Certain structure of Lagrange's theorem with the application of interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy subgroups (Q2670275)

In this research, the authors introduced and studied the concept of an interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy subgroup defined on interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy sets. They also studied some of the fundamental algebraic properties of interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy cosets and interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy normal subgroup of a given group. The idea was used to describe the interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy order and index of interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy subgroup. They created numerous algebraic properties of interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy order of an element. They also proved the interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzification of Lagrange's theorem. However, it is important to point out some major typos and/or errors to avoid confusion to the readers or subsequent users of these article. \begin{itemize} \item [(1)] Definition 5 is not looking good. Perhaps something like \[\mu_{P^U}(mnm^{-1})=\mu_{P^U}(n)\] is appropriate. \item [(2)] The proof of Theorem 3 has lots of typos. For instance, the proof can only make sense when it says ``Let \(r\in Q(e)\); then \(\mu_{P^U}(r)=\mu_{P^U}(e)\), \(\mu_{P^L}(r)=\mu_{P^L}(e)\) and \(\nu_{P^U}(r)=\nu_{P^U}(e)\), \(\nu_{P^L}(r)=\nu_{P^L}(e)\). This means that \(\mu_{P^U}(r)\geq\{\mu_{P^U}(m)\}\cdots \nu_{P^L}(r)\leq\{\nu_{P^L}(m)\}\)'' \item [(3)] Line 4 in the proof of theorem 6: It is misleading to use \[=\mu_{P^U}((m^r)^a, (m^s)^b)\] when it should have been \[=\mu_{P^U}((m^r)^{a} . (m^s)^b)\] \item [(4)] Line 1 after Equation (12) should have been ``We know that \(\mu_{P^U}((mn)^{yd})\leq \mu_{P^U}(e)\) and hence \(\mu_{P^U}((mn)^{yd}) = \mu_{P^U}(e)\)''. \item [(5)] Line 1 in the proof of Theorem 11 should be ``Since IVIFO\(_p(mn)=\) IVIFO\(_p(mn)=\) IVIFO\(_p(n^{-1}(nm)n),\cdots\) \item [(6)] In line 4 of the proof of Theorem 13, \[``\mu_{P^U}(m)^{x} = \mu_{P^U}(n^y)=\mu_{P^U}(e), \mu_{P^L}(m)^{x} = \mu_{P^L}(n^y)=\mu_{P^L}(e)"\] \item [(7)] In the proof of Theorem 16, the symbols like \((n, s), (r, n)\) will not be making sense since it is referring to \(gcd\) of numbers but \(n\in\mathbb{G}\) is not necessarily a number in \(Z\). \item [(8)] In Theorem 18, \(P^\wedge\) suddenly appears after Equation (22). \item [(9)] Besides, this theorem 18 cannot be true except \(P\) is an IVIFNSG of the group. For it is then that \[\mu_{P^U}(m_0n_0n^{-1}m^{-1})=\mu_{P^U}(m_0n_0n^{-1}m^{-1}_0)=\mu_{P^U}(n_0n^{-1})=\mu_{P^U}(n_0n_0^{-1})=\mu_{P^U}(e)\] \item [(10)] As a matter of fact, still on the proof of Theorem 18, Equation (30) should simply be \[\mu_{P^U}(n_0n^{-1})=\mu_{P^U}(e)\] \item [(11)] Also, immediately after (30), the statement that \[\mu_{_{_{PU}}}(e)\geq\mu_{_{_{PU}}}(un_0^{-1}m_0^{-1})\] is redundant and what follows should be ``Since \(P\) is IVIFSG, \(\mu_{P^U}(u)\leq\mu_{P^U}(e).\)'' and not ``Since \(P\) is IVIFSG, \(\mu_{P^U}(u)\geq\mu_{P^U}(e).\)'' \item [(12)] In Theorem 19, it seems rather better to say that ``Then, there is a homomorphism \(t\) from \(\cdots\)'' rather than saying ``Then, establish a homomorphism \(t\) from \(\cdots\)''. The later looks more like a hanging statement. \item [(13)] Still in Theorem 19, kernel of the homomorphism \(t\) should rather have been defined and not the kernel of the group \(\mathbb{G}\). \item [(14)] Finally, Immediately after Equation (38), it is Theorem 1 that should be used and not Theorem 2. \end{itemize}