 Research
 Open access
 Published:
Intervalvalued fuzzy \(\phi\)tolerance competition graphs
SpringerPlus volume 5, Article number: 1981 (2016)
Abstract
This paper develops an intervalvalued fuzzy \(\phi\)tolerance competition graphs which is the extension of basic fuzzy graphs and \(\phi\) is any real valued function. Intervalvalued fuzzy \(\phi\)tolerance competition graph is constructed by taking all the fuzzy sets of a fuzzy \(\phi\)tolerance competition graph as intervalvalued fuzzy sets. Product of two IVFPTCGs and relations between them are defined. Here, some hereditary properties of products of intervalvalued fuzzy \(\phi\)tolerance competition graphs are represented. Application of intervalvalued fuzzy competition graph in image matching is given to illustrate the model.
Background
Graphs can be considered as the bonding of objects. To emphasis on a real problem, those objects are being bonded by some relations such as, friendship is the bonding of pupil. If the vagueness in bonding arises, then the corresponding graph can be modelled as fuzzy graph model. There are many research available in literature like Bhutani and Battou (2003) and Bhutani and Rosenfeld (2003).
Competition graph was defined in Cohen (1968). In ecology, there is a problem of food web which is modelled by a digraph \(\overrightarrow{D}=(V,\overrightarrow{E})\). In food web there is a competition between species (members of food web). A vertex \(x\in V(\overrightarrow{D})\) represents a species in the food web and arc \(\overrightarrow{(x,s)}\in \overrightarrow{E}(\overrightarrow{D})\) means that x kills the species s. If two species x and y have common prey s, they will compete for s. Based on this analogy, Cohen (1968) defined a graph model (competition graph of a digraph), which represents the relationship of competition through the species in the food web. The corresponding undirected graph \(G=(V,E)\) of a certain digraph \(\overrightarrow{D}=(V, \overrightarrow{E})\) is said to be a competition graph \(C(\overrightarrow{D})\) with the vertex set V and the edge set E, where \((x,y)\in E\) if and only if there exists a vertex \(s\in V\) such that \(\overrightarrow{(x,s)},\overrightarrow{(y,s)}\in \overrightarrow{E(\overrightarrow{D})}\) for any \(x,y\in V,\, (x\ne y)\).
There are several variations of competition graphs in Cohen’s contribution (Cohen 1968). After Cohen, some derivations of competition graphs have been found in Cho et al. (2000). In that paper, mstep competition graph of a digraph was defined. The pcompetition graph of a digraph is defined in Kim et al. (1995). The pcompetition means if two species have at least pcommon preys, then they compete to each other.
In graph theory, an intersection graph is a graph which represents the intersection of sets. An interval graph is the intersection of multiset of intervals on real line. Interval graphs are useful in resource allocation problem in operations research. Besides, interval graphs are used extensively in mathematical modeling, archaeology, developmental psychology, ecological modeling, mathematical sociology and organization theory.
Tolerance graphs were originated in Golumbic and Monma (1982) to extend some of the applications associated with interval graphs. Their original purpose was to solve scheduling problems for arrangements of rooms, vehicles, etc. Tolerance graphs are generalization of interval graphs in which each vertex can be represented by an interval and a tolerance such that an edge occurs if and only if the overlap of corresponding intervals is at least as large as the tolerance associated with one of the vertices. Hence a graph \(G = (V,E)\) is a tolerance graph if there is a set \(I = \{I_v{:}\,v \in V\}\) of closed real intervals and a set \(\{T_v{:}\,v \in V\}\) of positive real numbers such that \((x,y) \in E\) if \(I_x\cap I_y \ge {{\rm min}} \{ T_x,T_y\}\). The collection <\(I,T\)> of intervals and tolerances is called tolerance representation of the graph G.
Tolerance graphs were used in order to generalize some well known applications of interval graphs. In Brigham et al. (1995), tolerance competition graphs was introduced. Some uncertainty is included in that paper by assuming tolerances of competitions. A recent work on fuzzy kcompetition graphs is available in Samanta and Pal (2013). In the paper, fuzziness is applied in the representation of competitions. Recently Pramanik et al. defined and studied fuzzy \(\phi\)tolerance competition graph in Pramanik et al. (2016). But, fuzzy phitolerance targets only numbers between 0 and 1, but intervalvalued numbers are more appropriate for uncertainty. Other many related works are found in Pramanik et al. (2014) and Samanta and Pal (2015).
After (Rosenfeld 1975), the fuzzy graph theory increases with its various types of branches. Using these concept of fuzzy graphs, Koczy (1992) discussed fuzzy graphs to evaluate and to optimize any networks. Samanta and Pal (2013) showed that fuzzy graphs can be used in competition in ecosystems. After that, they introduced some different types of fuzzy graphs (Samanta and Pal 2015; Samanta et al. 2014). Bhutani and Battou (2003) and Bhutani and Rosenfeld (2003) discussed different arcs in fuzzy graphs. For further details of fuzzy graphs, readers may look in Mathew (2009), Mordeson and Nair (2000) and Pramanik et al. (2014). Applications of fuzzy graph include data mining, image segmentation, clustering, image capturing, networking, communication, planning, scheduling, etc. In this paper, interval valued fuzzy \(\phi\)tolerance competition graph is introduced. Some relations on product of interval valued \(\phi\)tolerance competition graphs are established. The authors’ contributions to develop competition graphs and tolerance graphs are listed in the Table 1. Also, the flow chart of the research contribution towards this research is given in Fig. 1.
Preliminaries
A function \(\alpha {:}\,X\rightarrow [0,1]\), called the membership function defined on the crisp set X is said to be a fuzzy set \(\alpha\) on X. The support of \(\alpha\) is \({{\mathrm{supp}}}(\alpha ) =\{x\in X \alpha (x)\ne 0\}\) and the core of \(\alpha\) is \({\mathrm{core}}(\alpha ) = \{x\in X \alpha (x)=1\}\). The support length is \(s(\alpha )={{\mathrm{supp}}}(\alpha )\) and the core length is \(c(\alpha )={{\mathrm{core}}}(\alpha )\). The height of \(\alpha\) is \(h(\alpha ) =\max \{\alpha (x) x\in X\}\). The fuzzy set \(\alpha\) is said to be normal if \(h(\alpha )=1\).
A fuzzy graph with a nonvoid finite set V is a pair \(G = (V, \sigma ,\mu )\), where \(\sigma {:}\,V \rightarrow [0,1]\) is a fuzzy subset of V and \(\mu {:}\,V\times V\rightarrow [0,1]\) is a fuzzy relation (symmetric) on the fuzzy subset \(\sigma\), such that \(\mu (x,y) \le \sigma (x) \wedge \sigma (y)\), for all \(x,y\in V\), where \(\wedge\) stands for minimum. The degree of a vertex v of a fuzzy graph \(G = (V, \sigma ,\mu )\) is \(\displaystyle d(v)=\sum \nolimits _{u\in V\{v\}}\mu (v,u)\). The order of a fuzzy graph G is \(\displaystyle O(G)=\sum \nolimits _{u\in V}\sigma (u)\). The size of a fuzzy graph G is \(\displaystyle S(G)=\sum \mu (u,v)\).
Let \({\mathcal {F}}=\{\alpha _1,\alpha _2,\ldots , \alpha _n\}\) be a finite family of fuzzy subsets on a set X. The fuzzy intersection of two fuzzy subsets \(\alpha _1\) and \(\alpha _2\) is a fuzzy set and defined by \(\alpha _1\wedge \alpha _2=\left\{ \min \{\alpha _1(x),\alpha _2(x)\}x\in X\right\}\). The union of two fuzzy subsets \(\alpha _1\) and \(\alpha _2\) is a fuzzy set and is defined by \(\alpha _1\vee \alpha _2=\left\{ \max \{\alpha _1(x),\alpha _2(x)\}x\in X\right\}\). \(\alpha _1\le \alpha _2\) for two fuzzy subsets \(\alpha _1\) and \(\alpha _2\), if \(\alpha _1(x)\le \alpha _2(x)\) for each \(x\in X\).
The fuzzy intersection graph of \({\mathcal {F}}\) is the fuzzy graph \(Int({\mathcal {F}})=(V, \sigma ,\mu )\), where \(\sigma {:}\,{\mathcal {F}}\rightarrow [0,1]\) is defined by \(\sigma (\alpha _i)=h(\alpha _i)\) and \(\mu {:}\,{\mathcal {F}}\times {\mathcal {F}} \rightarrow [0,1]\) is defined by
Here, \(\mu (\alpha _i,\alpha _i)=0\) for all \(\alpha _i\) implies that the said fuzzy graph is a loop less fuzzy intersection graph and the fuzzy graph has no parallel edges as \(\mu\) is uniquely defined.
Let us consider a family of fuzzy intervals \({\mathcal {F}}_{\mathcal {I}}=\{{\mathcal {I}}_1, {\mathcal {I}}_2, \ldots , {\mathcal {I}}_n\}\) on X. Then the fuzzy interval graph is the fuzzy intersection graph of these fuzzy intervals \({\mathcal {I}}_1, {\mathcal {I}}_2, \ldots , {\mathcal {I}}_n\).
Fuzzy tolerance of a fuzzy interval is denoted by \({\mathcal {T}}\) and is defined by an arbitrary fuzzy interval, whose core length is a positive real number. If the real number is taken as L and \(i_ki_{k1}=L\), where \(i_k,i_{k1}\in R\), a set of real numbers, then the fuzzy tolerance is a fuzzy set of the interval \([i_{k1},i_k]\).
The fuzzy tolerance graph \({\mathcal {G}}=(V,\sigma ,\mu )\) as the fuzzy intersection graph of finite family of fuzzy intervals \({\mathcal {I}}=\{{\mathcal {I}}_1,{\mathcal {I}}_2,\ldots , {\mathcal {I}}_n\}\) on the real line along with tolerances \({\mathcal {T}}=\{{\mathcal {T}}_1,{\mathcal {T}}_2,\ldots ,{\mathcal {T}}_n\}\) associated to each vertex of \(v_i\in V\), where, \(\sigma {:}\, V\rightarrow [0,1]\) is defined by \(\sigma (v_i)=h({\mathcal {I}}_i)=1\) for all \(v_i\in V\) and \(\mu {:}\, V\times V\rightarrow [0,1]\) is defined by
Fuzzy interval digraph is a directed fuzzy interval graph, whose edge membership function need not to be symmetric.
An interval number (Akram and Dudek 2011) D is an interval \([a^, a^+]\) with \(0\le a^\le a^+\le 1\). For two interval numbers \(D_1=[a_1^,a_1^+]\) and \(D_2=[a_2^,a_2^+]\), the following properties are defined:

(1)
\(D_1+D_2=[a_1^,a_1^+]+[a_2^,a_2^+]=[a_1^+a_2^ a_1^\cdot a_2^, a_1^+ +a_2^+  a_1^+\cdot a_2^+],\)

(2)
\(\min \{D_1,D_2\}=[\min \{a_1^,a_2^\}, \min \{a_1^+,a_2^+\}],\)

(3)
\(\max \{D_1,D_2\}=[\max \{a_1^,a_2^\}, \max \{a_1^+,a_2^+\}],\)

(4)
\(D_1\le D_2 \Leftrightarrow a_1^\le a_2^\) and \(a_1^+\le a_2^+\),

(5)
\(D_1=D_2 \Leftrightarrow a_1^= a_2^\) and \(a_1^+= a_2^+\),

(6)
\(D_1<D_2 \Leftrightarrow D_1\le D_2\) and \(D_1\ne D_2\),

(7)
\(kD_1=[ka_1^, ka_2^+]\), where \(0\le k\le 1\).
An intervalvalued fuzzy set A on a set X is a function \(\mu _A{:}\, X\rightarrow [0,1]\times [0,1]\), called the membership function, i.e. \(\displaystyle \mu _A(x)=[\mu _A^(x), \mu _A^+(x)]\). The support of A is \({{\mathrm{supp}}}(A)=\{x\in X\mu _A^(x)\ne 0\}\) and the core of A is \({{\mathrm{core}}}(A)=\{x\in X  \mu _A^(x)=1\}\). The support length is \(s(A)={{\mathrm{supp}}}(A)\) and the core length is \(c(A)={{\mathrm{core}}}(A)\). The height of A is \(\displaystyle h(A)=\max \{\mu _A (x)x\in X\}=[\max \{\mu _A^(x)\}, \max \{\mu _A^+(x)\}], \forall x\in X\). Let \(F=\{A_1, A_2, \ldots , A_n\}\) be a finite family of intervalvalued fuzzy subsets on a set X. The fuzzy intersection of two intervalvalued fuzzy sets (IVFSs) \(A_1\) and \(A_2\) is an intervalvalued fuzzy set defined by
The fuzzy union of two IVFSs \(A_1\) and \(A_2\) is a IVFS defined by
Fuzzy outneighbourhood of a vertex \(v\in V\) of an intervalvalued fuzzy directed graph (IVFDG) \(\overrightarrow{D}=(V,A,\overrightarrow{B})\) is the IVFS \({\mathcal {N}}^+(v)=(X_v^+, m_v^+)\), where \(X_v^+=\{u{:}\, \mu _B(\overrightarrow{v,u})>0\}\) and \(m_v^+{:}\,X_v^+\rightarrow [0,1]\times [0,1]\) defined by \(m_v^+=\mu _B(\overrightarrow{v,u})=[\mu _B^(\overrightarrow{v,u}), \mu _B^+(\overrightarrow{v,u})]\)
Here, B is an intervalvalued fuzzy relation on a set X, is denoted by \(\mu _B{:}\,X\times X \rightarrow [0,1] \times [0,1]\) such that
An intervalvalued fuzzy graph of a graph \(G^*=(V,E)\) is a fuzzy graph \(G=(V, A, B)\), where \(A=[\mu _A^, \mu _A^+]\) is an intervalvalued fuzzy set on V and \(B=[\mu _B^, \mu _B^+]\) is a symmetric intervalvalued fuzzy relation on E. An intervalvalued fuzzy digraph \(\overrightarrow{G}=(V, A, \overrightarrow{B})\) is an intervalvalued fuzzy graph, where the fuzzy relation \(\overrightarrow{B}\) is antisymmetric.
An intervalvalued fuzzy graph \(\xi = (A,B)\) is said to be complete intervalvalued fuzzy graph if \(\mu ^(x,y)= \min \{\sigma ^(x),\sigma ^(y)\}\) and \(\mu ^+(x,y)=\) \(\min\) \(\{\sigma ^+(x),\) \(\sigma ^+(y)\}\), \(\forall x,y\in V\). An intervalvalued fuzzy graph is defined to be bipartite, if there exists two sets \(V_1\) and \(V_2\) such that the sets \(V_1\) and \(V_2\) are partitions of the vertex set V, where \(\mu ^+(u,v)=0\) if \(u,v\in V_1\) or \(u, v \in V_2\) and \(\mu ^+(v_1, v_2) > 0\) if \(v_1\in V_1\) (or \(V_2\)) and \(v_2 \in V_2\) (or \(V_1\)).
The Cartesian product (Akram and Dudek 2011) \(G_1\times G_2\) of two intervalvalued fuzzy graphs \(G_1 =(V_1, A_1,B_1)\) and \(G_2 = (V_2,A_2,B_2)\) is defined as a pair \((V_1\times V_2, A_1\times A_2,B_1\times B_2)\) such that

(1)
\(\left\{ \begin{array}{l} \mu _{A_1\times A_2}^(x_1, x_2) = \min \{\mu _{A_1}^(x_1), \mu _{A_2}^(x_2)\}\\ \mu ^+_{A_1\times A_2}(x_1, x_2) = \min \{\mu ^+_{A_1}(x_1), \mu ^+_{A_2}(x_2)\} \end{array}\right\}\) for all \(x_1\in V_1, x_2\in V_2\),

(2)
\(\left\{ \begin{array}{l} \mu _{B_1\times B_2}^((x,x_2),(x,y_2)) = \min \{\mu _{A_1}^(x), \mu _{B_2}^(x_2,y_2)\}\\ \mu _{B_1\times B_2}^+((x,x_2),(x,y_2)) = \min \{\mu _{A_1}^+(x), \mu _{B_2}^+(x_2,y_2)\} \end{array}\right\}\) for all \(x\in V_1\) and \((x_2, y_2)\in E_2\),

(3)
\(\left\{ \begin{array}{l} \mu _{B_1\times B_2}^((x_1,y),(y_1,y)) = \min \{\mu _{B_1}^(x_1,y_1), \mu _{A_2}^(y)\}\\ \mu _{B_1\times B_2}^+((x_1,y),(y_1,y)) = \min \{\mu _{B_1}^+(x_1,y_1), \mu _{A_2}^+(y)\} \end{array}\right\}\) for all \((x_1,y_1)\in E_1\) and \(y \in V_2.\)
The composition \(G_1[G_2]=(V_1\circ V_2, A_1\circ A_2, B_1\circ B_2)\) of two intervalvalued fuzzy graphs \(G_1\) and \(G_2\) of the graphs \(G_1^*\) and \(G_2^*\) is defined as follows:

(1)
\(\left\{ \begin{array}{l} \mu _{A_1\circ A_2}^(x_1, x_2) = \min \{\mu _{A_1}^(x_1), \mu _{A_2}^(x_2)\}\\ \mu ^+_{A_1\circ A_2}(x_1, x_2) = \min \{\mu ^+_{A_1}(x_1), \mu ^+_{A_2}(x_2)\} \end{array}\right\}\) for all \(x_1\in V_1, x_2\in V_2\),

(2)
\(\left\{ \begin{array}{l} \mu _{B_1\circ B_2}^((x,x_2),(x,y_2)) = \min \{\mu _{A_1}^(x), \mu _{B_2}^(x_2,y_2)\}\\ \mu _{B_1\circ B_2}^+((x,x_2),(x,y_2)) = \min \{\mu _{A_1}^+(x), \mu _{B_2}^+(x_2,y_2)\} \end{array}\right\}\) for all \(x\in V_1\) and \((x_2, y_2)\in E_2\),

(3)
\(\left\{ \begin{array}{l} \mu _{B_1\circ B_2}^((x_1,y),(y_1,y)) = \min \{\mu _{B_1}^(x_1,y_1), \mu _{A_2}^(y)\}\\ \mu _{B_1\circ B_2}^+((x_1,y),(y_1,y)) = \min \{\mu _{B_1}^+(x_1,y_1), \mu _{A_2}^+(y)\} \end{array}\right\}\) for all \((x_1,y_1)\in E_1\) and \(y \in V_2,\)

(4)
\(\left\{ \begin{array}{l} \mu _{B_1\circ B_2}^((x_1,x_2),(y_1,y_2)) = \min \{\mu _{A_2}^(x_2), \mu _{A_2}^(y_2),\mu _{B_1}^(x_1,y_1)\}\\ \mu _{B_1\circ B_2}^+((x_1,x_2),(y_1,y_2)) = \min \{\mu _{A_2}^+(x_2), \mu _{A_2}^+(y_2),\mu _{B_1}(x_1,y_1)\} \end{array}\right\}\) otherwise.
The union \(G_1\cup G_2=(V_1\cup V_2, A_1\cup A_2, B_1\cup B_2)\) of two intervalvalued fuzzy graphs \(G_1\) and \(G_2\) of the graphs \(G_1^*\) and \(G_2^*\) is defined as follows:

(1)
\(\left\{ \begin{array}{l} \mu _{A_1\cup A_2}^(x) =\mu _{A_1}^(x) {\text { if }}\,x\in V_1 {\text { and }}\, x\notin V_2\\ \mu _{A_1\cup A_2}^(x) =\mu _{A_2}^(x) {\text { if }}\,x\in V_2 {\text { and }}\,x\notin V_1\\ \mu _{A_1\cup A_2}^(x) =\max \{\mu _{A_1}^(x), \mu _{A_2}^(x)\}\,{\text { if }}\,x\in V_1\cap V_2. \end{array}\right.\)

(2)
\(\left\{ \begin{array}{l} \mu _{A_1\cup A_2}^+(x) =\mu _{A_1}^+(x) {\text { if }}\, x\in V_1 {\text { and }}\,x\notin V_2\\ \mu _{A_1\cup A_2}^+(x) =\mu _{A_2}^+(x) {\text { if }}\,x\in V_2 {\text { and }}\,x\notin V_1\\ \mu _{A_1\cup A_2}^+(x) =\max \{\mu _{A_1}^+(x), \mu _{A_2}^+(x)\} {\text { if }}\,x\in V_1\cap V_2. \end{array}\right.\)

(3)
\(\left\{ \begin{array}{l} \mu _{B_1\times B_2}^(x,y) = \mu _{B_1}^(x,y) {\text { if }}\,(x,y)\in E_1 {\text{and}}\,(x,y)\notin E_2\\ \mu _{B_1\times B_2}^(x,y) = \mu _{B_2}^(x,y) {\text{if}}\,(x,y)\in E_2 {\text{and}}\,(x,y)\notin E_1\\ \mu _{B_1\times B_2}^(x,y) = \max \{\mu _{B_1}^(x,y), \mu _{B_2}^(x,y)\} {\text{if}}\,(x,y)\in E_1\cap E_2. \end{array}\right.\)

(4)
\(\left\{ \begin{array}{l} \mu _{B_1\times B_2}^+(x,y) = \mu _{B_1}^+(x,y) {\text{if}}\,(x,y)\in E_1 {\text{and}}\,(x,y)\notin E_2\\ \mu _{B_1\times B_2}^+(x,y) = \mu _{B_2}^+(x,y) {\text{if}}\,(x,y)\in E_2 {\text{and}}\,(x,y)\notin E_1\\ \mu _{B_1\times B_2}^+(x,y) = \max \{\mu _{B_1}^+(x,y), \mu _{B_2}^+(x,y)\} {\text{if}}\,(x,y)\in E_1\cap E_2. \end{array}\right.\)
The join \(G_1+G_2=(V_1+V_2, A_1+A_2, B_1+B_2)\) of two intervalvalued fuzzy graphs \(G_1\) and \(G_2\) of the graphs \(G_1^*\) and \(G_2^*\) is defined as follows:

(1)
\(\left\{ \begin{array}{l} \mu _{A_1+ A_2}^(x) = (\mu _{A_1}^\cup \mu _{A_2}^)(x)\\ \mu _{A_1+ A_2}^+(x) = (\mu _{A_1}^+\cup \mu _{A_2}^+)(x) \end{array}\right\}\) if \(x\in V_1\cup V_2\),

(2)
\(\left\{ \begin{array}{l} \mu _{B_1+ B_2}^(x,y) = (\mu _{B_1}^\cup \mu _{B_2}^)(x,y)\\ \mu _{B_1+ B_2}^+(x,y) = (\mu _{B_1}^+\cup \mu _{B_2}^+)(x,y) \end{array}\right\}\) if \((x,y)\in E_1\cap E_2\),

(3)
\(\left\{ \begin{array}{l} \mu _{B_1+ B_2}^(x,y) = \min \{\mu _{A_1}^(x), \mu _{A_2}^(y)\}\\ \mu _{B_1+ B_2}^+(x,y) = \min \{\mu _{A_1}^+(x), \mu _{A_2}^+(y)\} \end{array}\right\}\) for all \((x,y)\in E'\), where \(E'\) is the set of edges connecting the vertices of \(V_1\) and \(V_2\).
Intervalvalued fuzzy \(\phi\)tolerance competition graph
In this section, the definition of intervalvalued fuzzy \(\phi\)tolerance competition graph is given and studied several properties.
Definition 1
(Intervalvalued fuzzy \(\phi\)tolerance competition graph (IVFPTCG)) Let \(\phi {:}\,N\times N\rightarrow N\) be a mapping, where N is a set of natural numbers. Intervalvalued fuzzy \(\phi\)tolerance competition graph of an intervalvalued fuzzy directed graph (IVFDG) \(\overrightarrow{D}=(V,A,\overrightarrow{B})\) is an undirected graph \(ITC_{\phi }(\overrightarrow{D}) = (V,A, B')\) such that
where, \({\mathcal {T}}_u, {\mathcal {T}}_v\) are the fuzzy tolerances corresponding to u and v, respectively.
Taking \(\phi\) as \(\min\). An example of this graph is given below.
Example 1
Consider an intervalvalued fuzzy digraph \(\overrightarrow{G}=(V,A,\overrightarrow{B})\) shown in Fig. 2 with each vertex have membership values [1, 1]. The edge membership values are taken as
Let core and support lengths of fuzzy tolerances \({\mathcal {T}}_1,{\mathcal {T}}_2, {\mathcal {T}}_3,{\mathcal {T}}_4,{\mathcal {T}}_5\) corresponding to the vertices \(v_1, v_2,v_3,v_4,v_5\) be 1, 1, 3, 2, 0 and 1, 2, 4, 3, 1, respectively. Here, it is true that \(\phi \{c({\mathcal {T}}_u), c({\mathcal {T}}_v)\}=\min \{c({\mathcal {T}}_u), c({\mathcal {T}}_v)\}\).
Based on this consideration, the following computations have been made.
Therefore,
Then
Now,
Then by the definition of intervalvalued fuzzy \(\phi\)tolerance competition graph, the vertex membership function of the intervalvalued fuzzy mintolerance competition graph is that of intervalvalued fuzzy digraph shown in Fig. 2 and the edge membership values are as follows:
A \(\phi\)Tedge clique cover (\(\phi\)TECC) of an intervalvalued fuzzy graph \({\mathcal {G}}=(V,A,B)\) with vertices \(v_1,v_2,\ldots , v_n\) is a collection \(S_1,S_2,\ldots , S_k\) of subsets of V such that \(\mu _B^(v_r,v_s)>0\) if and only if at least \(\phi (c(T_r), c(T_s))\) of the sets \(S_i\), contain both \(v_r\) and \(v_s\). The size k of a smallest \(\phi\)TECC of \({\mathcal {G}}\) taken over all tolerances T is the \(\phi\)Tedge clique cover number and is denoted by \(\theta _{\phi }({\mathcal {G}})\).
Theorem 1
Let \(\phi {:}\,N\times N\rightarrow N\) be a mapping. If \(\theta _{\phi }({\mathcal {G}})\le V\), then there exists an intervalvalued fuzzy \(\phi\) tolerance competition graph.
Proof
Let us assume that \(\theta _{\phi }({\mathcal {G}})\le V\) and \(S_1,S_2,\ldots , S_k (k\le n)\) be a \(\phi\)TECC of an intervalvalued fuzzy graph \({\mathcal {G}}\). Each \(S_i\) is defined by \(S_i=\{v_j{:}\,\mu _B^(v_i, v_j)>0\}\). Each \(S_i\) is chosen in such a way that in the intervalvalued fuzzy digraph \(\overrightarrow{{\mathcal {G}}}=(V,A,\overrightarrow{B})\), \(\mu _B^(\overrightarrow{v_i,v_j})=\mu _{B'}^(v_i,v_j)\) and \(\mu _B^+(\overrightarrow{v_i,v_j})=\mu _{B'}^+(v_i,v_j)\), if \(v_j\in S_i\).
Now, in IVFG \({\mathcal {G}}\), either \(c({\mathcal {N}}^+(v_i)\cap {\mathcal {N}}^+(v_j))\ge \phi \{c({\mathcal {T}}_{v_i}), c({\mathcal {T}}_{v_j})\}\) or, \(s({\mathcal {N}}^+(v_i)\cap {\mathcal {N}}^+(v_j))\ge \phi \{s({\mathcal {T}}_{v_i}), s({\mathcal {T}}_{v_j})\}\) must satisfy.
Hence, \({\mathcal {G}}\) is an intervalvalued fuzzy \(\phi\)tolerance competition graph. \(\square\)
Theorem 2
For an intervalvalued fuzzy digraph \({\mathcal {G}}=(V,A,\overrightarrow{B})\), if there exists an intervalvalued fuzzy \(\phi\)tolerance competition graph, then \(\theta _{\phi }(\overrightarrow{{\mathcal {G}}})\le V=n.\)
Proof
Let \({\mathcal {G}}=(V,A,B')\) be an intervalvalued fuzzy \(\phi\)tolerance competition graph of \(\overrightarrow{G}\) and \(V=\{v_1,v_2,\ldots , v_n\}\) and \(S_i=\{v_j{:}\,\mu _{B'}^(v_i,v_j)>0\}\). It is clear that there can be at most n numbers of \(S_i\)’s.
Let \({\mathcal {T}}_1,{\mathcal {T}}_2,\ldots , {\mathcal {T}}_n\) be the fuzzy tolerances associated to each vertex of V.
Now, \(\mu (v_r,v_s)>0\) if and only if either \(c({\mathcal {N}}^+(v_r)\cap {\mathcal {N}}^+(v_s))\ge \phi \{c({\mathcal {T}}_{r}), c({\mathcal {T}}_{s})\}\) or, \(s({\mathcal {N}}^+(v_r)\cap {\mathcal {N}}^+(v_s))\ge \phi \{s({\mathcal {T}}_{r}), s({\mathcal {T}}_{s})\}\).
Thus, at most n sets \(S_1,S_2,\ldots , S_n\) make a family of \(\phi\)TECC of size at most \(n=V\), i.e. \(\theta _{\phi }(\overrightarrow{{\mathcal {G}}})\le V=n.\) \(\square\)
Theorem 3
Intervalvalued fuzzy \(\phi\)tolerance competition graph \(G=(V,A,B)\) cannot be complete.
Proof
Suppose, G be an intervalvalued fuzzy \(\phi\)tolerance competition graph with 2 vertices, x and y (say). For this graph there is no interval digraph with 2 vertices with some common preys. Hence, it cannot be complete.
If possible let, an IVFPTCG with 3 vertices be complete. Without any loss of generality, consider the graph of Fig. 3. This graph is nothing but a clique of order 3. As \(\mu _B(x,y)\ne [0,0]\), x, y has a common prey and it must be z. Thus, x, y is directed to z. Again \(\mu _B(y,z)\ne [0,0]\) implies that, y, z is directed to x. But in IVFDG, it is not possible to have two directed edges (x, z) and (z, x) simultaneously. This concludes that there is no valid IVFDG for this IVFPTCG.
As, every complete IVFPTCG contains a clique of order 3, there does not exist any valid IVFDG. Hence, any intervalvalued fuzzy \(\phi\)tolerance competition graph \(G=(V,A,B)\) cannot be complete. \(\square\)
Remark 1
The intervalvalued fuzzy \(\min\)tolerance competition graph of an irregular intervalvalued fuzzy digraph need not be irregular.
This can be shown by giving a counterexample. Suppose an intervalvalued fuzzy digraph with 3 vertices shown in Fig. 4.
Consider the core and support lengths of fuzzy tolerances associated to each of the vertices of the irregular intervalvalued fuzzy digraph shown in Fig. 4 are 1, 1, 1 and 1, 1, 1 respectively.
Remark 2
The intervalvalued fuzzy \(\min\)tolerance competition graph of a regular intervalvalued fuzzy digraph need not be regular.
To prove this, a counterexample is given in the Fig. 5.
In Fig. 5, the regular intervalvalued fuzzy digraph has the degrees \(\deg (v_1)=\deg (v_2)=\cdots = \deg (v_5)=[0.7,0.9]\), but the degree of the vertices of intervalvalued fuzzy mintolerance competition graph of the digraph shown in Fig. 5 are \(\deg (v_1)=[0.4,0.5]\), \(\deg (v_2)=[0.6,0.8]\), \(\deg (v_3)=[0.2,0.3]\). Hence, it is not regular.
Definition 2
The size of an intervalvalued fuzzy graph \({\mathcal {G}}=(V,A, B)\) is denoted by \(S({\mathcal {G}})\) and is defined by
Theorem 4
Let \(\overrightarrow{{\mathcal {G}}}\) be an intervalvalued fuzzy digraph and \(ITC_{\phi }(\overrightarrow{{\mathcal {G}}})\) be its intervalvalued fuzzy \(\phi\) tolerance competition graph. Then
Proof
Let \(ITC_{\phi }(\overrightarrow{{\mathcal {G}}})=(V,A,B')\) be the intervalvalued fuzzy \(\phi\)tolerance competition graph of an intervalvalued fuzzy digraph \(\overrightarrow{{\mathcal {G}}}=(V,A,\overrightarrow{B})\). As for every triangular orientation of three vertices in \(\overrightarrow{{\mathcal {G}}}\), as shown in Fig. 4, there is atmost one edge in \(ITC_{\phi }(\overrightarrow{{\mathcal {G}}})\), it is obvious that, an intervalvalued fuzzy \(\phi\)tolerance competition graph has less number of edges than that of the intervalvalued fuzzy digraph. Now, consider \(\mu _{B'}(v_1,v_2)>0\) in \(ITC_{\phi }(\overrightarrow{{\mathcal {G}}})\) and \({\mathcal {N}}^+(v_1)\) and \({\mathcal {N}}^+(v_2)\) has at least one vertex in common and also \(h({\mathcal {N}}^+(v_1)\cap {\mathcal {N}}^+(v_2))=[1,1]\) (as much as possible). Then there exist at least one vertex, say \(v_i\) so that the edge membership value between \(v_1\), \(v_i\) or \(v_2\), \(v_i\) is [1, 1]. Then \(S(\overrightarrow{{\mathcal {G}}})>[1,1]\) whereas, \(S(ITC_{\phi }(\overrightarrow{{\mathcal {G}}}))\le [1,1]\). Hence, \(S(ITC_{\phi }(\overrightarrow{{\mathcal {G}}}))\le S(\overrightarrow{{\mathcal {G}}}).\) \(\square\)
Theorem 5
If \(C_1,C_2,\ldots , C_p\) be the cliques of order 3 of underlying undirected crisp graph of a IVFDG \(\overrightarrow{G}=(V,A,\overrightarrow{B})\) such that \(C_1\cup C_2\cup \ldots C_p=V\) and \(C_i\cap C_j\le 1\) \(\forall i,j=1,2,\ldots , p\). Then the corresponding IVFPTCG of \(\overrightarrow{G}\) cannot have cliques of order 3 or more.
Proof
From the given conditions of clique sets, i.e. \(C_1\cup C_2\cup \ldots C_p=V\) and \(C_i\cap C_j\le 1 \forall i,j=1,2,\ldots , p\), it is clear that the intervalvalued fuzzy digraph has only triangular orientation and no two triangular orientation has a common edge. That is, the IVFDG has no orientation shown in Fig. 6b. The IVFDG only have the orientations of type shown in Fig. 6a.
As for every triangular orientation, there have only one edge in intervalvalued fuzzy \(\phi\)tolerance competition graph, the said graph does not have a clique of order 3 or more.
Hence, intervalvalued fuzzy \(\phi\)tolerance competition graph cannot have cliques of order 3 or more. \(\square\)
Theorem 6
If the clique number of an underlying undirected crisp graph of an intervalvalued fuzzy digraph \(\overrightarrow{{\mathcal {G}}}=(V,A,\overrightarrow{B})\) is p, then the underlying crisp graph of the intervalvalued fuzzy \(\phi\)tolerance competition graph has the clique number less than or equal to p.
Proof
Let us assume that the maximum clique of \(\overrightarrow{{\mathcal {G}}}=(V,A,\overrightarrow{B})\) induces a subgraph \(\overrightarrow{\mathcal {G'}}\) which is also an intervalvalued fuzzy directed graph. From Theorem 4, the size of intervalvalued fuzzy \(\phi\)tolerance competition graph is always less than or equal to the size of intervalvalued fuzzy directed graph, then the clique number of the intervalvalued fuzzy \(\phi\)tolerance competition graph cannot be greater than p. Hence the theorem follows.
Theorem 7
Intervalvalued fuzzy \(\phi\)tolerance competition graph of a complete intervalvalued fuzzy digraph has maximum \(^nC_3\) number of fuzzy edges.
Proof
It is obvious that every triangular orientation there exists an edge in IVFPTCG. Now, in a complete intervalvalued fuzzy digraph \(\mu _B^(x,y)=\min \{\mu _A^(x),\,\mu _A^(y)\}\), and \(\mu _B^+(x,y)=\min \{\mu _A^+(x),\mu _A^+(y)\}\), \(\forall x, y \in V\). Hence, every vertex is assigned to some vertex in V. Therefore, there are maximum \(^nC_3\) number of orientations. Therefore, there exists maximum \(^nC_3\) number of fuzzy edges in IVFPTCG. \(\square\)
Application of intervalvalued fuzzy maxtolerance competition graph in image matching
Computer world advances rapidly in this modern age. Yet, it is till now a dull thing to us. The major difference for image matching by human and computer is that computer could not match two or more images by saying that they are likely same, but human can. Here, we present an arbitrary example by considering that the images are distorted by some way and they have some distortion values like an image of an object without 20% distorted (here, it is taken as arbitrary, it can be calculated by some pixel matching algorithm, which should be developed). For convenience, let us consider five types of different fonts \(A_1,A_2,A_3,A_4,A_5\) of the alphabet A as shown in Fig. 7. Taking each fonts \(A_1,A_2,A_3,A_4,A_5\) as vertices \(v_1,v_2,v_3,v_4,v_5\) respectively and there exists an edge between the vertices if two fonts have two different distortion values (d.v.). The corresponding graph model is shown in Fig. 8. Let the distortion values of fonts \(A_1,A_2,A_3,A_4,A_5\) be 70, 20, 50, 80, 0% respectively. This can be modeled as the intervalvalued fuzzy digraph (see Fig. 8) with a direction to the vertex, which has the minimum distortion value. The edge membership value of an edge between two vertices \(v_1\), \(v_2\) of this graph is calculated as \(\mu _B(v_1,v_2)=[\min \{\frac{\text {d.v. of }v_1}{100},\) \(\frac{\text {d.v. of }v_2}{100}\},\) \(\max \{\frac{\text {d.v. of }v_1}{100},\,\frac{\text {d.v. of }v_2}{100}\} ]\). Each fonts have some tolerances i. e., the fonts can be distorted to a certain percentage. Arbitrarily, let us consider the tolerance core and tolerance support lengths of the vertices \(v_1,v_2,v_3,v_4,v_5\) are 0, 1, 0, 1, 2 and 1, 1, 1, 2, 3, respectively. Natural computations can be made and the maxtolerance competition graph is obtained as shown in Fig. 9, which shows that the fonts \(A_1,A_4\) are closely related and the closeness is approximately \((0.350.25)\cdot 100\%=10\%\).
Product of two IVFPTCGs and relations between them
Throughout this paper, \(\theta\) is taken as the null set in crisp sense and \(\overrightarrow{G_1^*}\), \(\overrightarrow{G_2^*}\) are the crisp digraphs.
Definition 3
The Cartesian product \(G_1\times G_2\) of two intervalvalued fuzzy digraphs \(\overrightarrow{G_1} =(A_1,\overrightarrow{B_1})\) and \(\overrightarrow{G_2} = (A_2,\overrightarrow{B_2})\) of the graphs \(\overrightarrow{G^*_1} = (V_1,\overrightarrow{E_1})\) and \(\overrightarrow{G^*_2} = (V_2,\overrightarrow{E_2})\) is defined as a pair \((A_1\times A_2,\overrightarrow{B_1\times B_2})\) such that

(1)
\(\left\{ \begin{array}{l} \mu _{A_1\times A_2}^(x_1, x_2) = \min \{\mu _{A_1}^(x_1), \mu _{A_2}^(x_2)\}\\ \mu ^+_{A_1\times A_2}(x_1, x_2) = \min \{\mu ^+_{A_1}(x_1), \mu ^+_{A_2}(x_2)\} \end{array}\right\}\) for all \(x_1\in V_1, x_2\in V_2\),

(2)
\(\left\{ \begin{array}{l} \mu _{B_1\times B_2}^(\overrightarrow{(x,x_2),(x,y_2)}) = \min \{\mu _{A_1}^(x), \mu _{B_2}^(\overrightarrow{x_2,y_2})\}\\ \mu _{B_1\times B_2}^+(\overrightarrow{(x,x_2),(x,y_2)}) = \min \{\mu _{A_1}^+(x), \mu _{B_2}^+(\overrightarrow{x_2,y_2})\} \end{array}\right\}\) for all \(x\in V_1\) and \((\overrightarrow{x_2, y_2})\in E_2\),

(3)
\(\left\{ \begin{array}{l} \mu _{B_1\times B_2}^(\overrightarrow{(x_1,y),(y_1,y)}) = \min \{\mu _{B_1}^(\overrightarrow{x_1,y_1}), \mu _{A_2}^(y)\}\\ \mu _{B_1\times B_2}^+(\overrightarrow{(x_1,y),(y_1,y)}) = \min \{\mu _{B_1}^+(\overrightarrow{x_1,y_1}), \mu _{A_2}^+(y)\} \end{array}\right\}\) for all \((\overrightarrow{x_1,y_1})\in E_1\) and \(y \in V_2\).
Theorem 8
For any two intervalvalued fuzzy directed graphs \(\overrightarrow{G_1}\) and \(\overrightarrow{G_2}\),
considering tolerances \({\mathcal {T}}_{(x,y)}\) corresponding to each vertex (x, y) of \(\overrightarrow{G_1}\times \overrightarrow{G_2}\) as \(c({\mathcal {T}}_{(x,y)})=\min \{c({\mathcal {T}}_x),c({\mathcal {T}}_y)\}\) and \(s({\mathcal {T}}_{(x,y)})=\min \{s({\mathcal {T}}_x),s({\mathcal {T}}_y)\}\).
Proof
It is easy to understand from the definition of IVFPTCG that all vertices and their membership values remain unchanged, but fuzzy edges and their membership values have been changed. Thus, there is no need to clarify about vertices.
Now, according to the definition of Cartesian product of two intervalvalued fuzzy directed graphs \(\overrightarrow{G_1}\) and \(\overrightarrow{G_2}\), there are two types of edges in \(\overrightarrow{G_1}\times \overrightarrow{G_2}\). The two cases are as follows.
Suppose, all edges are of type \(((x,x_2),(x,y_2))\), \(\forall x\in V_1\) and \((x_2,y_2)\in E_2\).
Obviously, from the definition of the Cartesian products of two directed graphs that, if \(x_2, y_2\) have a common prey \(z_2\) in \(\overrightarrow{G_2}\), then \((x,x_2),(x,y_2)\) have a common prey \((x,z_2)\) in \(\overrightarrow{G_1}\times \overrightarrow{G_2}\), \(\forall x\in V_1\). Now, it has to show if \(\mu _{B_2}^(x_2,y_2)>0\) in \(ITC_{\phi }(\overrightarrow{G_2})\), then \(\mu _{B_1\times B_2}^((x,x_2),(x,y_2))>0\) in \(ITC_{\phi }(\overrightarrow{G_1}\) \(\times \overrightarrow{G_2})\) is true. If \(\mu _{B_2}^(x_2,y_2)\) \(>0\), then either \(c({\mathcal {N}}^+(x_2)\cap\) \({\mathcal {N}}^+(y_2))\ge\) \(\phi \{c({\mathcal {T}}_{x_2}),\) \(c({\mathcal {T}}_{y_2})\}\) or \(s({\mathcal {N}}^+(x_2)\cap\) \({\mathcal {N}}^+(y_2))\) \(\ge\) \(\phi \{s({\mathcal {T}}_{x_2}),\) \(s({\mathcal {T}}_{y_2})\}\) is true. From the previous claim, if \(z_2\) is the common prey of \(x_2, y_2\) in \(\overrightarrow{G_2}\), \((x,z_2)\) is also a common prey of \((x,x_2)\) and \((x,y_2)\) in \(\overrightarrow{G_1}\times \overrightarrow{G_2}\). Thus,
As, the either case is satisfied, therefore \(\mu _{B_1\times B_2}^((x,x_2),(x,y_2))>0\).
If all edges of type \(((x_1,y),(y_1,y))\), \(\forall y\in V_2\) and \((x_1,y_1)\in E_1\), then the proof is similar to above case.
Hence, \(ITC_{\phi }(\overrightarrow{G_1}\times \overrightarrow{G_2})= ITC_{\phi }(\overrightarrow{G_1})\times ITC_{\phi }(\overrightarrow{G_2})\) is proved. \(\square\)
Definition 4
The composition \(\overrightarrow{G_1}[\overrightarrow{G_2}]=(A_1\circ A_2, \overrightarrow{B_1\circ B_2})\) of two intervalvalued fuzzy digraphs \(\overrightarrow{G_1}\) and \(\overrightarrow{G_2}\) of the graphs \(\overrightarrow{G_1^*}\) and \(\overrightarrow{G_2^*}\) is given as follows:

(1)
\(\left\{ \begin{array}{l} \mu _{A_1\circ A_2}^(x_1, x_2) = \min \{\mu _{A_1}^(x_1), \mu _{A_2}^(x_2)\}\\ \mu ^+_{A_1\circ A_2}(x_1, x_2) = \min \{\mu ^+_{A_1}(x_1), \mu ^+_{A_2}(x_2)\} \end{array}\right\}\) for all \(x_1\in V_1, x_2\in V_2\),

(2)
\(\left\{ \begin{array}{l} \mu _{B_1\circ B_2}^(\overrightarrow{(x,x_2),(x,y_2)}) = \min \{\mu _{A_1}^(x), \mu _{B_2}^(\overrightarrow{x_2,y_2})\}\\ \mu _{B_1\circ B_2}^+(\overrightarrow{(x,x_2),(x,y_2)}) = \min \{\mu _{A_1}^+(x), \mu _{B_2}^+(\overrightarrow{x_2,y_2})\} \end{array}\right\}\) for all \(x\in V_1\) and \((\overrightarrow{x_2, y_2})\in E_2\),

(3)
\(\left\{ \begin{array}{l} \mu _{B_1\circ B_2}^(\overrightarrow{(x_1,y),(y_1,y)}) = \min \{\mu _{B_1}^(\overrightarrow{x_1,y_1}), \mu _{A_2}^(y)\}\\ \mu _{B_1\circ B_2}^+(\overrightarrow{(x_1,y),(y_1,y)}) = \min \{\mu _{B_1}^+(\overrightarrow{x_1,y_1}), \mu _{A_2}^+(y)\} \end{array}\right\}\) for all \((\overrightarrow{x_1,y_1})\in E_1\) and \(y \in V_2\)

(4)
\(\left\{ \begin{array}{l} \mu _{B_1\circ B_2}^(\overrightarrow{(x_1,x_2),(y_1,y_2)}) = \min \{\mu _{A_2}^(x_2), \mu _{A_2}^(y_2),\mu _{B_1}^(\overrightarrow{x_1,y_1})\}\\ \mu _{B_1\circ B_2}^+(\overrightarrow{(x_1,x_2),(y_1,y_2)}) = \min \{\mu _{A_2}^+(x_2), \mu _{A_2}^+(y_2),\mu _{B_1}(\overrightarrow{x_1,y_1})\} \end{array}\right\}\) otherwise.
Theorem 9
For any two intervalvalued fuzzy directed graphs \(\overrightarrow{G_1}\) and \(\overrightarrow{G_2}\),
considering tolerances \({\mathcal {T}}_{(x,y)}\) corresponding to each vertices (x, y) of \(\overrightarrow{G_1}\circ \overrightarrow{G_2}\) as \(c({\mathcal {T}}_{(x,y)})=\min \{c({\mathcal {T}}_x),c({\mathcal {T}}_y)\}\) and \(s({\mathcal {T}}_{(x,y)})=\min \{s({\mathcal {T}}_x),s({\mathcal {T}}_y)\}\).
Proof
According to the same interpretation drawn in Theorem 8, the membership values of the vertices of \(\overrightarrow{G_1}[\overrightarrow{G_2}]\) remains unchanged under the composition \(\circ\).
Now, according to the definition of composition \(\overrightarrow{G_1}[\overrightarrow{G_2}]=(A_1\circ A_2, B_1\circ B_2)\) of two intervalvalued fuzzy directed graphs \(\overrightarrow{G_1}\) and \(\overrightarrow{G_2}\), there are three types of edges in \(\overrightarrow{G_1}\circ \overrightarrow{G_2}\). The three cases are as follows:
 Case I :

For all edges of type \(((x,x_2),(x,y_2))\), \(\forall x\in V_1\) and \((x_2,y_2)\in E_2\).
Obviously, from the definition of the Cartesian products of two directed graphs that, if \(x_2, y_2\) have a common prey \(z_2\) in \(\overrightarrow{G_2}\) then, \((x,x_2),(x,y_2)\) have also a common prey \((x,z_2)\) in \(\overrightarrow{G_1}\circ \overrightarrow{G_2}\), \(\forall x\in V_1\). Now, if \(\mu _{B_2}^(x_2,y_2)>0\) in \(ITC_{\phi }(\overrightarrow{G_2})\), then \(\mu _{B_1\circ B_2}^((x,x_2),(x,y_2))>0\) in \(ITC_{\phi }(\overrightarrow{G_1}\circ \overrightarrow{G_2})\). If \(\mu _{B_2}^(x_2,y_2)>0\), then either \(c({\mathcal {N}}^+(x_2)\cap {\mathcal {N}}^+(y_2))\ge \phi \{c({\mathcal {T}}_{x_2}), c({\mathcal {T}}_{y_2})\}\) or \(s({\mathcal {N}}^+(x_2)\cap {\mathcal {N}}^+(y_2))\ge \phi \{s({\mathcal {T}}_{x_2}), s({\mathcal {T}}_{y_2})\}\) is true. From the previous claim that if \(z_2\) is the common prey of \(x_2, y_2\) in \(\overrightarrow{G_2}\), \((x,z_2)\) is also a common prey of \((x,x_2)\) and \((x,y_2)\) in \(\overrightarrow{G_1}\circ \overrightarrow{G_2}\), then
$$\begin{aligned} s({\mathcal {N}}^+(x,x_2)\cap {\mathcal {N}}^+(x,y_2))& = {} s({\mathcal {N}}^+(x_2)\cap {\mathcal {N}}^+(y_2))\\ &\ge \phi (s({\mathcal {T}}_{x_2}), s({\mathcal {T}}_{y_2}))\\ &\ge \phi (\min \{s({\mathcal {T}}_x),s( {\mathcal {T}}_{x_2})\},\min \{s({\mathcal {T}}_x),s({\mathcal {T}}_{y_2})\})\\& = {} \phi (s({\mathcal {T}}_{(x,x_2)}), s({\mathcal {T}}_{(x,y_2)})). \end{aligned}$$As, the either case is satisfied, \(\mu _{B_1\circ B_2}((x,x_2),(x,y_2))>0\) is true.
 Case II :

For all edges of type \(((x_1,y),(y_1,y))\), \(\forall y\in V_2\) and \((x_1,y_1)\in E_1\).
This is similar as the Case I.
 Case III :

For all edges of type \(((x_1,x_2),(y_1,y_2))\), where \(x_1\ne y_1\) and \(x_2\ne y_2\).
In this case, \((x_1,x_2)\) and \((y_1,y_2)\) have a common prey \((z_1,z_2)\) in \(\overrightarrow{G_1}\circ \overrightarrow{G_2}\) if \(x_1, y_1\) has a common prey \(z_1\) in \(\overrightarrow{G_1}\). In the similar way as in Case I, we can obtain
$$\begin{aligned} s\left( {\mathcal {N}}^+(x_1,x_2)\cap {\mathcal {N}}^+(y_1,y_2)\right)& = {} s\left( {\mathcal {N}}^+(x_1)\cap {\mathcal {N}}^+(y_1)\right) \\ &\ge \phi \left( s({\mathcal {T}}_{x_1}), s({\mathcal {T}}_{y_1})\right) \\ &\ge \phi \left( \min \{s({\mathcal {T}}_{x_1}),s( {\mathcal {T}}_{x_2})\},\min \left\{ s({\mathcal {T}}_{y_1}),s({\mathcal {T}}_{y_2})\right\} \right) \\& = {} \phi \left( s({\mathcal {T}}_{(x_1,x_2)}), s({\mathcal {T}}_{(y_1,y_2)})\right) . \end{aligned}$$If, either case is satisfied, then \(\mu _{B_1\circ B_2}^((x_1,x_2),(y_1,y_2))>0\) is valid.
Hence, \(ITC_{\phi }(\overrightarrow{G_1}\circ \overrightarrow{G_2})= ITC_{\phi }(\overrightarrow{G_1})\circ ITC_{\phi }(\overrightarrow{G_2})\) is proved. \(\square\)
Definition 5
The union \(\overrightarrow{G_1}\cup \overrightarrow{G_2}=(A_1\cup A_2, \overrightarrow{B_1\cup B_2})\) of two intervalvalued fuzzy digraphs \(\overrightarrow{G_1}\) and \(\overrightarrow{G_2}\) of the graphs \(\overrightarrow{G_1^*}\) and \(\overrightarrow{G_2^*}\) is defined as follows:

(1)
\(\left\{ \begin{array}{l} \mu _{A_1\cup A_2}^(x) =\mu _{A_1}^(x) {\text{if}}\,x\in V_1 {\hbox{and}} x\notin V_2\\ \mu _{A_1\cup A_2}^(x) =\mu _{A_2}^(x) {\text{if}}\,x\in V_2 {\hbox{and}} x\notin V_1\\ \mu _{A_1\cup A_2}^(x) =\max \{\mu _{A_1}^(x), \mu _{A_2}^(x)\} {\text{if}}\,x\in V_1\cap V_2. \end{array}\right.\)

(2)
\(\left\{ \begin{array}{l} \mu _{A_1\cup A_2}^+(x) =\mu _{A_1}^+(x) {\text{if}}\,x\in V_1 {\hbox{and}} x\notin V_2\\ \mu _{A_1\cup A_2}^+(x) =\mu _{A_2}^+(x) {\text{if}}\,x\in V_2 {\hbox{and}} x\notin V_1\\ \mu _{A_1\cup A_2}^+(x) =\max \{\mu _{A_1}^+(x), \mu _{A_2}^+(x)\} {\text{if}}\,x\in V_1\cap V_2. \end{array}\right.\)

(3)
\(\left\{ \begin{array}{l} \mu _{B_1\times B_2}^(\overrightarrow{x,y}) = \mu _{B_1}^(\overrightarrow{x,y}) {\text{if}}\,(\overrightarrow{x,y})\in E_1 {\text{and}}\,(\overrightarrow{x,y})\notin E_2\\ \mu _{B_1\times B_2}^(\overrightarrow{x,y}) = \mu _{B_2}^(\overrightarrow{x,y}) {\text{if}}\,(\overrightarrow{x,y})\in E_2 {\text{and}}\,(\overrightarrow{x,y})\notin E_1\\ \mu _{B_1\times B_2}^(\overrightarrow{x,y}) = \max \{\mu _{B_1}^(\overrightarrow{x,y}), \mu _{B_2}^(\overrightarrow{x,y})\} {\text{if}}\,(\overrightarrow{x,y})\in E_1\cap E_2. \end{array}\right.\)

(4)
\(\left\{ \begin{array}{l} \mu _{B_1\times B_2}^+(\overrightarrow{x,y}) = \mu _{B_1}^+(\overrightarrow{x,y}) {\text{if}}\,(\overrightarrow{x,y})\in E_1 {\text{and}}\,(\overrightarrow{x,y})\notin E_2\\ \mu _{B_1\times B_2}^+(\overrightarrow{x,y}) = \mu _{B_2}^+(\overrightarrow{x,y}) {\text{if}}\,(\overrightarrow{x,y})\in E_2 {\text{and}}\,(\overrightarrow{x,y})\notin E_1\\ \mu _{B_1\times B_2}^+(\overrightarrow{x,y}) = \max \{\mu _{B_1}^+(\overrightarrow{x,y}), \mu _{B_2}^+(\overrightarrow{x,y})\} {\text{if}}\,(\overrightarrow{x,y})\in E_1\cap E_2. \end{array}\right.\)
Theorem 10
For any two intervalvalued fuzzy directed graphs \(\overrightarrow{G_1}\) and \(\overrightarrow{G_2}\),
Proof
There are four cases as follows:
 Case I :

\(V_1\cap V_2=\theta\)
In this case, \(\overrightarrow{G_1}\cup \overrightarrow{G_2}\) is a disconnected intervalvalued fuzzy directed graphs with two components \(\overrightarrow{G_1}\) and \(\overrightarrow{G_2}\). Thus, there is nothing to prove that \(ITC_{\phi }(\overrightarrow{G_1}\cup \overrightarrow{G_2})= ITC_{\phi }(\overrightarrow{G_1})\cup ITC_{\phi }(\overrightarrow{G_2}).\)
 Case II :

\(V_1\cap V_2=\theta\), \((x_1,x_2)\in E_1\) and \((x_1,x_2)\notin E_2\)
\(\mu _{B_1\cup B_2}^(x_1,x_2)=\mu _{B_1}^(x_1,x_2)\) and it is obvious that if \(\mu _{B_1}^(x_1,x_2)>0\) in \(ITC_{\phi }(\overrightarrow{G_1})\), then \(\mu _{B_1\cup B_2}^(x_1,x_2)>0\) in \(ITC_{\phi }(\overrightarrow{G_1}\cup \overrightarrow{G_2})\).
 Case III :

\(V_1\cap V_2=\theta\), \((x_1,x_2)\notin E_1\) and \((x_1,x_2)\in E_2\)
This is similar as in Case II.
 Case IV :

\(V_1\cap V_2=\theta\), \((x_1,x_2)\in E_1\cap E_2\)
In this case, consider \(x_1\) and \(x_2\) have a common prey \(y_1\) in \(\overrightarrow{G_1}\) and \(y_2\) in \(\overrightarrow{G_2}\). This shows that \(s({\mathcal {N}}^+(x_1)\cap {\mathcal {N}}^+(x_2))\) in \(\overrightarrow{G_1}\cup \overrightarrow{G_2}\) is greater than or equal to \(s({\mathcal {N}}^+(x_1)\cap {\mathcal {N}}^+(x_2))\) in \(\overrightarrow{G_1}\) or \(\overrightarrow{G_2}\). Hence, it can be found that if \(\mu _{B_1}^(x_1,x_2)>0\) in \(ITC_{\phi }(\overrightarrow{G_1})\) and \(\mu _{B_2}^(x_1,x_2)>0\) in \(ITC_{\phi }(\overrightarrow{G_2})\), then \(\mu _{B_1\cup B_2}^(x_1,x_2)>0\) in \(ITC_{\phi }(\overrightarrow{G_1}\cup \overrightarrow{G_2})\).
Hence, \(ITC_{\phi }(\overrightarrow{G_1}\cup \overrightarrow{G_2})= ITC_{\phi }(\overrightarrow{G_1})\cup ITC_{\phi }(\overrightarrow{G_2})\) is proved. \(\square\)
Definition 6
The join \(\overrightarrow{G_1}+\overrightarrow{G_2}=(A_1+A_2, \overrightarrow{B_1+B_2})\) of two intervalvalued fuzzy digraphs \(\overrightarrow{G_1}\) and \(\overrightarrow{G_2}\) of the graphs \(\overrightarrow{G_1^*}\) and \(\overrightarrow{G_2^*}\) is defined as follows:

(1)
\(\left\{ \begin{array}{l} \mu _{A_1+ A_2}^(x) = (\mu _{A_1}^\cup \mu _{A_2}^)(x)\\ \mu _{A_1+ A_2}^+(x) = (\mu _{A_1}^+\cup \mu _{A_2}^+)(x) \end{array}\right\}\) if \(x\in V_1\cup V_2\),

(2)
\(\left\{ \begin{array}{l} \mu _{B_1+ B_2}^(\overrightarrow{x,y}) = (\mu _{B_1}^\cup \mu _{B_2}^)(\overrightarrow{x,y})\\ \mu _{B_1+ B_2}^+(\overrightarrow{x,y}) = (\mu _{B_1}^+\cup \mu _{B_2}^+)(\overrightarrow{x,y}) \end{array}\right\}\) if \((\overrightarrow{x,y})\in E_1\cap E_2\),

(3)
\(\left\{ \begin{array}{l} \mu _{B_1+ B_2}^(\overrightarrow{x,y}) = \min \{\mu _{A_1}^(x), \mu _{A_2}^(y)\}\\ \mu _{B_1+ B_2}^+(\overrightarrow{x,y}) = \min \{\mu _{A_1}^+(x), \mu _{A_2}^+(y)\} \end{array}\right\}\) for all \((\overrightarrow{x,y})\in E'\), where \(E'\) is the set of edges connecting the vertices (nodes) of \(V_1\) and \(V_2\).
Theorem 11
For any two intervalvalued fuzzy directed graphs \(\overrightarrow{G_1}\) and \(\overrightarrow{G_2}\), \(ITC_{\phi }(\overrightarrow{G_1}+ \overrightarrow{G_2})\) has less number of edges than that in \(ITC_{\phi }(\overrightarrow{G_1})+ ITC_{\phi }(\overrightarrow{G_2}).\)
Proof
In \(ITC_{\phi }(\overrightarrow{G_1})+ITC_{\phi }(\overrightarrow{G_2})\), \((\mu _{B_1}^+\mu _{B_2}^)(x_1,x_2)>0\) is true for all \(x_1\in V_1\) and \(x_2\in V_2\). But, in \(\overrightarrow{G_1}+\overrightarrow{G_2}\), \(x_1\) and \(x_2\) have no common prey, then \(\mu _{B_1+B_2}^(x_1,x_2)=0\) is valid for all \(x_1\in V_1\) and \(x_2\in V_2\). Thus, for all \(x_1, x_2\in V_1 \cup V_2\), \(\mu _{B_1+B_2}^(x_1,x_2)=0<(\mu _{B_1}^+\mu _{B_2}^)(x_1,x_2)\) is true always. Hence, the result follows. \(\square\)
Insights of this study

Intervalvalued fuzzy \(\phi\)tolerance competition graphs are introduced. The real life competitions in food web are perfectly represented by intervalvalued fuzzy \(\phi\)tolerance competition graphs.

An application of fuzzy \(\phi\)tolerance competition graph on image matching is provided. Particularly, intervalvalued fuzzy maxtolerance competition graph is used for this. Here, distorted images are matched for computer usages.

Product of two IVFPTCGs and relations between them are defined. These results will develop the theory of intervalvalued fuzzy graph literature. Some important results (Theorem 2, 3, 5, 9, 10) are proved.
Conclusions
Adding more uncertainty to fuzzy \(\phi\)tolerance competition graph, the intervalvalued fuzzy \(\phi\)tolerance competition graph was introduced here. Some interesting properties was investigated. Interesting properties of the IVFPTCG were proved such that the IVFPTCG of a IVFDG behaved like a homomorphic function under some operations. Generally, competition graphs represent some competitions in food webs. But, it can be also used in every competitive systems. These competitive systems can be represented by bipolar fuzzy graphs, intuitionistic fuzzy graphs, etc. But, interval valued fuzzy sets are perfect to represent uncertainties. An application of IVFPTCG in image matching was illustrated. Also, it can be applied in various types of fields such as database management system, network designing, neural network, image searching in computer application, etc.
References
Akram M, Dudek WA (2011) Interval valued fuzzy graphs. Comput Math Appl 61:289–299
Bhutani KR, Battou A (2003) On Mstrong fuzzy graphs. Inf Sci 155(1–2):103–109
Bhutani KR, Rosenfeld A (2003) Strong arcs in fuzzy graphs. Inf Sci 152:319–322
Brigham RC, McMorris FR, Vitray RP (1995) Tolerance competition graphs. Linear Algebra Appl 217:41–52
Cho HH, Kim SR, Nam Y (2000) The \(m\)step competition graph of a digraph. Discrete Appl Math 105:115–127
Cohen JE (1968) Interval graphs and food webs: a finding and a problem, Document 17696PR. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica
Golumbic MC, Monma CL (1982) A generalization of interval graphs with tolerances. In: Proceedings of the 13th Southeastern conference on combinatories, graph theory and computing, Congressus Numerantium Utilitas Math, Winnipeg, pp 321–331
Kauffman A (1973) Introduction a la Theorie des Sousemsembles Flous. Masson et Cie Editeurs, Paris
Kim SR, McKee TA, McMorris FR, Roberts FS (1995) \(p\)Competition graphs. Discrete Appl Math 217:167–178
Koczy LT (1992) Fuzzy graphs in the evaluation and optimization of networks. Fuzzy Sets Syst 46:307–319
Mathew S, Sunitha MS (2009) Types of arcs in a fuzzy graph. Inf Sci 179:1760–1768
Mordeson JN, Nair PS (2000) Fuzzy graphs and fuzzy hypergraphs. Physica, Heidelberg
Pramanik T, Samanta S, Pal M (2014) Intervalvalued fuzzy planar graphs. Int J Mach Learn Cybern. doi:10.1007/s1304201402847
Pramanik T, Samanta S, Sarkar B, Pal M (2016) Fuzzy phitolerance competition graphs. Soft Comput. doi:10.1007/s0050001520265
Samanta S, Pal M (2015) Fuzzy planar graphs. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 23(6):1936–1942
Samanta S, Pal M, Akram M (2014) \(m\)step fuzzy competition graphs. J Appl Math Comput. doi:10.1007/s1219001407852
Samanta S, Pal M (2013) Fuzzy \(k\)competition graphs and \(p\)competition fuzzy graphs. Fuzzy Eng Inf 5(2):191–204
Samanta S, Pal M (2011) Fuzzy tolerance graphs. Int J Latest Trends Math 1(2):57–67
Rosenfeld A (1975) Fuzzy graphs. In: Zadeh LA, Fu KS, Shimura M (eds) Fuzzy sets and their applications. Academic Press, New York, pp 77–95
Authors' contributions
The authors contributed equally to each parts of the paper. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Acknowledgements
The authors are grateful to the Editor in Chief and Honorable reviewers of the journal “Springer Plus” for their suggestions to improve the quality and presentation of the paper.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Tarasankar Pramanik and Sovan Samanta have contributed equally to this work
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
About this article
Cite this article
Pramanik, T., Samanta, S., Pal, M. et al. Intervalvalued fuzzy \(\phi\)tolerance competition graphs. SpringerPlus 5, 1981 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1186/s400640163463z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s400640163463z