In [D.A.Molodtsov (1999), P. Majumder and S . K .Samanta , (2012), I . Zorlutuna , M . Akdag , W.K Minand S. Atmaca (2012), N . Cagman ,F . Cltak and S . Enginolu (2001), N.Cagman and S .S . Englinglu (2011), P. Majumder and S . K .Samanta (2012), P.k.Maji , R.Biswas and A.R.Roy (2003), P.k.Maji , and A.R.Roy (2002), S.M.Modumugal pal (2013)] , the fact that we must focus on is that all of these researches depending on the following fact when defining the soft set :
If is a universal set and be a subset of a set of parameters , then a soft set is not the null soft set , ( I . e ? if and only if , where ? is the null soft set [ .
We will proof in the following papers that this condition need not be true , but it is special case for the following condition :
If is not the null soft set such that
This means that it is sufficient for existing only one element whose image is not the null soft set . in such case the soft set will not be null soft set and we will explain that in an example.
One of the agreed upon facts which concern the origin of the soft set is that the dynamicity by which these types of sets have been invented in the following way :
{( ) } and then ( )
Many of the researches studies where o the family points which is the result of the cross between the two coordinates of the two soft sets
( I . e { } { }
From above we can conclude that each of the ordered pairs may be dealt whit individually as (soft set) if we considered the set { }when the study is on the point
is an f if and only if { } { } is a soft set