuzzy Inf. Eng. (2013) 2: 129-146 137

(v) Using definitions in (5) and (7), we have

   
(h1 ∪ h2 ) # h3 = max{γ1 , γ2 } # {γ3 }
γ1 ∈h1 γ3 ∈h3
γ2 ∈h2
  2max(γ1 , γ2 ) γ3
=
γ ∈h
max(γ1 , γ2 ) + γ3
1 1
γ2 ∈h2
γ3 ∈h3
 
2γ1 γ3 2γ2 γ3
= max ,
γ1 ∈h1
γ1 + γ3 γ2 + γ3
γ2 ∈h2
γ3 ∈h3

= (h1 # h3 ) ∪ (h2 # h3 ).

This proves (v).

(vii) From definitions in (5) and (7), we have
   
(h1 ∪ h2 ) ∗ h3 = max{γ1 , γ2 } ∗ {γ3 }
γ1 ∈h1 γ3 ∈h3
γ2 ∈h2
  max(γ1 , γ2 ) + γ3
=
γ1 ∈h1
2(max(γ1 , γ2 ) γ3 + 1)
γ2 ∈h2
γ3 ∈h3
 
γ1 + γ3 γ 2 + γ3
= max ,
γ1 ∈h1
2(γ1 γ3 + 1) 2(γ2 γ3 + 1)
γ2 ∈h2
γ3 ∈h3

= (h1 ∗ h3 ) ∪ (h2 ∗ h3 ).

This proves (vii).

(ix) Using definitions in (5) and (7), we have
  γ 1 + γ2  
(h1 @ h2 ) ⊕ h3 = ⊕ {γ3 }
γ ∈h
2 γ ∈h
1 1 3 3
γ2 ∈h2
  γ 1 + γ2 γ1 + γ2
= + γ3 − γ3
γ ∈h
2 2
1 1
γ2 ∈h2
γ3 ∈h3
  (γ1 + γ3 − γ1 γ3 ) + (γ2 + γ3 − γ2 γ3 )
=
γ ∈h
2
1 1
γ2 ∈h2
γ3 ∈h3

= (h1 ⊕ h3 ) @ (h2 ⊕ h3 ).

This proves (ix) and the theorem.

138 Rajkumar Verma · Bhu Dev Sharma (2013)

Theorem 5 For h1 , h2 and h3 ∈ HFE(X), we have the following identities:

(i) Aenv (h1 ∪ h2 ) @ Aenv (h3 ) = Aenv (h1 @ h3 ) ∪ Aenv (h2 @ h3 ) ;
(ii) Aenv (h1 ∩ h2 ) @ Aenv (h3 ) = Aenv (h1 @ h3 ) ∩ Aenv (h2 @ h3 ) ;
(iii) Aenv (h1 @ h2 ) ⊕ Aenv (h3 ) = Aenv (h1 ⊕ h3 ) @ Aenv (h2 ⊕ h3 ) ;
(iv) Aenv (h1 @ h2 ) ⊗ Aenv (h3 ) = Aenv (h1 ⊗ h3 ) @ Aenv (h2 ⊗ h3 ) .
Proof In the following, we prove (i) and (iii), results (ii) and (iv) can be proved
analogously.
(i) From definitions in (2), (5) and (7), we have

Aenv (h1 ∪ h2 ) @ Aenv (h3 )

= Aenv ({max(γ1 , γ2 ) | γ1 ∈ h1 , γ2 ∈ h2 }) @ Aenv ({γ3 | γ3 ∈ h3 })
= (max(h−1 , h−2 ), 1 − max(h+1 , h+2 )) @ (h−3 , 1 − h+3 )
= (max(h−1 , h−2 ), min(1 − h+1 , 1 − h+2 )) @ (h−3 , 1 − h+3 )
max(h−1 , h−2 ) + h−3 min(1 − h+1 , 1 − h+2 ) + 1 − h+3
= ,
2 2
h−1 + h−3 h−2 + h−3 h+ + h+3 h+ + h+3
= max , , min 1 − 1 ,1 − 2
2 2 2 2
h−1 + h−3 h+1 + h+3 h−2 + h−3 h+2 + h+3
= ,1 − ∪ ,1 −
2 2 2 2
= Aenv (h1 @ h3 ) ∪ Aenv (h2 @ h3 ).

This proves (i).

(iii) Using definitions in (2), (6) and (7), we have

Aenv (h1 @ h2 ) ⊕ Aenv (h3 )


γ1 + γ2
= Aenv | γ1 ∈ h1 , γ2 ∈ h2 ⊕ Aenv ({γ3 | γ3 ∈ h3 })
2
h− + h−2 h+ + h+2
= 1 ,1 − 1 ⊕ (h−3 , 1 − h+3 )
2 2
h−1 + h−2 h− + h−2 − h+ + h+2
= + h−3 − 1 h3 , 1 − 1 (1 − h+3 )
2 2 2
= Aenv (h1 ⊕ h3 ) @ Aenv (h2 ⊕ h3 ).

This proves (iii) and the theorem.

Note 2: It can be easily verify that

(i) Aenv (h1 ∪ h2 ) $ Aenv (h3 )  Aenv (h1 $ h3 ) ∪ Aenv (h2 $ h3 );
(ii) Aenv (h1 ∩ h2 ) $ Aenv (h3 )  Aenv (h1 $ h3 ) ∩ Aenv (h2 $ h3 );
(iii) Aenv (h1 ∪ h2 ) # Aenv (h3 )  Aenv (h1 # h3 ) ∪ Aenv (h2 # h3 );
(iv) Aenv (h1 ∩ h2 ) # Aenv (h3 )  Aenv (h1 # h3 ) ∩ Aenv (h2 # h3 );
(v) Aenv (h1 ∪ h2 ) ∗ Aenv (h3 )  Aenv (h1 ∗ h3 ) ∪ Aenv (h2 ∗ h3 );
(vi) Aenv (h1 ∩ h2 ) ∗ Aenv (h3 )  Aenv (h1 ∗ h3 ) ∩ Aenv (h2 ∗ h3 ).
Fuzzy Inf. Eng. (2013) 2: 129-146 139

Theorem 6 For h1 and h2 ∈ HFE(X), we have the following identities:

(i) (h1 ⊕ h2 ) ∩ (h1 ⊗ h2 ) = h1 ⊗ h2 ;
(ii) (h1 ⊕ h2 ) ∪ (h1 ⊗ h2 ) = h1 ⊕ h2 ;
(iii) (h1 ⊕ h2 ) ∩ (h1 @ h2 ) = h1 @ h2 ;
(iv) (h1 ⊕ h2 ) ∪ (h1 @ h2 ) = h1 ⊕ h2 ;
(v) (h1 ⊗ h2 ) ∩ (h1 @ h2 ) = h1 ⊗ h2 ;
(vi) (h1 ⊗ h2 ) ∪ (h1 @ h2 ) = h1 @ h2 ;
(vii) (h1 ⊕ h2 ) ∩ (h1 $ h2 ) = h1 $ h2 ;
(viii) (h1 ⊕ h2 ) ∪ (h1 $ h2 ) = h1 ⊕ h2 ;
(ix) (h1 ⊗ h2 ) ∩ (h1 $ h2 ) = h1 ⊗ h2 ;
(x) (h1 ⊗ h2 ) ∪ (h1 $ h2 ) = h1 $ h2 ;
(xi) (h1 ⊕ h2 ) ∩ (h1 # h2 ) = h1 # h2 ;
(xii) (h1 ⊕ h2 ) ∪ (h1 # h2 ) = h1 ⊕ h2 ;
(xiii) (h1 ⊗ h2 ) ∩ (h1 # h2 ) = h1 ⊗ h2 ;
(xiv) (h1 ⊗ h2 ) ∪ (h1 # h2 ) = h1 # h2 .

Proof We prove (i), (iii), (v), (vii), (ix), (xi) and (xii), other results can be proved
analogously.
(i) From definitions in (5), (6) and (7), we have
   
(h1 ⊕ h2 ) ∩ (h1 ⊗ h2 ) = {γ1 + γ2 − γ1 γ2 } ∩ {γ1 γ2 }
γ1 ∈h1 γ1 ∈h1
γ2 ∈h2 γ2 ∈h2

= min{γ1 + γ2 − γ1 γ2 , γ1 γ2 }
γ1 ∈h1
γ2 ∈h2

= {γ1 γ2 }
γ1 ∈h1
γ2 ∈h2

= h 1 ⊗ h2 .

This proves (i).

(iii) Using definitions in (5), (6) and (7), we have
    γ 1 + γ2
(h1 ⊕ h2 ) ∩ (h1 @ h2 ) = {γ1 + γ2 − γ1 γ2 } ∩
γ1 ∈h1 γ ∈h
2
1 1
γ2 ∈h2 γ2 ∈h2
 
γ1 + γ2
= min γ1 + γ2 − γ1 γ2 ,
γ ∈h
2
1 1
γ2 ∈h2
  γ 1 + γ2
=
γ ∈h
2
1 1
γ2 ∈h2

= h1 @ h2 .
140 Rajkumar Verma · Bhu Dev Sharma (2013)

This proves (iii).

(v) From definitions in (5), (6) and (7), we have

    γ 1 + γ2
(h1 ⊗ h2 ) ∩ (h1 @ h2 ) = {γ1 γ2 } ∩
γ ∈h γ ∈h
2
1 1 1 1
γ2 ∈h2 γ2 ∈h2
 
γ1 + γ2
= min γ1 γ2 ,
γ ∈h
2
1 1
γ2 ∈h2

= {γ1 γ2 }
γ1 ∈h1
γ2 ∈h2

= h 1 ⊗ h2 .

This proves (v).

(vii) Using definitions in (5), (6) and (7), we have

   √ 
(h1 ⊕ h2 ) ∩ (h1 $ h2 ) = {γ1 + γ2 − γ1 γ2 } ∩ { γ1 γ2 }
γ1 ∈h1 γ1 ∈h1
γ2 ∈h2 γ2 ∈h2
 √
= min{γ1 + γ2 − γ1 γ2 , γ1 γ2 }
γ1 ∈h1
γ2 ∈h2
 √
= { γ1 γ2 }
γ1 ∈h1
γ2 ∈h2

= h1 $ h2 .

This proves (vii).

(ix) From definitions in (5), (6) and (7), we have

   √ 
(h1 ⊗ h2 ) ∩ (h1 $ h2 ) = {γ1 γ2 } ∩ { γ1 γ2 }
γ1 ∈h1 γ1 ∈h1
γ2 ∈h2 γ2 ∈h2
 √
= min{γ1 γ2 , γ1 γ2 }
γ1 ∈h1
γ2 ∈h2

= {γ1 γ2 }
γ1 ∈h1
γ2 ∈h2

= h1 ⊗ h2 .

This proves (ix).

Fuzzy Inf. Eng. (2013) 2: 129-146 141

(xi) Using definitions in (5), (6) and (7), we have

    2γ1 γ2
(h1 ⊕ h2 ) ∩ (h1 # h2 ) = {γ1 + γ2 − γ1 γ2 } ∩
γ1 ∈h1 γ ∈h
γ1 + γ2
1 1
γ2 ∈h2 γ2 ∈h2
 
2γ1 γ2
= min γ1 + γ2 − γ1 γ2 ,
γ1 ∈h1
γ1 + γ2
γ2 ∈h2
  2γ1 γ2
=
γ ∈h
γ1 + γ2
1 1
γ2 ∈h2

= h 1 # h2 .

This proves (xi).

(xiii) From definitions in (5), (6) and (7), we have
    2γ1 γ2
(h1 ⊗ h2 ) ∩ (h1 # h2 ) = {γ1 γ2 } ∩
γ1 ∈h1 γ ∈h
γ1 + γ2
1 1
γ2 ∈h2 γ2 ∈h2
 
2γ1 γ2
= min γ1 γ2 ,
γ1 ∈h1
γ1 + γ2
γ2 ∈h2

= {γ1 γ2 }
γ1 ∈h1
γ2 ∈h2

= h1 ⊗ h2 .

This proves (xiii). This proves the theorem.

Theorem 7 For h1 and h2 ∈ HFE(X), then following relations are valid:
(i) (h1 # h2 ) $ (h1 # h2 ) = h1 # h2 ;
(ii) (h1 ∗ h2 ) $ (h1 ∗ h2 ) = h1 ∗ h2 ;
(iii) (h1 ⊕ h2 ) $ (h1 ⊕ h2 ) = h1 ⊕ h2 ;
(iv) (h1 ⊗ h2 ) $ (h1 ⊗ h2 ) = h1 ⊗ h2 ;
(v) (h1 @ h2 ) $ (h1 @ h2 ) = h1 @ h2 ;
(vi) (h1 # h2 ) @ (h1 # h2 ) = h1 # h2 ;
(vii) (h1 ∗ h2 ) @ (h1 ∗ h2 ) = h1 ∗ h2 ;
(viii) (h1 ⊕ h2 ) @ (h1 ⊗ h2 ) = h1 @ h2 ;
(ix) (h1 ∪ h2 ) @ (h1 ∩ h2 ) = h1 @ h2 ;
(x) (h1 ∪ h2 ) $ (h1 ∩ h2 ) = h1 $ h2 ;
(xi) (h1 ∪ h2 ) # (h1 ∩ h2 ) = h1 # h2 ;
(xii) (h1 ∪ h2 ) ∗ (h1 ∩ h2 ) = h1 ∗ h2 ;
(xiii) (h1 ∗ h2 ) @ (h1 ∗ h2 ) = h1 ∗ h2 ;
(xiv) (h1 ∗ h2 ) $ (h1 ∗ h2 ) = h1 ∗ h2 .
142 Rajkumar Verma · Bhu Dev Sharma (2013)

Proof The proofs of these results are the same as in the above proof.

Theorem 8 For h1 and h2 ∈ HFE(X), then we have the following properties:

(i) Aenv (h1 ∪ h2 ) @ Aenv (h1 ∩ h2 ) = Aenv (h1 ) @ Aenv (h2 );
(ii) Aenv (h1 ∪ h2 ) $ Aenv (h1 ∩ h2 ) = Aenv (h1 ) $ Aenv (h2 );
(iii) Aenv (h1 ∪ h2 ) # Aenv (h1 ∩ h2 ) = Aenv (h1 ) # Aenv (h2 );
(iv) Aenv (h1 ∪ h2 ) ∗ Aenv (h1 ∩ h2 ) = Aenv (h1 ) ∗ Aenv (h2 );
(v) Aenv (h1 ⊕ h2 ) @ Aenv (h1 ⊗ h2 ) = Aenv (h1 ) @ Aenv (h2 ).

Proof In the following, we prove (i) and (v), results (ii), (iii) and (iv) can be proved
analogously.
(i) From definitions in (2), (5) and (7), we have

Aenv (h1 ∪ h2 ) @ Aenv (h1 ∩ h2 )

= Aenv ({max(γ1 , γ2 ) | γ1 ∈ h1 , γ2 ∈ h2 }) @ Aenv ({min(γ1 , γ2 ) | γ1 ∈ h1 , γ2 ∈ h2 })
= (max(h−1 , h−2 ), 1 − max(h+1 , h+2 )) @ (min(h−1 , h−2 ), 1 − min(h+1 , h+2 ))
= (max(h−1 , h−2 ), min(1 − h+1 , 1 − h+2 )) @ (min(h−1 , h−2 ), max(1 − h+1 , 1 − h+2 ))
max(h−1 , h−2 ) + min(h−1 , h−2 ) min(1 − h+1 , 1 − h+2 ) + max(1 − h+1 , 1 − h+2 )
= ,
2 2
− − + +
h + h2 (1 − h1 ) + (1 − h2 )
= 1 ,
2 2
= (h−1 , 1 − h+1 ) @ (h−2 , 1 − h+2 )
= Aenv (h1 ) @ Aenv (h2 ).

This proves (i).

(v) From definitions in (2), (5) and (7), we have

Aenv (h1 ⊕ h2 ) @ Aenv (h1 ⊗ h2 )

= Aenv ({γ1 + γ2 − γ1 γ2 | γ1 ∈ h1 , γ2 ∈ h2 }) @ Aenv ({γ1 γ2 | γ1 ∈ h1 , γ2 ∈ h2 })
= (h−1 + h−2 − h−1 h−2 , 1 − (h+1 + h+2 − h+1 h+2 )) @ (h−1 h−2 , 1 − (h+1 h+2 ))
h−1 + h−2 − h−1 h−2 + h−1 h−2 1 − (h+1 + h+2 − h+1 h+2 ) + 1 − (h+1 h+2 )
= ,
2 2
− − + +
h + h2 (1 − h1 ) + (1 − h2 )
= 1 ,
2 2
= (h−1 , 1 − h+1 ) @ (h−2 , 1 − h+2 )
= Aenv (h1 ) @ Aenv (h2 ).

This proves (v) and the theorem.

Theorem 9 For every two h1 and h2 ∈ HFE(X), we have:

(i) ((h1 ∪ h2 ) ⊕ (h1 ∩ h2 )) @ ((h1 ∪ h2 ) ⊗ (h1 ∩ h2 )) = h1 @ h2 ;
(ii) ((h1 ∪ h2 ) # (h1 ∩ h2 )) $ ((h1 ∪ h2 ) @ (h1 ∩ h2 )) = h1 $ h2 ;
Fuzzy Inf. Eng. (2013) 2: 129-146 143

(iii) (((h1 ∪ h2 ) ⊕ (h1 ∩ h2 )) @ (h1 ⊕ h2 )) $ (h1 # h2 ) = h1 $ h2 ;

(iv) ((h1 $ h2 ) ⊗ (h1 $ h2 )) @ ((h1 $ h2 ) ⊕ (h1 $ h2 )) = h1 $ h2 ;
(v) ((h1 ⊕ h2 ) ∪ (h1 ⊗ h2 )) @ ((h1 ⊕ h2 ) ∩ (h1 ⊗ h2 )) = h1 @ h2 ;
(vi) ((h1 ⊕ h2 ) ∪ (h1 @ h2 )) @ ((h1 ⊗ h2 ) ∩ (h1 @ h2 )) = h1 @ h2 ;
(vii) ((h1 ⊕ h2 ) ∪ (h1 # h2 )) @ ((h1 ⊗ h2 ) ∩ (h1 # h2 )) = h1 @ h2 ;
(viii) ((h1 ⊕ h2 ) ∪ (h1 $ h2 )) @ ((h1 ⊗ h2 ) ∩ (h1 $ h2 )) = h1 @ h2 ;
(ix) ((h1 ⊕ h2 ) ∪ (h1 @ h2 )) @ ((h1 ⊕ h2 ) ∩ (h1 # h2 )) = h1 $ h2 .

Proof In the following, we prove (i), (iii) and (v), other results can be proved anal-
ogously.
(i) From definitions in (5) and (7), we have

(h1 ∪ h2 ) ⊕ (h1 ∩ h2 ) = {max(γ1 , γ2 ) + min(γ1 , γ2 ) − max(γ1 , γ2 )min(γ1 , γ2 )}
γ1 ∈h1
γ2 ∈h2

= {γ1 + γ2 − γ1 γ2 } (9)
γ1 ∈h1
γ2 ∈h2

and

(h1 ∪ h2 ) ⊗ (h1 ∩ h2 ) = {max(γ1 , γ2 )min(γ1 , γ2 )}
γ1 ∈h1
γ2 ∈h2

= {γ1 γ2 }. (10)
γ1 ∈h1
γ2 ∈h2

Now taking @ with (9) and (10),

((h1 ∪ h2 ) ⊕ (h1 ∩ h2 )) @ ((h1 ∪ h2 ) ⊗ (h1 ∩ h2 ))

   
= {γ1 + γ2 − γ1 γ2 } @ {γ1 γ2 }
γ1 ∈h1 γ1 ∈h1
γ2 ∈h2 γ2 ∈h2
  γ1 + γ2 − γ1 γ2 + γ1 γ2
=
γ ∈h
2
1 1
γ2 ∈h2
  γ 1 + γ2
=
γ ∈h
2
1 1
γ2 ∈h2

= h1 @ h2 .

This proves (i).

144 Rajkumar Verma · Bhu Dev Sharma (2013)

(iii) From definitions in (5) and (7), we have

((h1 ∪ h2 ) ⊗ (h1 ∩ h2 )) @ (h1 ⊕ h2 )

   
= {max(γ1 , γ2 )min(γ1 , γ2 ) @ {γ1 + γ2 − γ1 γ2 }
γ1 ∈h1 γ1 ∈h1
γ2 ∈h2 γ2 ∈h2
  max(γ1 , γ2 )min(γ1 , γ2 ) + γ1 + γ2 − γ1 γ2
=
γ ∈h
2
1 1
γ2 ∈h2
  γ 1 + γ2
= (11)
γ ∈h
2
1 1
γ2 ∈h2

and
  2γ1 γ2
(h1 # h2 ) = . (12)
γ ∈h
γ1 + γ2
1 1
γ2 ∈h2

Now taking $ with (11) and (12),

(((h1 ∪ h2 ) ⊕ (h1 ∩ h2 )) @ (h1 ⊕ h2 )) $ (h1 # h2 )

  γ 1 + γ2   2γ1 γ2
= $
γ ∈h
2 γ ∈h
γ1 + γ2
1 1 1 1
γ2 ∈h2 γ2 ∈h2
 √
= γ1 γ2
γ1 ∈h1
γ2 ∈h2

= h1 $ h2 .

This proves (iii).

(v) Using definitions in (5) and (7), we have


((h1 ⊕ h2 ) ∪ (h1 ⊗ h2 )) = max{γ1 + γ2 − γ1 γ2 , γ1 γ2 }
γ1 ∈h1
γ2 ∈h2

= {γ1 + γ2 − γ1 γ2 } (13)
γ1 ∈h1
γ2 ∈h2

and

((h1 ⊕ h2 ) ∩ (h1 ⊗ h2 )) = min{γ1 + γ2 − γ1 γ2 , γ1 γ2 }
γ1 ∈h1
γ2 ∈h2

= {γ1 γ2 }. (14)
γ1 ∈h1
γ2 ∈h2
Fuzzy Inf. Eng. (2013) 2: 129-146 145

Now taking @ with (13) and (14),

((h1 ⊕ h2 ) ∪ (h1 ⊗ h2 )) @ ((h1 ⊕ h2 ) ∩ (h1 ⊗ h2 ))

   
= {γ1 + γ2 − γ1 γ2 } @ {γ1 γ2 }
γ1 ∈h1 γ1 ∈h1
γ2 ∈h2 γ2 ∈h2
  γ1 + γ2 − γ1 γ2 + γ1 γ2
=
γ ∈h
2
1 1
γ2 ∈h2
  γ 1 + γ2
=
γ ∈h
2
1 1
γ2 ∈h2

= h1 @ h2 .

This proves (v).

This proves the theorem.
4. Conclusion
It has been possible to define four new operations on hesitant fuzzy sets as these sets
in their definition involve different defining functions. We have proved a number of
results, some of which follow simply and bring out the characteristics of the hesitant
fuzzy sets. Therefore one can easily see how the multiplicity of operations reduce to
classical set operations on crisp sets, and how these give new look at the special cases
like those on fuzzy sets and intuitionistic fuzzy sets.
Acknowledgements
The authors are very grateful to the Editor-in-chief and the anonymous referees for
their insightful and constructive comments and suggestions, which have been very
helpful in improving the paper.

References
1. Zadeh L A (1965) Fuzzy sets. Information and Control 8(3): 338-353
2. Zadeh L A (1975) The concept of a linguistic variable and its application to approximate reasoning-I.
Information Sciences 8(3): 199-249
3. Atanassov K T (1986) Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 20(1): 87-96
4. Atanassov K T (1999) Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Springer Physica-Verlag, Heidelberg
5. Dubois D, Prade H (1980) Fuzzy sets and systems: theory and applications. Academic Press, New
York
6. Yager R R (1986) On the theory of bags. International Journal of General Systems 13(1): 23-37
7. Mizumoto M, Tanaka K (1981) Fuzzy sets of type-2 under algebraic product and algebraic sum.
Fuzzy Sets and Systems 5(3): 277-290
8. Mizumoto M, Tanaka K (1981) Some properties of fuzzy sets of type-2. Information and Control
31(4): 312-340
9. Karnik N N, Mendel J M (2001) Operations on type-2 fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets and Systems 122(2):
327-348
10. Gau W L, Buehrer D J (1993) Vague sets. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics
23(2): 610-614
11. Szmidt E, Kacprzyk J (2001) Intuitionistic fuzzy sets in intelligent data analysis for medical diagno-
sis. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 2074: 263-271
146 Rajkumar Verma · Bhu Dev Sharma (2013)

12. Liu H W, Wang G J (2007) Multi-criteria decision-making methods based on intuitionistic fuzzy sets.
European Journal of Operation Research 179(1): 220-233
13. Vlachos I K, Sergiadis G D (2007) Intuitionistic fuzzy information-application to pattern recognition.
Pattern Recognition Letters 28(2): 197-206
14. Wei G W (2010) GRA method for multiple attribute decision making with incomplete weight infor-
mation in intuitionistic fuzzy setting. Knowledge Based Systems 23(3): 243-247
15. Wu J Z, Zhang Q (2011) Multicriteria decision making method based on intuitionistic fuzzy weighted
entropy. Expert Systems with Applications 38(1): 916-922
16. Verma R, Sharma B D (2011) Intuitionistic fuzzy sets: some new results. Notes on Intuitionistic
Fuzzy Sets 17(3): 1-10
17. Verma R, Sharma B D (2013) Some new equalities connected with intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Notes on
Intuitionistic Fuzzy Sets (in press)
18. Verma R, Sharma B D (2013) Some new results on intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Proceedings of the
Jangjeon Mathematical Society 16(1): 101-114.
19. Verma R, Sharma B D (2012) On generalized intuitionistic fuzzy divergence (relative information)
and their properties. Journal of Uncertain Systems 6(4): 308-320
20. Torra V, Narukawa Y (2009) On hesitant fuzzy sets and decision. The 18th IEEE international Con-
ference on Fuzzy Systems, Jeju Island, Korea: 1378-1382
21. Torra V (2010) Hesitant fuzzy sets. International Journal of Intelligent Systems 25(6): 529-539
22. Xia M, Xu Z S (2011) Hesitant fuzzy information aggregation in decision making. International
Journal of Approximate Reasoning 52(3): 395-407
23. Xia M M, Xu Z S, Chen N (2011) Induced aggregation under confidence levels. International Journal
of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems 19(2): 201-227
24. Xu Z S, Xia M M (2011) Distance and similarity measures on hesitant fuzzy sets. Information
Sciences 181(11): 2128-2138
25. Xu Z S, Xia M M (2011) On distance and correlation measures of hesitant fuzzy information. Inter-
national Journal of Intelligent Systems 26(5): 410-425
26. Xia M M, Xu Z S, Chen N (2013) Some hesitant fuzzy aggregation operators with their application
in decision making. Group Decision and Negotiation 22(2): 259-279
27. Zhu B, Xu Z S, Xia M (2012) Hesitant fuzzy geometric Bonferroni means. Information Sciences
205: 72-85
28. Xu Z S (2007) Intuitionistic fuzzy aggregation operators. IEEE Transaction on Fuzzy Systems 15(6):
1179-1187