format: text

text:
# Fuzzy functions and an extension of the category 𝐿-Top of Chang-Goguen 𝐿-topological spaces

## Introduction

In research works where fuzzy sets are involved, in particular, in Fuzzy Topology, mostly certain usual functions are taken as morphisms: they can be certain mappings between corresponding sets, or between the fuzzy powersets of these sets, etc. On the other hand, in our joint works with U. Höhle and H.E. Porst ,  a certain class of $`L`$-relations (i.e. mappings $`F:X\times YL`$) was distinguished which we view as ($`L`$-)fuzzy functions from a set $`X`$ to a set $`Y`$; these fuzzy functions play the role of morphisms in an $`L`$-fuzzy category of sets $`SET(L)`$, introduced in .

Later on we constructed a fuzzy category $`TOP(L)`$ related to topology with fuzzy functions in the role of morphisms, see . Further, in  a certain uniform counterpart of $`TOP(L)`$ was introduced. Our aim here is to continue the study of $`TOP(L)`$. In particular, we show that the top frame $`TOP(L)`$ of the fuzzy category $`TOP(L)`$ is a topological category in H. Herrlich’s sense ) over the top frame $`SET(L)`$ of the fuzzy category $`SET(L)`$.

In order to make exposition self-contained, we start with Section 1 Prerequisities, where we briefly recall the three basic concepts which are essentially used in this work: they are the concepts of a $`GL`$-monoid (see e.g. , , etc.); of an $`L`$-valued set (see e.g. , etc.), and of an $`L`$-fuzzy category (see e.g. , , , etc.). In Section 2 we consider basic facts about fuzzy functions and introduce the $`L`$-fuzzy category $`SET(L)`$ , . The properties of this fuzzy category and some related categories are the subject of Section 3. $`SET(L)`$ is used as the ground category for the $`L`$-fuzzy category $`TOP(L)`$ whose objects are Chang-Goguen $`L`$-topological spaces , , and whose morphisms are certain fuzzy functions, i.e. morphisms from $`SET(L)`$. Fuzzy category $`TOP(L)`$ is considered in Section 4. Its crisp top frame $`TOP(L)^{}`$ is studied in Section 5. In particular, it is shown that $`TOP(L)^{}`$ is a topological category over $`SET(L)`$. Finally, in Section 6 we consider the behaviour of the topological property of compactness with respect to fuzzy functions — in other words in the context of the fuzzy category $`TOP(L)`$ and, specifically, in the context of the category $`TOP(L)^{}`$.

### Acknowledgements

The author is thankful to U. Höhle for many useful discussions which stimulated this work.

## 1. Prerequisities

### 1.1. $`GL`$-monoids

Let $`(L,)`$ be a complete infinitely distributive lattice, i.e. $`(L,)`$ is a partially ordered set such that for every subset $`AL`$ the join $`A`$ and the meet $`A`$ are defined and $`(A)\alpha =\{a\alpha )aA\}`$ and $`(A)\alpha =\{a\alpha )aA\}`$ for every $`\alpha L`$. In particular, $`L=:`$ and $`L=:`$ are respectively the universal upper and the universal lower bounds in $`L`$. We assume that $``$, i.e. $`L`$ has at least two elements.

A $`GL`$monoid (see , , ) is a complete lattice enriched with a further binary operation $``$, i.e. a triple $`(L,,)`$ such that:

1. $``$ is monotone, i.e. $`\alpha \beta `$ implies $`\alpha \gamma \beta \gamma `$, $`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma L`$;
2. $``$ is commutative, i.e. $`\alpha \beta =\beta \alpha `$, $`\alpha ,\beta L`$;
3. $``$ is associative, i.e. $`\alpha (\beta \gamma )=(\alpha \beta )\gamma `$, $`\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma L`$;
4. $`(L,,)`$ is integral, i.e. $``$ acts as the unity: $`\alpha =\alpha `$, $`\alpha L`$;
5. $``$ acts as the zero element in $`(L,,)`$, i.e. $`\alpha =`$, $`\alpha L`$;
6. $``$ is distributive over arbitrary joins, i.e. $`\alpha (_j\beta _j)=_j(\alpha \beta _j)`$, $`\alpha L,\{\beta _j:jJ\}L`$;
7. $`(L,,)`$ is divisible, i.e. $`\alpha \beta `$ implies existence of $`\gamma L`$ such that $`\alpha =\beta \gamma `$.

It is known that every $`GL`$monoid is residuated, i.e. there exists a further binary operation “$``$” (implication) on $`L`$ satisfying the following condition:

$$\alpha \beta \gamma \alpha (\beta \gamma )\alpha ,\beta ,\gamma L.$$

Explicitly implication is given by

$$\alpha \beta =\{\lambda L\alpha \lambda \beta \}.$$

Below we list some useful properties of $`GL`$monoids (see e.g. , , ):

1. $`\alpha \beta =\alpha \beta `$;
2. $`\alpha (_i\beta _i)=_i(\alpha \beta _i)`$;
3. $`(_i\alpha _i)\beta =_i(\alpha _i\beta )`$;
4. $`\alpha (_i\beta _i)=_i(\alpha \beta _i)`$;
5. $`(\alpha \gamma )(\gamma \beta )\alpha \beta `$;
6. $`\alpha \beta (\alpha \alpha )(\beta \beta )`$.

Important examples of $`GL`$-monoids are Heyting algebras and $`MV`$-algebras. Namely, a Heyting algebra is $`GL`$-monoid of the type $`(L,,,,)`$ (i.e. in case of a Heyting algebra $`=`$), cf. e.g. . A $`GL`$-monoid is called an $`MV`$-algebra if $`(\alpha )=\alpha \alpha L`$, , , see also \[8, Lemma 2.14\]. Thus in an $`MV`$-algebra an order reversing involution $`{}_{}{}^{c}:LL`$ can be naturally defined by setting $`\alpha ^c:=\alpha \alpha L`$.

If $`X`$ is a set and $`L`$ is a $`GL`$-monoid, then the fuzzy powerset $`L^X`$ in an obvious way can be pointwise endowed with a structure of a $`GL`$-monoid. In particular the $`L`$-sets $`1_X`$ and $`0_X`$ defined by $`1_X(x):=`$ and $`0_X(x):=`$ $`xX`$ are respectively the universal upper and lower bounds in $`L^X`$.

In the sequel $`L`$ denotes an arbitrary $`GL`$-monoid.

### 1.2. $`L`$-valued sets

Following U. Höhle (cf. e.g. ) by a (global) $`L`$-valued set we call a pair $`(X,E)`$ where $`X`$ is a set and $`E`$ is an $`L`$-valued equality, i.e. a mapping $`E:X\times XL`$ such that

1. $`E(x,x)=`$
2. $`E(x,y)=E(y,x)x,yX`$;
3. $`E(x,y)E(y,z)E(x,z)x,y,zX`$.

A mapping $`f:(X,E_X)(Y,E_Y)`$ is called extensional if

$$E_X(x,x^{})E_Y(f(x),f(x^{}))x,x^{}X.$$

Let $`SET(L)`$ denote the category whose objects are $`L`$-valued sets and whose morphisms are extensional mappings between the corresponding $`L`$-valued sets. Further, recall that an $`L`$-set, or more precisely, an $`L`$-subset of a set $`X`$ is just a mapping $`A:XL`$. In case $`(X,E)`$ is an $`L`$-valued set, its $`L`$-subset $`A`$ is called extensional if

$$\underset{xX}{}A(x)E(x,x^{})A(x^{})x^{}X.$$

### 1.3. L-fuzzy categories

###### Definition 1.3.1 (, , , ).

An L-fuzzy category is a quintuple $`𝒞=(𝒪b(𝒞),\omega ,(𝒞),\mu ,)`$ where $`𝒞_{}=(𝒪b(𝒞),(𝒞),)`$ is a usual (classical) category called the bottom frame of the fuzzy category $`𝒞`$; $`\omega :𝒪b(𝒞)L`$ is an $`L`$-subclass of the class of objects $`𝒪b(𝒞)`$ of $`𝒞_{}`$ and $`\mu :(𝒞)L`$ is an $`L`$-subclass of the class of morphisms $`(𝒞)`$ of $`𝒞_{}`$. Besides $`\omega `$ and $`\mu `$ must satisfy the following conditions:

1. if $`f:XY`$, then $`\mu (f)\omega (X)\omega (Y)`$;
2. $`\mu (gf)\mu (g)\mu (f)`$ whenever composition $`gf`$ is defined;
3. if $`e_X:XX`$ is the identity morphism, then $`\mu (e_X)=\omega (X)`$.

Given an L-fuzzy category $`𝒞=(𝒪b(𝒞),\omega ,(𝒞),\mu ,)`$ and $`X𝒪b(𝒞)`$, the intuitive meaning of the value $`\omega (X)`$ is the degree to which a potential object $`X`$ of the L-fuzzy category $`𝒞`$ is indeed its object; similarly, for $`f(𝒞)`$ the intuitive meaning of $`\mu (f)`$ is the degree to which a potential morphism $`f`$ of $`𝒞`$ is indeed its morphism.

###### Definition 1.3.2.

Let $`𝒞=(𝒪b(𝒞),\omega ,(𝒞),\mu ,)`$ be an L-fuzzy category. By an (L-fuzzy) subcategory of $`𝒞`$ we call an L-fuzzy category

$$𝒞^{}=(𝒪b(𝒞),\omega ^{},(𝒞),\mu ^{},)$$

where $`\omega ^{}\omega `$ and $`\mu ^{}\mu `$. A subcategory $`𝒞^{}`$ of the category $`𝒞`$ is called full if $`\mu ^{}(f)=\mu (f)\omega ^{}(X)\omega ^{}(Y)`$ for every $`f_𝒞(X,Y)`$, and all $`X`$,$`Y𝒪b(𝒞)`$.

Thus an L-fuzzy category and its subcategory have the same classes of potential objects and morphisms. The only difference of a subcategory from the whole category is in L-fuzzy classes of objects and morphisms, i.e. in the belongness degrees of potential objects and morphisms.

Let $`𝒞=(𝒪b(𝒞),(𝒞),)`$ be a crisp category and $`𝒟=(𝒪b(𝒟),(𝒟),)`$ be its subcategory. Then for every $`GL`$-monoid L the category $`𝒟`$ can be identified with the L-fuzzy subcategory

$$\stackrel{~}{𝒟}=(𝒪b(𝒞),\omega ^{},(𝒞),\mu ^{},)$$

of $`𝒞`$ such that $`\omega ^{}(X)=`$ if $`X𝒪b(𝒟)`$ and $`\omega ^{}(X)=`$ otherwise; $`\mu ^{}(f)=`$ if $`f(𝒟)`$ and $`\mu ^{}(f)=`$ otherwise. In particular, $`\stackrel{~}{𝒟}_{}=𝒟`$.

On the other hand sometimes it is convenient to identify a fuzzy subcategory

$$𝒞^{}=(𝒪b(𝒞),\omega ^{},(𝒞),\mu ^{},)$$

of the fuzzy category

$$𝒞=(𝒪b(𝒞),\omega ,(𝒞),\mu ,)$$

with the fuzzy category

$$𝒟=(𝒪b(𝒟),\omega _𝒟,(𝒟),\mu _𝒟,)$$

where

$$𝒪b(𝒟):=\{X𝒪b(𝒞)\omega ^{}(X)\}$$

and

$$(𝒟):=\{f(𝒞)\mu ^{}(f)\}$$

and $`\omega _𝒟`$ and $`\mu _𝒟`$ are restrictions of $`\omega ^{}`$ and $`\mu ^{}`$ to $`𝒪b(𝒟)`$ and $`(𝒟)`$ respectively.

## 2. Fuzzy functions and fuzzy category $`SET(L)`$

As it was already mentioned above, the concept of a fuzzy function and the corresponding fuzzy category $`SET(L)`$ were introduced in , . There were studied also basic properties of fuzzy functions. In this section we recall those definitions and results from  which will be needed in the sequel111Actually, the subject of ,  was a more general fuzzy category $`L`$-$`SET(L)`$ containing $`SET(L)`$ as a full subcategory. However, since for the merits of this work the category $`SET(L)`$ is of importance, when discussing results from ,  we reformulate (simplify) them for the case of $`SET(L)`$ without mentioning this every time explicitly. Besides some new needed facts about fuzzy functions will be established here, too.

### 2.1. Fuzzy functions and category $`SET(L)`$

###### Definition 2.1.1 (cf. \[9, 2.1\]).

A fuzzy function222Probably, the name an $`L`$-fuzzy function would be more adequate here. However, since the $`GL`$-monoid $`L`$ is considered to be fixed, and since the prefix “$`L`$” appears in the text very often, we prefer to say just a fuzzy function $`F`$ from an $`L`$-valued set $`(X,E_X)`$ to $`(Y,E_Y)`$ (in symbols $`F:(X,E_X)(Y,E_Y))`$) is a mapping $`F:X\times YL`$ such that

1. $`F(x,y)E_Y(y,y^{})F(x,y^{})xX,y,y^{}Y`$;
2. $`E_X(x,x^{})F(x,y)F(x^{},y)x,x^{}X,yY`$;
3. $`F(x,y)F(x,y^{})E_Y(y,y^{})xX,y,y^{}Y`$.

Notice that conditions (1ff)–(2ff) say that $`F`$ is a certain $`L`$relation, while axiom (3ff) together with evaluation $`\mu (F)`$ (see Subsection 2.2) specify that the $`L`$-relation $`F`$ is a fuzzy function.

###### Remark 2.1.2.

Let $`F:(X,E_X)(Y,E_Y)`$ be a fuzzy function, $`X^{}X`$, $`Y^{}Y`$, and let the $`L`$-valued equalities $`E_X^{}`$ and $`E_Y^{}`$ on $`X^{}`$ and $`Y^{}`$ be defined as the restrictions of the equalities $`E_X`$ and $`E_Y`$ respectively. Then defining a mapping $`F^{}:X^{}\times Y^{}L`$ by the equality $`F^{}(x,y)=F(x,y)xX^{},yY^{}`$ a fuzzy function $`F^{}:(X^{},E_X^{})(Y^{},E_Y^{})`$ is obtained. We refer to it as the restriction of $`F`$ to the subspaces $`(X^{},E_X^{})`$ $`(Y^{},E_Y^{})`$

Given two fuzzy functions $`F:(X,E_X)(Y,E_Y)`$ and $`G:(Y,E_Y)(Z,E_Z)`$ we define their composition $`GF:(X,E_X)(Z,E_Z)`$ by the formula

$$(GF)(x,z)=\underset{yY}{}(F(x,y)G(y,z))).$$

In  it was shown that the composition $`GF`$ is indeed a fuzzy function and that the operation of composition is associative. Further, if we define the identity morphism by the corresponding $`L`$-valued equality: $`E_X:(X,E_X)(X,E_X),`$ we come to a category $`SET(L)`$ whose objects are $`L`$-valued sets and whose morphisms are fuzzy functions $`F:(X,E_X)(Y,E_Y)`$.

### 2.2. Fuzzy category $`SET(L)`$

Given a fuzzy function $`F:(X,E_X)(Y,E_Y)`$ let

$$\mu (F)=\underset{x}{inf}\underset{y}{sup}F(x,y).$$

Thus we define an $`L`$-subclass $`\mu `$ of the class of all morphisms of $`SET(L)`$. In case $`\mu (F)\alpha `$ we refer to $`F`$ as a fuzzy $`\alpha `$-function.

If $`F:(X,E_X)(Y,E_Y)\text{ and }G:(Y,E_Y)(Z,E_Z)`$ are fuzzy functions, then $`\mu (GF)\mu (G)\mu (F)`$ . Further, given an $`L`$-valued set $`(X,E)`$ let $`\omega (X,E):=\mu (E)=inf_xE(x,x)=`$. Thus a fuzzy category $`SET(L)`$= $`(FSET(L),\omega ,\mu )`$ is obtained.

###### Example 2.2.1.

Let $`=`$ and $`E_Y`$ be a crisp equality on $`Y`$, i.e. $`E_Y(y,y^{})=\text{ iff }y=y^{}`$, and $`E_Y(y,y^{})=`$ otherwise. Then every fuzzy function $`F:(X,E_X)(Y,E_Y)`$ such that $`\mu (F)=`$ is uniquely determined by a usual function $`f:XY`$. Indeed, let $`f(x)=y\text{ iff }F(x,y)=`$. Then condition (3ff) implies that there cannot be $`f(x)=y`$, $`f(x)=y^{}`$ for two different $`y`$, $`y^{}Y`$ and condition $`\mu (F)=`$ guarantees that for every $`xX`$ one can find $`yY`$ such that $`f(x)=y`$. If besides $`E_X`$ is crisp, then, vice versa, every mapping $`f:XY`$ can be viewed as a fuzzy mapping $`F:(X,E_X)(Y,E_Y)`$ (since the conditions of extensionality (2ff) and (3ff) are automatically fulfilled in this case)

###### Remark 2.2.2.

If $`F^{}:(X^{},E_X^{})(Y,E_Y)`$ is the restriction of $`F:(X,E_X)(Y,E_Y)`$ (see Remark above) and $`\mu (F)\alpha `$, then $`\mu (F^{})\alpha `$. However, generally the restriction $`F^{}:(X^{},E_X^{})(Y^{},E_Y^{})`$ of $`F:(X,E_X)(Y,E_Y)`$ may fail to satisfy condition $`\mu (F^{})\alpha `$.

### 2.3. Images and preimages of $`L`$-sets under fuzzy functions

Given a fuzzy function $`F:(X,E_X)(Y,E_Y)`$ and $`L`$-subsets $`A:XL`$ and $`B:YL`$ of $`X`$ and $`Y`$ respectively, we define the fuzzy set $`F^{}(A):YL`$ (the image of $`A`$ under $`F`$) by the equality $`F^{}(A)(y)=_xF(x,y)A(x)`$ and the fuzzy set $`F^{}(B):XL`$ (the preimage of $`B`$ under $`F`$) by the equality $`F^{}(B)(x)=_yF(x,y)B(y)`$.

Note that if $`AL^X`$ is extensional, then $`F^{}(A)L^Y`$ is extensional (by (2ff)) and if $`BL^Y`$ is extensional, then $`F^{}(B)L^X`$ is extensional (by (3ff)).

###### Proposition 2.3.1 (Basic properties of images and preimages of $`L`$-sets under fuzzy functions).

1. $`F^{}(_i(A_i)=_iF^{}(A_i)\{A_i:i\}L^X`$;
2. $`F^{}(A_1A_2)F^{}(A_1)F^{}(A_2)A_1,A_2L^X`$;
3. If $`L`$-sets $`B_i`$ are extensional, then

$$\underset{i}{}F^{}(B_i)\mu (F)^2F^{}(\underset{i}{}B_i)\underset{i}{}F^{}(B_i)\{B_i:i\}L^Y.$$

In particular, if $`\mu (F)=`$, then $`F^{}(_iB_i)=_iF^{}(B_i)`$ for every family of extensinal $`L`$-sets $`\{B_i:i\}L^Y`$.
4. $`F^{}(_iB_i)=_iF^{}(B_i)\{B_i:i\}L^Y`$.
5. $`A\mu (F)^2F^{}(F^{}(A))`$ for every $`AL^X`$.
6. $`F^{}\left(F^{}(B)\right)B`$ for every extensional $`L`$-set $`BL^Y`$.
7. $`F^{}(c_Y)\mu (F)c`$ where $`c_Y:YL`$ is the constant function taking value $`cL`$. In particular, $`F^{}(c_Y)=c`$ if $`\mu (F)=`$.

###### Proof.

(1).

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\left(_iF^{}(A_i)\right)(y)\hfill & =\hfill & _i_x\left(F(x,y)A_i(x)\right)\hfill \\ & =\hfill & _x_i\left(F(x,y)A_i(x)\right)\hfill \\ & =\hfill & _x(F(x,y)(_iA_i)(x))\hfill \\ & =\hfill & F^{}(_iA_i)(y).\hfill \end{array}$$

(2). The validity of (2) follows from the monotonicity of $`F^{}`$.

(3). To prove property 3 we first establish the following inequality

(2.3.1.1)
$$\underset{yY}{}\left(F(x,y)\right)^2\left(\underset{yY}{}F(x,y)\right)^2.$$

Indeed, by a property (vii) of a GL-monoid

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\left(_{yY}F(x,y)\right)^2\hfill & =\hfill & \left(_{yY}F(x,y)\right)\left(_{y^{}Y}F(x,y^{})\right)\hfill \\ & =\hfill & _{y,y^{}Y}\left(F(x,y)F(x,y^{})\right)\hfill \\ & \hfill & _{y,y^{}Y}\left(F(x,y)^2F(x,y^{})^2\right)\hfill \\ & =\hfill & _{yY}\left(F(x,y)\right)^2.\hfill \end{array}$$

In particular, it follows from (2.3.1.1) that

(2.3.1.2)
$$xX\underset{yY}{}\left(F(x,y)\right)^2\mu (F)^2.$$

Now, applying (2.3.1.2) and taking into account extensionality of $`L`$-sets $`B_i`$, we proceed as follows:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\multicolumn{3}{c}{\left(_iF^{}(B_i)\right)(x)\left(\mu (F)\right)^2}\\ & \hfill & (_i\left(_{y_iY}(F(x,y_i)B_i(y_i))\right)_{yY}\left(F(x,y)\right)^2\hfill \\ & =\hfill & _{yY}(\left(F(x,y)\right)^2_i(_{y_iY}F(x,y_i)B_i(y_i))\hfill \\ & =\hfill & _{yY}(F(x,y)\left(_i(F(x,y)(_{y_iY}F(x,y_i)B_i(y_i)))\right)\hfill \\ & =\hfill & _{yY}\left(F(x,y)\left(_i\left(_{y_iY}(F(x,y)F(x,y_i))\right)B_i(y_i)\right)\right)\hfill \\ & \hfill & _{yY}\left(F(x,y)\left(_i\left(_{y_iY}E(y,y_i)B_i(y_i)\right)\right)\right)\hfill \\ & \hfill & _{yY}\left(F(x,y)\left(_iB_i(y)\right)\right)\hfill \\ & =\hfill & F^{}(_iB_i))(x),\hfill \end{array}$$

and hence

$$\left(\underset{i}{}F^{}(B_i)\right)\left(\mu (F)\right)^2F^{}(\underset{i}{}B_i)).$$

To complete the proof notice that the inequality

$$F^{}(\underset{i}{}B_i)\underset{i}{}F^{}(B_i)$$

is obvious.

(4). The proof of (4) is similar to the proof of (1) and is therefore omitted.

(5). Let $`AL^X`$, then

$$\begin{array}{ccc}F^{}(F^{}(A))(x)\hfill & =\hfill & _y(F(x,y)F^{}(A)(y))\hfill \\ & =\hfill & _y\left(F(x,y)\left(_x^{}F(x^{},y)A(x^{})\right)\right)\hfill \\ & \hfill & _y(F(x,y)^2A(x))\hfill \\ & \hfill & (\mu (F))^2A(x)\hfill \end{array}$$

for every $`xX`$, and hence 5 holds.

(6). To show property 6 assume that $`BL^Y`$ is extensional. Then

$$\begin{array}{ccc}F^{}(F^{}(B))(y)\hfill & =\hfill & _x\left(F(x,y)F^{}(B)(x)\right)\hfill \\ & =\hfill & _xF(x,y)\left(_y^{}F(x,y^{})B(y^{})\right)\hfill \\ & =\hfill & _{xX,yY}\left(F(x,y)F(x,y^{})B(y^{})\right)\hfill \\ & \hfill & E_Y(y,y^{})B(y^{})\hfill \\ & \hfill & B(y),\hfill \end{array}$$

and hence $`F^{}\left(F^{}(B)\right)B`$.

(7). The proof of property 7 is straightforward and therefore omitted. ∎

### 2.4. Injectivity, surjectivity and bijectivity of fuzzy functions

###### Definition 2.4.1.

A fuzzy function $`F:(X,E_X)(Y,E_Y)`$ is called injective, if

* $`F(x,y)F(x^{},y)E_X(x,x^{})x,x^{}X,yY`$.

###### Definition 2.4.2.

Given a fuzzy function $`F:(X,E_X)(Y,E_Y)`$, we define its degree of surjectivity by the equality:

$$\sigma (F):=\underset{y}{inf}\underset{x}{sup}F(x,y)$$

In particular, a fuzzy function $`F`$ is called $`\alpha `$-surjective, if $`\sigma (F)\alpha `$.

In case $`F`$ is injective and $`\alpha `$-surjective, it is called $`\alpha `$-bijective.

###### Remark 2.4.3.

Let $`(X,E_X)`$, $`(Y,E_Y)`$ be $`L`$-valued sets and $`(X^{},E_X^{})`$, $`(Y^{},E_Y^{})`$ be their subspaces. Obviously, the restriction $`F^{}:(X^{},E_X^{})(Y^{},E_Y^{})`$ of an injection $`F:(X,E_X)(Y,E_Y)`$ is an injection. The restriction $`F^{}:(X,E_X)(Y^{},E_Y^{})`$ of an $`\alpha `$-surjection $`F:(X,E_X)(Y,E_Y)`$ is an $`\alpha `$-surjection. On the other hand, generally the restriction $`F^{}:(X^{},E_X^{})(Y^{},E_Y^{})`$ of an $`\alpha `$-surjection $`F:(X,E_X)(Y,E_Y)`$ may fail to be an $`\alpha `$-surjection.

A fuzzy function $`F:(X,E_X)(Y,E_Y)`$ determines a fuzzy relation $`F^1:X\times YL`$ by setting $`F^1(y,x)=F(x,y)`$ $`xX`$, $`yY`$.

###### Proposition 2.4.4 (Basic properties of injections, $`\alpha `$-surjections and $`\alpha `$-bijections).

1. $`F^1:(Y,E_Y)(X,E_X)`$ is a fuzzy function iff $`F`$ is injective (actually $`F^1`$ satisfies (3ff) iff F satisfies (inj))
2. $`F`$ is $`\alpha `$-bijective iff $`F^1`$ is $`\alpha `$-bijective.
3. If $`F`$ is injective, and L-sets $`A_i`$ are extensional, then

$$(\underset{i}{}F^{}(A_i))(\sigma (F))^2F^{}(\underset{i}{}A_i)\underset{i}{}F^{}(A_i)\{A_i:i\}L^X.$$

In particular, if $`F`$ is $``$-bijective, then

$$(\underset{i}{}F^{}(A_i)=F^{}(\underset{i}{}A_i)\{A_i:i\}L^X.$$
4. $`F^{}(F^{}(B))\sigma (F)^2B`$. In particular, if $`F`$ is $``$-surjective and $`B`$ is extensional, then $`F^{}(F^{}(B))=B`$.
5. $`F^{}(c_X)\sigma (F)c`$ where $`c_X:XL`$ is the constant function with value $`c`$. In particular, $`F^{}(c_X)=c`$ if $`\sigma (F)=`$.

###### Proof.

Properties 1 and 2 follow directly from the definitions.

(2). The proof of Property 3 is analogous to the proof of item 3 of Proposition 2.3.1:

First, reasoning as in the proof of $`(\text{2.3.1.1})`$ we establish the following inequality

(2.4.4.1)
$$\underset{xX}{}\left(F(x,y)\right)^2\left(\underset{xX}{}F(x,y)\right)^2.$$

In particular, from here it follows that

(2.4.4.2)
$$yY\underset{xX}{}\left(F(x,y)^2\right)\sigma (F)^2.$$

Now, applying $`(\text{2.4.4.2})`$ and taking into account extensionality of $`L`$-sets $`A_i`$, we proceed as follows:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\multicolumn{3}{c}{\left(_iF^{}(A_i)\right)(x)\left(\sigma (F)\right)^2}\\ & \hfill & (_i\left(_{x_iX}(F(x_i,y)A_i(x_i))\right)_{xX}\left(F(x,y)\right)^2\hfill \\ & =\hfill & _{xX}(\left(F(x,y)\right)^2_i(_{x_iX}F(x_i,y)A_i(x_i))\hfill \\ & =\hfill & _{xX}(F(x,y)\left(_i(F(x,y)(_{x_iX}F(x_i,y)A_i(x_i)))\right)\hfill \\ & =\hfill & _{xX}\left(F(x,y)\left(_i\left(_{x_iX}(F(x,y)F(x_i,y))\right)A_i(x_i)\right)\right)\hfill \\ & \hfill & _{xX}\left(F(x,y)\left(_i\left(_{x_iX}E_X(x,x_i)A_i(x_i)\right)\right)\right)\hfill \\ & \hfill & _{xX}\left(F(x,y)\left(_iA_i(x)\right)\right)\hfill \\ & =\hfill & F^{}(_iA_i))(y),\hfill \end{array}$$

and hence

$$\left(\underset{i}{}F^{}(A_i)\right)\left(\sigma (F)\right)^2F^{}(\underset{i}{}A_i)).$$

To complete the proof notice that the inequality

$$F^{}(\underset{i}{}A_i)\underset{i}{}F^{}(A_i)$$

is obvious.

(4). Let $`BL^Y`$, then

$$\begin{array}{ccc}F^{}(F^{}(B))(y)\hfill & =\hfill & _x\left(F(x,y)F^{}(B)(x)\right)\hfill \\ & =\hfill & _xF(x,y)\left(_y^{}F(x,y^{})B(y)\right)\hfill \\ & \hfill & _xF(x,y)F(x,y)B(y)\hfill \\ & \hfill & \sigma (F)^2B(y),\hfill \end{array}$$

and hence the first inequality in item 4 is proved. From here and Proposition 2.3.1 (6) the second statement of item 4 follows.

(5) The proof of the last property is straightforward and therefore omitted. ∎

###### Question 2.4.5.

We do not know whether inequalities in items 3, 4 and 5 can be improved.

## 3. Further properties of fuzzy category $`SET(L)`$

In this section we continue to study properties of the fuzzy category $`SET(L)`$. As different from the previous section, were our principal interest was in the “set-theoretic” aspect of fuzzy functions, here shall be mainly interested in their properties of “categorical nature”.

First we shall specify the two (crisp) categories related to $`SET(L)`$: namely, its bottom frame $`SET(L)`$ (=$`SET(L)`$ (this category was introduced already in Section 2) and its top frame $`SET(L)`$. The last one will be of special importance for us. By definition its morphisms $`F`$ satisfy condition $`\mu (F)=`$, and as we have seen in the previous section, fuzzy functions satisfying this condition “behave themselves much more like ordinary functions” than general fuzzy functions. Respectively, the results which we are able to establish about $`SET(L)`$ and about topological category $`TOP(L)^{}`$based on it, are more complete and nice, then their more general counterparts.

Second, note that the “classical” category $`SET(L)`$ of $`L`$-valued sets can be naturally viewed as a subcategory of $`SET(L)`$. In case $`L=\{0,1\}`$ obviously the two categories collapse into the category SET of sets. On the other hand, starting with the category SET (=SET$`(\{0,1\})`$) (i.e. $`L=\{0,1\}`$) of sets and enriching it with respective fuzzy functions, we obtain again the category SET as $`SET(L)`$ and obtain the category of sets and partial functions as $`SET(L)`$.

### 3.1. Preimages of $`L`$-valued equalities under fuzzy functions

Let an $`L`$-valued set $`(Y,E_Y)`$, a set $`X`$ and a mapping $`F:X\times YL`$ be given. We are interested to find the largest $`L`$-valued equality $`E_X`$ on $`X`$ for which $`F:(X,E_X)(Y,E_Y)`$ is a fuzzy function. This $`L`$-valued equality will be called the preimage of $`E_Y`$ under $`F`$ and will be denoted $`F^{}(E_Y)`$.

Note first that the axioms

1. $`F(x,y)E_Y(y,y^{})F(x,y^{})`$, and
2. $`F(x,y)F(x,y^{})E(y,y^{})`$

do not depend on the $`L`$-valued equality on $`X`$ and hence we have to demand that the mapping $`F`$ originally satisfies them. To satisfy the last axiom

1. $`E_X(x,x^{})F(x,y)F(x^{},y)`$

in an “optimal way” we define

$$E_X(x,x^{}):=\underset{y}{}\left(\left(F(x,y)F(x^{},y)\right)\left(F(x^{},y)F(x,y)\right)\right).$$

Then $`E_X:X\times XL`$ is an $`L`$-valued equality on $`X`$. Indeed, the validity of properties $`E_X(x,x)=`$ and $`E_X(x,x^{})=E_X(x^{},x)`$ is obvious. To establish the last property, i.e. $`E_X(x,x^{})E_X(x^{},x^{\prime \prime })E_X(x,x^{\prime \prime })`$, we proceed as follows:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\multicolumn{3}{c}{E_X(x,x^{})E_X(x^{},x^{\prime \prime })}\\ & =\hfill & _y\left(\left(F(x,y)F(x^{},y)\right)\left(F(x^{},y)F(x,y)\right)\right)\hfill \\ & & _y((F(x^{},y)F(x^{\prime \prime },y))(F(x^{\prime \prime },y)F(x^{},y)))\hfill \\ & \hfill & _y((F(x,y)F(x^{},y))(F(x^{},y)F(x,y))\hfill \\ & & (F(x^{},y)F(x^{\prime \prime },y))(F(x^{\prime \prime },y)F(x^{},y)))\hfill \\ & \hfill & _y((F(x,y)F(x^{},y))(F(x^{},y)F(x,y))\hfill \\ & & (\left(F(x^{},y)F(x^{\prime \prime },y)\right)\left(F(x^{\prime \prime },y)F(x^{},y)\right))\hfill \\ & \hfill & _y\left(\left(F(x,y)F(x^{\prime \prime },y)\right)\left(F(x^{\prime \prime },y)F(x,y)\right)\right)\hfill \\ & =\hfill & E_X(x,x^{\prime \prime }).\hfill \end{array}$$

Further, just from the definition of $`E_X`$ it is clear that $`F`$ satisfies the axiom (2ff) and hence it is indeed a fuzzy function $`F:(X,E_X)(Y,E_Y).`$ Moreover, from the definition of $`E_X`$ it is easy to note that it is really the largest $`L`$-valued equality on $`X`$ for which $`F`$ satisfies axiom (2ff).

Finally, note that the value $`\mu (F)`$ is an inner property of the mapping $`F:X\times YL`$ and does not depend on $`L`$-valued equalities on these sets.

###### Question 3.1.1.

We do not know whether the preimage $`F^{}(E_Y)`$ is the initial structure for the source $`F:X(Y,E_Y)`$ in $`SET(L)`$. Namely, given an $`L`$-valued set $`(Z,E_Z)`$ and a “fuzzy quasi-function” $`G:(Z,E_Z)X`$ is it true that composition $`FG:(Z,E_Z)(Y,E_Y)`$ is a fuzzy function if and only if $`G:(Z,E_Z)(X,E_X)`$ is a fuzzy function? By a fuzzy quasi-function we mean that $`G`$ satisfies properties (1ff) and (3ff) which do not depend on the equality on $`X`$.

### 3.2. Images of $`L`$-valued equalities under fuzzy functions

Let an $`L`$-valued set $`(X,E_X)`$, a set $`Y`$ and a mapping $`F:X\times YL`$ be given. We are interested to find the smallest $`L`$-valued equality $`E_Y`$ on $`Y`$ for which $`F:(X,E_X)(Y,E_Y)`$ is a fuzzy function. This $`L`$-valued equality will be called the image of $`E_X`$ under $`F`$ and will be denoted $`F^{}(E_X)`$.

Note first that the axiom

1. $`E_X(x,x^{})F(x,y)F(x^{},y)`$

does not depend on the $`L`$-valued equality on $`Y`$ and hence we have to demand that the mapping $`F`$ originally satisfies it. Therefore we have to bother that $`F`$ satisfies the remaining two axioms:

1. $`F(x,y)E_Y(y,y^{})F(x,y^{})`$, and
2. $`F(x,y)F(x,y^{})E(y,y^{})`$

These conditions can be rewritten in the form of the double inequality:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}F(x,y)F(x,y^{})\hfill & \hfill & E_Y(y,y^{})\hfill \\ & \hfill & \left(F(x,y^{})F(x,y)\right)\left(F(x,y)F(x,y^{})\right).\hfill \end{array}$$

Defining $`E_Y`$ by the equality

$$E_Y(y,y^{})=\underset{x}{}\left(F(x,y)F(x,y^{})\right),$$

we shall obviously satisfy both of them. Moreover, it is clear that $`E_Y`$ satisfies property (3ff) and besides $`E_Y`$ cannot be diminished without loosing this property. Hence we have to show only that $`E_Y`$ is indeed an $`L`$-valued equality. However, to prove this we need the assumption that $`\sigma (F)=`$, that is $`F`$ is $``$-surjective. Note that

$$E_Y(y,y)=\underset{x}{}\left(F(x,y)F(x,y)\right)(\sigma (F))^2,$$

and hence the first axiom is justified in case $`\sigma (F)=`$.

The equality $`E_Y(y,y^{})=E_Y(y^{},y)`$ is obvious.

Finally, to establish the last property, we proceed as follows. Let $`y,y^{},y^{\prime \prime }Y`$. Then

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\multicolumn{3}{c}{E_Y(y,y^{})E_Y(y^{},y^{\prime \prime })}\\ & =\hfill & _x\left(F(x,y)F(x,y^{})\right)_x\left(F(x,y^{})F(x,y^{\prime \prime })\right)\hfill \\ & =\hfill & _{x,x^{}}\left(F(x,y)F(x,y^{})F(x^{},y^{})F(x^{},y^{\prime \prime })\right)\hfill \\ & \hfill & _{x,x^{}}\left(F(x,y)E_X(x,x^{})F(x^{},y^{\prime \prime })\right)\hfill \\ & \hfill & _x\left(F(x,y)F(x,y^{\prime \prime })\right)\hfill \\ & =\hfill & E(y,y^{\prime \prime }).\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Question 3.2.1.

We do not know whether the image $`F^{}(E_X)`$ is the final structure for the sink $`F:(X,E_X)Y`$ in $`SET(L)`$ in case $`\sigma (F)=`$. Namely, given an $`L`$-valued set $`(Z,E_Z)`$ and a “fuzzy almost-function” $`G:Y(Z,E_Z)`$ is it true that composition $`FG:(Z,E_Z)(Y,E_Y)`$ is a fuzzy function if and only if $`G:(Y,E_Y)(Z,E_Z)`$ is a fuzzy function? By a fuzzy almost-function we mean that $`G`$ satisfies property (2ff) which does not depend on the equality on $`Y`$.

### 3.3. Products in $`SET(L)^{}`$

Let $`𝒴=\{(Y_i,E_i):i\}`$ be a family of $`L`$-valued sets and let $`Y=_iY_i`$ be the product of the corresponding sets. We introduce the $`L`$-valued equality $`E:Y\times YL`$ on $`Y`$ by setting $`E_Y(y,y^{})=_iE_i(y_i,y_{}^{}{}_{i}{}^{})`$ where $`y=(y_i)_i`$, $`y^{}=(y_{}^{}{}_{i}{}^{})_i`$. Further, let $`p_i:YY_i`$ be the projection. Then the pair $`(Y,E)`$ thus defined with the family of projections $`p_i:YY_i`$, $`i`$, is the product of the family $`𝒴`$ in the category $`SET(L)^{}`$.

To show this notice first that, since the morphisms in this category are fuzzy functions, a projection $`p_{i_0}:YY_{i_0}`$ must be realized as the fuzzy function $`p_{i_0}:Y\times Y_{i_0}L`$ such that $`p_{i_0}(y,y_{i_0}^0)=`$ if and only if the $`i_0`$-coordinate of $`y`$ is $`y_{i_0}^0`$ and $`p_{i_0}(y,y_{i_0}^0)=`$ otherwise.

Next, let $`F_i:(X,E_X)(Y_i,E_i)`$, $`i`$ be a family of fuzzy functions. We define the fuzzy function $`F:(X,E_X)(Y,E_Y)`$ by the equality:

$$F(x,y)=\underset{i}{}F_i(x,y_i).$$

It is obvious that $`\mu (F)=`$ and hence $`F`$ is in $`SET(L)^{}`$. Finally, notice that the composition

$$(X,E_X)\stackrel{F}{}(Y,E_Y)\stackrel{p_{i_0}}{}(Y_{i_0},E_{i_0})$$

is the fuzzy function

$$F_{i_0}:(X,E_X)(Y_{i_0},E_{i_0}).$$

Indeed, let $`x^0X`$ and $`y_{i_0}^0Y_{i_0}`$. Then, taking into account that $`\mu (F_i)=`$ for all $`i`$, we get

$$\begin{array}{ccc}(p_{i_0}F)(x^o,y_{i_0}^0)\hfill & =\hfill & _{yY}\left(p_{i_0}(y,y_{i_0}^0)F(x^0,y)\right)\hfill \\ & =\hfill & _{yY}\left(p_{i_0}(y,y_{i_0}^0)_iF_i(x^0,y_i)\right)\hfill \\ & =\hfill & F_{i_0}(x^0,y_{i_0}).\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Question 3.3.1.

We do not know whether products in $`SET(L)`$ can be defined in a reasonable way.

### 3.4. Coproducts in $`SET(L)`$

Let $`𝒳`$ = $`\{(X_i,E_i):i\}`$ be a family of $`L`$-valued sets, let $`X=X_i`$ be the disjoint sum of sets $`X_i`$. Further, let $`q_i:X_iX`$ be the inclusion map. We introduce the $`L`$-equality on $`X_0`$ by setting $`E(x,x^{})=E_i(x,x^{})`$ if $`(x,x^{})X_i\times X_i`$ for some $`i`$ and $`E(x,x^{})=`$ otherwise (cf. ). An easy verification shows that $`(X,E)`$ is the coproduct of $`𝒳`$ in $`SET(L)`$ and hence, in particular, in $`SET(L)^{}`$.

Indeed, given a family of fuzzy functions $`F_i:(X_i,E_i)(Y,E_Y)`$, let the fuzzy function

$$_iF_i:(X,E)(Y,E_Y)$$

be defined by

$$_iF_i(x,y)=F_{i_0}(x,y)\text{ whenever }xX_{i_0}.$$

Then for $`x=x_{i_0}X_{i_0}`$ we have

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\left(_iF_iq_{i_0}\right)(x,y)\hfill & =\hfill & _{x^{}X}\left(q_{i_0}(x,x^{})\left(_iF_i(x^{},y)\right)\right)\hfill \\ & =\hfill & F_{i_0}(x,y).\hfill \end{array}$$

### 3.5. Subobjects in $`SET(L)`$

Let $`(X,E)`$ be an $`L`$-valued set, let $`YX`$ and let $`e:YX`$ be the natural embedding. Further, let $`E_Y:=e^{}(E)`$ be the preimage of the $`L`$-valued equality $`E`$. Explicitly, in this case this means that $`E_Y(y,y^{})=E(y,y^{})`$ for all $`y,y^{}Y`$. One can easily see that $`(Y,E_Y)`$ is a subobject of $`(X,E)`$ in the fuzzy category $`SET(L)`$.

## 4. Fuzzy category $`TOP(L)`$

### 4.1. Basic concepts

###### Definition 4.1.1 (see , cf. also , , ).

A family $`\tau _XL^X`$ of extensional $`L`$-sets333Since $`L`$-topology is defined on an $`L`$-valued set $`X`$ the condition of extensionality of elements of $`L`$-topology seems natural. Besides the assumption of extensionality is already implicitly included in the definition of a fuzzy function. is called an $`L`$-topology on an $`L`$-valued set $`(X,E_X)`$ if it is closed under finite meets, arbitrary joins and contains $`0_X`$ and $`1_X`$. Corresponding triple $`(X,E_X,\tau _X)`$ will be called an $`L`$-valued $`L`$-topological space or just an $`L`$-topological space for short. A fuzzy function $`F:(X,E_X,\tau _X)(Y,E_Y,\tau _Y)`$ is called continuous if $`F^{}(V)\tau _X`$ for all $`V\tau _Y`$.

$`L`$-topological spaces and continuous fuzzy mappings between them form the fuzzy category which will be denoted $`TOP(L)`$. Indeed, let

$$F:(X,E_X,\tau _X)(Y,E_Y,\tau _Y)\text{and}G:(Y,E_Y,\tau _Y)(Z,E_Z,\tau _Z)$$

be continuous fuzzy functions and let $`W\tau _Z`$. Then

$$\begin{array}{ccc}(GF)^{}(W)(x)\hfill & =\hfill & _z\left((GF)(x,z)W(z)\right)\hfill \\ & =\hfill & _{z,y}\left(F(x,y)G(y,z)W(z)\right).\hfill \end{array}$$

On the other hand, $`G^{}(W)(y)=_zG(y,z)W(z)`$ and

$$\begin{array}{ccc}F^{}\left(G^{}(W)\right)(x)\hfill & =\hfill & _yF(x,y)\left(_z(G(y,z)W(z))\right)\hfill \\ & =\hfill & _{z,y}\left(F(x,y)G(y,z)W(z)\right).\hfill \end{array}$$

Thus $`(GF)^{}(W)=G^{}(F^{}(W))`$ for every $`W`$, and hence composition of continuous fuzzy functions is continuous. Besides, we have seen already before that $`\mu (GF)\mu (G)\mu (F)`$. Finally, $`E_X^{}(B)=B`$ for every extensional $`BL^X`$ and hence the identity mapping $`E_X:(X,E_X,\tau _X)(X,E_X,\tau _X)`$ is continuous.

###### Remark 4.1.2.

In case when $`L`$-valued equality $`E_X`$ is crisp, i.e. when $`X`$ is an ordinary set, the above definition of an L-topology on $`X`$ reduces to the “classical” definition of an $`L`$-topology in the sense of Chang and Goguen, , .

###### Remark 4.1.3.

Some (ordinary) subcategories of the fuzzy category $`TOP(L)`$ will be of special interest for us. Namely, let $`TOP(L)`$ =: FTOP(L) denote the bottom frame of $`TOP(L)`$, let $`TOP(L)^{}`$ be the top frame of $`TOP(L)`$, and finally let L-TOP(L) denote the subcategory of $`TOP(L)`$ whose morphisms are ordinary functions. Obviously the “classical” category L-TOP of Chang-Goguen $`L`$-topological spaces can be obtained as a full subcategory L-TOP(L) whose objects carry crisp equalities. Another way to obtain L-TOP is to consider fuzzy subcategory of $`TOP(L)`$whose objects carry crisp equalities and whose morphisms satisfy condition $`\mu (F)>.`$

In case when $`L`$ is an $`MV`$-algebra and involution $`{}_{}{}^{c}:LL`$ on $`L`$ is defined in the standard way, i.e. $`\alpha ^c:=\alpha `$ we can reasonably introduce the notion of a closed $`L`$-set in an $`L`$-topological space:

###### Definition 4.1.4.

An $`L`$-set $`A`$ in an $`L`$-topological space $`(X,E_X,\tau _X)`$ is called closed if $`A^c\tau _X`$ where $`A^cL^X`$ is defined by the equality

$$A^c(x):=A(x)xX.$$

Let $`𝒞_X`$ denote the family of all closed $`L`$-sets in $`(X,E_X,\tau _X)`$. In case when $`L`$ is an $`MV`$-algebra the families of sets $`\tau _X`$ and $`𝒞_X`$ mutually determine each other:

$$A\tau _XA^c𝒞_X.$$

### 4.2. Analysis of continuity

Since the operation of taking preimages $`F^{}`$ commutes with joins, and in case when $`\mu (F)=`$ also with meets (see Proposition 2.3.1), one can easily verify the following

###### Theorem 4.2.1.

Let $`(X,E_X,\tau _X)`$ and $`(Y,E_Y,\tau _Y)`$ be $`L`$-topological spaces, $`\beta _Y`$ be a base of $`\tau _Y`$, $`\xi _Y`$ its subbase and let $`F:XY`$ be a fuzzy function. Then the following are equivalent:

1. $`F`$ is continuous;
2. for every $`V\beta _Y`$ it holds $`F^{}(V)\tau _X`$;
3. $`F^{}(Int_Y(B))Int_X(F^{}(B))`$, for every $`BL^Y`$ where $`Int_X`$ and $`Int_Y`$ are the corresponding $`L`$-interior operators on $`X`$ and $`Y`$ respectively.

In case when $`\mu (F)=`$ these conditions are equivalent also to the following

1. for every $`V\xi _Y`$ it holds $`F^{}(V)\tau _X`$.

In case when $`L`$ is an MV-algebra one can characterize continuity of a fuzzy function by means of closed $`L`$-sets and $`L`$-closure operators:

###### Theorem 4.2.2.

Let $`(L,,,,)`$ be an MV-algebra, $`(X,E_X,\tau _X)`$ and $`(Y,E_Y,\tau _Y)`$ be $`L`$-topological spaces and $`F:XY`$ be a fuzzy function. Further, let $`𝒞_X`$, $`𝒞_Y`$ denote the families of closed $`L`$-sets and $`cl_X`$, $`cl_Y`$ denote the closure operators in $`(X,E_X,\tau _X)`$ and $`(Y,E_Y,\tau _Y)`$ respectively. Then the following two conditions are equivalent:

1. $`F`$ is continuous;
2. For every $`B𝒞_Y`$ it follows $`F^{}(B)𝒞_X`$.

In case when $`\mu (F)=`$, the previous conditions are equivalent to the following:

1. For every $`AL^X`$ it holds $`F^{}(cl_X(A))cl_Y(F^{}(A)).`$

###### Proof.

In case when $`L`$ is equipped with an order reversing involution, as it is in our situation, families of closed and open $`L`$-sets mutually determine each other. Therefore, to verify the equivalence of (1con) and (5con) it is sufficient to notice that for every $`BL^Y`$ and every $`xX`$ it holds

$$\begin{array}{ccc}F^{}(B^c)(x)\hfill & =\hfill & _y\left(F(x,y)(B(y))\right)\hfill \\ & =\hfill & _y\left(F(x,y)B(y)\right)\hfill \\ & =\hfill & \left(_y(F(x,y)B(y))\right)^c\hfill \\ & =\hfill & (F^{}(B))^c(x),\hfill \end{array}$$

and hence

$$F^{}(B^c)=(F^{}(B))^cBL^Y,$$

i.e. operation of taking preimages preserves involution.

To show implication (5con) $``$ (6con) under assumption $`\mu (F)=`$ let $`AL^X`$. Then, according to Proposition 2.3.1 (5),

$$AF^{}(F^{}(A))F^{}(cl_Y(F^{}(A))),$$

and hence, by (5con), also

$$cl_X(A)F^{}(cl_Y(F^{}(A))).$$

Now, by monotonicity of the image operator and by Proposition 2.3.1 (6) (taking into account that $`cl_XA`$ is extensional as a closed $`L`$-set), we get:

$$F^{}(cl_X(A))F^{}\left(F^{}(cl_Y(F^{}(A)))\right)cl_Y(F^{}(A)).$$

Conversely, to show implication (6con) $``$ (5con) let $`B𝒞_Y`$ and let $`F^{}(B):=A`$. Then, by (6con),

$$F^{}(cl_X(A))cl_Y(F^{}(A))cl_Y(B)=B.$$

In virtue of Proposition 2.3.1 (5) and taking into account that $`\mu (F)=`$, it follows from here that $`cl_X(A)F^{}(B)=A`$, and hence $`cl_X(A)=A`$. ∎

### 4.3. Fuzzy $`\alpha `$-homeomorphisms and fuzzy $`\alpha `$-homeomorphic spaces

The following definition naturally stems from Definitions 2.4.1, 2.4.2 and 4.1.1 and item 2 of Proposition 2.3.1:

###### Definition 4.3.1.

Given $`L`$-topological spaces $`(X,E_X,\tau _X)`$ and $`(Y,E_Y,\tau _Y)`$, a fuzzy function $`F:XY`$ is called a fuzzy $`\alpha `$-homeomorphism if $`\mu (F)\alpha `$, $`\sigma (F)\alpha `$, it is injective, continuous, and the inverse fuzzy function $`F^1:YX`$ is also continuous. Spaces $`(X,E_X,\tau _X)`$ and $`(Y,E_Y,\tau _Y)`$ are called fuzzy $`\alpha `$-homeomorphic if there exists a fuzzy $`\alpha `$-homeomorphism $`F:(X,E_X,\tau _X)(Y,E_Y,\tau _Y)`$.

One can easily verify that composition of two fuzzy $`\alpha `$-homeomorphisms is a fuzzy $`\alpha ^2`$-homeomorphism; in particular, composition of fuzzy $``$-homeomorphisms is a fuzzy $``$-homeomorphism, and hence fuzzy $``$-homeomorphisms determine the equivalence relation $`\stackrel{}{}`$ on the class of all $`L`$-topological spaces. Besides, since every (usual) homeomorphism is obviously a fuzzy $``$-homeomorphism, homeomorphic spaces are also fuzzy $``$-homeomorphic:

$$(X,E_X,\tau _X)(Y,E_Y,\tau _Y)(X,E_X,\tau _X)\stackrel{}{}(Y,E_Y,\tau _Y).$$

The converse generally does not hold:

###### Example 4.3.2.

Let $`L`$ be the unit interval $`[0,1]`$ viewed as an $`MV`$-algebra (i.e. $`\alpha \beta =max\{\alpha +\beta 1,0\}`$, let $`(X,\varrho )`$ be an uncountable separable metric space such that $`\varrho (x,x^{})1`$ $`x,x^{}X`$, and let $`Y`$ be its countable dense subset. Further, let the $`L`$-valued equality on $`X`$ be defined by $`E_X(x,x^{}):=1\varrho (x,x^{})`$ and let $`E_Y`$ be its restriction to $`Y`$. Let $`\tau _X`$ be any $`L`$-topology on an $`L`$-valued set $`(X,E_X)`$ (in particular, one can take $`\tau _X:=\{c_Xc[0,1]\}`$). Finally, let a fuzzy function $`F:(X,E_X)(Y,E_Y)`$ be defined by $`F(x,y):=1\varrho (x,y)`$. It is easy to see that $`F`$ is a $``$-homeomorphism and hence $`(X,E_X,\tau _X)\stackrel{}{}(Y,E_Y,\tau _Y)`$. On the other hand $`(X,E_X,\tau _X)(Y,E_Y,\tau _Y)`$ just for set-theoretical reasons.

## 5. Category $`TOP(L)^{}`$

Let $`TOP(L)^{}`$ be the top-frame of $`TOP(L)`$, i.e. $`TOP(L)^{}`$ is a category whose objects are the same as in $`TOP(L)`$, that is L-topological spaces, and morphisms are continuous fuzzy functions $`F:(X,E_X,\tau _X)(Y,E_Y,\tau _Y)`$ such that $`\mu (F)=.`$

Note, that as different from the fuzzy category $`TOP(L)`$, $`TOP(L)^{}`$ is a usual category. Applying Theorem 4.2.1, we come to the following result:

###### Theorem 5.0.1.

Let $`(X,E_X,\tau _X)`$ and $`(Y,E_Y,\tau _Y)`$ be $`L`$-topological spaces, $`\beta _Y`$ be a base of $`\tau _Y`$, $`\xi _Y`$ its subbase and let $`F:XY`$ be a fuzzy function. Then the following conditions are equivalent:

1. $`F`$ is continuous;
2. for every $`V\beta _Y`$ it holds $`F^{}(V)\tau _X`$;
3. $`F^{}(Int_Y(B))Int_X(F^{}(B))`$, where $`Int_X`$ and $`Int_Y`$ are the corresponding $`L`$-interior operators on $`X`$ and $`Y`$ respectively;
4. for every $`V\xi _Y`$ it holds $`F^{}(V)\tau _X`$.

In case when $`L`$ is an MV-algebra, we get from 4.2.2

###### Theorem 5.0.2.

Let $`(L,,,,)`$ be an MV-algebra, $`(X,E_X,\tau _X)`$ and $`(Y,E_Y,\tau _Y)`$ be $`L`$-topological spaces and $`F:XY`$ be a a morphism in $`TOP(L)^{}`$. Further, let $`𝒞_X`$, $`𝒞_Y`$ denote the families of closed $`L`$-sets and $`cl_X`$, $`cl_Y`$ denote the closure operators on $`(X,E_X,\tau _X)`$ and $`(Y,E_Y,\tau _Y)`$ respectively. Then the following two conditions are equivalent:

1. $`F`$ is continuous;
2. For every $`B𝒞_Y`$ it follows $`F^{}(B)𝒞_X`$;
3. For every $`AL^X`$ it holds $`F^{}(cl_X(A))cl_Y(F^{}(A))`$.

###### Theorem 5.0.3.

$`TOP(L)^{}`$is a topological category over the category $`SET(L)^{}`$.
###### Proof.

Since intersection of any family of L-topologies is an L-topology, $`TOP(L)^{}`$ is fiber complete. Therefore we have to show only that any structured source in $`SET(L)^{}`$ $`F:(X,E_X)(Y,E_Y,\tau _Y)`$ has a unique initial lift. Let

$$\tau _X:=F^{}(\tau _Y):=\{F^{}(V)V\tau _Y\}.$$

Then from theorem 2.3.1 it follows that $`\tau _X`$ is closed under taking finite meets and arbitrary joins. Furthermore, obviously $`F^{}(0_Y)=0_X`$ and taking into account condition $`\mu (F)=`$ one easily establishes that $`F^{}(1_Y)=1_X`$. Therefore, taking into account that preimages of extensional $`L`$-sets are extensional, (see Subsection 2.3) we conclude that the family $`\tau _X`$ is an $`L`$-topology on $`X`$.

Further, just from the construction of $`\tau _X`$ it is clear that $`F:(X,E_X,\tau _X)(Y,E_Y,\tau _Y)`$ is continuous and, moreover, $`\tau _X`$ is the weakest L-topology on $`X`$ with this property.

Let now $`(Z,E_Z,\tau _Z)`$ be an $`L`$-topological space and $`H:(Z,E_Z)(X,E_X)`$ a fuzzy function such that the composition $`G:=HF:(Z,E_Z,\tau _Z)(Y,E_Y,\tau _Y)`$ is continuous. To complete the proof we have to show that $`H`$ is continuous.

Indeed, let $`U\tau _X`$. Then there exists $`V\tau _Y`$ such that $`U=F^{}(V)`$. Therefore

$$H^{}(U)=H^{}\left(F^{}(V)\right)=G^{}(V)\tau _Z$$

and hence $`H`$ is continuous. ∎

### 5.1. Products in $`TOP(L)^{}`$

Our next aim is to give an explicite description of the product in $`TOP(L)^{}`$.

Given a family $`𝒴=\{(Y_i,E_i,\tau _i):i\}`$ of $`L`$-topological spaces, let $`(Y,E)`$ be the product of the corresponding $`L`$-valued sets $`\{(Y_i,E_i):i\}`$ in $`SET(L)^{}`$and let $`p_i:YY_i`$ be the projections.

Further, for each $`U_i\tau _i`$ let $`\widehat{U}_i:=p_i^1(U_i)`$. Then the family $`\xi :=\{\widehat{U}_i:U_i\tau _i,i\}`$ is a subbase of an $`L`$-topology $`\tau `$ on the product $`L`$-valued set $`(X,E_X)`$ which is known to be the product $`L`$-topology for L-topological spaces $`\{(Y_i,\tau _i)i\}`$ in the category L-TOP. In its turn the triple $`(Y,E,\tau )`$ is the product of $`L`$-topological spaces $`\{(Y_i,E_i,\tau _i):i\}`$ in the category $`TOP(L)^{}`$. Indeed, let $`(Z,E_Z,\tau _Z)`$ be an $`L`$-topological space and $`\{F_i:ZY_ii\}`$ be a family of continuous fuzzy mappings. Then, defining a mapping $`F:Z\times YL`$ by $`F(z,y)=_iF_i(z,y_i)`$ we obtain a fuzzy function $`F:ZY`$ such that $`\mu (F)=_i\mu (F_i)=`$ and besides it can be easily seen that for every $`i_0`$, every $`zZ`$, and for every $`U_{i_0}\tau _{i_0}`$ it holds:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}F^{}(\widehat{U}_{i_0})(z)\hfill & =\hfill & _{yY}\left(\left(_iF_i(z,y_i)\right)U_i(y_i)\right)\hfill \\ & =\hfill & _{y_iY_i}\left(_i\left(F_i(z,y_i)\right)U_{i_0}(y_{i_0})\right)\hfill \\ & =\hfill & _i\left(_{y_iY_i}F_i(z,y_i)\right)_{y_{i_0}X_{i_0}}\left(F_{i_0}(z,y_{i_0})U_{i_0}(y_{i_0})\right)\hfill \\ & =\hfill & F_{i_0}^{}(U_{i_0})(z)\hfill \\ & =\hfill & F_{i_0}^{}(U_{i_0})(z).\hfill \end{array}$$

Hence continuity of all $`F_i`$ guarantees the continuity of $`F:(Z,E_Z,\tau _Z)(Y,E,\tau )`$. Thus $`(Y,E,\tau )`$ is indeed the product of $`𝒴=\{(Y_i,E_i,\tau _i):i\}`$ in $`SET(L)`$.

###### Question 5.1.1.

We do not know whether products in the fuzzy category $`TOP(L)`$ exist.

### 5.2. Subspaces in $`TOP(L)^{}`$

Let $`(X,E,\tau )`$ be an $`L`$-valued $`L`$-topological space, $`YX`$ and let $`(Y,E_Y)`$ be the subobject of the L-valued set $`(X,E)`$ in the category $`SET(L)`$. Further, let $`\tau _Y`$ be the subspace L-topology, that is $`(Y,\tau _Y)`$ is a subspace of the $`L`$-topological space $`(X,\tau )`$ in the category L-TOP. Then it is clear that the triple $`(Y,E_Y,\tau _Y)`$ is the subobject of $`(X,E,\tau )`$ in the category $`TOP(L)^{}`$(and in the fuzzy category $`TOP(L)`$ as well).

### 5.3. Coproducts in $`TOP(L)^{}`$

Given a family $`𝒳:=\{(X_i,E_i,\tau _i)\}`$ of $`L`$-topological spaces let $`(X,E)`$ be the direct sum of the corresponding $`L`$-valued sets $`(X_i,E_i)`$ in $`SET(L)`$. Further, let $`\tau `$ be the $`L`$-topology on $`X`$ determined by the subbase $`_i\tau _i2^X`$. In other words $`(X,\tau )`$ is the coproduct of $`L`$-topological spaces $`(X_i,\tau _i)`$ in the category L-TOP. Then the triple $`(X,E,\tau )`$ is the coproduct of the family $`𝒳:=\{(X_i,E_i,\tau _i)\}`$ in the category $`TOP(L)^{}`$(and in the fuzzy category $`TOP(L)`$as well). Indeed, let $`q_i:(X_i,E_i,\tau _i)(X,E,\tau ),i`$ denote the canonical embeddings. Further, consider an $`L`$-topological space $`(Y,E_Y,\tau _Y)`$ and a family of continuous fuzzy functions $`F_i:(X_i,E_i,\tau _i)(Y,E_Y,\tau _Y)`$. Then, by setting $`F(x,y):=F_i(x_i,y)`$ whenever $`x=x_iX_i`$, we obtain a continuous fuzzy function $`F:(X,E,\tau )(Y,E_Y,\tau _Y)`$ (i.e. a mapping $`F:X\times YL`$) such that $`F_i=q_iF`$ for every $`i`$.

### 5.4. Quotients in $`TOP(L)^{}`$

Let $`(X,E_X,\tau _X)`$ be an $`L`$-topological space, let $`q:XY`$ be a surjective mapping. Further, let $`q^{}(E_X)=:E_Y`$ be the image of the $`L`$-valued equality $`E_X`$ and let $`\tau _Y=\{VL^Yq^1(V)\tau _X\}`$, that is $`\tau _Y`$ is the quotient $`L`$-topology determined by the mapping $`q:(X,\tau )Y`$ in the category L-TOP. Then $`(Y,E_Y,\tau _Y)`$ is the quotient object in the category $`TOP(L)^{}`$. Indeed, consider a fuzzy function $`F:(X,E_X,\tau _X)(Z,E_Z,\tau _Z)`$ and let $`G:(Y,E_Y)(Z,E_Z)`$ be a morphism in $`SET(L)`$ such that $`qG=F`$. Then an easy verification shows that the fuzzy function $`G:(Y,E_Y,\tau _Y)(Z,E_Z,\tau _Z)`$ is continuous (i.e. a morphism in $`TOP(L)^{}`$) if and only if $`F:(X,E_X,\tau _X)(Z,E_Z,\tau _Z)`$ is continuous (i.e. a morphism in $`TOP(L)^{}`$).

Our next aim is to consider the behaviour of some topological properties of L-valued L-topological spaces in respect of fuzzy function. In this work we restrict our interest to the property of compactness. Some other topological properties, in particular, connectedness and separation properties will be studied in a subsequent work.

## 6. Compactness

### 6.1. Preservation of compactness by fuzzy functions

One of the basic facts of general topology — both classic and “fuzzy”, is preservation of compactness type properties by continuous mappings. Here we present a counterpart of this fact in $`TOP(L)`$. However, since in literature on fuzzy topology different definitions of compactness can be found, first we must specify which one of compactness notions will be used.

###### Definition 6.1.1.

An $`L`$-topological space $`(X,E,\tau )`$ will be called $`(\alpha ,\beta )`$-compact where $`\alpha ,\beta L`$, if for every family $`𝒰\tau `$ such that $`𝒰\alpha `$ there exists a finite subfamily $`𝒰_0𝒰`$ such that $`𝒰_0\beta `$. An $`(\alpha ,\alpha )`$-compact space will be called just $`\alpha `$-compact.444Note that Chang’s definition of compactness  for a $`[0,1]`$-topological space is equivalent to our $`1`$-compactness. An $`[0,1]`$-topological space is compact in Lowen’s sense  if it is $`(\alpha ,\beta )`$-compact for all $`\alpha [0,1]`$ and all $`\beta <\alpha `$

###### Theorem 6.1.2.

Let $`(X,E_X,\tau _X)`$, $`(Y,E_Y,\tau _Y)`$ be $`L`$-topological spaces, $`F:XY`$ be a continuous fuzzy function such that $`\mu (F)\beta `$, and $`\sigma (F)\gamma `$. If $`X`$ is $`\alpha \beta `$-compact, then $`Y`$ is $`(\alpha ,\alpha \beta \gamma )`$-compact.

###### Proof.

Let $`𝒱\tau _Y`$ be such that $`𝒱\alpha `$. Then, applying Proposition 2.3.1 (4), (7) and taking in view monotonicity of $`F^{}`$, we get

$$\underset{V𝒱}{}F^{}(V)=F^{}(\underset{V𝒱}{}V)F^{}(\alpha )\alpha \beta .$$

Now, since $`(X,E_X,\tau _X)`$ is $`\alpha \beta `$-compact, it follows that there exists a finite subfamily $`𝒱_0𝒱`$ such that

$$\underset{V𝒱_0}{}F^{}(V)\alpha \beta .$$

Applying Propositions 2.3.1 (6),(4) and 2.4.4 (5) we obtain:

$$\underset{V𝒱_0}{}VF^{}\left(F^{}\left(\underset{V𝒱_0}{}V\right)\right)=F^{}\left(\underset{V𝒱_0}{}\left(F^{}(V)\right)\right)F^{}\left(\alpha \beta \right)\alpha \beta \gamma .$$

###### Corollary 6.1.3.

Let $`(X,E_X,\tau _X)`$, $`(Y,E_Y,\tau _Y)`$ be $`L`$-topological spaces, $`F:XY`$ be a fuzzy function such that $`\mu (F)=`$ and $`\sigma (F)=`$. If $`X`$ is $`\alpha `$-compact, then $`Y`$ is also $`\alpha `$-compact.

### 6.2. Compactness in case of an $`MV`$-algebra

In case $`L`$ is an MV-algebra one can characterize compactness by systems of closed $`L`$-sets:

###### Proposition 6.2.1.

Let $`(X,E_X,\tau _X)`$ be an $`L`$-topological space and let $`𝒞_X`$ be the family of its closed $`L`$-sets. Then the space $`(X,E_X,\tau _X)`$ is $`(\alpha ,\beta )`$-compact if and only if for every $`𝒜𝒞_X`$ the following implication follows:

$$\text{if }\underset{A𝒜_0}{}A\beta ^c\text{ for every finite family }𝒜_0𝒜,\text{ then }\underset{A𝒜}{}A\alpha ^c.$$

###### Proof.

One has just to take involutions “$``$” in the definition of $`(\alpha ,\beta )`$-compactenss and apply De Morgan law. ∎

### 6.3. Perfect mappings: case of an MV-algebra $`L`$

In order to study preservation of compactness by preimages of fuzzy functions we introduce the property of $`(\alpha ,\beta )`$-perfectness of a fuzzy function. Since we shall operate with closed $`L`$-sets, from the beginning it will be assumed that $`L`$ is an $`MV`$-algebra.

First we shall extend the notion of compactness for $`L`$-subsets of $`L`$-topological spaces. We shall say that an $`L`$-set $`S:XL`$ is $`(\alpha ,\beta )`$-compact if for every family $`𝒜`$ of closed $`L`$-sets of $`X`$ the following implication holds:

$$\text{ if }S\left(\underset{A𝒜_0}{}A\right)\beta ^c\text{ for every finite }𝒜_0𝒜\text{ then }S\left(\underset{A𝒜}{}A\right)\alpha ^c.$$

Further, since the preimage $`F^{}(y_0):XL`$ of a point $`y_0Y`$ under a fuzzy function $`F:XY`$ is obviously determined by the equality

$$F^{}(y_0)(x)=\underset{yY}{}F(x,y)y_0(y)=F(x,y_0),$$

the general definition of $`(\alpha ,\beta )`$-compactness of an $`L`$-set in this case means the following:

The preimage $`F^{}(y_0)`$ of a point $`y_0`$ under a fuzzy function $`F`$ is $`(\alpha ,\beta )`$-compact if for every family $`𝒜`$ of closed sets of $`X`$ the following implication holds:

$$\underset{x}{}\left(F(x,y_0)(\underset{A𝒜_0}{}A(x))\right)\beta ^c𝒜_0𝒜,|𝒜_0|<\mathrm{}_0$$

implies

$$\underset{x}{}\left(F(x,y_0)(\underset{A𝒜}{}A(x))\right)\alpha ^c.$$

Now we can introduce the following

###### Definition 6.3.1.

A continuous fuzzy mapping $`F:(X,E_X,\tau _X)(Y,E_Y,\tau _Y)`$ is called $`(\alpha ,\beta )`$-perfect if

* $`F`$ is closed, i.e. $`F^{}(A)𝒞_Y`$ for every $`A𝒞_X;`$
* the preimage $`F^{}(y)`$ of every point $`yY`$ is $`(\alpha ,\beta )`$-compact.

###### Theorem 6.3.2.

Let $`F:(X,E_X,\tau _X)(Y,E_Y,\tau _Y)`$ be an $`(\alpha ,\gamma )`$-perfect fuzzy function such that $`\mu (F)=`$ and $`\sigma (F)=`$. If the space $`(Y,E_Y,\tau _Y)`$ is $`(\gamma ,\beta )`$-compact, then the space $`(X,E_X,\tau _X)`$ is $`(\alpha ,\beta )`$-compact.

###### Proof.

Let $`𝒜`$ be a family of closed $`L`$-sets in $`X`$ such that $`_{A𝒜_0}A\beta ^c`$. Without loss of generality we may assume that $`𝒜`$ is closed under taking finite meets. Let $`B:=B_A:=F^{}(A)`$ and let $`:=\{B_A:A𝒜\}`$. Then, since $`\mu (F)=`$, by 2.3.1 (7) it follows that $`B\beta ^cB`$, and moreover, since $`𝒜`$ is assumed to be closed under finite meets,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}B_{A_1}\mathrm{}B_{A_n}\hfill & =\hfill & F^{}(A_1)\mathrm{}F^{}(A_n)\hfill \\ & \hfill & F^{}(A_1\mathrm{}A_n)\hfill \\ & =\hfill & F^{}(A),\hfill \end{array}$$

for some $`A𝒜`$, and hence $`_{B_0}(B)\beta ^c`$ for every finite subfamily $`_0`$. Hence, by $`(\gamma ,\beta )`$-compactness of the space $`(Y,E_Y,\tau _Y)`$ we conclude that $`_B(B)\gamma ^c`$, and therefore there exists a point $`y_0Y`$ such that $`F^{}(A)(y_0)=B_A(y_0)\gamma ^c`$ for all $`A𝒜`$. Now, applying $`(\alpha ,\gamma )`$-compactness of the preimage $`F^{}(y_0)`$ and recalling that $`𝒜`$ was assumed to be closed under taking finite meets, we conclude that

$$\underset{x}{}\left(F(x,y_0)(\underset{A𝒜}{}A(x))\right)\alpha ^c.$$

and hence, furthermore,

$$\underset{A𝒜}{}A\alpha ^c.$$


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

The AdS/CFT correspondence  asserts that the classical theory of $`(d+1)`$-dimensional gravity in an AdS background is related to a $`d`$-dimensional CFT at the boundary of the AdS geometry. More precisely, we can regard an on-shell field in the gravity theory as the source coupled to a scaling operator in the CFT at the boundary. Among many applications of the AdS/CFT correspondence, the holographic renormalization group (RG)  is one of the most important. In the holographic RG, we regard the radial coordinate of the $`(d+1)`$-dimensional manifold as a scaling parameter of the corresponding boundary field theory. Using this scheme, we can describe many aspects of the RG structure of the $`d`$-dimensional boundary field theory using the $`(d+1)`$-dimensional classical gravity theory. For example, we can derive the Callan-Symanzik equation of the corresponding $`d`$-dimensional boundary field theory from the Hamilton-Jacobi equation of the $`(d+1)`$-dimensional gravity theory , which gives us a systematic formulation of the holographic RG (see also ).

There have been numerous quantitative studies to check the validity of the AdS/CFT correspondence and the holographic renormalization group. Among such studies are calculations of the chiral anomaly  and the Weyl anomaly  of the four-dimensional $`𝒩=4`$ $`SU(N)`$ super Yang-Mills theory (SYM4), which is believed to be realized on the boundary of AdS5 after the ten-dimensional spacetime is factorized as AdS$`{}_{5}{}^{}\times S^5`$. Both calculations were carried out purely on the basis of five-dimensional supergravity theory and correctly reproduce the field-theoretical results in the large $`N`$ limit.

In this article, as another study to check the validity of the AdS/CFT correspondence, we show that the holographic RG structure does not undergo any physical corrections under field redefinitions of ten-dimensional supergravity. The AdS/CFT correspondence should have this property, since classical supergravity represents the on-shell structure of massless modes of superstrings, and the on-shell amplitudes (more precisely, the residues of one-particle poles of correlation functions) should be invariant under redefinitions of fields  (see also  for discussions in the context of string theory).111See also  for recent discussion about scheme independence in the renormalization group structure.

It is easy to demonstrate the invariance of the holographic RG structure for point-transformations of scalar fields in supergravity,

$`\varphi ^I\varphi ^I=f^I(\varphi ),`$ (1.1)
because the superpotential $`W(\varphi )`$ transforms as a scalar over the space parametrized by $`\varphi ^I`$: $`W(\varphi )W^{}(\varphi )=W(f(\varphi ))`$, so that the beta function of the boundary field theory transforms as a vector field over such space :222$`L_{IJ}(\varphi )`$ is the metric on the space $`\{\varphi ^I\}`$ and $`c(\varphi )=\left(W(\varphi )\right)^{(d1)}`$ can be identified with the $`c`$-function.

$`\beta ^I(\varphi )\left(={\displaystyle \frac{2(d1)}{W(\varphi )}}L^{IJ}(\varphi ){\displaystyle \frac{}{\varphi ^J}}W(\varphi )\right)\beta ^I(\varphi )={\displaystyle \frac{\varphi ^I}{f^J}}\beta ^J(f(\varphi )).`$ (1.2)
Similar arguments can be applied to field redefinitions that include derivatives of fields, such as the redefinition of the ten-dimensional metric of the form $`𝑮_{MN}𝑮_{MN}+\alpha 𝑹𝑮_{MN}+\beta 𝑹_{MN}`$. In this case, however, the resulting gravity action obtained after such redefinitions possesses higher-order derivative terms. Thus, after the compactification on $`S^5`$, one needs to treat the five-dimensional gravity theory with curvature squared terms.

The structure of the holographic RG for higher-derivative gravity was investigated generally in Refs. , where it is shown that if the five-dimensional gravity action is given by333The cosmological constant is parametrized in such a way that the classical solution can have an AdS spacetime with radius $`L`$.

$`𝑺_5={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\kappa _5^2}}{\displaystyle d^5x\sqrt{\widehat{g}}\left[\frac{12}{L^2}\frac{80a+16b+8c}{L^4}+\widehat{R}+a\widehat{R}^2+b\widehat{R}_{\mu \nu }^2+c\widehat{R}_{\mu \nu \rho \sigma }^2\right]},`$ (1.3)
then the Weyl anomaly of the corresponding boundary CFT is

$`T_i^i`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{2L^3}{2\kappa _5^2}}\left[\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{8(5a+b+c)}{L^2}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}R^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}R_{ij}^2\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{c}{2L^2}}R_{ijkl}^2\right].`$ (1.4)
From this, it is seen that if $`c`$ vanishes, then it may be possible to absorb the change $`(1+8(5a+b)/L^2)`$ into the five-dimensional Newton constant $`2\kappa _5^2`$. In fact, for the field redefinitions of the form $`𝑮_{MN}𝑮_{MN}+\alpha 𝑹𝑮_{MN}+\beta 𝑹_{MN}`$, no terms including the Riemann tensor $`𝑹_{KLMN}`$ are induced, so that we only have to consider the case where $`c=0`$. Furthermore, as we show in the following sections, the field equation in ten dimensions changes the radius of $`S^5`$ exactly in such a way that the change of the five-dimensional Newton constant, $`2\kappa _5^2=2\kappa _{10}^2/\mathrm{volume}(S^5)`$, cancels the factor $`(1+8(5a+b)/L^2)`$ together with the contribution from the Ramond-Ramond terms.

In §2, we derive the ten-dimensional Type IIB supergravity action that is obtained through the field redefinition, and then we discuss its AdS$`{}_{5}{}^{}\times S^5`$ solution. In §3, after explaining how to determine the five-dimensional gravity action when the geometry is compactified on $`S^5`$, we calculate the holographic Weyl anomaly for $`𝒩=4`$ $`SU(N)`$ SYM4 and show that the result is exactly the same with that for the original anomaly before the field redefinition. Section 4 is devoted to conclusions.

## 2 Field Redefinition of Type IIB Supergravity and the AdS$`{}_{5}{}^{}\times `$ $`𝐒^5`$ Solutions

In this section, we consider a field redefinition in the ten-dimensional type IIB supergravity theory. We first give the usual IIB supergravity action and its AdS$`{}_{5}{}^{}\times S^5`$ solution. We then carry out a field redefinition of the ten-dimensional metric and derive the corresponding action with its AdS$`{}_{5}{}^{}\times S^5`$ solution.

We start with the bosonic part of the ten-dimensional Type IIB supergravity action given by444The coefficient of $`|F_5|^2`$ is chosen to be $`(1/4)`$, which is one half of the canonical value $`(1/2)`$. This is necessary for the action to be invariant under $`T`$-duality transformations (see, e.g., ).

$`𝑺_{10}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\kappa _{10}^2}}{\displaystyle d^{10}X\sqrt{𝑮}\left[e^{2\varphi }\left(𝑹+4\left|d\varphi \right|^2\right)\frac{1}{4}\left|F_5\right|^2\right]}.`$ (2.1)
Here $`\varphi `$ and $`F_5`$ are the dilaton and the self-dual Ramond-Ramond 5-form field strength, respectively, and we have set other fields of Type IIB supergravity to zero. In this equation, we have used the definitions

$`\left|d\varphi \right|^2𝑮^{MN}_M\varphi _N\varphi ,\left|F_5\right|^2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{5!}}𝑮^{M_1N_1}\mathrm{}𝑮^{M_5N_5}(F_5)_{M_1\mathrm{}M_5}(F_5)_{N_1\mathrm{}N_5}.`$ (2.2)
The self-duality of $`F_5`$ is imposed on the field equations (not in the action) as a constraint.

In the context of the AdS5/CFT4 correspondence, we are interested in an AdS$`{}_{5}{}^{}\times S^5`$ solution that is realized as the near horizon limit of the black 3-brane solution :

$$ds^2=\frac{l_0^2}{r^2}dr^2+\frac{r^2}{l_0^2}\eta _{ij}dx^idx^j+l_0^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_5^2,$$

$$(F_5)_{r0123}=\frac{4}{g_s}\frac{r^3}{l_0^4},(F_5)_{y^1\mathrm{}y^5}=\frac{4}{g_s}l_0^4,$$

$$e^\varphi =g_s.$$
(2.3)
Here, $`d\mathrm{\Omega }_5^2=(\delta _{ab}+y_ay_b/(1y^2))dy^ady^b`$ $`(1y^a1,a,b=1,\mathrm{},5)`$ is the metric of the unit five-sphere and $`i,j\{0,1,2,3\}`$. In this case, the AdS5 and $`S^5`$ have the same radius, $`l_0`$, whose value is determined by the D3-brane charge as

$`l_0=(4\pi g_sN)^{1/4},`$ (2.4)
where $`N`$ is the number of the coincident D3-branes, and we have set the string length $`\sqrt{\alpha ^{}}`$ to $`1`$.

As discussed in the Introduction, we can make an arbitrary field redefinition $`\delta 𝑮_{MN}=X_{MN}`$ without changing the content of the Type IIB supergravity theory . Now we make an infinitesimal change of the metric as

$`𝑮_{MN}𝑮_{MN}^{}𝑮_{MN}+\alpha 𝑹𝑮_{MN}+\beta 𝑹_{MN}\left(F_5^{}F_5,\varphi ^{}\varphi \right).`$ (2.5)
Then the new gravity action is obtained as

$`\stackrel{~}{𝑺}_{10}[𝑮_{MN}]`$ $`𝑺_{10}[𝑮_{MN}^{}]`$
$`=𝑺_{10}[𝑮_{MN}+\alpha 𝑹𝑮_{MN}+\beta 𝑹_{MN}],`$ (2.6)
which is expressed explicitly as

$`\stackrel{~}{𝑺}_{10}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\kappa _{10}^2}}{\displaystyle }d^{10}X\sqrt{𝑮}\{`$ $`e^{2\varphi }[𝑹+4|d\varphi |^2+a𝑹^2+b𝑹_{MN}^2`$
$`+a𝑹|d\varphi |^2+b𝑹^{MN}_M\varphi _N\varphi ]`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}|F_5|^2+{\displaystyle \frac{b}{8}}𝑹|F_5|^2{\displaystyle \frac{b}{4}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4!}}𝑹_{MN}(F_5)^{MPQRS}(F_5)_{PQRS}^N\}.`$ (2.7)
Here $`a`$ and $`b`$ are defined as

$`a=4\alpha +{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\beta ,b=\beta .`$ (2.8)
Since $`𝑮_{MN}^{}`$ and $`F_5`$ can be expressed as in Eq. (2.3),

$`ds^2=𝑮_{MN}^{}dX^MdX^N={\displaystyle \frac{l_0^2}{r^2}}dr^2+{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{l_0^2}}\eta _{ij}dx^idx^j+l_0^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_5^2,`$
$`(F_5)_{r0123}={\displaystyle \frac{4}{g_s}}{\displaystyle \frac{r^3}{l_0^4}},(F_5)_{y^1\mathrm{}y^5}={\displaystyle \frac{4}{g_s}}l_0^4,e^\varphi =g_s,`$ (2.9)
we can easily construct an AdS$`{}_{5}{}^{}\times S^5`$ solution for the action (2.7):

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`𝑮_{MN}dX^MdX^N=\left(𝑮_{MN}^{}\alpha 𝑹^{}𝑮_{MN}^{}\beta 𝑹_{MN}^{}\right)dX^MdX^N`$
$`=`$ $`\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{8b}{l^2}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{l^2}{r^2}}dr^2+{\displaystyle \frac{r^2}{l^2}}\eta _{ij}dx^idx^j+l^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_5^2,`$
$$(F_5)_{r0123}=\frac{4}{g_s}\left(1+\frac{8b}{l^2}\right)\frac{r^3}{l^4},(F_5)_{y^1\mathrm{}y^5}=\frac{4}{g_s}\left(1\frac{8b}{l^2}\right)l^4,e^\varphi =g_s.$$
(2.10)
Here we have used the fact that with the solution (2.3), the Ricci tenser becomes

$`𝑹_{\mu \nu }={\displaystyle \frac{4}{l_0^2}}𝑮_{\mu \nu },𝑹_{ab}=+{\displaystyle \frac{4}{l_0^2}}𝑮_{ab}`$ (2.11)
for $`\mu ,\nu \{r,0,1,2,3\}`$ and $`a,b\{y^1\mathrm{}y^5\}`$, and have rewritten the expression using the radius $`l`$ of the new $`S^5`$, which is calculated as

$`l=\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{2b}{l_0^2}}\right)l_0.`$ (2.12)
Note that after the field redefinition, the radius of $`S^5`$, $`l`$, differs from that of AdS5, $`L`$, which is expressed as

$`L\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{4b}{l^2}}\right)l=\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{2b}{l_0^2}}\right)l_0.`$ (2.13)
## 3 Five-Dimensional Effective Action and the Weyl Anomaly

In this section, we calculate the four-dimensional holographic Weyl anomaly from the higher-derivative gravity action (2.7) using the classical solution (2.10), and show that the resulting anomaly exactly reproduces the anomaly of the original gravity theory before making the field redefinition.

To derive the five-dimensional gravity action, we use the following strategy. First, we assume that the geometry of the ten-dimensional spacetime is a direct product of a five-dimensional Lorentzian manifold $`M_5`$ and a five-dimensional sphere $`S^5`$. Next, we decompose all terms in the action into two parts, one of which is expressed by the fields on $`M_5`$ with metric $`\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }`$ and the other of which is expressed over $`S^5`$ of radius $`l`$. For example, the scalar curvature $`𝑹`$ in the ten-dimensional gravity action becomes $`\widehat{R}+20/l^2`$. (Here $`\widehat{R}`$ is the scalar curvature of $`M_5`$.) However, there appears a problem in decomposing the kinetic part of the self-dual five-form field strength $`F_5`$. In fact, inserting the classical solution of $`F_5`$ into the action would give a trivial, vanishing result due to the self-duality of $`F_5`$ ($`F_5=F_5`$).555$`\sqrt{𝑮}|F_5|^2=F_5F_5=F_5F_5=0.`$ To avoid this problem, we use the ansatz that $`F_5`$ has non-zero values only for the $`S^5`$ components, and we rescale $`F_5`$ in the action by the factor $`\sqrt{2}`$: $`F_5\sqrt{2}F_5`$. Finally, we integrate over the $`S^5`$ in the ten-dimensional action and obtain the five-dimensional gravity action.

Following this strategy, we first calculate the Weyl anomaly of $`𝒩=4`$ $`SU(N)`$ SYM4 from the action (2.1). Since $`𝑹=\widehat{R}+20/l_0^2`$ and $`(1/4)\left|\sqrt{2}F_5\right|^2=8/l_0^2`$, we have the five-dimensional action

$`𝑺_5={\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^3l_0^5}{2\kappa _{10}^2g_s^2}}{\displaystyle d^5x\sqrt{\widehat{g}}\left(\frac{12}{l_0^2}+\widehat{R}\right)}.`$ (3.1)
This action actually has an AdS5 solution with radius $`l_0`$, which justifies our ansatz. Using the formula (1.4), we obtain the Weyl anomaly as

$`T_i^i`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi ^3l_0^8}{2\kappa _{10}^2g_s^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}R^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}R_{ij}^2\right)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{N^2}{4\pi ^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}R^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}R_{ij}^2\right).`$ (3.2)
Here we have used $`2\kappa _{10}^2=(2\pi )^7`$ and (2.4).

Next we apply our strategy to the action (2.7). From the solution (2.10), we compactify ten-dimensional spacetime on $`S^5`$ of radius $`l`$. Then, the (dimensionally reduced) five-dimensional action is obtained as

$`\stackrel{~}{𝑺}_5={\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^3l^5}{2\kappa _{10}^2g_s^2}}`$ $`(1+{\displaystyle \frac{40a+4b}{l^2}})\times `$
$`{\displaystyle d^5x\sqrt{\widehat{g}}\left[\left(\frac{12}{l^2}\frac{80a80b}{l^4}\right)+\widehat{R}+a\widehat{R}^2+b\widehat{R}_{\mu \nu }^2\right]}.`$ (3.3)
This action has an AdS5 solution with radius $`\left(14b/l^2\right)l`$, which is consistent with the AdS$`{}_{5}{}^{}\times S^5`$ solution (2.10). From this solution, we can read off the parameters in Eq. (1.3);

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\kappa _5^2}}={\displaystyle \frac{\pi ^3l^5}{2\kappa _{10}^2g_s^2}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{40a+4b}{l^2}}\right),L=\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{4b}{l^2}}\right)l,c=0.`$ (3.4)
Thus the corresponding Weyl anomaly is calculated again by using the formula (1.4) as

$`T_i^i`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{2L^3}{2\kappa _5^2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{40a+8b}{l^2}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}R^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}R_{ij}^2\right)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi ^3l^8}{2\kappa _{10}^2g_s^2}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{16b}{l^2}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}R^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}R_{ij}^2\right)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi ^3l_0^8}{2\kappa _{10}^2g_s^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}R^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}R_{ij}^2\right)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{N^2}{4\pi ^2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{24}}R^2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}R_{ij}^2\right).`$ (3.5)
This is identical to the result (3.2).

## 4 Conclusion

In this paper, we quantitatively checked the validity of the AdS/CFT correspondence by showing that the holographic RG structure is invariant under field redefinitions in Type IIB supergravity. In particular, we carried out a redefinition of the ten-dimensional metric of the form $`𝑮_{MN}𝑮_{MN}+\alpha 𝑹𝑮_{MN}+\beta 𝑹_{MN}`$ (Eq. (2.5)) and calculated explicitly the modified Type IIB action. We then constructed effective five-dimensional gravity when ten-dimensional spacetime is compactified on $`S^5`$ and calculated the holographic Weyl anomaly. We showed that the obtained anomaly is identical to that of the $`𝒩=4`$ $`SU(N)`$ SYM4 in the large $`N`$ limit, even though the five-dimensional action contains higher-order derivative terms. This result is consistent with the assertion of the AdS/CFT correspondence that on-shell fields in the gravity theory are coupled to scaling operators of the corresponding CFT at the boundary of the AdS geometry. In fact, the theorem of Kamefuchi, O’Raifeartaigh and Salam guarantees that a field redefinition does not change the on-shell structure of the theory.

We finally point out that this invariance of the holographic Weyl anomaly under a redefinition of the metric holds only if there is a simultaneous change of the ten-dimensional metric given by (2.5). In fact, if we only change the five-dimensional metric in the effective five-dimensional action, $`\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }+\alpha \widehat{R}\widehat{g}_{\mu \nu }+\beta \widehat{R}_{\mu \nu }`$, then the resulting Weyl anomaly differs from the field-theoretical anomaly in the large $`N`$ limit. However, this is not a contradiction, because if field redefinitions are carried out only for five-dimensional components, generally the on-shell conditions for a ten-dimensional field theory are broken. Thus, there is no reason to expect that the AdS/CFT correspondence holds for such redefinitions.

## Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank T. Sakai for discussions and collaboration in the early stage of this work. They also thank M. Ninomiya, S. Ogushi and T. Yokono for helpful discussions.


text:
# Microscopic correlation functions for the QCD Dirac operator with chemical potential

## Abstract

A chiral random matrix model with complex eigenvalues is solved as an effective model for QCD with non-vanishing chemical potential. We derive new matrix model correlation functions which predict the local fluctuations of complex Dirac operator eigenvalues at zero virtuality. The parameter which measures the non-Hermiticity of the Dirac matrix is identified with the chemical potential. In the phase with broken chiral symmetry all spectral correlations of the Dirac eigenvalues are calculated as functions of quark flavors and chemical potential. The derivation uses the orthogonality of the Laguerre polynomials in the complex plane. Explicit results are given for any finite matrix size $`N`$ as well in the large-$`N`$ limit for weak and strong non-Hermiticity.

Random Matrix Models (RMM) have been a useful tool in Theoretical Physics for a long time. In many physical systems the local fluctuation properties for example of the energy levels are universal and can be successfully described by RMM, where we refer to GMW  for a review. Although in the generic situation the Hamiltonian and other physical observables are Hermitian thus having real eigenvalues, there exist also important cases where complex eigenvalues occur. As examples we mention localization in superconductors HN , dissipation and scattering in Quantum Chaos GHS  or Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) with chemical potential Steph .

Much less is known so far for spectral correlations of complex eigenvalues derived from RMM. Although the first results date back to Ginibre Gin  where the correlations for the complex Unitary Ensemble labeled by the Dyson index $`\beta =2`$ were calculated, progress has been slow. The correlation functions of the ensemble with real non-symmetric matrices ($`\beta =1`$) are still unknown. Results for quaternion matrices ($`\beta =4`$) were obtained more recently in Mehta ; EK  and the inclusion of Dirac mass terms for $`\beta =2`$ in A01 . Furthermore, it has been realized by works of Fyodorov and collaborators FKS  that different regimes of complex eigenvalues exist, the weak and strong non-Hermiticity limit. In the present work we wish to extend the knowledge about complex matrix models to the so-called chiral models.

Chiral RMM of real eigenvalues have been introduced to describe the local fluctuation properties of the Dirac operator in QCD at the origin SV . The low energy spectrum of the QCD Dirac operator is a very sensitive tool to study the phenomenon of chiral symmetry breaking JT . The predictions of the different chiral RMM ensembles have been very successful in describing the dependence on the gauge group and its representation, the number of quark flavors and masses and the topology lattRMT . In particular the topology dependence has been very useful in comparison with new developments in lattice gauge theory, admitting to incorporate an exact chiral symmetry Nie . By now the field theoretic origin of the RMM description has also been well understood DOTV .

On the other hand lattice simulations in the presence of a chemical potential $`\mu `$, which renders the Dirac eigenvalues complex, remain extremely difficult, as reviewed in lattmu . Although recent progress has been made Fodor  along the phase transition line the general phase diagram remains unexplored for $`\mu 0`$. It is in this context that analytical knowledge of microscopic correlation functions from complex chiral RMM could be very useful, in view of its success in predicting real eigenvalue correlations.

Chiral RMM including a chemical potential have been already studied in several works Steph ; HJV ; Halasz ; MPW . In Steph  the nature of the quenched limit has been analyzed in such a model, and the global density of complex eigenvalues together with its boundary have been calculated as a function of $`\mu `$. The phase diagram of QCD in the temperature density plane has also been predicted with such a model Halasz . Recently complex Dirac eigenvalues calculated on the lattice have been confronted to a complex matrix model on the microscopic scale given by the inverse volume in the bulk of the spectrum MPW . The nearest neighbor distribution along a given direction in the complex plane was considered and a transition from the Unitary to the Ginibre ensemble was observed at increasing $`\mu `$, ending in a Poisson distribution.

Our aim here is to provide more detailed information by calculating all microscopic correlation functions in the complex plane, both in the limit of weak and strong non-Hermiticity. Our model gives a natural chiral extension of the ensemble treated in FKS ; A01 . Although our main motivation is the application to QCD lattice calculations with $`\mu 0`$ the new correlation functions we derive may find other applications as well, such as in the fractional Quantum Hall effect PdF  or two-dimensional charged plasmas Janco . We restrict ourselves to work with a Gaussian chiral RMM. In particular we will not touch the issue of universality here although we expect that in analogy to ADMN  the same correlation functions hold for a more general weight function at large-$`N`$.

We start our investigation by defining our model. The chiral random matrix partition function in terms of the complex eigenvalues $`z_{j=1,\mathrm{},N}`$ of a complex $`N\times N`$ matrix $`J=H+i\sqrt{\frac{1\tau }{1+\tau }}A`$ is defined as

$$𝒵_N^{(N_f,\nu )}(\tau )\underset{j=1}{\overset{N}{}}dz_jdz_j^{}w^{(a)}(z_j)|\mathrm{\Delta }_N(z_1^2,\mathrm{},z_N^2)|^2,$$
(1)
where we have introduced the weight function

$$w^{(a)}(z)=|z|^{2a+1}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{N}{1\tau ^2}\left(|z|^2\frac{\tau }{2}(z^2+z_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})\right)\right].$$
(2)
It contains $`N_f`$ massless quark flavors in a fixed sector of topological charge $`\nu `$, where $`a=N_f+\nu `$. We have taken the absolute value of the Dirac determinant but the weight depends on the real and imaginary part of the eigenvalues. The weight has been chosen to be Gaussian with variance $`(1+\tau )/2N`$ for both the Hermitian and anti-Hermitian part of $`J`$, $`H`$ and $`A`$ respectively. The parameter $`\tau [0,1]`$ controls the degree of non-Hermiticity and will be related to the chemical potential $`\mu `$ in QCD below. The Jacobi determinant from the diagonalization of $`J`$ Gin  yields the Vandermonde determinant $`\mathrm{\Delta }_N(z_1,\mathrm{},z_N)=_{k>l}^N(z_kz_l)`$. The reason for the model eq. (1) being chiral can be seen as follows. For real eigenvalues the chiral ensemble SV  is usually defined on the real positive line, $`_0^{\mathrm{}}𝑑\lambda \lambda ^a\mathrm{exp}(N\lambda )`$. By substituting $`\lambda =y^2`$ it can be mapped to the full real axis, $`_{\mathrm{}}^{\mathrm{}}𝑑y|y|^{2a+1}\mathrm{exp}(Ny^2)`$, where $`y`$ corresponds to a real eigenvalue of the Dirac operator $`\text{ /}D`$ remark . In the latter picture the continuation into the complex plane is straightforward, leading to the ensemble (1). The only difference to the massless non-chiral ensemble A01  is the additional power in $`|z|`$. Furthermore, the orthogonal polynomials for the ensemble (1) are given by Laguerre polynomials $`L_n^a(z^2)`$ in the complex plane.

A chemical potential $`\mu `$ is included in the QCD action by adding $`\mu \gamma _0`$ to the Dirac operator $`\text{ /}D`$ and it renders its eigenvalues complex. Our aim is to describe the local fluctuation of small eigenvalues close to the origin, because of their importance for chiral symmetry breaking through the Banks-Casher relation BC . For $`\mu `$ not to completely dominate the Dirac determinant we will also restrict ourselves to small values of $`\mu `$.

In Steph  a slightly different matrix model was introduced replacing $`\text{ /}D`$ by a chiral random matrix and keeping the additional term $`\mu \gamma _0`$ explicitly. Here, we treat $`\text{ /}D+\mu \gamma _0`$ as a chiral, complex matrix instead. The advantage of our model is that we can directly calculate all microscopic correlation functions. We will take the model Steph  to relate our parameter $`\tau `$ to $`\mu `$ by comparing to the macroscopic spectral density $`\rho (z)`$ and its boundary calculated there as a function of $`\mu `$. In the limit of small $`\mu `$ the spectral density of Steph  becomes approximately constant, $`\rho (z)=1/4\pi \mu ^2`$, and it is bounded by an ellipse, $`x^2/4+y^2/4\mu ^2=1`$, where $`z=x+iy`$. This behavior can also be observed for lattice data with small $`\mu `$ (e.g. in Bar ; MPW ). The macroscopic density in our model can be read off from So  since the Dirac determinants are subdominant in the macroscopic large-$`N`$ limit:

$$\rho (z)=\frac{1}{\pi (1\tau ^2)},\text{if}\frac{x^2}{(1+\tau )^2}+\frac{y^2}{(1\tau )^2}1.$$
(3)
We therefore identify

$$4\mu ^2(1\tau ^2),$$
(4)
valid for small chemical potential and $`\tau `$ close to unity meaning small non-Hermiticity. For large values of $`\mu `$ the eigenvalue density on the lattice is no longer constant and develops a hole in the middle (see e.g. Bar ; MPW ). We will also see such a hole develop in the microscopic correlations in the limit of strong non-Hermiticity, as shown in Fig. 2 below.

After having identified all parameters in our model eq. (1) we turn to its solution using the powerful method of orthogonal polynomials Mehta . We only state the results and refer to GA  for details. All eigenvalue correlation functions are first given for a finite number of eigenvalues $`N`$ and then in two different large-$`N`$ limits corresponding to weak and strong non-Hermiticity. The orthogonal polynomials in the complex plane are defined as

$$𝑑z𝑑z^{}w^{(a)}(z)P_k^{(a)}(z)P_l^{(a)}(z^{})=\delta _{kl}.$$
(5)
Following standard techniques Mehta  the knowledge of the kernel of orthogonal polynomials

$$K_N^{(a)}(z_1,z_2^{})[w^{(a)}(z_1)w^{(a)}(z_2^{})]^{\frac{1}{2}}\underset{k=0}{\overset{N1}{}}P_k^{(a)}(z_1)P_k^{(a)}(z_2^{})$$
(6)
allows to calculate all $`k`$-point correlation functions

$$\rho _N^{(a)}(z_1,\mathrm{},z_k)=\underset{1i,jk}{det}\left[K_N^{(a)}(z_i,z_j^{})\right].$$
(7)
The result for the orthogonal polynomials eq. (5) is given in terms of Laguerre polynomials

$$P_k^{(a)}(z)\left[\left(\begin{array}{c}a+k\\ k\end{array}\right)f^{(a)}(\tau )\right]^{\frac{1}{2}}(\tau )^kL_k^a\left(\frac{Nz^2}{2\tau }\right),$$
(8)
with the normalization integral

$`f^{(a)}(\tau ){\displaystyle 𝑑z𝑑z^{}w^{(a)}(z)}`$ (9)
$`=N^{a\frac{3}{2}}\pi \mathrm{\Gamma }\left(a+{\displaystyle \frac{3}{2}}\right)(1\tau ^2)^{\frac{a}{2}+\frac{3}{4}}P_{a+\frac{3}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\sqrt{1\tau ^2}}}\right)`$
and $`P_{a+\frac{3}{2}}(x)`$ being the Legendre function. All $`k`$-point correlation functions then follow by inserting the polynomials into eqs. (6) and (7). In our results the parameter $`a=N_f+\nu `$ can be kept real (with $`a>1`$). For example we can set $`a=\frac{1}{2}`$ as a check, recovering the even subset of the Hermite polynomials in the complex plane PdF .

Since we did not find eq. (8) in the literature we briefly sketch its derivation. Performing a change of variables $`z\text{e}^{i\phi }z`$ in the normalization integral eq. (9) we obtain

$$1=\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{u}{u1}\left(\frac{Nz^2}{2\tau }\right)\right]\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{u^{}}{u^{}1}\left(\frac{Nz_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}}{2\tau }\right)\right],$$
(10)
with

$$u\frac{\tau ^2(1\text{e}^{2i\phi })}{(1\tau ^2\text{e}^{2i\phi })}$$
(11)
and the average taken with respect to $`w^{(a)}(z)`$. Multiplying both sides of eq. (10) with $`((1u)(1u^{}))^{a1}`$ and recognizing the generating functional of the Laguerre polynomials we obtain the desired orthogonality relation, given properly normalized in eq. (8).

After giving the exact solution for finite $`N`$ we turn to the large-$`N`$ limit. We first consider the weak non-Hermiticity limit. Following FKS  we take the limit $`\tau 1`$ such that the combination

$$\underset{N\mathrm{}}{lim}N(1\tau ^2)\alpha ^2=4N\mu ^2$$
(12)
is kept fixed. Because of the identification eq. (4) we consequently also rescale $`\mu `$ going to zero when $`N\mathrm{}`$. In other words the weak non-Hermiticity parameter $`\alpha ^2`$ directly measures the chemical potential in the microscopic scaling limit. Such a rescaling is similar to that of the quark masses Poulmass . It has been already mentioned in HJV  that in a RMM the numerical effort to obtain convergence grows exponentially with $`N\mu ^2`$. Keeping it fixed here should make a comparison to data feasible.

Furthermore, we also rescale the complex eigenvalues keeping

$$N(\mathrm{}\text{e}z+i\mathrm{}\text{m}z)=Nz\xi ,$$
(13)
fixed. The matrix size $`N`$ corresponds to the volume on the lattice. This defines our microscopic origin scaling limit in the complex plane. The kernel eq. (6) and correlators eq. (7) also have to be rescaled with the mean level spacing $`1/N`$ of the eigenvalues.

In order to obtain the microscopic kernel from eq. (6) we replace the sum by an integral, $`_{k=0}^{N1}N_0^1𝑑t`$, where $`t=\frac{k}{N}`$, and use the asymptotic limit of the Laguerre polynomials to finally arrive at

$`K_S^{(a)}(\xi _1,\xi _2^{})`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{|\xi _1\xi _2^{}|^{a+\frac{1}{2}}}{\sqrt{2\pi \alpha ^2}(\xi _1\xi _2^{})^a}}\text{e}^{\frac{1}{\alpha ^2}\left((\mathrm{}m\xi _1)^2+(\mathrm{}m\xi _2^{})^2\right)}`$ (14)
$`\times `$ $`{\displaystyle _0^1}𝑑t\text{e}^{\alpha ^2t}J_a(\sqrt{2t}\xi _1)J_a(\sqrt{2t}\xi _2^{}).`$
The microscopic, weakly non-Hermitian correlation functions obtained from eq. (7) are our first main result:

$`\rho _S^{(a)}(\xi _1,\mathrm{},\xi _k)={\displaystyle \underset{l=1}{\overset{k}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{|\xi _l|}{\sqrt{2\pi \alpha ^2}}}\text{e}^{\frac{2}{\alpha ^2}(\mathrm{}m\xi _l)^2}\right)`$
$`\times \underset{1i,jk}{det}[{\displaystyle _0^1}dt\text{e}^{\alpha ^2t}J_a(\sqrt{2t}\xi _i)J_a(\sqrt{2t}\xi _j^{})].`$ (15)
As an important check in the Hermitian limit $`\alpha ^20`$ corresponding to $`\tau =1`$ the universal correlations SV ; ADMN  of the chiral RMM with real eigenvalues are reproduced.

To give an example for eq. (15) we have depicted the quenched microscopic density in part of the complex plane in Fig 1. The other directions follow from symmetry.

The oscillations known from the real case SV  spread into the complex plane, indicating the locations of the individual eigenvalues.

We now turn to the strong non-Hermiticity limit. In this limit $`\tau [0,1)`$ and consequently also $`\mu `$ from eq. (4) is kept fixed in the large-$`N`$ limit. The eigenvalues are now rescaled with the square root of the volume FKS ; A01 ,

$$\sqrt{N}(\mathrm{}\text{e}z+i\mathrm{}\text{m}z)=\sqrt{N}z\xi ,$$
(16)
defining our microscopic origin limit at strong non-Hermiticity. In this limit the infinite sum in the kernel eq. (6) can be evaluated using standard formulas for Laguerre polynomials and we obtain

$`K_S^{(a)}(\xi _1,\xi _2^{})={\displaystyle \frac{2^a\mathrm{\Gamma }(a+1)}{N^{a+\frac{3}{2}}f^{(a)}(\tau )(1\tau ^2)}}{\displaystyle \frac{|\xi _1\xi _2^{}|^{a+\frac{1}{2}}}{(\xi _1\xi _2^{})^a}}`$ (17)
$`\times \text{e}^{\frac{1}{2(1\tau ^2)}\left(|\xi _1|^2+|\xi _2^{}|^2\frac{\tau }{2}(\xi _{1}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}\xi _1^2+\xi _2^2\xi _{2}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})\right)}I_a\left({\displaystyle \frac{\xi _1\xi _2^{}}{1\tau ^2}}\right).`$
The correlation functions in the strong limit then read

$$\rho _S^{(a)}(\xi _1,\mathrm{},\xi _k)\underset{l=1}{\overset{k}{}}|\xi _l|\text{e}^{\frac{1}{1\tau ^2}|\xi _l|^2}\underset{1i,jk}{det}\left[I_a\left(\frac{\xi _i\xi _j^{}}{1\tau ^2}\right)\right]$$
(18)
where we have suppressed the normalization constant. They can also be obtained from the correlators eq. (15) in the weak limit by taking the limit $`\alpha \mathrm{}`$ there and identifying $`\alpha ^2=1\tau ^2`$. They differ from ref. Janco  due to the different interaction term in eq. (1). As an example for eq. (18) we give the quenched microscopic density in Fig. 2.

The microscopic spectral density develops a hole at the origin and becomes flat for large values. This has indeed been observed in quenched lattice data for intermediate values of the chemical potential Bar ; MPW . At large $`\mu `$ the eigenvalues form a thin ring. The qualitative picture of the microscopic density in Fig. 2 remains unchanged in the presence of massless flavors $`N_f`$, although the barrier present in the figure gets flattened out.

In summary we have introduced a new class of a chiral RMM having complex eigenvalues. All $`k`$-point correlation functions have been calculated explicitly at finite-$`N`$ as well as in the limits of weak and strong non-Hermiticity. The parameter $`\tau `$ that governs the non-Hermiticity has been related to the chemical potential $`\mu `$ as it occurs in the QCD Dirac operator. While the microscopic density shows qualitative features of Dirac operator eigenvalues calculated in lattice QCD a quantitative comparison with data remains to be done.

Acknowledgments: I wish to thank P. Di Francesco, P. Forrester and E. Kanzieper for enjoyable discussions and correspondence. This work was supported by the European network on “Discrete Random Geometries” HPRN-CT-1999-00161 (EUROGRID).