Regularity axioms in fuzzy topological spaces and \(FR_ i\)-proximities (Q803988)

The authors provide a hierarchy of regularity and separation axioms for fuzzy topological spaces (with \(I=[0,1]\) as the range space for fuzzy sets): \(FR_ i\) \((i=0,1,2,2,3)\) and \(FT_ i\) \((i=0,1,2,3,3,4)\). The authors follow the idea of \textit{A. S. Davis} [Am. Math. Mon. 68, 886-894 (1961; Zbl 0106.155)]. The paper of \textit{W. J. Thron} and \textit{R. H. Warren} [Pac. J. Math. 49, 519-535 (1973; Zbl 0237.54016)] (which is in the references but is never cited explicitly) becomes crucial when the authors start to talk about Čech closure operators on \(I^ X\) producing \(FR_ 0\) fuzzy closure spaces. Two simple necessary conditions for a fuzzy closure space to be \(FR_ 0\) are included. The proofs and likewise the counterexamples are taken, word for word, from Thron and Warren [op.cit.]. Then the authors avoid the so called strong axiom from the definition of (Efremovič) fuzzy proximity relation due to \textit{A. K. Katsaras} [An. Şiinţ. Univ. Al. I. Cuza Iaşi N. Ser., Seçt. Ia 26, 31-41 (1980; Zbl 0443.54007)] thereby defining a Č- proximity on \(I^ X\). \(FR_ 0\) Čech closure spaces are shown to be those that admit a Č-proximity. Also, the least and greatest elements of the (complete) lattice of all Č-proximities compatible with a given \(FR_ 0\) closure space are described [cf. \textit{E. Čech}, Topological spaces (1966; Zbl 0141.394)]. Afterwards, the authors attempt to extend the work of Thron and Warren [op. cit.]. The authors did not, however, extend the important result of this paper, stopping at the preliminary technical lemmas, which are by no means of independent interest. Moreover, the authors introduce a hierarchy of Č- proximities on \(I^ X\) called \(R_ i\)-proximities \((i=1,2,3,3)\) and characterize \(FT_ i\) spaces as those that admit separated \(R_{i-1}\)- proximities. The reader should consult [\textit{S. A. Naimpally} and \textit{B. D. Warrack}, Proximity spaces (1970; Zbl 0206.246)] and the paper of \textit{W. J. Thron} and \textit{R. H. Warren} [Can. J. Math. 26, 388-404 (1974; Zbl 0247.54026)]. Reviewer's remarks: The authors did not mention the other regularity and separation axioms that already exist in the literature. Quite a few of them should be compared with the authors' axioms. So, \(FR_ 2\) axiom is precisely the regularity axiom of \textit{M. Sarkar} [J. Math. Anal. Appl. 79, 384-394 (1981; Zbl 0457.54006)]. It is also equivalent (in an obvious way) to the regularity axiom of \textit{S. R. Malghan} and \textit{S. S. Benchalli} [Glas. Mat., III. Ser. 16(36), 313-325 (1981; Zbl 0497.54006)]. Note that Sarkar's axiom is known [\textit{S. E. Rodabaugh}, Fuzzy Sets Syst. 11, 163-183 (1983; Zbl 0525.54002)] to be equivalent to the axiom of regularity in the sense of \textit{B. Hutton} and \textit{I. Reilly} [ibid. 3, 93-104 (1980; Zbl 0421.54006)]. The \(FR_ 0\) is essentially stronger than both \(R_ 0\) of Hutton and Reilly [op.cit.] and \(R_ 0\) of \textit{R. Srivastava}, \textit{S. N. Lal} and \textit{A. K. Srivastava} [J. Math. Anal. Appl. 136, 66-73 (1988; see the following review)] (the latter two axioms are independent as shown in the just cited paper). Examples are still to be constructed to show that \(FR_ 0\) is distinct from \(R_ 0\) of Hutton and Reilly [op.cit.] and of Srivastava et al. [op.cit.]. The axioms \(FT_ i\) \((i=0,1,2)\) coincide with (or are equivalent to) many other axioms as far as distinct fuzzy points are understood as those that have distinct supports. As far as coincidence is concerned, see [\textit{S. Ganguly} and \textit{S. Saha}, Fuzzy Sets Syst. 16, 265-275 (1985; Zbl 0602.54007)]. For equivalent \(T_ 0\) see, for instance, Srivastava et al. [op.cit.]. For equivalent \(T_ 1\) and \(T_ 2\) see, for instance, [\textit{R. Srivastava}, \textit{S. N. Lal}, \textit{A. K. Srivastava}, J. Math. Anal. Appl. 136, No.1, 124-130 (1988; Zbl 0687.54007)] and Malghan and Benchalli [op.cit.], respectively. The concept of a p-cover is equivalent to the concept of a proper open cover due to Sarkar [op.cit.]. Theorem 2.6 (given without proof) is false with \(i=4\) (since its special case is the statement that a normal and \(T_ 0\) topological space is \(T_ 1)\), while for \(i=3\) it becomes a theorem about \(FT_{2}\)-axiom which is not present in the paper under review. Theorem 4.6 and, consequently, Corollary 4.9 are not true if \(i=2\) (since \(FR_{2}\) is essentially stronger than the complete regularity axiom of Katsaras [op.cit.]).