Abstract
Based on the natural vector addition and scalar multiplication, the set of all bounded and closed intervals in cannot form a vector space. This is mainly because the zero element does not exist. In this paper, we endow a norm to the interval space in which the axioms are almost the same as the axioms of conventional norm by involving the concept of null set. Under this consideration, we shall propose two different concepts of open balls. Based on the open balls, we shall also propose the different types of open sets, which can generate many different topologies.
MSC:
46A19; 15A03
1. Introduction
In the real world, collecting data becomes an important issue for solving the practical and large-scaled problems in engineering, economics, and social sciences. However, in most situations, the data cannot be collected precisely. For example, the level of water cannot be measured precisely owing to the fluctuation. In this case, we may assume that the level of water is in a bounded closed interval that can represent the uncertainty. Also, in the financial market, stock price fluctuates violently, such that it may not be reasonable to record the price as an exact real number in a short period time. In this case, we can also assume that the stock price is located in a bounded closed interval within a short period of time. In other words, the bounded closed intervals can be used to describe the uncertain data instead of using probability theory. In this case, the bounded closed intervals can be regarded as the so-called interval numbers, which can be treated as “points”, not as closed intervals. Therefore, the arithmetic and related properties of the interval numbers should be established. For detailed discussion we refer the to the monographs [1,2,3,4,5].
The interval analysis may provide a useful tool to tackle uncertainty when the problems in engineering, economics and social sciences are formulated as interval-valued problems. For example, the interval-valued optimization problems and the interval-valued solution concepts of cooperative games have been studied in [6,7,8,9] and the references therein. The interval-valued problems can also be abstractly formulated as nonlinear problems in infinitely dimensional space. Therefore, the techniques of functional analysis and nonlinear analysis should be used to study those interval-valued problems. In this case, the basic concepts like topological vector space and normed space should be established on the interval space. In this paper, we are going to generate the topologies of normed interval space, although the interval space cannot form a vector space.
The set of all bounded closed intervals in cannot form a vector space. This is primarily because each bounded closed interval does not have an additive inverse element, which will be presented more clearly in the context of this paper. The topic of functional analysis is based on the vector space. We may try to develop the theory of functional analysis based on the interval space. Therefore, the first pioneering work is to create the Hahn–Banach extension theorem based on the interval space by referring to Wu [10], as the conventional Hahn–Banach extension theorem in functional analysis is very useful in nonlinear analysis, vector optimization and mathematical economics. In this paper, even though the interval space cannot be a vector space, we still can endow a norm to the set of all bounded closed intervals by involving the concept of null set, and to study its topological structure.
As any real number can be regarded as a bounded closed interval , is contained in . Given and in , the interval addition is given by
and the scalar multiplication in is given by
By the above definition, we have
For any and ,
Let A and B be two bounded closed intervals. The subtraction between A and B is denoted and defined by
Now, we have
which says that the additive inverse element in does not exist. This is partly because the concept of “zero element” of is not defined. This also states that cannot form a vector space under the above interval addition and scalar multiplication. Based on this inspiration, the following set,
is called the null set of , which can be regarded as a kind of “zero element” of . We also see that the true zero element of is , as for any .
In this paper, we shall endow a norm to , in which the axioms are almost the same as the axioms of conventional norm. The only difference is that the concept of null set is involved in the axioms. To study the topological structure of , we need to consider the open balls. Let us recall that if is a (conventional) normed space, then we see that
by taking . However, for spaces and ,
in general. This is because by taking , we have
where . In this case, two types of open balls will be considered in . Therefore, many types of open sets will also be considered. Based on the different types of openness, we shall study the topological structure of the normed interval space .
Now, we recall the Embedding Theorem obtained by Rådström [11] as follows. Let M be a commutative semigroup such that the law of cancellation holds true in M, i.e., the following conditions are satisfied; for ,
- ;
- ;
- implies .
We also assume that the non-negative scalar multiplication in M satisfies the following conditions.
- for and ;
- for and ;
- for and ;
- for .
Then we define the set N consisting of the equivalence classes of pairs of elements of M. The equivalence relation is defined by
The equivalence class containing the pair is denoted by . It is clear to see that if , then , i.e., . The addition in N is defined by
and the scalar multiplication in N is defined by
Then, N is a vector space.
Suppose that M is endowed with a metric satisfying the following conditions,
- for , i.e., is invariant under translation;
- for and , i.e., is positively homogeneous,
We also define a metric in N by
Then, forms a metric space. Let be the zero element of N. We define
Then, and forms a normed space.
For any fixed , we define the function by . Then, we have the following properties.
- is one-to-one.
- for .
- for and .
Moreover, M can be embedded into the normed space isomorphically and isometrically via the embedding function such that M spans N.
The embedding theorem presented by Rådström [11] says that the family consisting of all bounded closed intervals can be be embedded into a normed space isomorphically and isometrically. The differences between the approach by Rådström [11] and the approach in this paper are given below.
- According the approach by Rådström [11], the topological structure can be established in the normed space N. As the embedding function is isometric, we can recover the metric in M to establish the topological structure. However, this topological structure may be complicated to be expressed analytically via the embedding function . In this paper, the topological structures in can be analytically expressed.
- As the embedding approach of Rådström [11] is based on a specific normed space, N, defined above, the topological structures established in N is specific. Therefore, the topological structures in M recovered from the embedding function is also specific. However, the topological structures in can be freely established in this paper based on the different kinds of informal norms. In other words, we can have many topological structures corresponding to the different types of informal norms.
- As we mentioned above, the embedding approach by Rådström [11] is based on a specific normed space N, which says that M can be endowed with a norm-like (as M is a not a vector space) via the embedding function . In this case, the normed-like space M has a specific form restricted by the specific normed space N. However, in this paper, we can freely define any so-called informal norms in using the null sets.
In Section 2, many useful properties of interval spaces are presented in order to study the topology generated by the norm. In Section 3, we introduce the concept of norms involving the concept of null set and provide many useful properties for further investigation. In Section 4, we provide the nonintuitive properties for the open balls. In Section 5, we propose many types of open sets based on the different types of open balls. Finally, in Section 6, we investigate the topologies generated by these different types of open sets.
2. Interval Spaces
Let us recall that the following set,
is called the null set of , which can be regarded as a kind of “zero element” of . For further discussion, we present some useful properties.
Remark 1.
We have the following observations.
- It is clear thataswhere .
- implies .
- As , .
- for with .
- Ω is closed under the interval addition; that is, for any .
As the null set can be regarded as a kind of “zero element”, we can propose the almost identical concept for elements in .
Definition 1.
Given any , we say that A and B are “almost identical” if and only if there exist such that . In this case, we write .
For , we cannot have . However, we can have . Indeed, as , by adding B on both sides, we obtain , where . Therefore, .
Proposition 1.
The binary relation is an equivalence relation.
Proof.
The reflexivity and symmetry are obvious. We just claim the transitivity. Suppose that and . There exist , such that and . Therefore, we have
As is closed under the addition, it follows that and the proof is complete. □
As is an equivalence relation, we can obtain the quotient space , where means
It is clear to see that for any . Now, we define
Then, we see that is a zero element of the quotient space satisfying . However, still, the quotient space cannot be a vector space. Given any with and , we see that
in general. Therefore, in general, we also have
which says that cannot be a vector space.
Proposition 2.
The following statements hold true.
- (i)
- If , then .
- (ii)
- If , then there exists , such that .
Proof.
To prove part (i), we have for some , which implies by adding B on both sides. This shows that for .
To prove part (ii), as , we have for some . By adding on both sides, we obtain , where . This completes the proof. □
Proposition 3.
The following statements hold true.
- (i)
- Given any nondegenerated interval, , there exists and with , such that .
- (ii)
- We have . Given any subset of , let . Then, .
- (iii)
- Given any , we have that implies for any . Given any subset of , we have that implies for any .
- (iv)
- Given any , we have or for some .
- (v)
- Given any with , we have for some with and .
- (vi)
- Given any and any with , we have for .
Proof.
To prove part (i), for nondegenerated interval , we can take and . In this case, we have
where .
To prove part (ii), it is obvious that . Now, for any for , we can write for some . Then
where . This says that . Therefore we obtain . On the other hand, we have
Parts (iii)–(vi) are obvious. This completes the proof. □
The following interesting results will be used for discussing the topological structure of normed interval space.
Proposition 4.
Let and be subsets of . Then the following inclusion is satisfied:
If we further assume that and , then the following equality is satisfied:
Proof.
For , we have with for and , which also says that , i.e., .
Under the further assumption, let . Then
for some , and . By part (iv) of Proposition 3, we have or for some . Now, we consider the following cases.
- Assume that . Let . Then , i.e., . In this case, we obtainwhich implies by part (iii) of Proposition 3. This says that , i.e., .
- Assume that . Let . Then , i.e, . In this case, we obtainwhich implies by part (iii) of Proposition 3. This says that , i.e., .
This completes the proof. □
3. Normed Interval Spaces
Many kinds of norms on are proposed below, which will involve the concept of null set.
Definition 2.
Given the non-negative real-valued function , we consider the following conditions.
- (i)
- for any and ;
- (i’)
- for any and with .
- (ii)
- for any .
- (iii)
- implies .
We say that satisfies the null condition when condition (iii) is replaced by if and only if . Different kinds of normed interval spaces are defined below.
- We say that is a pseudo-seminormed interval space if and only if conditions () and (ii) are satisfied.
- We say that is a seminormed interval space if and only if conditions (i) and (ii) are satisfied.
- We say that is a pseudo-normed interval space if and only if conditions (), (ii), and (iii) are satisfied.
- We say that is a normed interval space if and only if conditions (i)–(iii) are satisfied.
Now we consider the following conditions:
- We say that satisfies the null superinequality if and only if for any and .
- We say that satisfies the null sub-inequality if and only if for any and .
- We say that satisfies the null equality if and only if for any and .
Example 1.
Let us define a non-negative real-valued function on by
Then is a normed interval space in which the null condition is satisfied.
Example 2.
Let us define a non-negative real-valued function on by
Then is a seminormed interval space in which the null condition is not satisfied.
Example 3.
Let us define a non-negative real-valued function on by
Then is a seminormed interval space. We only prove that the triangle inequality is satisfied. Given and , we have
On the other hand, since for any , it is clear to see that
Proposition 5.
Let be a pseudo-seminormed interval space such that satisfies the null superinequality. For any , we have
Proof.
We have
This completes the proof. □
4. Open Balls
If is a (conventional) normed space, then we see that
by taking . Let be a seminormed interval space. Then, the following equality,
does not hold. The reason is that, by taking and using (1), we can only have
where . Therefore, we shall define two types of open balls, as follows.
Definition 3.
Let be a pseudo-seminormed interval space. Two types of open balls with radius ϵ are defined by
and
Remark 2.
Let be a pseudo-seminormed interval space. Then, we have some interesting observations.
- For any , the equality does not necessarily hold true, unless satisfies the null condition. In other words, if satisfies the null condition, then . In Example 2, if we define , then the null conditions is not satisfied, which says that for .
- Suppose that . Then , as .
Proposition 6.
Let be a pseudo-seminormed interval space.
- (i)
- For with , we have .
- (ii)
- If satisfies the null sub-inequality, then .
- (iii)
- Suppose that satisfies the null sub-inequality. Then, for any with , we have and .
Proof.
To prove part (i), for any , i.e., , if we take , then and by adding A on both sides. This shows the inclusion
To prove part (ii), for with , since satisfies the null sub-inequality, it follows that
which says that and shows the inclusion
Part (iii) follows from parts (i) and (ii) immediately. This completes the proof. □
Proposition 7.
Let be a pseudo-seminormed interval space.
- (i)
- If satisfies the null superinequality, then for any .
- (ii)
- If satisfies the null sub-inequality, then we have the following inclusionsfor any .
- (iii)
- If satisfies the null equality, then for any .
Proof.
To prove part (i), given any , i.e., , using the null superinequality, we have
which shows and the inclusion .
To prove the first inclusion of part (ii), using the null sub-inequality, the inclusion follows from the following expression,
To prove the second inclusion of part (ii), for with , let . Then, using the null sub-inequality, we have
which says that . Therefore we obtain the inclusion . Part (iii) follows from parts (i) and (ii) immediately. This completes the proof. □
Recall that, in the (conventional) normed space , the open ball is given by
Then, we have the following equality
However, in the normed interval space , the intuitive observation (3) will not hold true in general. The following proposition presents the exact relationship.
Proposition 8.
Let be a pseudo-seminormed interval space.
- (i)
- We have the equalityIn particular, for any , we also have
- (ii)
- Suppose that satisfies the null sub-inequality. Then, we have the inclusionWe further assume that satisfies the null equality. Then, for any , we also have the inclusions
- (iii)
- Suppose that satisfies the null sub-inequality. For any with , we have the inclusion
- (iv)
- For any with , we have the inclusion
Proof.
Part (i) follows from the following equality
To prove part (ii), for , we have with . Then, by (1) and the null sub-inequality, we can obtain
which says that . Therefore, we obtain the inclusion . Now, we take . By part (iii) of Proposition 7, we have
Similarly, if we take , then we have
To prove part (iii), for , we have . The null sub-inequality gives
which says that , i.e.,
To prove part (iv), for , we have . By Equation (1), we also have
This shows that . Let . Since , it says that . In other words, we have the inclusion
This completes the proof. □
Proposition 9.
Let be a pseudo-seminormed interval space.
- (i)
- The following statements hold true.
- Suppose that satisfies the null superinequality. For any , if , then .
- Suppose that satisfies the null sub-inequality. For any , if , then , and if , then .
- Suppose that satisfies the null equality. Then, for any , if and only if .
- (ii)
- We have the inclusionsIf we further assume that satisfies the null sub-inequality, then
- (iii)
- Suppose that satisfies the null condition. Given a fixed , we have and .
- (iv)
- Given any fixed and , we have the following results.
- Suppose that satisfies the null equality. Then .
- Suppose that satisfies the null superinequality, and that . Then .
- (v)
- Given any fixed and , we have
Proof.
The first case of part (i) follows from the following expression,
The second case of part (i) regarding the open ball follows from the following expression,
For the open ball , if , then with . Given an , let . Therefore, we have , where
which says that . The third case of part (i) follows from the previous two cases.
To prove part (ii), as and , we have the inclusions and . On the other hand, for and , from (4), we see that , which shows the inclusion . Also, for with , let . By Equation (5), we have , which shows the inclusion . This proves part (ii).
To prove part (iii), for any , we have , which says that . Therefore, we obtain the inclusion . On the other hand, we also have
which shows that , i.e., .
To prove the first case of part (iv), for , as , we have
i.e., . This shows the inclusion . To prove the second case of part (v), for , we have , i.e.,
As , from part (vi) of Proposition 3, we have for some . Therefore, we obtain
which shows that . Therefore we obtain , which shows the inclusion .
To prove the first inclusion of part (v), for , we have with . It follows that . Let . Then , which shows the inclusion . To prove the second inclusion of part (v), for , we have with . Let . Then
which says that . This completes the proof. □
5. Open Sets
Let be a pseudo-seminormed interval space. We are going to consider the open subsets of .
Definition 4.
Let be a pseudo-seminormed interval space, and let be a nonempty subset of .
- A point, , is said to be ainterior pointof if and only if there exists , such that . The collection of all interior points of is called theinteriorof and is denoted by .
- A point, , is said to be atype-I-interior pointof if and only if there exists , such that . The collection of all type-I-interior points of is called thetype-I-interiorof and is denoted by .
- A point, , is said to be atype-II-interior pointof if and only if there exists , such that . The collection of all type-II-interior points of is called thetype-II-interiorof and is denoted by .
- A point, , is said to be atype-III-interior pointof if and only if there exists , such that . The collection of all type-III-interior points of is called thetype-III-interiorof and is denoted by .
The different types of ⋄-interior points based on the open ball can be similarly defined. For example, denotes the ⋄-type-III-interior of .
Remark 3.
Recall that we cannot have the property in general by Remark 2, unless satisfies the null condition. Given any with , it follows that for . Now, given , it is clear that . Let use take . It means that the open ball is contained in even though the center A is not in .
Remark 4.
From Remark 3, it is possible that there exists an open ball such that is contained in , even though the center A is not in . In this situation, we will not say that A is an interior point, since A is not in . Also, the sets and will not necessarily contain the center A. In other words, it is possible that there exists an open ball such that is contained in , even though the center A is not in . In this situation, we will not say that A is an type-I-interior point, as A is not in . However, we have the following observations.
- Suppose that satisfies the null condition. Then . Since , we also have .
- Suppose that . The second observation of Remark 2 says that . As , it follows that .
Inspired by Remark 4, we can define the different concepts of pseudo-interior point.
Definition 5.
Let be a pseudo-seminormed interval space, and let be a nonempty subset of .
- A point is said to be a pseudo-interior point of if and only if there exists such that . The collection of all pseudo-interior points of is called thepseudo-interiorof and is denoted by .
- A point is said to be a type-I-pseudo-interior point of if and only if there exists such that . The collection of all type-I-pseudo-interior points of is called thetype-I-pseudo-interiorof and is denoted by .
- A point is said to be a type-II-pseudo-interior point of if and only if there exists such that . The collection of all type-II-pseudo-interior points of is called thetype-II-pseudo-interiorof and is denoted by .
- A point is said to be a type-III-pseudo-interior point of if and only if there exists such that . The collection of all type-III-pseudo-interior points of is called the of and is denoted by .
The different types of ⋄-pseudo-interior point based on the open ball can be similarly defined.
Remark 5.
Note that the difference between Definitions 4 and 5 is that we consider in Definition 4 and in Definition 5. From Remark 3, if , then A is a pseudo-interior point of . We also have the following observations.
- It is clear that , , and . The same inclusions can also apply to the different types of ⋄-interior and ⋄-pseudo-interior.
- It is clear that , , and . However, those kinds of inclusions cannot hold true for the pseudo-interior.
- From Remark 2, we have the following observations.
- –
- Suppose that satisfies the null condition. Then the concepts of interior point and the concepts of pseudo-interior point are equivalent, since is in the open ball .
- –
- Suppose that . Then the concepts of ⋄-type of interior point and the concepts of ⋄-type of pseudo-interior point are equivalent, since is in the open ball .
Example 4.
The non-negative real-valued function on is defined by
Then, is a seminormed interval, space such that the null condition is not satisfied. The open balls and with radius are given by
and
- Suppose that . Asit says that .
- Given any , we see that , as .
We consider the following set
For , we see that . For the open ball with radius , we see that
which says that is a pseudo-interior point of .
Remark 6.
From part (ii) of Proposition 9, if satisfies the null sub-inequality, then the concepts of interior point and type-I-interior point are equivalent and the concepts of type-II-interior point and type-III-interior point are equivalent. The same situation also applies to the cases of pseudo-interior points.
Remark 7.
Suppose that satisfies the null sub-inequality. From part (ii) of Proposition 6, we see that if is an interior (resp. type-I-interior, type-II-interior, type-III-interior) point then it is also an ⋄-interior (resp. ⋄-type-I-interior, ⋄-type-II-interior, ⋄-type-III-interior) point. In other words, from Remark 6, we have
and
Regarding the different concepts of pseudo-interior point, we also have
and
Remark 8.
Let be a pseudo-seminormed interval space.
- Suppose that the center is in the open ball . Then, the concepts of interior point and pseudo-interior point are equivalent. It follows that . Similarly, if the center is in the open ball , then .
- From part (ii) of Proposition 9, we have and . Suppose that the center is in the open ball . Let be an type-I-pseudo-interior point of . Asusing Remark 5, we obtainwhich also implies . Similarly, if the center is in the open ball , then .
- Suppose that . We have the following observations. Assume that the center is in the open ball . Let be an type-II-pseudo-interior point of . Aswe obtainwhich also implies . Similarly, if the center is in the open ball , then .
- Suppose that , we have the following observations. From part (ii) of Proposition 9, we have and . Assume that the center is in the open ball . Let be an type-III-pseudo-interior point of . Aswe obtainwhich also implies . Similarly, if the center is in the open ball , then .
Definition 6.
Let be a pseudo-seminormed interval space, and let be a nonempty subset of . The set is said to be open if and only if . The set is said to be type-I-open if and only if . The set is said to be type-II-open if and only if . The set is said to be type-III-open if and only if . We can similarly define the ⋄-open set based on the ⋄-interior. Also, the pseudo-openness can be similarly defined.
We adopt the convention .
Remark 9.
Let be a pseudo-seminormed interval space, and let be a nonempty subset of . We consider the extreme cases of the empty set ∅ and whole set .
- As the empty set ∅ contains no elements, ∅ is open and pseudo-open (we can regard the empty set as an open ball). It is clear that is also open and pseudo-open, since for any open ball , i.e., and .
- As , the empty set ∅ is type-I-open and type-I-pseudo-open. It is clear that is also type-I-open and type-I-pseudo-open, since for any open ball , i.e., and .
- As , ∅ is type-II-open and type-II-pseudo-open. We also see that is an type-II-open and type-II-pseudo-open set, since, for any and any open ball , we have by part (i) of Proposition 3, i.e., and .
- As , ∅ is type-III-open and type-III-pseudo-open. Now, for any and any open ball , we have , which says that , i.e., and . This shows that is type-III-open and type-III-pseudo-open.
We have the above similar results for the types of ⋄-open sets and ⋄-pseudo-open sets.
Proposition 10.
Let be a pseudo-seminormed interval space, and let be a nonempty subset of .
- If is pseudo-open, i.e., , then is also open, i.e., . If , then .
- If , then . If , then .
- If , then . If , then .
- If , then . If , then .
Proof.
If A is an pseudo-interior point, i.e., , then there exists such that . As , it follows that A is also an interior point, i.e., . From the first observation of Remark 5, we obtain the desired result. The remaining cases can be similarly realized, and the proof is complete. □
Proposition 11.
Let be a pseudo-seminormed interval space.
- (i)
- Suppose that satisfies the null superinequality.
- If is any type of pseudo-open, then implies for any .
- If is open, then implies for any .
- If is type-I-open, then implies for any .
- If is type-II-open, then implies for any .
- If is type-III-open, then implies for any .
- (ii)
- Suppose that satisfies the null sub-inequality, and that is any type of pseudo-open.
- implies for any .
- for any and .
- implies for any .
- We have .
- (iii)
- Suppose that satisfies the null sub-inequality, and that is any type of ⋄-pseudo-open. Then implies for any .
Proof.
To prove part (i), suppose that is type-III-pseudo-open set. For , by definition, there exists such that . From part (i) of Proposition 7, we also have , which says that . Now, we assume that is type-III-open. Then . We can also obtain . The other openness can be similarly obtained.
To prove the first case of part (ii), we consider the type-III-pseudo-open sets. If , there exists such that . From part (ii) of Proposition 7, we also have , which shows that .
To prove the second case of part (ii), we consider the type-III-pseudo-open sets. If , then for some . Therefore there exists such that . Since by part (ii) of Proposition 7, we see that , i.e., . Now, for , we see that for some , which implies . Therefore we obtain .
To prove the third case of part (ii), using the second case of part (ii), we have
Using the first case of part (ii), we obtain .
To prove the fourth case of part (ii), as and , it follows that . By the second case of part (ii), we obtain the desired result.
To prove part (iii), from part (ii) of Proposition 7, we have . Therefore, using the similar argument in the proof of part (i), we can obtain the desired results. This completes the proof. □
We remark that the results in Proposition 11 will not be true for any types of open sets. For example, in the proof of part (i), the inclusion can just say that , as we do not know whether is in or not.
Proposition 12.
Let be a pseudo-seminormed interval space.
- (i)
- Suppose that satisfies the null condition.
- We have . In particular, if is open or type-I-open, then .
- We have .
Moreover the concept of (resp. type-I, type-II, type-III) open set is equivalent to the concept of (resp. type-I, type-II, type-III) pseudo-open set. - (ii)
- Suppose that satisfies the null sub-inequality. Then,In particular, if is type-II-pseudo-open or type-III-pseudo-open, then .
Proof.
To prove the first case of part (i), for any , there exists an open ball such that . As , by the first observation of Remark 2, we have . This shows . Using Remark 6, we obtain the desired results.
To prove the second case of part (i), for any , there exists an open ball such that . Then we have , since . This shows . Using Remark 6, we obtain the desired results. From Remark 5, we see that the concept of (resp. type-I, type-II, type-III) open set is equivalent to the concept of (resp. type-I, type-II, type-III) pseudo-open set.
To prove part (ii), for any , we have for some and . By definition, we see that for every . By part (ii) of Proposition 7, we also have for every . This says that A is not an type-II-pseudo-interior point of , i.e., . This completes the proof. □
Proposition 13.
Let be a pseudo-seminormed interval space.
- (i)
- is ⋄-open, ⋄-type-II-open, and ⋄-type-III-open. We also have the inclusions , , and .
- (ii)
- is open, type-II-open, and type-III-open. We also have the inclusions , , and .
- (iii)
- Suppose that satisfies the null sub-inequality. Then is ⋄-type-I-open and is type-I-open. We also have the inclusions , and .
Proof.
To prove part (i), for any , we have with . Let . For any , i.e., with , we obtain and
which means that , i.e.,
This shows that . Therefore, we obtain . We can similarly obtain the inclusion . However, we cannot have the equality , as is not necessarily contained in . From (6), we have . This says that is ⋄-type-III-open. On the other hand, from (6) and part (ii) of Proposition 9, we also have
This shows that is ⋄-type-II-open.
To prove part (ii), for any , we have . Let . For any , we have . Therefore, by Proposition 5, we obtain
which means that , i.e.,
This shows that . Therefore, we obtain . We can similarly obtain the inclusion . From (7), we have . This says that is type-III-open. On the other hand, from (7) and part (ii) of Proposition 9, we also have
This shows that is type-II-open.
This shows that is ⋄-type-I-open, and that is type-I-open. We complete the proof. □
Proposition 14.
Let be a pseudo-seminormed interval space. Suppose that the center is in the open balls and . The following statements hold true.
- (i)
- is pseudo-open and ⋄-pseudo-open.
- (ii)
- Suppose that satisfies the null sub-inequality. Then, is type-I-pseudo-open, type-II-pseudo-open and type-III-pseudo-open.
- (iii)
- Suppose that satisfies the null sub-inequality. Then, is ⋄-type-I-pseudo-open, ⋄-type-II-pseudo-open and ⋄-type-III-pseudo-open.
Proof.
The results follow from Proposition 13, Remark 8 and part (ii) of Proposition 9 immediately. □
6. Topoloigcal Spaces
Now, we are in a position to investigate the topological structure generated by the pseudo-seminormed interval space based on the different kinds of openness. We denote by and the set of all open and ⋄-open subsets of , respectively, and by and the set of all pseudo-open and ⋄-pseudo-open subsets of , respectively. We denote by and the set of all type-I-open and ⋄-type-I-open subsets of , respectively, and by and the set of all type-I-pseudo-open and ⋄-type-I-pseudo-open subsets of , respectively. We can similarly define the families , , , , , , and .
Proposition 15.
Let be a pseudo-seminormed interval space.
- (i)
- and are topological spaces.
- (ii)
- Suppose that each open ball contains the center . Then is a topological space.
- (iii)
- Suppose that each open ball contains the center . Then is a topological space.
Proof.
To prove part (i), by the second observation of Remark 9, we see that and . Let , where are type-I-open sets for all . For , we have for all . Then, there exists such that for all . Let . Then for all , which says that , i.e., . Therefore the intersection is type-I-open by Remark 5. On the other hand, let . Then, implies that for some . This says that for some , i.e., . Therefore, the union is type-I-open. This shows that is a topological space. For the case of ⋄-type-I-open subsets of , we can similarly obtain the desired result. Parts (ii) and (iii) follow from Remark 8 and part (i) immediately. This completes the proof. □
We remark that Remark 2 shows the sufficient conditions for the open balls and containing the center A.
Proposition 16.
Let be a pseudo-seminormed interval space.
- (i)
- and are topological spaces.
- (ii)
- Suppose that each open ball contains the center . Then, is a topological space.
- (iii)
- Suppose that each open ball contains the center . Then, is a topological space.
Proof.
The empty set ∅ and are open by the first observation of Remark 9. The remaining proof follows from the similar argument of Proposition 15 without considering the null set . □
Let be a pseudo-seminormed interval space. We consider the following families,
and
We can similarly define and . Then, , , , and . We can also similarly define , , , and regarding the pseudo-openness. Then, , , , and . Suppose that satisfies the null sub-inequality.
Proposition 17.
Let be a pseudo-seminormed interval space. Suppose that satisfies the null sub-inequality. Then,
Proof.
The results follow from Remark 6 and part (ii) of Proposition 11 immediately. □
Proposition 18.
Let be a pseudo-seminormed interval space.
- (i)
- and are topological spaces.
- (ii)
- The following statements hold true.
- Suppose that each open ball contains the center A. Then, is a topological space.
- Suppose that each open ball contains the center A. Then, is a topological space.
Proof.
To prove part (i), given , let . For , we have for . Then, there exist such that for all . Let . Then
for all , which says that
by Proposition 4. This shows that is type-II-open. For , we have for some and . Since , it follows that and , which says that , i.e., . This shows that is indeed in . Therefore, the intersection of finitely many members of is a member of .
Now, given a family , let . Then, implies that for some . This says that
for some . Therefore, the union A is type-II-open. For , we have , where , i.e., for some . It also says that , i.e., . This shows that is indeed in . By the third observation of Remark 9, we see that ∅ and are also type-II-open. It is obvious that and , which shows that . Therefore, is indeed a topological space. The above arguments are also valid for .
Part (ii) follows immediately from the third observation of Remark 8 and part (i). This completes the proof. □
Proposition 19.
Let be a pseudo-seminormed interval space.
- (i)
- and are topological spaces.
- (ii)
- The following statements hold true.
- Suppose that each open ball contains the center A. Then is a topological space.
- Suppose that each open ball contains the center A. Then is a topological space.
Proof.
To prove part (i), by the fourth observation of Remark 9, it is clear to see that . As and , it follows that . Given , let . For , there exist such that for all . Let . Then,
for all , which says that
by Proposition 4. This shows that is type-III-open. From the proof of Proposition 18, we also see that . Therefore, the intersection of finitely many members of is a member of .
Now, given a family , let . Then, implies that for some . This says that
for some . Therefore, the union is type-III-open. From the proof of Proposition 18, we also see that , i.e., . This shows that is indeed a topological space. The above arguments are also valid for .
Part (ii) follows immediately from the fourth observation of Remark 8 and part (i). This completes the proof. □
Proposition 20.
Let be a pseudo-seminormed interval space. Suppose that satisfies the null sub-inequality. If each open ball contains the center A, then is a topological space.
Proof.
By the third observation of Remark 9, we see that . Given , let . We want to show . For , we have for . There exist such that for all . Let . Then for , which says that, using part (ii) of Proposition 11,
This shows that , i.e., by Remark 5. On the other hand, for , using part (ii) of Proposition 11, we have
We can similarly obtain , i.e., . This shows that . Therefore, we conclude that the intersection of finitely many members of is a member of .
Now, given a family , let . Then implies that for some . This says that
for some . Therefore, we obtain . On the other hand, for , we have
by part (ii) of Proposition 11. This shows that , i.e., . Therefore, by Remark 6, we conclude that is a topological space. This completes the proof. □
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank the reviewers for suggesting the useful comments.
Conflicts of Interest
The author declares no conflicts of interest.
References
- Alefeld, G.; Herzberger, J. Introduction to Interval Computations; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 1983. [Google Scholar]
- Eijgenraam, P. The Solution of Initial Value Problems Using Interval Arithmetic; Mathematisch Centrum: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1981. [Google Scholar]
- Moore, R.E. Interval Analysis; Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1966. [Google Scholar]
- Moore, R.E. Method and Applications of Interval Analysis; SIAM: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 1979. [Google Scholar]
- Neumaier, A. Interval Methods for Systems of Equations; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar]
- Wu, H.-C. The Karush-Kuhn-Tucker Optimality Conditions in Multiobjective Programming Problem with Multiple Interval-Valued Objective Functions. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2009, 196, 49–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, H.-C. Duality Theory in Interval-Valued Linear Programming Problems. J. Optim. Theory Appl. 2011, 150, 298–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, H.-C. Interval-Valued Cores and Interval-Valued Dominance Cores of Cooperative Games Endowed with Interval-Valued Payoffs. Mathematics 2018, 6, 255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, H.-C. Solving the Interval-Valued Optimization Problems Based on the Concept of Null Set. J. Ind. Manag. Optim. 2018, 14, 1157–1178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, H.-C. Hahn–Banach Theorems in Normed Interval Spaces. Nonlinear Anal. 2010, 72, 469–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rådström, H. An Embedding Theorem for Spaces of Convex Sets. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 1952, 3, 165–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
© 2019 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).