Keywords
P MS-algebras, derivations, generalized derivation, torsion free P MS-algebra, semigroup
PMS-algebras are a specific algebraic structure that generalizes a propositional algebra called BCK-algebra. This paper delves into the intricate group structure of these algebras and the concept of derivations within this framework.
We employ rigorous mathematical techniques to analyze the properties of derivations in P MS-algebras. This involves examining various characteristics of derivations and investigating their behavior in specific subcategories, such as torsion-free P MS-algebras.
Our research reveals several key findings. Firstly, we establish that the set of all derivations associated with the binary operation defined on a P MS-algebra constitutes a semigroup. Secondly, we provide a comprehensive analysis of generalized derivations, d-invariant ideals, fixed sets, and torsion-free P MS-algebras within the context of P MS-algebras.
This study contributes to a deeper understanding of the algebraic structure of P MS-algebras and the role of derivations within this context. The findings presented here have implications for further research in abstract algebra and related fields.
P MS-algebras, derivations, generalized derivation, torsion free P MS-algebra, semigroup
Iseki1 introduced a type of abstract algebra known as BCK-algebras. In a subse- quent publication, Iseki2 introduced another class of algebra called BCI-algebras, which can be seen as a generalization of BCK-algebras. Iseki studied some properties of BCI-algebras. Tamalibrasi and Megalai3 introduced T M-algebras based on propositional calculus. Mostafa et al.4 introduced the concepts of KUS-algebras, KUS-ideals, and KUS-subalgebras, and investigated their relationships. Selvam and Nagalakshmi5 introduced an algebraic structure called PMS-algebra, which generalizes the notions of BCK/BCI/TM/KUS-algebras. They also explored additional properties of PMS-algebras and their ideals.
Derivations are an important research area in algebraic structure theory, developed from the concepts of Galois theory and invariant theory. Derivations are a crucial research area in the theory of algebraic structures in mathematics. The ring with derivation is an ancient concept that significantly integrates analysis, algebraic geometry, and algebra. Jun and Xin6 extended the concept of derivations in ring and near-ring theory to BCI algebras and related properties. Ganeshkumar and Chandramouleeswaran7 derivations and generalized derivations on TM algebras were studied. Also, Kim and Lee8 introduced the notion of derivations on BE algebras and studied their properties. Furthermore, Jana et al.9 introduced derivations, generalized, and f-derivations and characterized their properties on KUS algebras. Sawika et al.10 studied the notions of (l, r)-derivations and derivations of UP-algebras, and their properties were investigated. Recently, by Rong et al.,11 the properties of derivations on FI-algebras and the relationship between derivations and ideals were investigated. Sugianti et al.12 introduced the notion of a (l, r)-derivation, a (r, l)-derivation, and derivation in BM-algebras and investigated related properties. Ganesan and Kandaraj13 studied the idea of generalized derivations of BH-algebras and characterized new properties based on the context of BH-algebras in their work. Additionally, Muangkarn et al.14 studied the derivations of d-algebras based on endomorphisms.
This paper focuses on introducing the fundamental concepts of derivations in PMS-algebras, exploring the properties of generalized derivations, and providing a definition of torsion-free PMS-algebras. The study also investigates the properties of a d-invariant ideal and establishes conditions for its existence.
In this section, we will address the concepts and basic properties of PMS-algebras that we need for the main results in the next sections. These concepts are taken from Selvam and Nagalakshmi.5
5 A PMS-algebra is an algebra (X; ⋆, 0) of type (2, 0) with a constant “0” and a binary operation “⋆” satisfying the following axioms:
In X, we define a binary relation “≤” by a ≤ b if and only if a ⋆ b = 0.
5 In a PMS-algebra (X; ⋆, 0) the following properties hold for all a, b, c ∈ X.
5 Let S be a nonempty subset of a PMS-algebra (X; ⋆, 0). Then S is called a PMS-subalgebra of X if a*b ∈ S for all a, b ∈ S.
5 Consider (Z; ⋆, 0) where a ⋆ b = b - a for all a, b X. Then (Z; ⋆, 0) is a PMS-algebra, and the set E of even integers is a PMS-subalgebra of Z.
5 Let X be a PMS-algebra and I be a subset of X. Then I is called a PMS-ideal of X if
5 Let X be a PMS-algebra. The set is called the G-part of X.
Let X be a PMS-algebra. The set is called the p-radical of X.
5 A PMS-algebra X is said to be Medial if (a ⋆ b) ⋆ (c ⋆ d) = (a ⋆ c) ⋆ (b ⋆ d) for all a, b, c, d ∈ X.
In this section, we will obtain an abelian group from a PMS-algebra by defining binary operations on it. Moreover, we introduce derivations and similarly the basic properties of derivations on PMS-algebras.
Let (X; ⋆, 0) be a PMS-algebra. If b ⋆ a = c ⋆ a, then b = c for all a, b, c ∈ X.
Let b ⋆ a = c ⋆ a.
Now b = 0 ⋆ b = (a ⋆ a) ⋆ b = (b ⋆ a) ⋆ a = (c ⋆ a) ⋆ a = (a ⋆ a) ⋆ c = 0 ⋆ c = c.
Let (X, ⋆, 0) be a PMS-algebra and define ′′+′′ as a + b = (b ⋆ 0) ⋆ a, ∀a, b ∈ X. Then the following holds:
1. a + 0 = (0 ⋆ 0) ⋆ a = 0 ⋆ a = a and 0 + a = (a ⋆ 0) ⋆ 0 = (0 ⋆ 0) ⋆ a = 0 ⋆ a = a.
Hence a + 0 = a = 0 + a.
2. By applying the definition of “+” and by simplifying, we get the result.
3. a + b = 0 (b ⋆ 0) ⋆ a = a ⋆ a, by applying right cancellation we get a = b ⋆ 0.
4. a + b = (b ⋆ 0) ⋆ a = (a ⋆ 0) ⋆ b = b + a.
5. a + (a ⋆ 0) = ((a ⋆ 0) ⋆ 0) ⋆ a = (a ⋆ 0) ⋆ (a ⋆ 0) = a ⋆ a = 0.
Hence a ⋆ 0 is the inverse of a.
Let (X; ⋆, 0) be a PMS-algebra. Define a + b = (b⋆0) ⋆ a and -a = (a⋆0). Then (X, +) is an abelian group.
If we have a PMS-algebra (X, ⋆, 0) it follows from the above definition that (X, +) is an abelian group with -b = b ⋆ 0, b X. Then we have b - a = a ⋆ b, ∀ a, b ∈ X. On the other hand if we have an abelian group (X, +) with an identity “0” and define a ⋆ b = b - a, we get a PMS-algebra (X, ⋆, 0), where a + b = (b ⋆ 0) ⋆ a, a, b X.
Let (X, ⋆, 0) be a PMS-algebra as shown in Cayley Table 1.
Define a + b = (b ⋆ 0) ⋆ a
Then (X, +) is an abelian group as shown in Table 2.
Let (X; ⋆, 0) be a PMS-algebra. Define a binary operation“∧” on X by x ∧ y = (x ⋆ y) ⋆ y for all x, y ∈ X.
Let (X; ⋆, 0) be a PMS-algebra. A self-map d: X X is said to be a (left, right)-derivation of X, denoted by, (l, r)-derivation if d(x ⋆ y) = (d(x) ⋆ y) ∧ (x ⋆ d(y)) for all x, y ∈ X.
Consider the PMS-algebra X = {0, 1, 2, 3} as shown in Table 3:
Then the self-map d: X X defined by d(0) = 3, d(1) = 2, d(2) = 1 and d(3) = 0 is a (l, r)-derivation on X.
Let d: X X be a (l, r)-derivation on X. Then d(x ⋆ y) = d(x) ⋆ y for all x, y X.
Let (X; ⋆, 0) be a PMS-algebra. A self-map d: X X is said to be a (right, left)-derivation of X, denoted by, (r, l)-derivation if d(x ⋆ y) = (x ⋆ d(y)) (d(x) ⋆ y) for all x, y X.
Let X be the PMS-algebra defined in the above example 3, the self-map d: X X defined by d(0) = 1, d(1) = 0, d(2) = 3 and d(3) = 2 is a (r, l)-derivation on X.
Let d: X X be a (r, l)-derivation on X. Then d(x ⋆ y) = x ⋆ d(y) for all x, y ∈ X.
Let d: X X be a self-map on a PMS-algebra (X; ⋆, 0). Then the self-map d is said to be a derivation on X if d is both a (l, r)-derivation and a (r, l)-derivation on X.
Let (Z; ⋆, 0) be a PMS-algebra with x ⋆ y = y − x. Then the map d: Z → Z defined
Let d: X→ X be a derivation on X. Then d(x ⋆ y) = d(x) ⋆y = x ⋆ d(y) for all x, y ∈ X.
Let (X; ⋆, 0) be a PMS-algebra, and d: X→ X be a (l, r) -derivation. If y ≤ x, then d(x) = d(y) for all x, y ∈ X.
Let (X; ⋆, 0) be a PMS-algebra. A self-map d on X is said to be regular if d(0) = 0.
Let X be the PMS-algebra defined as in Example 3. The self-map d: X→ X defined by d(0) = 0, d(1) = 1, d(2) = 2, d(3) = 3 is a regular derivation.
Let (X; ⋆, 0) be a PMS-algebra. If d: X→ X is a regular (l, r)-derivation, then d(x) ≤ x for all x ∈ X.
Suppose d is a regular (l, r)-derivation on X. Then d(0) = d(x ⋆ x) implies d(x) ⋆ x = 0. Thus d(x) ≤ x.
Let (X, ⋆, 0) be a PMS-algebra. If d: X→ X be a regular (r, l)-derivation, then x ≤ d(x) for all x ∈ X.
Suppose d is a regular (r, l)-derivation on X. Then d(0) = d(x ⋆ x) implies that x ⋆ d(x) = 0. Thus x ≤ d(x).
Let (X; ⋆, 0) a PMS-algebra and d: X X be a (l, r)-derivation. Then d is regular if and only if d(x) = x.
Let d be a derivation on X. Suppose that d(0) = 0.
Therefore, d(x) = x.
Conversely, assume that d(x) = x, x X.
In particular, d(0) = 0. Hence d is regular.
Let G(X) be the G-part of a PMS-algebra X and d be a (l, r)-derivation on X. Then d(x) ∈ G(X), ∀x ∈ G(X).
Let B(X) be the P-radical of a PMS-algebra X and d be a (l, r)-derivation on B(X). Then d is regular.
Let (X; ⋆, 0) be a PMS-algebra and d: X X be a (l, r)-derivation. Then
Let (X; ⋆, 0) be a PMS-algebra and d: X X be a (r, l)-derivation. Then
Let d be a self-map of a PMS-algebra X.
Let d be a (r, l)-derivation on a PMS-algebra X. Then
1. d(0) = d(x ⋆ x) = x ⋆ d(x) Because d is a (r, l)-derivation on X.
2. Let x, y ∈ X and d(x) = d(y).
From (1) and (2) we have by x ⋆ d(x) = y ⋆ d(y) implies that x ⋆ d(x) = y ⋆ d(x). Hence by right cancellation we have x = y.
Therefore d is a one to one map.
3. Let x ∈ X such that d(x) = x.
Let y ∈ X be any element of X. Then y = 0 ⋆ y = (x ⋆ x) ⋆ y = (y ⋆ x) ⋆ x. Then
Hence, d(x) = x, ∀x∈X.
This proves that d is the identity map on X.
4. Given d(y) ⋆ x = 0 implies that d(y) ⋆ x = x ⋆ x, and hence by right cancellation we have d(y) = x.
Let (X; ⋆, 0) be a PMS-algebra. If d is a (r, l)-derivation on X, then x ⋆ d(x) = y ⋆ d(y) ∀x, y ∈ X.
Let X be a PMS-algebra and d be a regular (l, r)-derivation on X. Then Ker d = {x ∈ X: d(x) = 0} is a PMS-subalgebra of X.
Since d is a regular, d(0) = 0.
Hence 0 ∈ Ker d. It follows that Ker d .
Let x, y ∈ Ker d. Then d(x) = 0,
Hence x ⋆ y ∈ Ker d.
Therefore Ker d is a PMS-subalgebra of X.
Let d be a (r, l)-derivation on a PMS-algebra X. If x ≤ y and x ∈ Ker d, then y ∈ Ker d.
Let x≤y and x∈Ker d. Then x ⋆ y = 0 and d(x) = 0.
Now d(y) = d(0 ⋆ y) = d((x ⋆ y) ⋆ y) = d((y ⋆ y) ⋆ x) = d(0 ⋆ x) = d(x) = 0. Hence y ∈ Ker d.
Let X be medial of a PMS-algebra and d be a regular (l, r)-derivation on X. Then Ker d is a PMS-ideal of X.
Let z ⋆ x Ker d and z ⋆ y Ker d. Then d(z ⋆ x) = 0 and d(z ⋆ y) = 0. Now
Hence x ⋆ y ∈ Ker d
Therefore Ker d is a PMS-ideal of X.
Let X be a PMS-algebra and d be a (l, r)-derivation on X. Then Ker d = {0} if and only if d is regular.
Suppose that Ker d = {0}.
Let x ∈ Ker d. Then d(x) = 0, ∀x ∈ X in particular d(0) = 0. Hence d is regular.
Conversely, assume that d is regular Let x ∈ Ker d. Then d(x) = 0.
Now 0 = d(0) = d(x ⋆ x) = d(x) ⋆ x = 0 ⋆ x = x. Hence, x = 0
Thus Ker d = {0}.
Let X be a PMS-algebra and d: X→ X be a derivation of X. Define is called the fixed set of X.
Let (X; ⋆, 0) be a PMS-algebra and d be a (l, r)-derivation on X. Then Fixd(X) is a PMS-subalgebra of X.
Since 0 ∈ X, and d(0) = 0. Hence 0 ∈ Fixd(X). It follows that Fixd(X) .
Let x, y ∈ Fixd(X). Then d(x) = x and d(y) = y.
Hence d(x ⋆ y) = x ⋆ y implies that x ⋆ y ∈ Fixd(X). Therefore, Fixd(X) is a PMS-subalgebra of X.
Let d be a (r, l)-derivation on a PMS-algebra X. If x ≤ y and y ∈ Fixd(X), then x ∈ Fixd(X).
Let X be a medial PMS-algebra and d be a (r, l)-derivation on X. Then Fixd(X) is a PMS-ideal of X.
Let X be a PMS-algebra and d be a (r, l)-derivation on X. If y≤x and d(x) = x, then d(y) = y.
d(y) = d(0 ⋆ y) = d((x ⋆ x) ⋆ y) = d((y ⋆ x) ⋆ x) = (y ⋆ x) ⋆ d(x) = (y ⋆ x) ⋆ x = (x ⋆ x) ⋆ y = 0 ⋆ y = y.
Let X be a PMS-algebra. A self-map d on X is said to be an isotone if x≤y implies that d(x) ≤d(y) for all x, y∈X.
Let X be a PMS-algebra and d be a regular (l, r)-derivation on X. Then the following properties are equivalent:
Suppose that d is an isotone (l, r)-derivation on X. Let x, y∈X such that x≤y. Then we have d(x ⋆ y) = d(0) = 0. Since d is isotone, we get d(x) ⋆ d(y) = 0. Now
Therefore, d(x ⋆ y) = d(x) ⋆ y.
Assume that x ≤ y implies d(x ⋆ y) = d(x) ⋆ y. Let x, y∈X such that x ≤ y. Now
Hence, d(x) ⋆ d(y) = 0 implies that d(x) ≤ d(y).
Therefore, d is an isotone derivation on X.
Let LDer(X) be the set of all (l, r)-derivations on X. Define a binary operation “∧” on LDer(X) by (d1 ∧ d2)(x) = d1(x) ∧ d2(x) for all x ∈ X, where d1, d2 ∈ LDer(X).
If d1 and d2 are (l, r)-derivations on X, then (d1 d2) is also a (l, r) derivation on X. Proof.
From (5) and (6) we have (d1 ∧ d2)(x ⋆ y) = (d1 ∧ d2)(x) ⋆ y. Hence, (d1 ∧ d2) (l, r)-derivation.
The binary operation “∧” defined on LDer(X) is associative. Proof. Let X be a PMS-algebra.
Let d1, d2, d3 be (l, r)-derivations on X. Now
From (7) and (8) we have (d1 ∧ d2) ∧ d3)(x) = d1 ∧ (d2 ∧ d3)(x), ∀x ∈ X. Hence “∧” is associative.
Combining the above two lemmas we get following theorem.
LDer(X) is a semigroup under the binary operation defined by (d1 ∧ d2)(x) = d1(x)∧d2(x) ∀x∈X, where d1,d2∈LDer(X).
Let RDer(X) be the set of all (l, r)-derivations on X. Define a binary operation “∧” on RDer(X) by (d1 ∧ d2)(x) = d1(x) ∧ d2(x) for all x ∈ X, where d1, d2 ∈ RDer(X).
If d1 and d2 are (r, l)-derivations on X, then (d1∧d2) is also a (r, l)-derivation on X.
Let d1 and d2 are (r, l)-derivations on X. Then
From (9) and (10) we have (d1 ∧ d2)(x ⋆ y) = x ⋆ (d1 ∧ d2)(y). Hence, (d1 ∧ d2) (l, r)-derivation on X.
The binary operation “∧” defined on RDer(X) is associative.
Let X be a PMS-algebra.
Let d1, d2, d3 be (r, l)-derivations on X.
From (11) and (12) we have (d1 ∧ d2) ∧ d3) = d1 ∧ (d2 ∧ d3). Combining the above two lemmas we get following theorem.
RDer(X) is a semigroup under the binary composition defined by (d1 ∧ d2)(x) = d1(x) ∧ d2(x) ∀x ∈ X and d1, d2 ∈ RDer(X).
Let (X; ⋆, 0) be a PMS-algebra and d1, d2 be (l, r)-derivations on X. Then the composition (d1 ◦ d2) is a (l, r)-derivation on X.
(d1 ◦ d2)(x⋆ y) = d1(d2(x⋆ y)) = d1(d2(x) ⋆ y) = d1(d2(x)) ⋆ y = (d1 ◦ d2)(x) ⋆ y. Hence, (d1 ◦ d2) is a (l, r)-derivation on X.
Let (X; ⋆, 0) be a PMS-algebra and d1, d2 be (r, l)-derivations on X. Then the composition (d1 ◦ d2) is a (r, l)-derivation on X.
(d1 ◦ d2)(x⋆ y) = d1(d2(x⋆ y)) = d1(x⋆ d2(y)) = x⋆ d1(d2(y)) = x⋆ (d1 ◦ d2)(y). Hence, (d1 ◦ d2) is a (r, l)-derivation on X.
Let (X; ⋆, 0) be a PMS-algebra and d1, d2 be derivations on X. Then the composition (d1 ◦ d2) is also a derivation on X.
Let (X; ⋆, 0) be a PMS-algebra and d1, d2 be derivations on X. Then d1 ◦ d2 = d2 ◦ d1.
Given d1, d2 be derivation on X. Then d1, d2 are both (l, r) and (r, l)-derivations on X. Now
From (13) and (14) we have (d1 ◦ d2)(x) = (d2 ◦ d1)(x). Therefore, d1 ◦ d2 = d2 ◦ d1.
Let X be a PMS-algebra and d be a regular (l, r)-derivation on X. Define d2(x) = d(d(x)) for all x ∈ X. Then d2 = d.
Let (X; ⋆, 0) be a PMS-algebra. Let d1, d2 be self-maps on X. We define (d1 ⋆ d2): X→ X as (d1 ⋆ d2)(x) = d1(x) ⋆ d2(x) ∀x ∈ X.
Let (X; ⋆, 0) be a PMS-algebra and d1, d2 be derivations on X. Then d1 ⋆ d2 = d2 ⋆ d1.
From (15) and (16) we have d1(0) ⋆ d2(x) = d2(0) ⋆ d1(x) implies that (d1 ⋆ d2)(x) = (d2 ⋆ d1)(x), ∀x ∈ X.
Hence d1 ⋆ d2 = d2 ⋆ d1.
Let d a self-map on PMS-algebra of X. A PMS-ideal I of X is said to be d-invariant if d(I) ⊆ I, where d(I) = {d(x): x ∈ I}.
Let d be a derivation on a PMS-algebra X. Then d is regular if and only if every PMS-ideal of X is d-invariant.
Suppose that d be a regular derivation.
Let y ∈ d(I). Then y = d(x) for some x ∈ I. Now y ⋆ x = d(x) ⋆ x = x ⋆ x = 0, since d is regular d(x) = x and hence y ⋆ x ∈ I as 0 ∈ I.
y = 0 ⋆ y = (x ⋆ x) ⋆ y = (y ⋆ x) ⋆ x ∈ I, since x ∈ I and y ⋆ x ∈ I. Thus, y ∈ I implies that d(I) ⊆ I.
Conversely, assume that every ideal of X is d-invariant, then d(0) ⊆ 0, and hence d(0) = 0.
Therefore, d is regular.
Let X be a PMS-algebra. A mapping D: X X is called a generalized (l, r)-derivation on X if there exists a (l, r)-derivation d: X X such that D(x ⋆ y) = (D(x) ⋆ y) (x ⋆ d(y), x, y X.
Let X be a PMS-algebra. A mapping D: X X is called a generalized (r, l)-derivation on X if there exists a (r, l)-derivation d: X X such that D(x ⋆ y) = (x ⋆ D(y)) (d(x) ⋆ y) for all x, y X.
Let X be a PMS-algebra. A mapping D: X X is called a generalized derivation on X, if there exists a derivation d: X X such that D is both a generalized (l, r)-derivation and a generalized (r, l)-derivation on X.
Consider the PMS-algebra X = {0, 1, 2, 3, 4} as shown in Table 4:
⋆ | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
1 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
2 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
3 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 1 |
4 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 0 |
Define a self-map d: X X by d(0) = 3, d(1) = 4, d(2) = 0, d(3) = 1, d(4) = 2.
Then d is a (r, l)-derivation on X. But d is not an (l, r)-derivation on X.
Define a map D: X X by D(0) = 1, D(1) = 2, D(2) = 3, D(3) = 4, D(4) = 0.
Then D satisfies the equality, D(x ⋆ y) = (x ⋆ D(y)) ∧ (d(x) ⋆ y) for all x, y∈X. Thus D is a generalized (r, l)-derivation on X. But D is not a (l, r)-derivation on X.
Let (X; ⋆, 0) be the PMS-algebra as shown in Cayley Table 5.
A self-map d: X X be defined by d(0) = 3, d(1) = 2, d(2) = 1, d(3) = 0.
Then d is a derivation on X.
Define a map D: X X by D(0) = 2, D(1) = 3, D(2) = 0, D(3) = 1. D satisfies the equality, D(x ⋆ y) = (D(x) ⋆ y) (x ⋆ d(y)) for all x, y X and D(x ⋆ y) = (x ⋆ D(y)) (d(x) ⋆ y) for all x, y X. Thus D is a generalized derivation on X.
Let D be a self-map on a PMS-algebra X. Then the following holds true.
Let D be a generalized (r, l)-derivation on a PMS-algebra X. Then
Let D be a generalized (l, r)-derivation on a PMS algebra X. Then
A PMS-algebra X is said to be torsion-free if x = 0 whenever x + x = 0, x X.
Let (X, ⋆, 0) be the PMS-algebra as shown in Cayley Table 6.
⋆ | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
1 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
2 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
3 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 1 |
4 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 0 |
0 + 0 = 0
1 + 1 = (1 ⋆ 0) ⋆ 1 = 4 ⋆ 1 = 2
2 + 2 = (2 ⋆ 0) ⋆ 2 = 3 ⋆ 2 = 4
3 + 3 = (3 ⋆ 0) ⋆ 3 = 2 ⋆ 3 = 1
4 + 4 = (4 ⋆ 0) ⋆ 4 = 1 ⋆ 4 = 3
Thus X is a Torsion-free PMS-algebra.
Let X be a Torsion-free PMS-algebra and let D1 and D2 be two generalized derivations on X. If D1 ◦ D2 = 0 on X, then D2 = 0 on X.
Hence D2(x) + D2(x) = 0.
Since X is a Torsion-free, D2(x) = 0, ∀x ∈ X. Thus D2 = 0 on X.
Let X be a Torsion-free PMS-algebra and D be a generalized derivation on X. If D2 = 0 on X, then D = 0 on X.
Derivation is a crucial research area in the field of algebraic structure in mathematics. The derivations on PMS-algebras were applied, and further properties of the derivations on PMS-algebras were discussed. The study focused on generalized derivations in PMS-algebras, including regular derivations, fixed set derivations, and composition of derivations. We demonstrated that the set of all derivations on a PMS-algebra X forms a semigroup under a suitable binary composition. The definitions and main results can be applied to other algebraic systems and to computational physics and computer sciences. Further research is needed to explore the application of these concepts in computer science for information processing, and derivations have also been employed in coding theory. This idea may extend to other algebraic structures.
Views | Downloads | |
---|---|---|
F1000Research | - | - |
PubMed Central
Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.
|
- | - |
Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?
Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?
Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?
Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?
Not applicable
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?
No source data required
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?
Yes
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Reviewer Expertise: Fuzzy algebra, Neutrosophic Sets, Fuzzy Decision Making, Topology
Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?
Yes
Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?
Yes
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?
Yes
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?
Not applicable
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?
No source data required
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?
Yes
Competing Interests: No competing interests were disclosed.
Reviewer Expertise: Fuzzy algebras, algebraic coding theory, Abstract algebras, Fuzzy coding theory, cryptography and fuzzy modeling.
Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:
Invited Reviewers | ||
---|---|---|
1 | 2 | |
Version 1 13 Jan 25 |
read | read |
Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list:
Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles
Already registered? Sign in
The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000.
You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password.
To sign in, please click here.
If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here.
You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password.
To sign in, please click here.
If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here.
If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password.
If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance.
Comments on this article Comments (0)