Basic Notions On (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer's Recognitions and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/366673729
Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic)

SuperHyperModeling in Cancer's Recognitions And (Neutrosophic)
SuperHyperGraphs
Preprint · December 2022

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11369.16487
CITATIONS
1 author:
Henry Garrett
193 PUBLICATIONS 500 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
On Fuzzy Logic View project
Metric Dimension in fuzzy(neutrosophic) Graphs View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Henry Garrett on 29 December 2022.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs
Henry Garrett
Independent Researcher
DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com
Twitter’s ID: @DrHenryGarrett | DrHenryGarrett.wordpress.com

c
1 Abstract
In this research, new setting is introduced for new SuperHyperNotions, namely,
SuperHyperForcing and Neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Two different types of
SuperHyperDefinitions are debut for them but the research goes further and the
SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperUniform, and SuperHyperClass based on that are
well-defined and well-reviewed. The literature review is implemented in the whole of this
research. For shining the elegancy and the significancy of this research, the comparison
between this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions and fundamental
SuperHyperNumbers are featured. The definitions are followed by the examples and the
instances thus the clarifications are driven with different tools. The applications are
figured out to make sense about the theoretical aspect of this ongoing research. The
“Cancer’s Recognitions” are the under research to figure out the challenges make sense
about ongoing and upcoming research. The special case is up. The cells are viewed in
the deemed ways. There are different types of them. Some of them are individuals and
some of them are well-modeled by the group of cells. These types are all officially called
“SuperHyperVertex” but the relations amid them all officially called “SuperHyperEdge”.
The frameworks “SuperHyperGraph” and “neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” are chosen
and elected to research about “Cancer’s Recognitions”. Thus these complex and dense
SuperHyperModels open up some avenues to research on theoretical segments and
“Cancer’s Recognitions”. Some avenues are posed to pursue this research. It’s also
officially collected in the form of some questions and some problems. Assume a
SuperHyperGraph. Then a “SuperHyperForcing” Z(N SHG) for a neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the minimum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of
black SuperHyperVertices (whereas SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white)
such that V (G) is turned black after finitely many applications of “the color-change
rule”: a white SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black SuperHyperVertex if it is the
only white SuperHyperNeighbor of a black SuperHyperVertex; a “neutrosophic
SuperHyperForcing” Zn (N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E)
is the minimum neutrosophic cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of black
SuperHyperVertices (whereas SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white) such
that V (G) is turned black after finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: a
white SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black SuperHyperVertex if it is the only
white SuperHyperNeighbor of a black SuperHyperVertex. Assume a SuperHyperGraph.
Then a “SuperHyperForcing” Z(N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph
1/139
N SHG : (V, E) is the minimum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of black
white SuperHyperNeighbor of a black SuperHyperVertex; a “neutrosophic
SuperHyperForcing” Zn (N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E)
is the minimum neutrosophic cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of black
white SuperHyperNeighbor of a black SuperHyperVertex. Assume a SuperHyperGraph.
Then an “δ−SuperHyperForcing” is a minimal SuperHyperForcing of
SuperHyperVertices with minimum cardinality such that either of the following
expressions hold for the (neutrosophic) cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S :
|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ, |S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. The first
Expression, holds if S is an “δ−SuperHyperOffensive”. And the second Expression,
holds if S is an “δ−SuperHyperDefensive”; a“neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperForcing” is a
minimal neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing of SuperHyperVertices with minimum
neutrosophic cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the
neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : |S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic >
|S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ, |S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ.
The first Expression, holds if S is a “neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive”. And the
second Expression, holds if S is a “neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperDefensive”. It’s useful to
define “neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperForcing. Since there’s more ways to get
type-results to make SuperHyperForcing more understandable. For the sake of having
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of
“SuperHyperForcing”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned
by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the
position of labels to assign to the values. Assume a SuperHyperForcing. It’s redefined
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing if the mentioned Table holds, concerning, “The Values
of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyperEdges Belong to The
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” with the key points, “The Values of The Vertices &
The Number of Position in Alphabet”, “The Values of The SuperVertices&The
Minimum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The Edges&The Minimum Values of
Its Vertices”, “The Values of The HyperEdges&The Minimum Values of Its Vertices”,
“The Values of The SuperHyperEdges&The Minimum Values of Its Endpoints”. To get
structural examples and instances, I’m going to introduce the next SuperHyperClass of
SuperHyperGraph based on SuperHyperForcing. It’s the main. It’ll be disciplinary to
have the foundation of previous definition in the kind of SuperHyperClass. If there’s a
need to have all SuperHyperConnectivities until the SuperHyperForcing, then it’s
officially called “SuperHyperForcing” but otherwise, it isn’t SuperHyperForcing. There
are some instances about the clarifications for the main definition titled
“SuperHyperForcing”. These two examples get more scrutiny and discernment since
there are characterized in the disciplinary ways of the SuperHyperClass based on
SuperHyperForcing. For the sake of having neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing, there’s a
need to “redefine” the notion of “neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing” and “neutrosophic
SuperHyperForcing”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned
by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of
the position of labels to assign to the values. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph.
It’s redefined “neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” if the intended Table holds. And
SuperHyperForcing are redefined “neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing” if the intended
Table holds. It’s useful to define “neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since
there’s more ways to get neutrosophic type-results to make neutrosophic
2/139
SuperHyperForcing more understandable. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph.
There are some neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the intended Table holds. Thus
SuperHyperPath, SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite,
SuperHyperMultiPartite, and SuperHyperWheel, are “neutrosophic SuperHyperPath”,
“neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle”, “neutrosophic SuperHyperStar”, “neutrosophic
SuperHyperBipartite”, “neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite”, and “neutrosophic
SuperHyperWheel” if the intended Table holds. A SuperHyperGraph has “neutrosophic
SuperHyperForcing” where it’s the strongest [the maximum neutrosophic value from all
SuperHyperForcing amid the maximum value amid all SuperHyperVertices from a
SuperHyperForcing.] SuperHyperForcing. A graph is SuperHyperUniform if it’s
SuperHyperGraph and the number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same.
Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some SuperHyperClasses as
follows. It’s SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given
SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one
SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperStar it’s
only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all SuperHyperEdges; it’s
SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given
SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has no
SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi
separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one
SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has
one SuperHyperEdge with any common SuperVertex. The SuperHyperModel proposes
the specific designs and the specific architectures. The SuperHyperModel is officially
called “SuperHyperGraph” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. In this
SuperHyperModel, The “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells are
SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperVertices” and the common and intended properties
between “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells are SuperHyperModeled as
“SuperHyperEdges”. Sometimes, it’s useful to have some degrees of determinacy,
indeterminacy, and neutrality to have more precise SuperHyperModel which in this case
the SuperHyperModel is called “neutrosophic”. In the future research, the foundation
will be based on the “Cancer’s Recognitions” and the results and the definitions will be
introduced in redeemed ways. The recognition of the cancer in the long-term function.
The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called SuperHyperGraph] and
the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this research. Sometimes the
move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some determinacy,
indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the cancer on that
region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and what’s done.
There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the names, and
some SuperHyperGeneral SuperHyperModels. The moves and the traces of the cancer
on the complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a
neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar,
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find
either the longest SuperHyperForcing or the strongest SuperHyperForcing in those
neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. For the longest SuperHyperForcing, called
SuperHyperForcing, and the strongest SuperHyperCycle, called neutrosophic
SuperHyperForcing, some general results are introduced. Beyond that in
SuperHyperStar, all possible SuperHyperPaths have only two SuperHyperEdges but it’s
not enough since it’s essential to have at least three SuperHyperEdges to form any style
of a SuperHyperCycle. There isn’t any formation of any SuperHyperCycle but literarily,
it’s the deformation of any SuperHyperCycle. It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form.
A basic familiarity with SuperHyperGraph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph
3/139
theory are proposed.
Keywords: (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph, (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing,

Cancer’s Recognitions
AMS Subject Classification: 05C17, 05C22, 05E45
2 Background
There are some researches covering the topic of this research. In what follows, there are
some discussion and literature reviews about them.
First article is titled “properties of SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [1] by Henry Garrett (2022). It’s first step toward the
research on neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs. This research article is published on the
journal “Neutrosophic Sets and Systems” in issue 49 and the pages 531-561. In this
research article, different types of notions like dominating, resolving, coloring,
Eulerian(Hamiltonian) neutrosophic path, n-Eulerian(Hamiltonian) neutrosophic path,
zero forcing number, zero forcing neutrosophic- number, independent number,
independent neutrosophic-number, clique number, clique neutrosophic-number,
matching number, matching neutrosophic-number, girth, neutrosophic girth,
1-zero-forcing number, 1-zero- forcing neutrosophic-number, failed 1-zero-forcing
number, failed 1-zero-forcing neutrosophic-number, global- offensive alliance, t-offensive
alliance, t-defensive alliance, t-powerful alliance, and global-powerful alliance are defined
in SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Some Classes of
SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are cases of research. Some
results are applied in family of SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph.
Thus this research article has concentrated on the vast notions and introducing the
majority of notions.
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “neutrosophic co-degree and
neutrosophic degree alongside chromatic numbers in the setting of some classes related
to neutrosophic hypergraphs” in Ref. [2] by Henry Garrett (2022). In this research
article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph based on general forms without using neutrosophic classes of
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is
entitled “Journal of Current Trends in Computer Science Research (JCTCSR)” with
abbreviation “J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res” in volume 1 and issue 1 with pages 06-14.
The research article studies deeply with choosing neutrosophic hypergraphs instead of
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results
based on initial background.
In some articles are titled “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s
Recognitions Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances” in
Ref. [3] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With
SuperHyperDefensive and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of
Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [4] by
Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions” in Ref. [5] by
Henry Garrett (2022), “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in
Cancer’s Treatments” in Ref. [6] by Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperDominating
and SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in
Game Theory and Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [7] by Henry Garrett
(2022), “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating and
4/139
Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [8] by Henry Garrett
(2022), “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some Neutrosophic
Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)” in Ref. [9] by Henry Garrett (2022), there are some
endeavors to formalize the basic SuperHyperNotions about neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph.
Some studies and researches about neutrosophic graphs, are proposed as book in
Ref. [10] by Henry Garrett (2022) which is indexed by Google Scholar and has more
than 2347 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs” and published
by Ohio: E-publishing: Educational Publisher 1091 West 1st Ave Grandview Heights,
Ohio 43212 United State. This research book covers different types of notions and
settings in neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory.
Also, some studies and researches about neutrosophic graphs, are proposed as book
in Ref. [11] by Henry Garrett (2022) which is indexed by Google Scholar and has more
than 3048 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Neutrosophic Duality” and published by
Florida: GLOBAL KNOWLEDGE - Publishing House 848 Brickell Ave Ste 950 Miami,
Florida 33131 United States. This research book presents different types of notions
SuperHyperResolving and SuperHyperDominating in the setting of duality in
neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. This research
book has scrutiny on the complement of the intended set and the intended set,
simultaneously. It’s smart to consider a set but acting on its complement that what’s
done in this research book which is popular in the terms of high readers in Scribd.
2.1 Motivation and Contributions

In this research, there are some ideas in the featured frameworks of motivations. I try
to bring the motivations in the narrative ways. Some cells have been faced with some
attacks from the situation which is caused by the cancer’s attacks. In this case, there
are some embedded analysis on the ongoing situations which in that, the cells could be
labelled as some groups and some groups or individuals have excessive labels which all
are raised from the behaviors to overcome the cancer’s attacks. In the embedded
situations, the individuals of cells and the groups of cells could be considered as “new
groups”. Thus it motivates us to find the proper SuperHyperModels for getting more
proper analysis on this messy story. I’ve found the SuperHyperModels which are
officially called “SuperHyperGraphs” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”. In this
SuperHyperModel, the cells and the groups of cells are defined as “SuperHyperVertices”
and the relations between the individuals of cells and the groups of cells are defined as
“SuperHyperEdges”. Thus it’s another motivation for us to do research on this
SuperHyperModel based on the “Cancer’s Recognitions”. Sometimes, the situations get
worst. The situation is passed from the certainty and precise style. Thus it’s the beyond
them. There are three descriptions, namely, the degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy
and neutrality, for any object based on vague forms, namely, incomplete data, imprecise
data, and uncertain analysis. The latter model could be considered on the previous
SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperGraph but it’s officially
called “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”. The cancer is the disease but the model is
going to figure out what’s going on this phenomenon. The special case of this disease is
considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells
are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the
matter of mind. The recognition of the cancer could help to find some treatments for
this disease. The SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are the
SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognitions” and both bases are the background
of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells,
groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes
5/139
some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the
forms of alliances’ styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are
formally called “SuperHyperForcing” in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. The
prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to figure out the
background for the SuperHyperNotions. The recognition of the cancer in the long-term
function. The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called
SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this
research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are
some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the
cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and
what’s done. There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the
names, and some general models. The moves and the traces of the cancer on the
complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a
neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar,
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find
either the optimal SuperHyperForcing or the neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing in those
neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. Some general results are introduced. Beyond that in
SuperHyperStar, all possible SuperHyperPaths have only two SuperHyperEdges but it’s
not enough since it’s essential to have at least three SuperHyperEdges to form any style
of a SuperHyperCycle. There isn’t any formation of any SuperHyperCycle but literarily,
it’s the deformation of any SuperHyperCycle. It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form.
Question 2.1. How to define the SuperHyperNotions and to do research on them to
find the “ amount of SuperHyperForcing” of either individual of cells or the groups of
cells based on the fixed cell or the fixed group of cells, extensively, the “amount of
SuperHyperForcing” based on the fixed groups of cells or the fixed groups of group of
cells?
Question 2.2. What are the best descriptions for the “Cancer’s Recognitions” in terms
of these messy and dense SuperHyperModels where embedded notions are illustrated?
It’s motivation to find notions to use in this dense model is titled
“SuperHyperGraphs”. Thus it motivates us to define different types of
“SuperHyperForcing” and “neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing” on “SuperHyperGraph”
and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. Then the research has taken more motivations
to define SuperHyperClasses and to find some connections amid this SuperHyperNotion
with other SuperHyperNotions. It motivates us to get some instances and examples to
make clarifications about the framework of this research. The general results and some
results about some connections are some avenues to make key point of this research,
“Cancer’s Recognitions”, more understandable and more clear.
The framework of this research is as follows. In the beginning, I introduce basic
definitions to clarify about preliminaries. In the subsection “Preliminaries”, initial
definitions about SuperHyperGraphs and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are
deeply-introduced and in-depth-discussed. The elementary concepts are clarified and
illustrated completely and sometimes review literature are applied to make sense about
what’s going to figure out about the upcoming sections. The main definitions and their
clarifications alongside some results about new notions, SuperHyperForcing and
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing, are figured out in sections “SuperHyperForcing” and
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing”. In the sense of tackling on getting results and in
order to make sense about continuing the research, the ideas of SuperHyperUniform and
Neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform are introduced and as their consequences,
corresponded SuperHyperClasses are figured out to debut what’s done in this section,
titled “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Neutrosophic
6/139
SuperHyperClasses”. As going back to origin of the notions, there are some smart steps
toward the common notions to extend the new notions in new frameworks,
SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, in the sections “Results on
SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. The starter
research about the general SuperHyperRelations and as concluding and closing section
of theoretical research are contained in the section “General Results”. Some general
SuperHyperRelations are fundamental and they are well-known as fundamental
SuperHyperNotions as elicited and discussed in the sections, “General Results”,
“SuperHyperForcing”, “Neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing”, “Results on
SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. There are
curious questions about what’s done about the SuperHyperNotions to make sense about
excellency of this research and going to figure out the word “best” as the description
and adjective for this research as presented in section, “SuperHyperForcing”. The
keyword of this research debut in the section “Applications in Cancer’s Recognitions”
with two cases and subsections “Case 1: The Initial Steps Toward SuperHyperBipartite
as SuperHyperModel” and “Case 2: The Increasing Steps Toward
SuperHyperMultipartite as SuperHyperModel”. In the section, “Open Problems”, there
are some scrutiny and discernment on what’s done and what’s happened in this research
in the terms of “questions” and “problems” to make sense to figure out this research in
featured style. The advantages and the limitations of this research alongside about
what’s done in this research to make sense and to get sense about what’s figured out are
included in the section, “Conclusion and Closing Remarks”.
2.2 Preliminaries
In this subsection, the basic material which is used in this research, is presented. Also,
the new ideas and their clarifications are elicited.
Definition 2.3 (Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [13],Definition 2.1,p.87).
Let X be a space of points (objects) with generic elements in X denoted by x; then
the neutrosophic set A (NS A) is an object having the form
A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}

+
where the functions T, I, F : X →]− 0, 1 [ define respectively the a
truth-membership function, an indeterminacy-membership function, and a
falsity-membership function of the element x ∈ X to the set A with the condition
−
0 ≤ TA (x) + IA (x) + FA (x) ≤ 3+ .
The functions TA (x), IA (x) and FA (x) are real standard or nonstandard subsets of
+
]− 0, 1 [.
Definition 2.4 (Single Valued Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [16],Definition 6,p.2).
Let X be a space of points (objects) with generic elements in X denoted by x. A
single valued neutrosophic set A (SVNS A) is characterized by truth-membership
function TA (x), an indeterminacy-membership function IA (x), and a falsity-membership
function FA (x). For each point x in X, TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) ∈ [0, 1]. A SVNS A can be
written as
A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}.
Definition 2.5. The degree of truth-membership,
indeterminacy-membership and falsity-membership of the subset X ⊂ A of
the single valued neutrosophic set A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}:
TA (X) = min[TA (vi ), TA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X ,
7/139
IA (X) = min[IA (vi ), IA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X ,
and FA (X) = min[FA (vi ), FA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X .
Definition 2.6. The support of X ⊂ A of the single valued neutrosophic set
A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}:
supp(X) = {x ∈ X : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) > 0}.
Definition 2.7 (Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). (Ref. [15],Definition

3,p.291).
Assume V 0 is a given set. A neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an
ordered pair S = (V, E), where
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ;

(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i =
1, 2, . . . , n);
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued neutrosophic subsets of V ;
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 =
1, 2, . . . , n0 );
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n);
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 );

P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n);
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n );
0
(ix) and the following conditions hold:
TV0 (Ei0 ) ≤ min[TV 0 (Vi ), TV 0 (Vj )]Vi ,Vj ∈Ei0 ,
IV0 (Ei0 ) ≤ min[IV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vj )]Vi ,Vj ∈Ei0 ,

and FV0 (Ei0 ) ≤ min[FV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vj )]Vi ,Vj ∈Ei0
where i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 .
Here the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ),
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V.
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus,
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets.
Definition 2.8 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)).
(Ref. [15],Section 4,pp.291-292).
Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered pair S = (V, E).
The neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vi of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E)
could be characterized as follow-up items.
8/139
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex;
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex;
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge;
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called
HyperEdge;
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called
SuperEdge;
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called
SuperHyperEdge.
If we choose different types of binary operations, then we could get hugely diverse
types of general forms of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG).
Definition 2.9 (t-norm). (Ref. [14], Definition 5.1.1, pp.82-83).
A binary operation ⊗ : [0, 1] × [0, 1] → [0, 1] is a t-norm if it satisfies the following
for x, y, z, w ∈ [0, 1]:
(i) 1 ⊗ x = x;
(ii) x ⊗ y = y ⊗ x;
(iii) x ⊗ (y ⊗ z) = (x ⊗ y) ⊗ z;
(iv) If w ≤ x and y ≤ z then w ⊗ y ≤ x ⊗ z.
Definition 2.10. The degree of truth-membership,
indeterminacy-membership and falsity-membership of the subset X ⊂ A of
the single valued neutrosophic set A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X} (with
respect to t-norm Tnorm ):
TA (X) = Tnorm [TA (vi ), TA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X ,
IA (X) = Tnorm [IA (vi ), IA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X ,

and FA (X) = Tnorm [FA (vi ), FA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X .
Definition 2.11. The support of X ⊂ A of the single valued neutrosophic set
A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}:
supp(X) = {x ∈ X : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) > 0}.
Definition 2.12. (General Forms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)).

Assume V 0 is a given set. A neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an
ordered pair S = (V, E), where
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ;
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i =
1, 2, . . . , n);
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued neutrosophic subsets of V ;
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 =
1, 2, . . . , n0 );
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n);
9/139
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 );
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n);
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei0 ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n ).
Here the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the neutrosophic

SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ),
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V.
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus,
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets.
Definition 2.13 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)).

(Ref. [15],Section 4,pp.291-292).
The neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vi of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E)
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex;
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex;
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge;
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called
HyperEdge;
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called
SuperEdge;
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called
SuperHyperEdge.
3 SuperHyperForcing
This SuperHyperModel is too messy and too dense. Thus there’s a need to have some
restrictions and conditions on SuperHyperGraph. The special case of this
SuperHyperGraph makes the patterns and regularities.
Definition 3.1. A graph is SuperHyperUniform if it’s SuperHyperGraph and the
number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same.
To get more visions on SuperHyperForcing, the some SuperHyperClasses are

introduced. It makes to have SuperHyperForcing more understandable.
Definition 3.2. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some
SuperHyperClasses as follows.
(i). It’s SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two
given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions;
10/139
(ii). it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two
given SuperHyperEdges;
(iii). it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all
SuperHyperEdges;
(iv). it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two
given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has
no SuperHyperEdge in common;
(v). it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid
two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi separate sets,
has no SuperHyperEdge in common;
(vi). it’s SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two
given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any
common SuperVertex.
Definition 3.3. Let an ordered pair S = (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph
(NSHG) S. Then a sequence of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) and
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)
V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , . . . , Vs−1 , Es−1 , Vs
is called a neutrosophic SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from neutrosophic

SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V1 to neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vs if either
of following conditions hold:
(i) Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ;
(ii) there’s a vertex vi ∈ Vi such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ;
(iii) there’s a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi such that Vi0 , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ;
(iv) there’s a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ;
0 0
(v) there’s a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ;
(vi) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ;
0 0
(vii) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ;
(viii) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi0 , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ;
(ix) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1
0
∈ Vi+1 such that
0 0
Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 .
Definition 3.4. (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths).
A neutrosophic SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV)
V1 to neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vs is sequence of neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) and neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)
V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , . . . , Vs−1 , Es−1 , Vs ,

(i) If for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | = 2, then NSHP is called path;
(ii) if for all Ej 0 , |Ej 0 | = 2, and there’s Vi , |Vi | ≥ 1, then NSHP is called SuperPath;
11/139
(iii) if for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called HyperPath;
(iv) if there are Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | ≥ 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called SuperHyperPath.
Definition 3.5. ((neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing).

Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then
(i) a SuperHyperForcing Z(N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph
SuperHyperVertices (whereas SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white)
such that V (G) is turned black after finitely many applications of “the
color-change rule”: a white SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black
SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white SuperHyperNeighbor of a black
SuperHyperVertex;
(ii) a neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing Zn (N SHG) for a neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the minimum neutrosophic cardinality of a
SuperHyperSet S of black SuperHyperVertices (whereas SuperHyperVertices in
V (G) \ S are colored white) such that V (G) is turned black after finitely many
applications of “the color-change rule”: a white SuperHyperVertex is converted to
a black SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white SuperHyperNeighbor of a black
SuperHyperVertex.
Definition 3.6. ((neutrosophic)δ− SuperHyperForcing).

(i) an δ−SuperHyperForcing is a minimal SuperHyperForcing of
expressions hold for the (neutrosophic) cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of
s∈S:
|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ; (3.1)

|S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. (3.2)
The Expression (4.1), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the

Expression (4.2), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive;
(ii) a neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperForcing is a minimal neutrosophic

SuperHyperForcing of SuperHyperVertices with minimum neutrosophic
cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the neutrosophic
cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S :
|S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ; (3.3)

|S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ. (3.4)
The Expression (4.3), holds if S is a neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive.

And the Expression (4.4), holds if S is a neutrosophic
δ−SuperHyperDefensive.
Example 3.7. Assume the SuperHyperGraphs in the Figures (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6),
(7), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12), (13), (14), (15), (16), (17), (18), (19), and (20).
• On the Figure (1), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, SuperHyperForcing, is up. E1
and E3 are some empty SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop SuperHyperEdge and
E4 is an SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only
one SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The SuperHyperVertex, V3 is isolated means
12/139
that there’s no SuperHyperEdge has it as an endpoint. Thus SuperHyperVertex,
V3 , is contained in every given SuperHyperForcing. All the following
SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices are the simple type-SuperHyperSet of the
SuperHyperForcing.
{V3 , V1 , V2 }
{V3 , V1 , V4 }
{V3 , V2 , V4 }
The SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices, {V3 , V2 , V4 , V1 }, is a
SuperHyperVertex but it isn’t a SuperHyperForcing. Since it doesn’t have
the minimum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of black SuperHyperVertices
(whereas SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white) such that V (G) is
turned black after finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: a white
SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white
SuperHyperNeighbor of a black SuperHyperVertex. There’s only one
SuperHyperVertex outside the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the obvious
SuperHyperForcing is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the
SuperHyperForcing is a SuperHyperSet excludes only one SuperHyperVertex in a
connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E).
• On the Figure (2), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, SuperHyperForcing, is up.
E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty SuperHyperEdges but E4 is an SuperHyperEdge.
Thus in the terms of SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one SuperHyperEdge,
namely, E4 . The SuperHyperVertex, V3 is isolated means that there’s no
SuperHyperEdge has it as an endpoint. Thus SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is contained
in every given SuperHyperForcing. All the following SuperHyperSets of
SuperHyperVertices are the simple type-SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperForcing.
{V3 , V1 , V2 }
{V3 , V1 , V4 }
{V3 , V2 , V4 }
E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty SuperHyperEdges but E4 is an SuperHyperEdge.
13/139
Thus in the terms of SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one SuperHyperEdge,
namely, E4 . All the following SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices are the
simple type-SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperForcing.
{V1 , V2 }
{V1 , V3 }
{V2 , V3 }
The SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 }, is a SuperHyperSet

S of black SuperHyperVertices (whereas SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are
colored white) such that V (G) is turned black after finitely many applications of
“the color-change rule”: a white SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black
connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). Thus all the following
SuperHyperForcing.
{V1 , V2 }
{V1 , V3 }
{V2 , V3 }
since the SuperHyperSets of the SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 }, {V1 , V3 }, {V2 , V3 }

are the SuperHyperSets Ss of black SuperHyperVertices (whereas
SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white) such that V (G) is turned
black after finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: a white
SuperHyperNeighbor of a black SuperHyperVertex and they are
SuperHyperForcing. Since they’ve the minimum cardinality of a
SuperHyperVertex. There’s only one SuperHyperVertex outside the intended
SuperHyperSet, V \ {v}. Thus the obvious SuperHyperForcing, V \ {v}, is up.
The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperForcing, V \ {v}, is a
SuperHyperSet, V \ {v}, excludes only one SuperHyperVertex in a connected
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E).
There’s no empty SuperHyperEdge but E3 are a loop SuperHyperEdge on {F },
and there are some SuperHyperEdges, namely, E1 on {H, V1 , V3 }, alongside E2 on
{O, H, V4 , V3 } and E4 , E5 on {N, V1 , V2 , V3 , F }. The SuperHyperSet of
SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V3 , H, V4 , V2 , F } is the simple type-SuperHyperSet of
the SuperHyperForcing. The SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices,
14/139
{V1 , V3 , H, V4 , V2 , F }, is the minimum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of
black SuperHyperVertices (whereas SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored
white) such that V (G) is turned black after finitely many applications of “the
SuperHyperVertex. In There’s not only one SuperHyperVertex outside the
intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious SuperHyperForcing is up. The
obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperForcing is a SuperHyperSet
excludes only one SuperHyperVertex in a connected neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). But the SuperHyperSet of
SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V3 , H, V4 , V2 , F }, has more than one SuperHyperVertex
outside the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple
type-SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperForcing is up. To sum them up, the
SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V3 , H, V4 , V2 , F }, is the non-obvious
simple type-SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperForcing. Since the SuperHyperSet
of the SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V3 , H, V4 , V2 , F }, is the SuperHyperSet Ss of
SuperHyperVertex and they are SuperHyperForcing. Since it’s
SuperHyperNeighbor of a black SuperHyperVertex. There’s only more than one
SuperHyperVertex outside the intended SuperHyperSet, {V1 , V3 , H, V4 , V2 , F }.
Thus the non-obvious SuperHyperForcing, {V1 , V3 , H, V4 , V2 , F }, is up. The
non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperForcing,
{V1 , V3 , H, V4 , V2 , F }, is a SuperHyperSet, {V1 , V3 , H, V4 , V2 , F }, excludes only
more than one SuperHyperVertex in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph
N SHG : (V, E).

There’s neither empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The
SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices,
{V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V7 , V8 , V10 , V11 , V12 , V13 , V14 }, is the simple type-SuperHyperSet of
{V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V7 , V8 , V10 , V11 , V12 , V13 , V14 }, is the minimum cardinality of a
SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V7 , V8 , V10 , V11 , V12 , V13 , V14 }, has more than
one SuperHyperVertex outside the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the
non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperForcing is up. To sum
them up, the SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices,
{V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V7 , V8 , V10 , V11 , V12 , V13 , V14 }, is the non-obvious simple
15/139
type-SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperForcing. Since the SuperHyperSet of the
SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V7 , V8 , V10 , V11 , V12 , V13 , V14 }, is the
SuperHyperSet Ss of black SuperHyperVertices (whereas SuperHyperVertices in
SuperHyperVertex outside the intended SuperHyperSet,
{V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V7 , V8 , V10 , V11 , V12 , V13 , V14 }. Thus the non-obvious
SuperHyperForcing, {V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V7 , V8 , V10 , V11 , V12 , V13 , V14 }, is up. The
{V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V7 , V8 , V10 , V11 , V12 , V13 , V14 }, is a SuperHyperSet,
{V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V7 , V8 , V10 , V11 , V12 , V13 , V14 }, excludes only more than one
SuperHyperVertex in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph
N SHG : (V, E).

{V1 , V3 , V5 , V7 , V9 , V21 , V12 , V14 , V16 , V18 , V20 , V22 }, is the simple
type-SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperForcing. The SuperHyperSet of the
SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V3 , V5 , V7 , V9 , V21 , V12 , V14 , V16 , V18 , V20 , V22 }, is
SuperHyperNeighbor of a black SuperHyperVertex. In There’s not only one
SuperHyperVertex outside the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious
connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). But the
{V1 , V3 , V5 , V7 , V9 , V21 , V12 , V14 , V16 , V18 , V20 , V22 }, has more than one
simple type-SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperForcing is up. To sum them up, the
{V1 , V3 , V5 , V7 , V9 , V21 , V12 , V14 , V16 , V18 , V20 , V22 }, is the non-obvious simple
SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V3 , V5 , V7 , V9 , V21 , V12 , V14 , V16 , V18 , V20 , V22 }, is the
16/139
{V1 , V3 , V5 , V7 , V9 , V21 , V12 , V14 , V16 , V18 , V20 , V22 }. Thus the non-obvious
SuperHyperForcing, {V1 , V3 , V5 , V7 , V9 , V21 , V12 , V14 , V16 , V18 , V20 , V22 }, is up. The
{V1 , V3 , V5 , V7 , V9 , V21 , V12 , V14 , V16 , V18 , V20 , V22 }, is a SuperHyperSet,
{V1 , V3 , V5 , V7 , V9 , V21 , V12 , V14 , V16 , V18 , V20 , V22 }, excludes only more than one
N SHG : (V, E).
N SHG : (V, E).
17/139
N SHG : (V, E).
{V1 , V3 , V5 , V7 , V9 , V21 , V12 , V14 , V16 , V18 , V20 , V22 }, is the simple
SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V3 , V5 , V7 , V9 , V21 , V12 , V14 , V16 , V18 , V20 , V22 }, is
18/139
{V1 , V3 , V5 , V7 , V9 , V21 , V12 , V14 , V16 , V18 , V20 , V22 }. Thus the non-obvious
SuperHyperForcing, {V1 , V3 , V5 , V7 , V9 , V21 , V12 , V14 , V16 , V18 , V20 , V22 }, is up. The
N SHG : (V, E).

19/139
N SHG : (V, E).
SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V3 , V5 , V6 }, is the simple
SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V3 , V5 , V6 }, is the minimum cardinality of a
SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V3 , V5 , V6 }, has more than one SuperHyperVertex
SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V3 , V5 , V6 }, is the non-obvious simple
SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V3 , V5 , V6 }, is the SuperHyperSet Ss of black
SuperHyperVertex outside the intended SuperHyperSet, {V2 , V3 , V5 , V6 }. Thus the
non-obvious SuperHyperForcing, {V2 , V3 , V5 , V6 }, is up. The non-obvious simple
type-SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperForcing, {V2 , V3 , V5 , V6 }, is a
SuperHyperSet, {V2 , V3 , V5 , V6 }, excludes only more than one SuperHyperVertex
in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E).
SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V9 }, is the simple
20/139
SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V9 }, is
SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V9 }, has more
than one SuperHyperVertex outside the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the
them up, the SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V9 },
is the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperForcing. Since
the SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V9 }, is
the SuperHyperSet Ss of black SuperHyperVertices (whereas SuperHyperVertices
in V (G) \ S are colored white) such that V (G) is turned black after finitely many
{V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V9 }. Thus the non-obvious SuperHyperForcing,
{V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V9 }, is up. The non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet
of the SuperHyperForcing, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V9 }, is a SuperHyperSet,
{V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V9 }, excludes only more than one SuperHyperVertex in a

SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V5 , V6 }, is the simple
SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V5 , V6 }, is the minimum cardinality of a
SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V5 , V6 }, has more than one SuperHyperVertex
SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V5 , V6 }, is the non-obvious simple
21/139
SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V5 , V6 }, is the SuperHyperSet Ss of black
SuperHyperVertex outside the intended SuperHyperSet, {V1 , V2 , V5 , V6 }. Thus the
non-obvious SuperHyperForcing, {V1 , V2 , V5 , V6 }, is up. The non-obvious simple
type-SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperForcing, {V1 , V2 , V5 , V6 }, is a
SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V1 }, is the simple type-SuperHyperSet of
the SuperHyperForcing. The SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices, {V1 }, is
SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V1 }, has more than one
SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V1 }, is the non-obvious simple
SuperHyperVertices, {V1 }, is the SuperHyperSet Ss of black SuperHyperVertices
SuperHyperForcing. Since it’s the minimum cardinality of a
SuperHyperVertex. There’s only more than one SuperHyperVertex outside the
intended SuperHyperSet, {V1 }. Thus the non-obvious SuperHyperForcing, {V1 }, is
up. The non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperForcing, {V1 },
is a SuperHyperSet, {V1 }, excludes only more than one SuperHyperVertex in a
SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V3 , V6 }, is the simple
22/139
SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V3 , V6 }, is the minimum cardinality of a
SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V3 , V6 }, has more than one SuperHyperVertex outside
the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of
the SuperHyperForcing is up. To sum them up, the SuperHyperSet of
SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V3 , V6 }, is the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet
of the SuperHyperForcing. Since the SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices,
{V1 , V3 , V6 }, is the SuperHyperSet Ss of black SuperHyperVertices (whereas
intended SuperHyperSet, {V1 , V3 , V6 }. Thus the non-obvious SuperHyperForcing,
{V1 , V3 , V6 }, is up. The non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the
SuperHyperForcing, {V1 , V3 , V6 }, is a SuperHyperSet, {V1 , V3 , V6 }, excludes only
N SHG : (V, E).

{V2 , V3 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V9 , V10 , V12 , V15 , V14 , V13 , V17 , V16 , V19 , V18 , V21 , V20 },
is the simple type-SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperForcing. The SuperHyperSet

of the SuperHyperVertices,
is the minimum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of black

23/139
SuperHyperVertices,
has more than one SuperHyperVertex outside the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus
the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperForcing is up. To
sum them up, the SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices,

the SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices,
is the SuperHyperSet Ss of black SuperHyperVertices (whereas

intended SuperHyperSet,
{V2 , V3 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V9 , V10 , V12 , V15 , V14 , V13 , V17 , V16 , V19 , V18 , V21 , V20 }.
Thus the non-obvious SuperHyperForcing,
is up. The non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperForcing,
is a SuperHyperSet,
excludes only more than one SuperHyperVertex in a connected neutrosophic

SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E).
{V2 , V3 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V9 , V10 , V12 , V15 , V14 , V13 , V17 , V16 , V19 , V18 , V21 , V23 , V1 ,
V24 , V29 , V25 , V28 , V26 },

V24 , V29 , V25 , V28 , V26 },
24/139
SuperHyperVertices,
V24 , V29 , V25 , V28 , V26 },
V24 , V29 , V25 , V28 , V26 },

V24 , V29 , V25 , V28 , V26 },

V24 , V29 , V25 , V28 , V26 }.
V24 , V29 , V25 , V28 , V26 },
V24 , V29 , V25 , V28 , V26 },
25/139
is a SuperHyperSet,
V24 , V29 , V25 , V28 , V26 },

SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V3 , R, M6 , L6 , F, P, J, M }, is the
simple type-SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperForcing. The SuperHyperSet of the
SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V3 , R, M6 , L6 , F, P, J, M }, is
SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V3 , R, M6 , L6 , F, P, J, M }, has more
{V1 , V3 , R, M6 , L6 , F, P, J, M }, is the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of
the SuperHyperForcing. Since the SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices,
{V1 , V3 , R, M6 , L6 , F, P, J, M }, is the SuperHyperSet Ss of black
{V1 , V3 , R, M6 , L6 , F, P, J, M }. Thus the non-obvious SuperHyperForcing,
{V1 , V3 , R, M6 , L6 , F, P, J, M }, is up. The non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet
of the SuperHyperForcing, {V1 , V3 , R, M6 , L6 , F, P, J, M }, is a SuperHyperSet,
{V1 , V3 , R, M6 , L6 , F, P, J, M }, excludes only more than one SuperHyperVertex in
a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E).
{S3 , U3 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 , R6 , S6 , Z5 , W5 ,
H6 , O6 , E6 , V2 , V3 , R, M6 , L6 , F, P, J, M },
26/139
{S3 , U3 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 , R6 , S6 , Z5 , W5 ,
H6 , O6 , E6 , V2 , V3 , R, M6 , L6 , F, P, J, M },

SuperHyperVertices,
{S3 , U3 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 , R6 , S6 , Z5 , W5 ,
H6 , O6 , E6 , V2 , V3 , R, M6 , L6 , F, P, J, M },
{S3 , U3 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 , R6 , S6 , Z5 , W5 ,
H6 , O6 , E6 , V2 , V3 , R, M6 , L6 , F, P, J, M },

{S3 , U3 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 , R6 , S6 , Z5 , W5 ,
H6 , O6 , E6 , V2 , V3 , R, M6 , L6 , F, P, J, M },

{S3 , U3 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 , R6 , S6 , Z5 , W5 ,
H6 , O6 , E6 , V2 , V3 , R, M6 , L6 , F, P, J, M }.
{S3 , U3 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 , R6 , S6 , Z5 , W5 ,
H6 , O6 , E6 , V2 , V3 , R, M6 , L6 , F, P, J, M },
27/139
{S3 , U3 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 , R6 , S6 , Z5 , W5 ,
H6 , O6 , E6 , V2 , V3 , R, M6 , L6 , F, P, J, M },
is a SuperHyperSet,
{S3 , U3 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 , R6 , S6 , Z5 , W5 ,
H6 , O6 , E6 , V2 , V3 , R, M6 , L6 , F, P, J, M },


{V1 , V11 , V4 , U6 , H7 , V5 ,
V7 , V8 , V9 , v8 , W8 , U8 , S8 , T8 , C9 ,
K9 , O9 , L9 , O4 , R4 , R4 , S4 },

{V1 , V11 , V4 , U6 , H7 , V5 ,
V7 , V8 , V9 , v8 , W8 , U8 , S8 , T8 , C9 ,
K9 , O9 , L9 , O4 , R4 , R4 , S4 },

SuperHyperVertices,
{V1 , V11 , V4 , U6 , H7 , V5 ,
V7 , V8 , V9 , v8 , W8 , U8 , S8 , T8 , C9 ,
K9 , O9 , L9 , O4 , R4 , R4 , S4 },
{V1 , V11 , V4 , U6 , H7 , V5 ,
V7 , V8 , V9 , v8 , W8 , U8 , S8 , T8 , C9 ,
K9 , O9 , L9 , O4 , R4 , R4 , S4 },
28/139
{V1 , V11 , V4 , U6 , H7 , V5 ,
V7 , V8 , V9 , v8 , W8 , U8 , S8 , T8 , C9 ,
K9 , O9 , L9 , O4 , R4 , R4 , S4 },

{V1 , V11 , V4 , U6 , H7 , V5 ,
V7 , V8 , V9 , v8 , W8 , U8 , S8 , T8 , C9 ,
K9 , O9 , L9 , O4 , R4 , R4 , S4 }.
{V1 , V11 , V4 , U6 , H7 , V5 ,
V7 , V8 , V9 , v8 , W8 , U8 , S8 , T8 , C9 ,
K9 , O9 , L9 , O4 , R4 , R4 , S4 },
{V1 , V11 , V4 , U6 , H7 , V5 ,
V7 , V8 , V9 , v8 , W8 , U8 , S8 , T8 , C9 ,
K9 , O9 , L9 , O4 , R4 , R4 , S4 },
is a SuperHyperSet,
{V1 , V11 , V4 , U6 , H7 , V5 ,
V7 , V8 , V9 , v8 , W8 , U8 , S8 , T8 , C9 ,
K9 , O9 , L9 , O4 , R4 , R4 , S4 },

Proposition 3.8. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph

N SHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally, V \ {v} is a SuperHyperForcing. In
other words, the most cardinality, the upper sharp bound for cardinality, of
SuperHyperForcing is the cardinality of V \ {v}.
Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). The
SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices V is a SuperHyperSet S of black
29/139
Figure 1. The SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Notions of SuperHyperForcing in
the Examples (3.7) and (4.6)

30/139

31/139

32/139

33/139
Figure 10. The SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Notions of SuperHyperForcing

in the Examples (3.7) and (4.6)
34/139

35/139

36/139

37/139

38/139

39/139
white SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white
SuperHyperNeighbor of a black SuperHyperVertex but it isn’t a SuperHyperForcing.
Since it doesn’t have the minimum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of black
white SuperHyperNeighbor of a black SuperHyperVertex. There’s only one
SuperHyperVertex outside the intended SuperHyperSet, V \ {v}. Thus the obvious
SuperHyperForcing, V \ {v}, is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the
SuperHyperForcing, V \ {v}, is a SuperHyperSet, V \ {v}, excludes only one
SuperHyperVertex in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E).
Proposition 3.9. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E).
Then the extreme number of SuperHyperForcing has, the most cardinality, the upper
sharp bound for cardinality, is the extreme cardinality of V if there’s a
SuperHyperForcing with the most cardinality, the upper sharp bound for cardinality.
Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). Consider
there’s a SuperHyperForcing with the most cardinality, the upper sharp bound for
cardinality. The SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices V is a SuperHyperSet S of
only white SuperHyperNeighbor of a black SuperHyperVertex but it isn’t a
SuperHyperForcing. Since it doesn’t have the minimum cardinality of a
applications of “the color-change rule”: a white SuperHyperVertex is converted to a
black SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white SuperHyperNeighbor of a black
SuperHyperSet, V \ {v}. Thus the obvious SuperHyperForcing, V \ {v}, is up. The
obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperForcing, V \ {v}, is a
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). It implies that extreme number of
SuperHyperForcing has, the most cardinality, the upper sharp bound for cardinality, is
|V | choose |V | − 1. Thus it induces that the extreme number of SuperHyperForcing has,
the most cardinality, the upper sharp bound for cardinality, is the extreme cardinality of
V if there’s a SuperHyperForcing with the most cardinality, the upper sharp bound for
cardinality.
N SHG : (V, E). If a SuperHyperEdge has z SuperHyperVertices, then z − 1 number of
those SuperHyperVertices from that SuperHyperEdge belong to any SuperHyperForcing.
Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). Let a
SuperHyperEdge has z SuperHyperVertices. Consider z − 2 number of those
SuperHyperVertices from that SuperHyperEdge belong to any given SuperHyperSet of
the SuperHyperVertices. The SuperHyperSet S of black SuperHyperVertices (whereas
SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white) such that V (G) is turned black after
finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: a white SuperHyperVertex is
converted to a black SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white SuperHyperNeighbor of a
black SuperHyperVertex but there are two white SuperHyperNeighbors outside
implying there’s no SuperHyperVertex to the SuperHyperSet S does the “the
40/139
color-change rule”. So it doesn’t have the minimum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of
such that V (G) is turned black after finitely many applications of
SuperHyperSet. Thus the obvious SuperHyperForcing is up. The obvious simple
type-SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperForcing is a SuperHyperSet excludes only one
Thus all the following SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices are the simple
type-SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperForcing. It’s the contradiction to the
SuperHyperSet S is a SuperHyperForcing. Thus any given SuperHyperSet of the
SuperHyperVertices contains the number of those SuperHyperVertices from that
SuperHyperEdge with z SuperHyperVertices less than z − 1 isn’t a SuperHyperForcing.
Thus if a SuperHyperEdge has z SuperHyperVertices, then z − 1 number of those
SuperHyperVertices from that SuperHyperEdge belong to any SuperHyperForcing.
N SHG : (V, E). Every SuperHyperEdge has only one unique SuperHyperVertex outside
of SuperHyperForcing. In other words, every SuperHyperEdge has only one unique white
SuperHyperVertex.

SuperHyperEdge has some SuperHyperVertices. Consider some numbers of those
SuperHyperVertices from that SuperHyperEdge excluding two unique
SuperHyperVertices, belong to any given SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices.
The SuperHyperSet S of black SuperHyperVertices (whereas SuperHyperVertices in
SuperHyperVertex but there are two white SuperHyperNeighbors outside implying
there’s no SuperHyperVertex to the SuperHyperSet S does the “the color-change rule”.
So it doesn’t have the minimum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of black
that V (G) is turned black after finitely many applications of
SuperHyperEdge with some SuperHyperVertices less than excluding one unique
SuperHyperVertex, isn’t a SuperHyperForcing. Thus if a SuperHyperEdge has some
SuperHyperVertices, then, with excluding one unique SuperHyperVertex, the all number
of those SuperHyperVertices from that SuperHyperEdge belong to any
SuperHyperForcing. Thus, in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph
N SHG : (V, E), every SuperHyperEdge has only one unique SuperHyperVertex outside
of SuperHyperForcing. In other words, every SuperHyperEdge has only one unique
white SuperHyperVertex.
41/139
N SHG : (V, E). The all exterior SuperHyperVertices belong to any SuperHyperForcing
if for any of them, there’s only one interior SuperHyperVertex is a SuperHyperNeighbor
to any of them.
SuperHyperVertex. Consider some numbers of those SuperHyperVertices from that
SuperHyperEdge, without any exclusion on some SuperHyperVertices, belong to any
given SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices. The SuperHyperSet S of black
white SuperHyperNeighbor of a black SuperHyperVertex but it implies it doesn’t have
the minimum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of black SuperHyperVertices (whereas
black SuperHyperVertex. There’s only one SuperHyperVertex outside the intended
white SuperHyperVertex. In a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph
N SHG : (V, E), the all exterior SuperHyperVertices belong to any SuperHyperForcing
if for any of them, there’s only one interior SuperHyperVertex is a SuperHyperNeighbor
to any of them.

N SHG : (V, E). The any SuperHyperForcing only contains all interior
42/139
SuperHyperVertices and all exterior SuperHyperVertices where any of them has one
SuperHyperNeighbor out.

the minimum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of black SuperHyperVertices (whereas
white SuperHyperVertex. In a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph
N SHG : (V, E), the any SuperHyperForcing only contains all interior
Remark 3.14. The words “SuperHyperForcing” and “SuperHyperDominating” refer to
the minimum type-style. In other words, they refer to both the minimum number and
the SuperHyperSet with the minimum cardinality.
43/139
Table 1. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHy-
perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition
(4.3)
The Values of The Vertices The Number of Position in Alphabet
The Values of The SuperVertices The Minimum Values of Its Vertices
The Values of The Edges The Minimum Values of Its Vertices
The Values of The HyperEdges The Minimum Values of Its Vertices
The Values of The SuperHyperEdges The Minimum Values of Its Endpoints

perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, Mentioned in the Definition
(4.2)
N SHG : (V, E). A complement of SuperHyperForcing is the SuperHyperDominating.

Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). By
applying the Proposition (3.13), the results are up. Thus in a connected neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E), a complement of SuperHyperForcing is the
SuperHyperDominating.
4 Neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing
For the sake of having neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing, there’s a need to “redefine”
the notion of “neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. The SuperHyperVertices and the
SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this
procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values.
Definition 4.1. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph if the Table (1) holds.
It’s useful to define “neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s more
ways to get neutrosophic type-results to make neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing more
understandable.
Definition 4.2. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some
neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the Table (2) holds. Thus SuperHyperPath,
SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and
SuperHyperWheel, are neutrosophic SuperHyperPath, neutrosophic
SuperHyperCycle, neutrosophic SuperHyperStar, neutrosophic
SuperHyperBipartite, neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite, and
neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel if the Table (2) holds.
It’s useful to define “neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperForcing. Since there’s
more ways to get type-results to make SuperHyperForcing more understandable.
For the sake of having neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing, there’s a need to “redefine”
the notion of “SuperHyperForcing”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges
are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s
the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values.
44/139
perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition
(4.3)
Definition 4.3. Assume a SuperHyperForcing. It’s redefined neutrosophic

SuperHyperForcing if the Table (3) holds.
Definition 4.4. ((neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing).
(i) a SuperHyperForcing Z(N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph
SuperHyperVertex;
(ii) a neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing Zn (N SHG) for a neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the minimum neutrosophic cardinality of a
SuperHyperVertex.
Definition 4.5. ((neutrosophic)δ− SuperHyperForcing).
(i) an δ−SuperHyperForcing is a minimal SuperHyperForcing of
expressions hold for the (neutrosophic) cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of
s∈S:
|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ; (4.1)
|S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. (4.2)
The Expression (4.1), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the
Expression (4.2), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive;
(ii) a neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperForcing is a minimal neutrosophic
SuperHyperForcing of SuperHyperVertices with minimum neutrosophic
cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the neutrosophic
cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S :
|S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ; (4.3)
|S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ. (4.4)
The Expression (4.3), holds if S is a neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive.
And the Expression (4.4), holds if S is a neutrosophic
δ−SuperHyperDefensive.
45/139
Example 4.6. Assume the neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs in the Figures (1), (2),
(3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12), (13), (14), (15), (16), (17), (18), (19),
and (20).
• On the Figure (1), the neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion, namely, neutrosophic
SuperHyperForcing, is up. S = {V1 , V2 , V3 } is the neutrosophic
type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. The details are
followed by the upcoming statements. E1 and E3 are some empty
SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop SuperHyperEdge and E4 is an
SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one
SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The SuperHyperVertex, V3 is isolated means that
there’s no SuperHyperEdge has it as an endpoint. Thus SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is
contained in every given neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. All the following
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing.
{V3 , V1 , V2 }
{V3 , V1 , V4 }
{V3 , V2 , V4 }

SuperHyperVertex but it isn’t a neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Since it doesn’t
have the minimum neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality of a
SuperHyperSet. Thus the obvious neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing is up. The
obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing is a
SuperHyperSet excludes only one SuperHyperVertex in a connected neutrosophic
followed by the upcoming statements. E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty
SuperHyperEdges but E4 is an SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The
SuperHyperVertex, V3 is isolated means that there’s no SuperHyperEdge has it as
an endpoint. Thus SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is contained in every given neutrosophic
SuperHyperForcing. All the following SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices are
the simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing.
{V3 , V1 , V2 }
{V3 , V1 , V4 }
{V3 , V2 , V4 }

46/139

SuperHyperForcing, is up. S = {V1 , V2 } is the neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet
of the neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. The details are followed by the upcoming
statements. E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty SuperHyperEdges but E4 is an
SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one
SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . All the following SuperHyperSets of
SuperHyperVertices are the simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic
SuperHyperForcing.
{V1 , V2 }
{V1 , V3 }
{V2 , V3 }
The SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 }, is a SuperHyperSet

SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). Thus all the following SuperHyperSets of
SuperHyperVertices are the simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic
SuperHyperForcing.
{V1 , V2 }
{V1 , V3 }
{V2 , V3 }
since the SuperHyperSets of the SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 }, {V1 , V3 }, {V2 , V3 }

are the SuperHyperSets Ss of black SuperHyperVertices (whereas
47/139
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Since they’ve
the minimum neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality of a SuperHyperSet
SuperHyperSet, V \ {v}. Thus the obvious neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing,
V \ {v}, is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic
SuperHyperForcing, V \ {v}, is a SuperHyperSet, V \ {v}, excludes only one
N SHG : (V, E).
SuperHyperForcing, is up. S = {V1 , V3 , H, V4 , V2 , F } is the neutrosophic
followed by the upcoming statements. There’s no empty SuperHyperEdge but E3
are a loop SuperHyperEdge on {F }, and there are some SuperHyperEdges,
namely, E1 on {H, V1 , V3 }, alongside E2 on {O, H, V4 , V3 } and E4 , E5 on
{N, V1 , V2 , V3 , F }. The SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices,
{V1 , V3 , H, V4 , V2 , F } is the simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic
SuperHyperForcing. The SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices,
{V1 , V3 , H, V4 , V2 , F }, is
intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing
is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V3 , H, V4 , V2 , F }, has more than one
simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing is up. To sum
them up, the SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V3 , H, V4 , V2 , F }, is the
non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing.
Since the SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V3 , H, V4 , V2 , F }, is the
SuperHyperVertex and they are neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Since
it’s the minimum neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality of a
48/139
intended SuperHyperSet, {V1 , V3 , H, V4 , V2 , F }. Thus the non-obvious
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing, {V1 , V3 , H, V4 , V2 , F }, is up. The non-obvious
simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing,
{V1 , V3 , H, V4 , V2 , F }, is a SuperHyperSet, {V1 , V3 , H, V4 , V2 , F }, excludes only
N SHG : (V, E).
SuperHyperForcing, is up.
S = {V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V7 , V8 , V10 , V11 , V12 , V13 , V14 }
is the neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing.

The details are followed by the upcoming statements. There’s neither empty
SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The SuperHyperSet of
SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V7 , V8 , V10 , V11 , V12 , V13 , V14 }, is the simple
type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. The SuperHyperSet
of the SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V7 , V8 , V10 , V11 , V12 , V13 , V14 }, is
{V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V7 , V8 , V10 , V11 , V12 , V13 , V14 }, has more than one
type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Since the
SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices,
{V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V7 , V8 , V10 , V11 , V12 , V13 , V14 }, is the SuperHyperSet Ss of black
intended SuperHyperSet, {V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V7 , V8 , V10 , V11 , V12 , V13 , V14 }. Thus the
non-obvious neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing,
{V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V7 , V8 , V10 , V11 , V12 , V13 , V14 }, is up. The non-obvious simple
type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing,
49/139
N SHG : (V, E).
S = {V1 , V3 , V5 , V7 , V9 , V21 , V12 , V14 , V16 , V18 , V20 , V22 },

simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. The
{V1 , V3 , V5 , V7 , V9 , V21 , V12 , V14 , V16 , V18 , V20 , V22 }, is
{V1 , V3 , V5 , V7 , V9 , V21 , V12 , V14 , V16 , V18 , V20 , V22 }, is the SuperHyperSet Ss of
intended SuperHyperSet, {V1 , V3 , V5 , V7 , V9 , V21 , V12 , V14 , V16 , V18 , V20 , V22 }. Thus
the non-obvious neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing,
{V1 , V3 , V5 , V7 , V9 , V21 , V12 , V14 , V16 , V18 , V20 , V22 }, is up. The non-obvious simple
N SHG : (V, E).
50/139
S = {V2 , V3 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V12 , V13 , V14 },

N SHG : (V, E).
S = {V2 , V3 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V12 , V13 , V14 },
51/139
N SHG : (V, E).
S = {V1 , V3 , V5 , V7 , V9 , V21 , V12 , V14 , V16 , V18 , V20 , V22 },

52/139
simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. The
{V1 , V3 , V5 , V7 , V9 , V21 , V12 , V14 , V16 , V18 , V20 , V22 }, is
{V1 , V3 , V5 , V7 , V9 , V21 , V12 , V14 , V16 , V18 , V20 , V22 }, is the SuperHyperSet Ss of
intended SuperHyperSet, {V1 , V3 , V5 , V7 , V9 , V21 , V12 , V14 , V16 , V18 , V20 , V22 }. Thus
the non-obvious neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing,
{V1 , V3 , V5 , V7 , V9 , V21 , V12 , V14 , V16 , V18 , V20 , V22 }, is up. The non-obvious simple
N SHG : (V, E).
SuperHyperForcing, is up. S = {V2 , V3 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V12 , V13 , V14 }, is the
neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. The
details are followed by the upcoming statements. There’s neither empty
53/139
N SHG : (V, E).
SuperHyperForcing, is up. S = {V2 , V3 , V5 , V6 } is the neutrosophic
followed by the upcoming statements. There’s neither empty SuperHyperEdge nor
loop SuperHyperEdge. The SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices,
{V2 , V3 , V5 , V6 }, is the simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic
{V2 , V3 , V5 , V6 }, is the minimum neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality of
a SuperHyperSet S of black SuperHyperVertices (whereas SuperHyperVertices in
54/139
SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V3 , V5 , V6 }, has more than one
them up, the SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V3 , V5 , V6 }, is the
Since the SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V3 , V5 , V6 }, is the
intended SuperHyperSet, {V2 , V3 , V5 , V6 }. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic
SuperHyperForcing, {V2 , V3 , V5 , V6 }, is up. The non-obvious simple
type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing, {V2 , V3 , V5 , V6 }, is a
S = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V9 },

The details are followed by the upcoming statements. S = {V1 , V2 , V3 } is the
neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. The
details are followed by the upcoming statements. There’s neither empty
SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V9 }, is the simple
of the SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V9 }, is
SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V9 }, has more
non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing is
up. To sum them up, the SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices,
{V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V9 }, is the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of
the neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Since the SuperHyperSet of the
SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V9 }, is the SuperHyperSet Ss of
55/139
intended SuperHyperSet, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V9 }. Thus the non-obvious
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V9 }, is up. The
non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing,
{V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V9 }, is a SuperHyperSet, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V9 },
SuperHyperForcing, is up. S = {V1 , V2 , V5 , V6 } is the neutrosophic
loop SuperHyperEdge. The SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices,
{V1 , V2 , V5 , V6 }, is the simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic
{V1 , V2 , V5 , V6 }, is the minimum neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality of
a SuperHyperSet S of black SuperHyperVertices (whereas SuperHyperVertices in
SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V5 , V6 }, has more than one
them up, the SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V5 , V6 }, is the
Since the SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V5 , V6 }, is the
intended SuperHyperSet, {V1 , V2 , V5 , V6 }. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic
SuperHyperForcing, {V1 , V2 , V5 , V6 }, is up. The non-obvious simple
56/139
type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing, {V1 , V2 , V5 , V6 }, is a
SuperHyperForcing, is up. S = {V1 } is the neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of
the neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. The details are followed by the upcoming
statements. There’s neither empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge.
The SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V1 }, is the simple
of the SuperHyperVertices, {V1 }, is
SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V1 }, has more than one
them up, the SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V1 }, is the non-obvious
simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Since the
SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices, {V1 }, is the SuperHyperSet Ss of black
intended SuperHyperSet, {V1 }. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic
SuperHyperForcing, {V1 }, is up. The non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of
the neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing, {V1 }, is a SuperHyperSet, {V1 }, excludes
only more than one SuperHyperVertex in a connected neutrosophic
loop SuperHyperEdge. The SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V3 , V6 }, is
the simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. The
SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V3 , V6 }, is
57/139
SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V3 , V6 }, has more than one
them up, the SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V3 , V6 }, is the
Since the SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V3 , V6 }, is the
intended SuperHyperSet, {V1 , V3 , V6 }. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic
SuperHyperForcing, {V1 , V3 , V6 }, is up. The non-obvious simple
type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing, {V1 , V3 , V6 }, is a
SuperHyperSet, {V1 , V3 , V6 }, excludes only more than one SuperHyperVertex in a
S = {V2 , V3 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V9 , V10 , V12 , V15 , V14 , V13 , V17 , V16 , V19 , V18 , V21 , V20 },

SuperHyperVertices,
is the simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. The

is the minimum neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality of a SuperHyperSet

58/139
the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic
SuperHyperForcing is up. To sum them up, the SuperHyperSet of
SuperHyperVertices,
is the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic

SuperHyperForcing. Since the SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices,

neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Since it’s
{V2 , V3 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V9 , V10 , V12 , V15 , V14 , V13 , V17 , V16 , V19 , V18 , V21 , V20 }.
Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing,
is up. The non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic

SuperHyperForcing,
is a SuperHyperSet,

S = {V2 , V3 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V9 , V10 , V12 , V15 , V14 , V13 , V17 , V16 , V19 , V18 , V21 , V23 , V1 ,
V24 , V29 , V25 , V28 , V26 },
59/139
SuperHyperVertices,
V24 , V29 , V25 , V28 , V26 },
V24 , V29 , V25 , V28 , V26 },
SuperHyperVertices,
V24 , V29 , V25 , V28 , V26 },
V24 , V29 , V25 , V28 , V26 },
V24 , V29 , V25 , V28 , V26 }.
60/139
V24 , V29 , V25 , V28 , V26 },

SuperHyperForcing,
V24 , V29 , V25 , V28 , V26 },
is a SuperHyperSet,
V24 , V29 , V25 , V28 , V26 },

S = {V1 , V3 , R, M6 , L6 , F, P, J, M }

SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V3 , R, M6 , L6 , F, P, J, M }, is the simple
of the SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V3 , R, M6 , L6 , F, P, J, M }, is
SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V3 , R, M6 , L6 , F, P, J, M }, has more
non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing is
up. To sum them up, the SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices,
{V1 , V3 , R, M6 , L6 , F, P, J, M }, is the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of
the neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Since the SuperHyperSet of the
SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V3 , R, M6 , L6 , F, P, J, M }, is the SuperHyperSet Ss of
61/139
intended SuperHyperSet, {V1 , V3 , R, M6 , L6 , F, P, J, M }. Thus the non-obvious
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing, {V1 , V3 , R, M6 , L6 , F, P, J, M }, is up. The
non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing,
{V1 , V3 , R, M6 , L6 , F, P, J, M }, is a SuperHyperSet,
{V1 , V3 , R, M6 , L6 , F, P, J, M }, excludes only more than one SuperHyperVertex in
a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E).
S = {S3 , U3 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 , R6 , S6 , Z5 , W5 ,
H6 , O6 , E6 , V2 , V3 , R, M6 , L6 , F, P, J, M },

The details are followed by the upcoming statements.There’s neither empty
SuperHyperVertices,
{S3 , U3 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 , R6 , S6 , Z5 , W5 ,
H6 , O6 , E6 , V2 , V3 , R, M6 , L6 , F, P, J, M },

{S3 , U3 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 , R6 , S6 , Z5 , W5 ,
H6 , O6 , E6 , V2 , V3 , R, M6 , L6 , F, P, J, M },

{S3 , U3 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 , R6 , S6 , Z5 , W5 ,
H6 , O6 , E6 , V2 , V3 , R, M6 , L6 , F, P, J, M },
SuperHyperVertices,
{S3 , U3 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 , R6 , S6 , Z5 , W5 ,
H6 , O6 , E6 , V2 , V3 , R, M6 , L6 , F, P, J, M },
62/139
{S3 , U3 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 , R6 , S6 , Z5 , W5 ,
H6 , O6 , E6 , V2 , V3 , R, M6 , L6 , F, P, J, M },
{S3 , U3 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 , R6 , S6 , Z5 , W5 ,
H6 , O6 , E6 , V2 , V3 , R, M6 , L6 , F, P, J, M }.
{S3 , U3 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 , R6 , S6 , Z5 , W5 ,
H6 , O6 , E6 , V2 , V3 , R, M6 , L6 , F, P, J, M },
SuperHyperForcing,
{S3 , U3 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 , R6 , S6 , Z5 , W5 ,
H6 , O6 , E6 , V2 , V3 , R, M6 , L6 , F, P, J, M },
is a SuperHyperSet,
{S3 , U3 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 , R6 , S6 , Z5 , W5 ,
H6 , O6 , E6 , V2 , V3 , R, M6 , L6 , F, P, J, M },
S = {V1 , V11 , V4 , U6 , H7 , V5 ,
V7 , V8 , V9 , v8 , W8 , U8 , S8 , T8 , C9 ,
K9 , O9 , L9 , O4 , R4 , R4 , S4 },
SuperHyperVertices,
{V1 , V11 , V4 , U6 , H7 , V5 ,
V7 , V8 , V9 , v8 , W8 , U8 , S8 , T8 , C9 ,
K9 , O9 , L9 , O4 , R4 , R4 , S4 },
63/139
{V1 , V11 , V4 , U6 , H7 , V5 ,
V7 , V8 , V9 , v8 , W8 , U8 , S8 , T8 , C9 ,
K9 , O9 , L9 , O4 , R4 , R4 , S4 },

{V1 , V11 , V4 , U6 , H7 , V5 ,
V7 , V8 , V9 , v8 , W8 , U8 , S8 , T8 , C9 ,
K9 , O9 , L9 , O4 , R4 , R4 , S4 },
SuperHyperVertices,
{V1 , V11 , V4 , U6 , H7 , V5 ,
V7 , V8 , V9 , v8 , W8 , U8 , S8 , T8 , C9 ,
K9 , O9 , L9 , O4 , R4 , R4 , S4 },

{V1 , V11 , V4 , U6 , H7 , V5 ,
V7 , V8 , V9 , v8 , W8 , U8 , S8 , T8 , C9 ,
K9 , O9 , L9 , O4 , R4 , R4 , S4 },

64/139
{V1 , V11 , V4 , U6 , H7 , V5 ,
V7 , V8 , V9 , v8 , W8 , U8 , S8 , T8 , C9 ,
K9 , O9 , L9 , O4 , R4 , R4 , S4 }.
{V1 , V11 , V4 , U6 , H7 , V5 ,
V7 , V8 , V9 , v8 , W8 , U8 , S8 , T8 , C9 ,
K9 , O9 , L9 , O4 , R4 , R4 , S4 },

SuperHyperForcing,
{V1 , V11 , V4 , U6 , H7 , V5 ,
V7 , V8 , V9 , v8 , W8 , U8 , S8 , T8 , C9 ,
K9 , O9 , L9 , O4 , R4 , R4 , S4 },
is a SuperHyperSet,
{V1 , V11 , V4 , U6 , H7 , V5 ,
V7 , V8 , V9 , v8 , W8 , U8 , S8 , T8 , C9 ,
K9 , O9 , L9 , O4 , R4 , R4 , S4 },

N SHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally, V \ {v} is a neutrosophic
SuperHyperForcing. In other words, the most neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality, the
upper sharp bound for neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality, of neutrosophic
SuperHyperForcing is the neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality of V \ {v}.
Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). The
SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices V is a SuperHyperSet S of black
white SuperHyperNeighbor of a black SuperHyperVertex but it isn’t a neutrosophic
SuperHyperForcing. Since it doesn’t have
the minimum neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of
only white SuperHyperNeighbor of a black SuperHyperVertex. There’s only one
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing, V \ {v}, is up. The obvious simple
type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing, V \ {v}, is a
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E).
N SHG : (V, E). Then the extreme number of neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing has, the
65/139
most neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality, the upper sharp bound for neutrosophic
SuperHyperCardinality, is the extreme neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality of V if
there’s a neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing with the most neutrosophic
SuperHyperCardinality, the upper sharp bound for neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality.
Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). Consider
SuperHyperCardinality, the upper sharp bound for neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality.
The SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices V is a SuperHyperSet S of black
white SuperHyperNeighbor of a black SuperHyperVertex but it isn’t a neutrosophic
SuperHyperForcing. Since it doesn’t have
the minimum neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of
only white SuperHyperNeighbor of a black SuperHyperVertex. There’s only one
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing, V \ {v}, is up. The obvious simple
type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing, V \ {v}, is a
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). It implies that extreme number of
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing has, the most neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality,
the upper sharp bound for neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality, is |V | choose |V | − 1.
Thus it induces that the extreme number of neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing has, the
most neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality, the upper sharp bound for neutrosophic
SuperHyperCardinality, is the extreme neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality of V if
SuperHyperCardinality, the upper sharp bound for neutrosophic
SuperHyperCardinality.

N SHG : (V, E). If a SuperHyperEdge has z SuperHyperVertices, then z − 1 number of
those SuperHyperVertices from that SuperHyperEdge belong to any neutrosophic
SuperHyperForcing.
SuperHyperEdge has z SuperHyperVertices. Consider z − 2 number of those
SuperHyperVertices from that SuperHyperEdge belong to any given SuperHyperSet of
the SuperHyperVertices. The SuperHyperSet S of black SuperHyperVertices (whereas
black SuperHyperVertex but there are two white SuperHyperNeighbors outside
implying there’s no SuperHyperVertex to the SuperHyperSet S does the “the
color-change rule”. So it doesn’t have the minimum neutrosophic
SuperHyperCardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of black SuperHyperVertices (whereas
SuperHyperSet. Thus the obvious neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing is up. The obvious
66/139
simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing is a SuperHyperSet
excludes only one SuperHyperVertex in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph
N SHG : (V, E). Thus all the following SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices are the
simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. It’s the
contradiction to the SuperHyperSet S is a neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Thus any
given SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices contains the number of those
SuperHyperVertices from that SuperHyperEdge with z SuperHyperVertices less than
z − 1 isn’t a neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Thus if a SuperHyperEdge has z
SuperHyperVertices, then z − 1 number of those SuperHyperVertices from that
SuperHyperEdge belong to any neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing.
N SHG : (V, E). Every SuperHyperEdge has only one unique SuperHyperVertex outside
of neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. In other words, every SuperHyperEdge has only one
unique white SuperHyperVertex.
So it doesn’t have the minimum neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality of a
SuperHyperSet. Thus the obvious neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing is up. The obvious
simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing is a SuperHyperSet
excludes only one SuperHyperVertex in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph
N SHG : (V, E). Thus all the following SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices are the
simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. It’s the
contradiction to the SuperHyperSet S is a neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Thus any
given SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices contains the number of those
SuperHyperVertices from that SuperHyperEdge with some SuperHyperVertices less
than excluding one unique SuperHyperVertex, isn’t a neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing.
Thus if a SuperHyperEdge has some SuperHyperVertices, then, with excluding one
unique SuperHyperVertex, the all number of those SuperHyperVertices from that
SuperHyperEdge belong to any neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Thus, in a connected
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E), every SuperHyperEdge has only one
unique SuperHyperVertex outside of neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. In other words,
every SuperHyperEdge has only one unique white SuperHyperVertex.
N SHG : (V, E). The all exterior SuperHyperVertices belong to any neutrosophic
SuperHyperForcing if for any of them, there’s only one interior SuperHyperVertex is a
SuperHyperNeighbor to any of them.
67/139
the minimum neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of black
SuperHyperVertex outside the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the obvious neutrosophic
SuperHyperForcing is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. It’s the contradiction to the SuperHyperSet S is a
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Thus any given SuperHyperSet of the
SuperHyperVertex, isn’t a neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Thus if a SuperHyperEdge
has some SuperHyperVertices, then, with excluding one unique SuperHyperVertex, the
all number of those SuperHyperVertices from that SuperHyperEdge belong to any
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Thus, in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph
of neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. In other words, every SuperHyperEdge has only
one unique white SuperHyperVertex. In a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph
N SHG : (V, E), the all exterior SuperHyperVertices belong to any neutrosophic
SuperHyperForcing if for any of them, there’s only one interior SuperHyperVertex is a
SuperHyperNeighbor to any of them.
N SHG : (V, E). The any neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing only contains all interior
68/139
the minimum neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of black
SuperHyperVertex outside the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the obvious neutrosophic
SuperHyperForcing is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. It’s the contradiction to the SuperHyperSet S is a
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Thus any given SuperHyperSet of the
SuperHyperVertex, isn’t a neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Thus if a SuperHyperEdge
has some SuperHyperVertices, then, with excluding one unique SuperHyperVertex, the
all number of those SuperHyperVertices from that SuperHyperEdge belong to any
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Thus, in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph
of neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. In other words, every SuperHyperEdge has only
one unique white SuperHyperVertex. In a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph
N SHG : (V, E), the any neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing only contains all interior
Remark 4.13. The words “neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing” and
“SuperHyperDominating” refer to the minimum type-style. In other words, they refer to
both the minimum number and the SuperHyperSet with the minimum neutrosophic
SuperHyperCardinality.
N SHG : (V, E). A complement of neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing is the
SuperHyperDominating.
Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). By

applying the Proposition (4.12), the results are up. Thus in a connected neutrosophic
69/139
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E), a complement of neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing is
the SuperHyperDominating.
5 Results on SuperHyperClasses
Proposition 5.1. Assume a connected SuperHyperPath N SHP : (V, E). Then a
SuperHyperForcing-style with the maximum SuperHyperCardinality is a SuperHyperSet
of the exterior SuperHyperVertices.
Proposition 5.2. Assume a connected SuperHyperPath N SHP : (V, E). Then a

SuperHyperForcing is a SuperHyperSet of the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the
interior SuperHyperVertices with only one exception in the form of interior
SuperHyperVertices from any given SuperHyperEdge. A SuperHyperForcing has the
number of all the SuperHyperVertices minus on the number of exterior SuperHyperParts
plus one.
Proof. Assume a connected SuperHyperPath N SHP : (V, E). Let a SuperHyperEdge

has some SuperHyperVertices. Consider some numbers of those SuperHyperVertices
from that SuperHyperEdge excluding two unique SuperHyperVertices, belong to any
white SuperHyperNeighbor of a black SuperHyperVertex but there are two white
SuperHyperNeighbors outside implying there’s no SuperHyperVertex to the
SuperHyperSet S does the “the color-change rule”. So it doesn’t have the minimum
black SuperHyperVertex. Consider some numbers of those SuperHyperVertices from
that SuperHyperEdge, without any exclusion on some SuperHyperVertices, belong to
any given SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices. The SuperHyperSet S of black
SuperHyperNeighbor of a black SuperHyperVertex but it implies it doesn’t have the
minimum SuperHyperCardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of black SuperHyperVertices
(whereas SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white) such that V (G) is turned
SuperHyperNeighbor of a black SuperHyperVertex. There’s only one SuperHyperVertex
outside the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the obvious SuperHyperForcing is up. The
excludes only one SuperHyperVertex in a connected SuperHyperPath N SHP : (V, E).
70/139
Figure 21. A SuperHyperPath Associated to the Notions of SuperHyperForcing in the
Example (5.3)
SuperHyperForcing. Thus, in a connected SuperHyperPath N SHP : (V, E), every

SuperHyperEdge has only one unique SuperHyperVertex outside of SuperHyperForcing.
In other words, every SuperHyperEdge has only one unique white SuperHyperVertex.
In a connected SuperHyperPath N SHP : (V, E), the any SuperHyperForcing only
contains all interior SuperHyperVertices and all exterior SuperHyperVertices where any
of them has one SuperHyperNeighbor out. Then a SuperHyperForcing is a
SuperHyperSet of the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices
with only one exception in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices from any given
SuperHyperEdge. A SuperHyperForcing has the number of all the SuperHyperVertices
minus on the number of exterior SuperHyperParts plus one.
Example 5.3. In the Figure (21), the connected SuperHyperPath N SHP : (V, E), is
highlighted and featured. The SuperHyperSet, S = V \ {V27 , V3 , V7 , V13 , V22 } of the
SuperHyperVertices of the connected SuperHyperPath N SHP : (V, E), in the
SuperHyperModel (21), is the SuperHyperForcing.
Proposition 5.4. Assume a connected SuperHyperCycle N SHC : (V, E). Then a
number of all the SuperHyperVertices minus on the number of exterior SuperHyperParts.
Proof. Assume a connected SuperHyperCycle N SHC : (V, E). Let a SuperHyperEdge
71/139
excludes only one SuperHyperVertex in a connected SuperHyperCycle N SHC : (V, E).
SuperHyperForcing. Thus, in a connected SuperHyperCycle N SHC : (V, E), every
In a connected SuperHyperCycle N SHC : (V, E), the any SuperHyperForcing only
minus on the number of exterior SuperHyperParts.
Example 5.5. In the Figure (22), the connected SuperHyperCycle N SHC : (V, E), is
highlighted and featured. The obtained SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous
result, of the SuperHyperVertices of the connected SuperHyperCycle N SHC : (V, E), in
the SuperHyperModel (22), is the SuperHyperForcing.
Proposition 5.6. Assume a connected SuperHyperStar N SHS : (V, E). Then a
number of all the SuperHyperVertices minus on the cardinality of the second
SuperHyperPart plus one.
Proof. Assume a connected SuperHyperStar N SHS : (V, E). Let a SuperHyperEdge

72/139
Figure 22. A SuperHyperCycle Associated to the Notions of SuperHyperForcing in
the Example (5.5)

excludes only one SuperHyperVertex in a connected SuperHyperStar N SHS : (V, E).
73/139
Figure 23. A SuperHyperStar Associated to the Notions of SuperHyperForcing in the
Example (5.7)

SuperHyperForcing. Thus, in a connected SuperHyperStar N SHS : (V, E), every
In a connected SuperHyperStar N SHS : (V, E), the any SuperHyperForcing only
minus on the cardinality of the second SuperHyperPart plus one.
Example 5.7. In the Figure (23), the connected SuperHyperStar N SHS : (V, E), is
highlighted and featured. The obtained SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous
result, of the SuperHyperVertices of the connected SuperHyperStar N SHS : (V, E), in
the SuperHyperModel (23), is the SuperHyperForcing.
Proposition 5.8. Assume a connected SuperHyperBipartite N SHB : (V, E). Then a
number of all the SuperHyperVertices minus on the cardinality of the first
SuperHyperPart plus the second SuperHyperPart.
Proof. Assume a connected SuperHyperBipartite N SHB : (V, E). Let a
74/139
So it doesn’t have the minimum SuperHyperCardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of black
the minimum SuperHyperCardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of black
connected SuperHyperBipartite N SHB : (V, E). Thus all the following SuperHyperSets
of SuperHyperVertices are the simple type-SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperForcing.
It’s the contradiction to the SuperHyperSet S is a SuperHyperForcing. Thus any given
SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices contains the number of those
SuperHyperVertices from that SuperHyperEdge with some SuperHyperVertices less
than excluding one unique SuperHyperVertex, isn’t a SuperHyperForcing. Thus if a
SuperHyperEdge has some SuperHyperVertices, then, with excluding one unique
SuperHyperVertex, the all number of those SuperHyperVertices from that
SuperHyperEdge belong to any SuperHyperForcing. Thus, in a connected
SuperHyperBipartite N SHB : (V, E), every SuperHyperEdge has only one unique
SuperHyperVertex outside of SuperHyperForcing. In other words, every
SuperHyperEdge has only one unique white SuperHyperVertex. In a connected
SuperHyperBipartite N SHB : (V, E), the any SuperHyperForcing only contains all
interior SuperHyperVertices and all exterior SuperHyperVertices where any of them has
one SuperHyperNeighbor out. Then a SuperHyperForcing is a SuperHyperSet of the
exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices with only one
exception in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices from any given SuperHyperEdge.
A SuperHyperForcing has the number of all the SuperHyperVertices minus on the
cardinality of the first SuperHyperPart plus the second SuperHyperPart.
Example 5.9. In the Figure (24), the connected SuperHyperBipartite N SHB : (V, E),
is highlighted and featured. The obtained SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous
result, of the SuperHyperVertices of the connected SuperHyperBipartite
N SHB : (V, E), in the SuperHyperModel (24), is the SuperHyperForcing.
Proposition 5.10. Assume a connected SuperHyperMultipartite N SHM : (V, E).
Then a SuperHyperForcing is a SuperHyperSet of the exterior SuperHyperVertices and
75/139
Figure 24. A SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of SuperHyperForcing in
the Example (5.9)
the interior SuperHyperVertices with only one exception in the form of interior
number of all the SuperHyperVertices minus the number of all the the summation on the
cardinality of the SuperHyperParts.
Proof. Assume a connected SuperHyperMultipartite N SHM : (V, E). Let a
So it doesn’t have the minimum SuperHyperCardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of black
the minimum SuperHyperCardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of black
76/139
Figure 25. A SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of SuperHyperForcing
in the Example (5.11)

connected SuperHyperMultipartite N SHM : (V, E). Thus all the following
SuperHyperForcing. It’s the contradiction to the SuperHyperSet S is a
SuperHyperForcing. Thus any given SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices contains
the number of those SuperHyperVertices from that SuperHyperEdge with some
SuperHyperVertices less than excluding one unique SuperHyperVertex, isn’t a
SuperHyperForcing. Thus if a SuperHyperEdge has some SuperHyperVertices, then,
with excluding one unique SuperHyperVertex, the all number of those
SuperHyperVertices from that SuperHyperEdge belong to any SuperHyperForcing.
Thus, in a connected SuperHyperMultipartite N SHM : (V, E), every SuperHyperEdge
has only one unique SuperHyperVertex outside of SuperHyperForcing. In other words,
every SuperHyperEdge has only one unique white SuperHyperVertex. In a connected
SuperHyperMultipartite N SHM : (V, E), the any SuperHyperForcing only contains all
interior SuperHyperVertices and all exterior SuperHyperVertices where any of them has
one SuperHyperNeighbor out. Then a SuperHyperForcing is a SuperHyperSet of the
exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices with only one
exception in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices from any given SuperHyperEdge.
A SuperHyperForcing has the number of all the SuperHyperVertices minus the number
of all the the summation on the cardinality of the SuperHyperParts.
Example 5.11. In the Figure (25), the connected SuperHyperMultipartite

N SHM : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained SuperHyperSet, by the
Algorithm in previous result, of the SuperHyperVertices of the connected
SuperHyperMultipartite N SHM : (V, E), in the SuperHyperModel (25), is the
SuperHyperForcing.
Proposition 5.12. Assume a connected SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E). Then a

77/139
number of all the SuperHyperVertices minus the number of all the SuperHyperEdges.
Proof. Assume a connected SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E). Let a SuperHyperEdge

excludes only one SuperHyperVertex in a connected SuperHyperWheel
N SHW : (V, E). Thus all the following SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices are the
simple type-SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperForcing. It’s the contradiction to the
SuperHyperForcing. Thus, in a connected SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E), every
In a connected SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E), the any SuperHyperForcing only
minus the number of all the SuperHyperEdges.
Example 5.13. In the Figure (26), the connected SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E),
is highlighted and featured. The obtained SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous
78/139
Figure 26. A SuperHyperWheel Associated to the Notions of SuperHyperForcing in
the Example (5.13)
result, of the SuperHyperVertices of the connected SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E),

in the SuperHyperModel (26), is the SuperHyperForcing.
6 Results on Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses

Proposition 6.1. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperPath N SHP : (V, E).
Then a neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the exterior
SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices with only one exception in the
form of interior SuperHyperVertices from any given SuperHyperEdge with the minimum
cardinality. A SuperHyperForcing has the minimum neutrosophic cardinality on all
SuperHyperForcing has the number of all the SuperHyperVertices minus on the number
of exterior SuperHyperParts plus one. Thus,
N eutrosophic SuperHyperF orcing = {The number-of-all-the-SuperHyperVertices

-minus-on-the-number-of-exterior-SuperHyperParts-plus-one SuperHyperSets of the
SuperHyperVertices | min |the SuperHyperSets of the SuperHyperVertices with only
one exception in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices from any given
SuperHyperEdge.|neutrosophic cardinality amid those SuperHyperSets. }
Where σi is the unary operation on the SuperHyperVertices of the SuperHyperGraph to

assign the determinacy, the indeterminacy and the neutrality, for i = 1, 2, 3, respectively.
Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperPath N SHP : (V, E). Let a
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has some neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Consider
some extreme numbers of those neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from that
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge excluding two unique neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
belong to any given neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of black neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices (whereas neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored
color-change rule”: a white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white neutrosophic
SuperHyperNeighbor of a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex but there are two white
neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors outside implying there’s no neutrosophic
79/139
SuperHyperVertex to the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S does the “the color-change
rule”. So it doesn’t have the minimum neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality of a
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (whereas
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white) such that V (G) is
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex
if it is the only white neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor of a black neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex. Consider some extreme numbers of those neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices from that neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, without any exclusion on
some neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, belong to any given neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. The neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet S of black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (whereas neutrosophic
finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: a white neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex if it is the
only white neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor of a black neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex but it implies it doesn’t have the minimum neutrosophic
SuperHyperCardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of black neutrosophic
SuperHyperNeighbor of a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex. There’s only one
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex outside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet.
Thus the obvious neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing is up. The obvious simple
type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing is a
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet excludes only one neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in a
connected neutrosophic SuperHyperPath N SHP : (V, E). Thus all the following
neutrosophic SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are the simple
neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. It’s the
contradiction to the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S is a neutrosophic
SuperHyperForcing. Thus any given neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices contains the number of those neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
from that neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge with some neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
less than excluding one unique neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, isn’t a neutrosophic
SuperHyperForcing. Thus if a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has some neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices, then, with excluding one unique neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex,
the all number of those neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from that neutrosophic
neutrosophic SuperHyperPath N SHP : (V, E), every neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has
only one unique neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex outside of neutrosophic
SuperHyperForcing. In other words, every neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has only one
unique white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex. In a connected neutrosophic
SuperHyperPath N SHP : (V, E), the any neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing only
contains all interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and all exterior neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices where any of them has one neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor out.
Then a neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the
exterior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and the interior neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices with only one exception in the form of interior neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices from any given neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge with the minimum
neutrosophic cardinality. A neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing has the minimum
neutrosophic cardinality on all neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing has the number of all
the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices minus on the number of exterior neutrosophic
80/139
Figure 27. A Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath Associated to the Notions of SuperHyper-
Forcing in the Example (6.2)

perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath Mentioned in the Example
(6.2)
SuperHyperParts plus one. Thus,

-minus-on-the-number-of-exterior-SuperHyperParts-plus-one SuperHyperSets of the

assign the determinacy, the indeterminacy and the neutrality, for i = 1, 2, 3,
respectively.
Example 6.2. In the Figure (27), the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperPath
N SHP : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. By using the Figure (27) and the Table
(4), the neutrosophic SuperHyperPath is obtained.
The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, S = V \ {V27 , V3 , V7 , V13 , V22 } of the neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices of the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperPath N SHP : (V, E), in
the neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (27), is the neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing.
Proposition 6.3. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle N SHC : (V, E).
81/139
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and the interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with
only one exception in the form of interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from any
given neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge with the minimum neutrosophic cardinality. A
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing has the minimum neutrosophic cardinality on all
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing has the number of all the neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices minus on the number of exterior neutrosophic SuperHyperParts plus
one. Thus,

-minus-on-the-number-of-exterior-SuperHyperParts SuperHyperSets of the

Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle N SHC : (V, E). Let a
82/139
connected neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle N SHC : (V, E). Thus all the following
neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle N SHC : (V, E), every neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge
has only one unique neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex outside of neutrosophic
SuperHyperCycle N SHC : (V, E), the any neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing only
the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices minus on the number of exterior neutrosophic
SuperHyperParts plus one. Thus,

-minus-on-the-number-of-exterior-SuperHyperParts SuperHyperSets of the

respectively.
Example 6.4. In the Figure (28), the SuperHyperCycle is highlighted and featured. By
using the Figure (28) and the Table (5), the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle is obtained.
The obtained neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of
the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle
N SHC : (V, E), in the neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (22), is the neutrosophic
SuperHyperForcing.
Proposition 6.5. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperStar N SHS : (V, E).
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and the interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with
only one exception in the form of interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from any
given neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge with the minimum neutrosophic cardinality. A
83/139
Figure 28. A Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle Associated to the Notions of SuperHy-
perForcing in the Example (6.4)

perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle Mentioned in the Example
(6.4)
84/139
SuperHyperVertices minus on the neutrosophic cardinality of the second neutrosophic
SuperHyperPart plus one. Thus,

-minus-on-the-cardinality-of-second-SuperHyperPart-plus-one SuperHyperSets of the

Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperStar N SHS : (V, E). Let a
85/139
connected neutrosophic SuperHyperStar N SHS : (V, E). Thus all the following
neutrosophic SuperHyperStar N SHS : (V, E), every neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has
only one unique neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex outside of neutrosophic
SuperHyperStar N SHS : (V, E), the any neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing only
the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices minus on the neutrosophic cardinality of the
second neutrosophic SuperHyperPart plus one. Thus,

-minus-on-the-cardinality-of-second-SuperHyperPart-plus-one SuperHyperSets of the

respectively.
Example 6.6. In the Figure (29), the SuperHyperStar is highlighted and featured. By
using the Figure (29) and the Table (6), the neutrosophic SuperHyperStar is obtained.
the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperStar
N SHS : (V, E), in the neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (29), is the neutrosophic
SuperHyperForcing.
Proposition 6.7. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite

N SHB : (V, E). Then a neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing is a neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet of the exterior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and the interior
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with only one exception in the form of interior
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from any given neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge with the
minimum neutrosophic cardinality. A neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing has the minimum
the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices minus on the neutrosophic cardinality of the first
86/139
Figure 29. A Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar Associated to the Notions of SuperHyper-
Forcing in the Example (6.6)

perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar Mentioned in the Example
(6.6)
87/139
neutrosophic SuperHyperPart plus the second neutrosophic SuperHyperPart. Thus,
-minus-on-the-cardinality-of-first-SuperHyperPart-plus-second-SuperHyperPart
SuperHyperSets of the SuperHyperVertices | min |the SuperHyperSets of the
SuperHyperVertices with only one exception in the form of interior
SuperHyperVertices from any given SuperHyperEdge.
|neutrosophic cardinality amid those SuperHyperSets. }
Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite N SHB : (V, E). Let a
connected neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite N SHB : (V, E). Thus all the following
88/139
neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite N SHB : (V, E), every neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge has only one unique neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex outside of
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. In other words, every neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge
has only one unique white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex. In a connected neutrosophic
SuperHyperBipartite N SHB : (V, E), the any neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing only
the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices minus on the neutrosophic cardinality of the first
neutrosophic SuperHyperPart plus the second neutrosophic SuperHyperPart. Thus,

-minus-on-the-cardinality-of-first-SuperHyperPart-plus-second-SuperHyperPart

respectively.
Example 6.8. In Figure (30), the SuperHyperBipartite N SHB : (V, E), is highlighted
and featured. By using the Figure (30) and the Table (7), the neutrosophic
SuperHyperBipartite N SHB : (V, E), is obtained.
the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected neutrosophic
SuperHyperBipartite N SHB : (V, E), in the neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (30), is
the neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing.
Proposition 6.9. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite
N SHM : (V, E). Then a neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing is a neutrosophic
minimum neutrosophic cardinality. A neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing has the minimum
89/139
Figure 30. A Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite N SHB : (V, E), Associated to the
Notions of SuperHyperForcing in the Example (6.8)
Table 7. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyper-

Edges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite Mentioned in the Example
(6.8)
90/139
the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices minus on the neutrosophic number of the
summation on the neutrosophic cardinality of the neutrosophic SuperHyperParts. Thus,
-minus-on-the-summation-on-cardinalities-of-all-SuperHyperParts
Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite N SHM : (V, E). Let
a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has some neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Consider
connected neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite N SHM : (V, E). Thus all the
91/139
following neutrosophic SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are the
simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. It’s
the contradiction to the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S is a neutrosophic
neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite N SHM : (V, E), every neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge has only one unique neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex outside of
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. In other words, every neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge
has only one unique white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex. In a connected neutrosophic
SuperHyperMultipartite N SHM : (V, E), the any neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing
only contains all interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and all exterior neutrosophic
the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices minus on the neutrosophic number of the
summation on the neutrosophic cardinality of the neutrosophic SuperHyperParts. Thus,

-minus-on-the-summation-on-cardinalities-of-all-SuperHyperParts

respectively.
Example 6.10. In Figure (31), the SuperHyperMultipartite N SHM : (V, E), is
highlighted and featured. By using the Figure (31) and the Table (8), the neutrosophic
SuperHyperMultipartite N SHM : (V, E), is obtained.
the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected neutrosophic
SuperHyperMultipartite N SHM : (V, E), in the neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (31),
is the neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing.
Proposition 6.11. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel
N SHW : (V, E). Then a neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing is a neutrosophic
minimum neutrosophic cardinality. A neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing has the
minimum neutrosophic cardinality on all neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing has the
92/139
Figure 31. A Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite N SHM : (V, E), Associated to
the Notions of SuperHyperForcing in the Example (6.10)

Edges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite N SHM : (V, E), Mentioned
in the Example (6.10)
93/139
number of all the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices minus the number of all the
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. Thus,

-minus-the-number-of-all-the-SuperHyperEdges SuperHyperSets of the

Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E). Let a
only white neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor of a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex
but it implies it doesn’t have the minimum neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality of a
SuperHyperVertex. There’s only one neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex outside the
intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the obvious neutrosophic
SuperHyperForcing is up. The obvious simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet excludes only one
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel
N SHW : (V, E). Thus all the following neutrosophic SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices are the simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the
94/139
Edges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E), Mentioned in
the Example (6.12)
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. It’s the contradiction to the neutrosophic

SuperHyperSet S is a neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Thus any given neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices contains the number of those
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from that neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge with some
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices less than excluding one unique neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex, isn’t a neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Thus if a neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge has some neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, then, with excluding one
unique neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, the all number of those neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices from that neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge belong to any
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Thus, in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel
N SHW : (V, E), every neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has only one unique neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex outside of neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. In other words, every
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has only one unique white neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex. In a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E),
the any neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing only contains all interior neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices and all exterior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices where any of
them has one neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor out. Then a neutrosophic
SuperHyperForcing is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the exterior neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices and the interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with only one
exception in the form of interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from any given
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge with the minimum neutrosophic cardinality. A
SuperHyperVertices minus the number of all the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. Thus,

-minus-the-number-of-all-the-SuperHyperEdges SuperHyperSets of the

respectively.
Example 6.12. In the Figure (32), the SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E), is
highlighted and featured. By using the Figure (32) and the Table (9), the neutrosophic
SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E), is obtained.
the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel
N SHW : (V, E), in the neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (32), is the neutrosophic
SuperHyperForcing.
95/139
Figure 32. A Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E), Associated to the
Notions of SuperHyperForcing in the Example (6.12)
7 General Results
For the SuperHyperForcing, and the neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing, some general
results are introduced.
Remark 7.1. Let remind that the neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing is “redefined” on the
positions of the alphabets.
Corollary 7.2. Assume SuperHyperForcing. Then
N eutrosophic SuperHyperF orcing =

{theSuperHyperF orcingof theSuperHyperV ertices |
max |SuperHyperDef ensiveSuperHyper
Alliances|neutrosophiccardinalityamidthoseSuperHyperF orcing. }

Corollary 7.3. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the same identical letter
of the alphabet. Then the notion of neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing and
SuperHyperForcing coincide.
of the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing if and only if it’s a SuperHyperForcing.
of the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a strongest
SuperHyperCycle if and only if it’s a longest SuperHyperCycle.
Corollary 7.6. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the
same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing is its
SuperHyperForcing and reversely.
Corollary 7.7. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperCycle,
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel) on
the same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing is its
SuperHyperForcing and reversely.
96/139
Corollary 7.8. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its neutrosophic
SuperHyperForcing isn’t well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperForcing isn’t
well-defined.
Corollary 7.9. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then

its neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing isn’t well-defined if and only if its
SuperHyperForcing isn’t well-defined.
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel).
Then its neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing isn’t well-defined if and only if its
SuperHyperForcing isn’t well-defined.
Corollary 7.11. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its neutrosophic
SuperHyperForcing is well-defined if and only if its SuperHyperForcing is well-defined.
Corollary 7.12. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph.

Then its neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing is well-defined if and only if its
SuperHyperForcing is well-defined.
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel).
Then its neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing is well-defined if and only if its
SuperHyperForcing is well-defined.
Proposition 7.14. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then V
is
(i) : the dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing;
(ii) : the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing;

(iii) : the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing;
(iv) : the δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing;
(v) : the strong δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing;

(vi) : the connected δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing.
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider V. All
SuperHyperMembers of V have at least one SuperHyperNeighbor inside the
SuperHyperSet more than SuperHyperNeighbor out of SuperHyperSet. Thus,
(i). V is the dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing since the following
statements are equivalent.
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > |N (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > |N (a) ∩ ∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
97/139
(ii). V is the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing since the following
∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |Ns (a) ∩ ∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(iii). V is the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing since the

following statements are equivalent.
∀a ∈ S, |Nc (a) ∩ S| > |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > |Nc (a) ∩ ∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(iv). V is the δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing since the following

∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ S))| > δ ≡

∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V ) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ V ))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V ) − (N (a) ∩ (∅))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V ) − (∅)| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V )| > δ.
(v). V is the strong δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing since the following

∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S))| > δ ≡

∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V ) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ V ))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V ) − (Ns (a) ∩ (∅))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V ) − (∅)| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V )| > δ.
(vi). V is connected δ-dual SuperHyperForcing since the following statements are

equivalent.
∀a ∈ S, |(Nc (a) ∩ S) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S))| > δ ≡

∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V ) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ V ))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V ) − (Nc (a) ∩ (∅))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V ) − (∅)| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V )| > δ.
Proposition 7.15. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then

∅ is
98/139
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing;
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing;
(iii) : the connected defensive SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing;
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing;
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing;
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing.
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider ∅. All
SuperHyperMembers of ∅ have no SuperHyperNeighbor inside the SuperHyperSet less
than SuperHyperNeighbor out of SuperHyperSet. Thus,
(i). ∅ is the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing since the following statements
are equivalent.
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |N (a) ∩ ∅| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |N (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |N (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(ii). ∅ is the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing since the following

∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |Ns (a) ∩ ∅| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Ns (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Ns (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(iii). ∅ is the connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing since the following

∀a ∈ S, |Nc (a) ∩ S| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |Nc (a) ∩ ∅| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Nc (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Nc (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(iv). ∅ is the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing since the following statements

are equivalent.
∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |(N (a) ∩ ∅) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ ∅))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |(N (a) ∩ ∅) − (N (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
99/139
(v). ∅ is the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing since the following
∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |(Ns (a) ∩ ∅) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ ∅))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |(Ns (a) ∩ ∅) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
(vi). ∅ is the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing since the following

∀a ∈ S, |(Nc (a) ∩ S) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |(Nc (a) ∩ ∅) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ ∅))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |(Nc (a) ∩ ∅) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
Proposition 7.16. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then an

independent SuperHyperSet is
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing;
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing;
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing;

(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing;
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing;
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing.
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider S. All

SuperHyperMembers of S have no SuperHyperNeighbor inside the SuperHyperSet less
(i). An independent SuperHyperSet is the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing
since the following statements are equivalent.
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, |∅| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, 0 < |N (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ S, 0 < |N (a)| ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(ii). An independent SuperHyperSet is the strong SuperHyperDefensive
100/139
SuperHyperForcing since the following statements are equivalent.
∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, |∅| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, 0 < |Ns (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ S, 0 < |Ns (a)| ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(iii). An independent SuperHyperSet is the connected SuperHyperDefensive

∀a ∈ S, |Nc (a) ∩ S| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |Nc (a) ∩ S| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, |∅| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, 0 < |Nc (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ S, 0 < |Nc (a)| ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(iv). An independent SuperHyperSet is the δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing

since the following statements are equivalent.
∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ S, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
(v). An independent SuperHyperSet is the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive

∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ S, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
(vi). An independent SuperHyperSet is the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive

∀a ∈ S, |(Nc (a) ∩ S) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ S, |(Nc (a) ∩ S) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ S, |(Nc (a) ∩ S) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ S, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
Proposition 7.17. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform

SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath. Then V is a minimal
101/139
(i) : SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing;
(ii) : strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing;
(iii) : connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing;

(iv) : O(N SHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing;
(v) : strong O(N SHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing;
(vi) : connected O(N SHG)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing;
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide.

Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath.
(i). Consider one segment is out of S which is SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperForcing. This segment has 2t SuperHyperNeighbors in S, i.e, Suppose
xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S such that yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By it’s the exterior
SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperCycle,
|N (xii=1,2,...,t )| = |N (yii=1,2,...,t )| = |N (zii=1,2,...,t )| = 2t. Thus
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∃yii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ {xi }ti=1 , |N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ S| <
|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ (V \ (V \ {xii=1,2,...,t }))| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ {xii=1,2,...,t })| ≡
∃yii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ {xi }ti=1 , |{z1 , z2 , . . . , zt−1 }| <
|{x1 , x2 , . . . , xt−1 })| ≡
∃y ∈ S, t − 1 < t − 1.
Thus it’s contradiction. It implies every V \ {xii=1,2,...,t } isn’t SuperHyperDefensive

SuperHyperForcing in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperCycle.
Consider one segment, with two segments related to the SuperHyperLeaves as
exceptions, is out of S which is SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing. This segment
has 2t SuperHyperNeighbors in S, i.e, Suppose xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S such that
yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By it’s the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the
interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperPath,
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ (V \ (V \ {xii=1,2,...,t }))| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ {xii=1,2,...,t })| ≡
∃yii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ {xi }ti=1 , |{z1 , z2 , . . . , zt−1 }| <
|{x1 , x2 , . . . , xt−1 })| ≡
∃y ∈ S, t − 1 < t − 1.
102/139
SuperHyperForcing in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperPath.
(ii), (iii) are obvious by (i).
(iv). By (i), |V | is minimal and it’s a SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing.
Thus it’s |V |-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing.
(v), (vi) are obvious by (iv).
Proposition 7.18. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel. Then V is a minimal
(i) : dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing;

(ii) : strong dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing;
(iii) : connected dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing;
(iv) : O(N SHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing;
(v) : strong O(N SHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing;

(vi) : connected O(N SHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing;
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide.
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform

SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel.
xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S such that yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By it’s the
exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel,
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∃yii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ) ∈ V \ {xi }ti=1 ,
|N (yii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t )) ∩ S| <
|N (yii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t )) ∩ (V \ (V \ {xii=1,2,...,t }))| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t )) ∩ {xii=1,2,...,t })| ≡
|{z1 , z2 , . . . , zt−1 , z10 , z20 , . . . , zt0 }| < |{x1 , x2 , . . . , xt−1 })| ≡
∃y ∈ S, 2t − 1 < t − 1.
Thus it’s contradiction. It implies every V \ {xii=1,2,...,t } is SuperHyperDefensive

SuperHyperForcing in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel.
(iv). By (i), |V | is minimal and it is a dual SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperForcing. Thus it’s a dual |V |-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing.
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath. Then the number of
103/139
(i) : the SuperHyperForcing;
(ii) : the SuperHyperForcing;
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperForcing;

(iv) : the O(N SHG)-SuperHyperForcing;
(v) : the strong O(N SHG)-SuperHyperForcing;
(vi) : the connected O(N SHG)-SuperHyperForcing.
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior
SuperHyperVertices coincide.
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath.
xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S such that yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By it’s the exterior
SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperCycle,
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ (V \ (V \ {xii=1,2,...,t }))| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ {xii=1,2,...,t })| ≡
∃yii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ {xi }ti=1 , |{z1 , z2 , . . . , zt−1 }| < |{x1 , x2 , . . . , xt−1 })| ≡
∃y ∈ S, t − 1 < t − 1.

SuperHyperForcing in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperCycle.
Consider one segment, with two segments related to the SuperHyperLeaves as
exceptions, is out of S which is SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing. This segment
has 2t SuperHyperNeighbors in S, i.e, Suppose xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S such that
yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By it’s the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the
interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperPath,
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ (V \ (V \ {xii=1,2,...,t }))| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ {xii=1,2,...,t })| ≡
∃yii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ {xi }ti=1 , |{z1 , z2 , . . . , zt−1 }| <
|{x1 , x2 , . . . , xt−1 })| ≡
∃y ∈ S, t − 1 < t − 1.
104/139
SuperHyperForcing in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperPath.
(iv). By (i), |V | is minimal and it’s a SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing.
Thus it’s |V |-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing.
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. Then the number of
(i) : the dual SuperHyperForcing;

(ii) : the dual SuperHyperForcing;
(iii) : the dual connected SuperHyperForcing;
(iv) : the dual O(N SHG)-SuperHyperForcing;
(v) : the strong dual O(N SHG)-SuperHyperForcing;

(vi) : the connected dual O(N SHG)-SuperHyperForcing.
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform

SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel.
xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S such that yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By it’s the
exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel,
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t )) ∩ (V \ (V \ {xii=1,2,...,t }))| ≡
∃yii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ) ∈ V \ {xi }ti=1
, |N (yii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t )) ∩ S| <
|N (yii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t )) ∩ {xii=1,2,...,t })| ≡
|{z1 , z2 , . . . , zt−1 , z10 , z20 , . . . , zt0 }| < |{x1 , x2 , . . . , xt−1 })| ≡
∃y ∈ S, 2t − 1 < t − 1.
Thus it’s contradiction. It implies every V \ {xii=1,2,...,t } isn’t a dual

SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing in a given SuperHyperUniform
SuperHyperWheel.
(iv). By (i), |V | is minimal and it’s a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing.
Thus it isn’t an |V |-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing.
105/139
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperStar/SuperHyperComplete
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a
SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of multiplying r with the
number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices is a
O(N SHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing;
O(N SHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing;
O(N SHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing.
Proof. (i). Consider n half +1 SuperHyperVertices are in S which is
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing. A SuperHyperVertex has either n2 or one
SuperHyperNeighbors in S. If the SuperHyperVertex is non-SuperHyperCenter, then
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
If the SuperHyperVertex is SuperHyperCenter, then
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing
in a given SuperHyperStar.
Consider n half +1 SuperHyperVertices are in S which is SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperForcing. A SuperHyperVertex has at most n2 SuperHyperNeighbors in S.
n n
∀a ∈ S, > |N (a) ∩ S| > − 1 > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
2 2
n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite which isn’t a SuperHyperStar.
SuperHyperForcing and they’re chosen from different SuperHyperParts, equally or
almost equally as possible. A SuperHyperVertex has at most n2 SuperHyperNeighbors
in S.
n n
∀a ∈ S, > |N (a) ∩ S| > − 1 > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
2 2
n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite which is neither a
SuperHyperStar nor SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite.
O(N SHG)
+1
(iv). By (i), {xi }i=1 2 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing.
Thus it’s O(N SHG)
2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing.
106/139
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a
SuperHyperSet contains the half of multiplying r with the number of all the
SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart
is a

(iv) : δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing;
(v) : strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing;
(vi) : connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing.

Proof. (i). Consider the half of multiplying r with the number of all the
SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart
are in S which is SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing. A SuperHyperVertex has
either n − 1, 1 or zero SuperHyperNeighbors in S. If the SuperHyperVertex is in S, then
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 0 < 1.
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing in a

given SuperHyperStar.
Consider the half of multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus
one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart are in S which is
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing. A SuperHyperVertex has no
SuperHyperNeighbor in S.
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 0 < δ.

given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite which isn’t a SuperHyperStar.
Consider the half of multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus
one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart are in S which is
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing. A SuperHyperVertex has no
SuperHyperNeighbor in S.
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 0 < δ.

given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite which is neither a SuperHyperStar
nor SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite.
(iv). By (i), S is a SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing. Thus it’s an
δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing.
107/139
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then Then the
number of
O(N SHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing;
O(N SHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing;
O(N SHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing.
is one and it’s only S, a SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of
multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the
SuperHyperVertices. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing. A SuperHyperVertex has either n2 or one
SuperHyperNeighbors in S. If the SuperHyperVertex is non-SuperHyperCenter, then
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
If the SuperHyperVertex is SuperHyperCenter, then
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
SuperHyperForcing. A SuperHyperVertex has at most n2 SuperHyperNeighbors in S.
n n
∀a ∈ S, > |N (a) ∩ S| > − 1 > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
2 2
n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite which isn’t a SuperHyperStar.
SuperHyperForcing and they’re chosen from different SuperHyperParts, equally or
almost equally as possible. A SuperHyperVertex has at most n2 SuperHyperNeighbors
in S.
n n
∀a ∈ S, > |N (a) ∩ S| > − 1 > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
2 2
n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite which is neither a
SuperHyperStar nor SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite.
108/139
O(N SHG)
+1
(iv). By (i), {xi }i=1 2 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing.
O(N SHG)
Thus it’s 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing.
Proposition 7.24. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. The
number of connected component is |V − S| if there’s a SuperHyperSet which is a dual

(iv) : 1-SuperHyperForcing;
(v) : strong 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing;
(vi) : connected 1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing.

Proof. (i). Consider some SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing. These SuperHyperVertex-type have some
SuperHyperNeighbors in S but no SuperHyperNeighbor out of S. Thus
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.

and number of connected component is |V − S|.
(iv). By (i), S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing. Thus it’s a dual
1-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing.
Proposition 7.25. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then the
number is at most O(N SHG) and the neutrosophic number is at most On (N SHG).
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider V. All
SuperHyperMembers of V have at least one SuperHyperNeighbor inside the
SuperHyperSet more than SuperHyperNeighbor out of SuperHyperSet. Thus,
V is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing since the following statements
are equivalent.
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > |N (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > |N (a) ∩ ∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
109/139
V is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing since the following statements are
equivalent.
∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |Ns (a) ∩ ∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
V is connected a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing since the following

∀a ∈ S, |Nc (a) ∩ S| > |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > |Nc (a) ∩ ∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
V is a dual δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing since the following statements

are equivalent.
∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ S))| > δ ≡

∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V ) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ V ))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V ) − (N (a) ∩ (∅))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V ) − (∅)| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V )| > δ.
V is a dual strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing since the following

∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S))| > δ ≡

∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V ) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ V ))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V ) − (Ns (a) ∩ (∅))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V ) − (∅)| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V )| > δ.
V is a dual connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing since the following

∀a ∈ S, |(Nc (a) ∩ S) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S))| > δ ≡

∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V ) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ V ))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V ) − (Nc (a) ∩ (∅))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V ) − (∅)| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V )| > δ.
Thus V is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing and V is the biggest

SuperHyperSet in N SHG : (V, E). Then the number is at most O(N SHG : (V, E)) and
the neutrosophic number is at most On (N SHG : (V, E)).
110/139
Proposition 7.26. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is
SuperHyperComplete. The number is O(N SHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and the neutrosophic number is
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of dual
t>
2

(iv) : ( O(N SHG:(V,E))

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing;
(v) : strong ( O(N SHG:(V,E))

(vi) : connected ( O(N SHG:(V,E))

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing.
Proof. (i). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing. A SuperHyperVertex has n half
SuperHyperNeighbors in S.
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraph. Thus the number is
O(N SHG:(V,E))
2 + 1 and the neutrosophic number is
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual SuperHyperDefensive
t>
2
SuperHyperForcing.
(ii). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual strong SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperForcing in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraph. Thus the
number is O(N SHG:(V,E))
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual strong
t>
2
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing.
(iii). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual connected SuperHyperDefensive
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual connected
t>
2
111/139
(iv). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual ( O(N SHG:(V,E))

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual
t>
2
( O(N SHG:(V,E))
(v). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual strong
( O(N SHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing in a given
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraph. Thus the number is O(N SHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and
the neutrosophic number is min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a
t>
2
dual strong ( O(N SHG:(V,E))

(vi). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual connected
( O(N SHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing in a given
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraph. Thus the number is O(N SHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and
the neutrosophic number is min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a
t>
2
dual connected ( O(N SHG:(V,E))

∅. The number is 0 and the neutrosophic number is 0, for an independent SuperHyperSet
in the setting of dual
(iv) : 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing;
(v) : strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing;
(vi) : connected 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing.
112/139
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider ∅. All
SuperHyperMembers of ∅ have no SuperHyperNeighbor inside the SuperHyperSet less
(i). ∅ is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing since the following
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |N (a) ∩ ∅| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |N (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |N (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
The number is 0 and the neutrosophic number is 0, for an independent SuperHyperSet

in the setting of a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing.
(ii). ∅ is a dual strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing since the following
∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |Ns (a) ∩ ∅| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Ns (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Ns (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.

in the setting of a dual strong SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing.
(iii). ∅ is a dual connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing since the
∀a ∈ S, |Nc (a) ∩ S| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |Nc (a) ∩ ∅| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Nc (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Nc (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.

in the setting of a dual connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing.
(iv). ∅ is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing since the following
∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |(N (a) ∩ ∅) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ ∅))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |(N (a) ∩ ∅) − (N (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.

in the setting of a dual 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing.
113/139
(v). ∅ is a dual strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing since the following
∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |(Ns (a) ∩ ∅) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ ∅))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |(Ns (a) ∩ ∅) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
in the setting of a dual strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing.
(vi). ∅ is a dual connected SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing since the
∀a ∈ S, |(Nc (a) ∩ S) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |(Nc (a) ∩ ∅) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ ∅))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |(Nc (a) ∩ ∅) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
in the setting of a dual connected 0-offensive SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperForcing.
SuperHyperComplete. Then there’s no independent SuperHyperSet.
SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel. The number is
O(N SHG : (V, E)) and the neutrosophic number is On (N SHG : (V, E)), in the setting
of a dual
(iv) : O(N SHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing;
(v) : strong O(N SHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing;
(vi) : connected O(N SHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing.
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is
SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel.
(i). Consider one SuperHyperVertex is out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperForcing. This SuperHyperVertex has one SuperHyperNeighbor in S, i.e,
suppose x ∈ V \ S such that y, z ∈ N (x). By it’s SuperHyperCycle,
|N (x)| = |N (y)| = |N (z)| = 2. Thus
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |N (y) ∩ S| < |N (y) ∩ (V \ (V \ {x}))| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |N (y) ∩ S| < |N (y) ∩ {x})| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |{z}| < |{x})| ≡
∃y ∈ S, 1 < 1.
114/139
Thus it’s contradiction. It implies every V \ {x} isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperForcing in a given SuperHyperCycle.
Consider one SuperHyperVertex is out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive
Suppose x ∈ V \ S such that y, z ∈ N (x). By it’s SuperHyperPath,
|N (x)| = |N (y)| = |N (z)| = 2. Thus
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |N (y) ∩ S| < |N (y) ∩ (V \ (V \ {x}))| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |N (y) ∩ S| < |N (y) ∩ {x})| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |{z}| < |{x})| ≡
∃y ∈ S, 1 < 1.

SuperHyperForcing in a given SuperHyperPath.
Consider one SuperHyperVertex is out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive
Suppose x ∈ V \ S such that y, z ∈ N (x). By it’s SuperHyperWheel,
|N (x)| = |N (y)| = |N (z)| = 2. Thus
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |N (y) ∩ S| < |N (y) ∩ (V \ (V \ {x}))| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |N (y) ∩ S| < |N (y) ∩ {x})| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |{z}| < |{x})| ≡
∃y ∈ S, 1 < 1.

SuperHyperForcing in a given SuperHyperWheel.
(iv). By (i), V is minimal and it’s a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing.
Thus it’s a dual O(N SHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing.
Thus the number is O(N SHG : (V, E)) and the neutrosophic number is
On (N SHG : (V, E)), in the setting of all types of a dual SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperForcing.
SuperHyperStar/complete SuperHyperBipartite/complete SuperHyperMultiPartite. The
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual
t>
2

(iv) : ( O(N SHG:(V,E))

(v) : strong ( O(N SHG:(V,E))

115/139
(vi) : connected ( O(N SHG:(V,E))
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing. A SuperHyperVertex has at most n half
SuperHyperNeighbors in S. If the SuperHyperVertex is the non-SuperHyperCenter, then
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
If the SuperHyperVertex is the SuperHyperCenter, then
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
Consider n half +1 SuperHyperVertices are in S which is a dual
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

δ δ
∀a ∈ S, >n− .
2 2
in a given complete SuperHyperBipartite which isn’t a SuperHyperStar.
Consider n half +1 SuperHyperVertices are in S which is a dual
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing and they are chosen from different
SuperHyperParts, equally or almost equally as possible. A SuperHyperVertex in S has
δ half SuperHyperNeighbors in S.
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

δ δ
∀a ∈ S, >n− .
2 2
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperForcing in a given complete SuperHyperMultipartite which is neither a
SuperHyperStar nor complete SuperHyperBipartite.
O(N SHG:(V,E))
+1
(iv). By (i), {xi }i=1 2 is minimal and it’s a dual SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperForcing. Thus it’s a dual O(N SHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1-SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperForcing.
Thus the number is O(N SHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and the neutrosophic number is
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of all dual
t>
2
SuperHyperForcing.
Proposition 7.31. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a SuperHyperFamily of the N SHGs : (V, E)
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs which are from one-type SuperHyperClass which the
result is obtained for the individuals. Then the results also hold for the
SuperHyperFamily N SHF : (V, E) of these specific SuperHyperClasses of the
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs.
Proof. There are neither SuperHyperConditions nor SuperHyperRestrictions on the
SuperHyperVertices. Thus the SuperHyperResults on individuals, N SHGs : (V, E), are
extended to the SuperHyperResults on SuperHyperFamily, N SHF : (V, E).
116/139
Proposition 7.32. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If
S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing, then ∀v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S such that
(i) v ∈ Ns (x);
(ii) vx ∈ E.
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph.
Consider v ∈ V \ S. Since S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing,
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (v) ∩ S| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S, v ∈ Ns (x).
(ii). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider

v ∈ V \ S. Since S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing,
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (v) ∩ S| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S : v ∈ Ns (x)
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S : vx ∈ E, µ(vx) = σ(v) ∧ σ(x).
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S : vx ∈ E.
Proposition 7.33. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If

S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing, then
(i) S is SuperHyperDominating set;
(ii) there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic number.
Consider v ∈ V \ S. Since S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing, either
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (v) ∩ S| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S, v ∈ Ns (x)
or
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (v) ∩ S| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S : v ∈ Ns (x)
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S : vx ∈ E, µ(vx) = σ(v) ∧ σ(x)
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S : vx ∈ E.
It implies S is SuperHyperDominating SuperHyperSet.

v ∈ V \ S. Since S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing, either
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (v) ∩ S| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S, v ∈ Ns (x)
117/139
or
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (v) ∩ S| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S : v ∈ Ns (x)
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S : vx ∈ E, µ(vx) = σ(v) ∧ σ(x)
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S : vx ∈ E.
Thus every SuperHyperVertex v ∈ V \ S, has at least one SuperHyperNeighbor in S.

The only case is about the relation amid SuperHyperVertices in S in the terms of
SuperHyperNeighbors. It implies there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic
number.
Proposition 7.34. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph.
Then
(i) Γ ≤ O;
(ii) Γs ≤ On .
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Let
S = V.
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ V, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ V )|
v ∈ ∅, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > |Ns (v) ∩ ∅|
v ∈ ∅, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > |∅|
v ∈ ∅, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > 0
It implies V is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing. For all SuperHyperSets

of SuperHyperVertices S, S ⊆ V. Thus for all SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices
S, |S| ≤ |V |. It implies for all SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S, |S| ≤ O. So
for all SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S, Γ ≤ O.
(ii). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Let S = V.
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ V, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ V )|
v ∈ ∅, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > |Ns (v) ∩ ∅|
v ∈ ∅, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > |∅|
v ∈ ∅, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > 0
It implies V is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing. For all SuperHyperSets

of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S, S ⊆ V. Thus for all SuperHyperSets of
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ Σv∈V Σ3i=1 σi (v). It implies for all
SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ On . So for all
SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S, Γs ≤ On .
Proposition 7.35. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph
which is connected. Then
(i) Γ ≤ O − 1;
(ii) Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x).
118/139
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Let
S = V − {x} where x is arbitrary and x ∈ V.
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ V − {x}, |Ns (v) ∩ (V − {x})| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ (V − {x}))|
|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > |Ns (x) ∩ {x}|
|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > |∅|
|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > 0
It implies V − {x} is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing. For all

SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, S ⊆ V − {x}. Thus for all
SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, |S| ≤ |V − {x}|. It implies for all
SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, |S| ≤ O − 1. So for all SuperHyperSets
of SuperHyperVertices S, Γ ≤ O − 1.
(ii). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Let
S = V − {x} where x is arbitrary and x ∈ V.
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ V − {x}, |Ns (v) ∩ (V − {x})| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ (V − {x}))|
|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > |Ns (x) ∩ {x}|
|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > |∅|
|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > 0
It implies V − {x} is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing. For all

SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, S ⊆ V − {x}. Thus for all
SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
S 6= V, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ Σv∈V −{x} Σ3i=1 σi (v). It implies for all SuperHyperSets of
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). So for all
SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S, Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x).
Proposition 7.36. Let N SHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperPath. Then
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive

SuperHyperForcing;
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 };
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)};
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only
a dual SuperHyperForcing.
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an odd SuperHyperPath. Let
S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all vi , vj ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V.
v ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 }| = 2 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn }|∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 2 >
0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 }| >
|Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 })|
119/139
It implies S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing. If
S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } − {vi } where vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }, then
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 = 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
So {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } − {vi } where vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } isn’t a dual

SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing. It induces S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual
(ii) and (iii) are trivial.
(iv). By (i), S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperForcing. Thus it’s enough to show that S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an odd
SuperHyperPath. Let S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all
vi , vj ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V.
v ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }| = 2 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }|∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 2 > 0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }| >
|Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 })|

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 = 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.

Proposition 7.37. Let N SHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperPath. Then
(i) the set S = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing;
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and
{v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 };
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)};
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only
dual SuperHyperForcing.
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an even SuperHyperPath. Let
S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } where for all vi , vj ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V.
v ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn }| = 2 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }|∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 2 >
0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn }| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn })|
120/139
It implies S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing. If
S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } − {vi } where vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, then
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 = 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
So {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } − {vi } where vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperForcing. It induces S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperForcing.
(iv). By (i), S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing.
Thus it’s enough to show that S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperForcing. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an even SuperHyperPath. Let
v ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }| = 2 >
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }| >
|Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 })|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 = 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
Proposition 7.38. Let N SHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperCycle. Then
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperForcing;
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and
{v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 };
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } σ(s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } σ(s)};
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an even SuperHyperCycle. Let
S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } where for all vi , vj ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V.
v ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn }| = 2 >
0 = |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }|∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 2 >
0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn }| >
|Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn })|
121/139
It implies S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing. If
S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } − {vi } where vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, then
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 = 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
So {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } − {vi } where vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive

SuperHyperForcing. It induces S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperForcing.
(iv). By (i), S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing.
Thus it’s enough to show that S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperForcing. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an even SuperHyperCycle. Let
v ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }| = 2 >

∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }| >
|Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 })|

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 = 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.

Proposition 7.39. Let N SHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperCycle. Then

(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperForcing;
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 };
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)};
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an odd SuperHyperCycle. Let

v ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 }| = 2 >

∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 }| >
|Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 })|
122/139
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 = 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.

(iv). By (i), S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperForcing. Thus it’s enough to show that S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an odd
SuperHyperCycle. Let S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all
vi , vj ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V.
v ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }| = 2 >

∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }| >
|Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 })|

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 = 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.

Proposition 7.40. Let N SHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperStar. Then
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c} is a dual minimal SuperHyperForcing;
(ii) Γ = 1;
(iii) Γs = Σ3i=1 σi (c);

(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c} and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual SuperHyperForcing.
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a SuperHyperStar.
∀v ∈ V \ {c}, |Ns (v) ∩ {c}| = 1 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {c})|∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 >
0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {c}, |Ns (v) ∩ {c}| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {c})|
123/139
It implies S = {c} is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing. If
S = {c} − {c} = ∅, then
∃v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 0 = 0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 0 6> 0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
So S = {c} − {c} = ∅ isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing. It induces

S = {c} is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing.
(iv). By (i), S = {c} is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing. Thus it’s
enough to show that S ⊆ S 0 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing.
Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a SuperHyperStar. Let S ⊆ S 0 .
∀v ∈ V \ {c}, |Ns (v) ∩ {c}| = 1 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {c})|∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | = 1 >
0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
It implies S 0 ⊆ S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing.

Proposition 7.41. Let N SHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperWheel. Then
6+3(i−1)≤n
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual
minimal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing;
6+3(i−1)≤n
(ii) Γ = |{v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 |;
(iii) Γs = Σ{v1 ,v3 }∪{v6 ,v9 ··· ,vi+6 ,··· ,vn }6+3(i−1)≤n Σ3i=1 σi (s);
i=1
6+3(i−1)≤n
(iv) the SuperHyperSet {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is only a dual
minimal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing.
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a SuperHyperWheel. Let
6+3(i−1)≤n
S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 . There are either
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 2 > 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
or
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 3 > 0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
6+3(i−1)≤n
It implies S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing. If
6+3(i−1)≤n
S 0 = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 − {z} where
6+3(i−1)≤n
z ∈ S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 , then There are either
∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | = 1 < 2 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|

∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | < |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
124/139
or
∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | = 1 = 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|

∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
6+3(i−1)≤n
So S 0 = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 − {z} where
6+3(i−1)≤n
z ∈ S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive
6+3(i−1)≤n
SuperHyperForcing. It induces S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a
dual minimal SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing.
(ii), (iii) and (iv) are obvious.
Proposition 7.42. Let N SHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperComplete. Then

b n c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperForcing;
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1;
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} b n c+1
2
;
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperForcing.
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an odd SuperHyperComplete. Let

bn
2 c+1
S = {vi }i=1 . Thus
n n
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = b c + 1 > b c − 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
b n c+1
It implies S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing. If
n
0 b 2 c+1 bn
2 c+1
S = {vi }i=1 − {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1 , then
n n
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = b c = b c = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
b n c+1 b n c+1
So S 0 = {vi }i=1
2
− {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1
2
isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive
bn c+1
SuperHyperForcing. It induces S = {vi }i=12
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperForcing.
Proposition 7.43. Let N SHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperComplete. Then
bnc
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing;
(ii) Γ = b n2 c;
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} bnc
2
;
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual minimal SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperForcing.
125/139
bnc
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an even SuperHyperComplete. Let S = {vi }i=1
2
.
Thus
n n
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = b c > b c − 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
bnc
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing. If
n
b c bn
2c
S 0 = {vi }i=1
2
− {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1 , then
n n
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = b c − 1 
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
bnc bnc
So S 0 = {vi }i=1
2
− {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1
2
n
b2c
SuperHyperForcing. It induces S = {vi }i=1 is a dual minimal SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperForcing.
Proposition 7.44. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of neutrosophic
SuperHyperStars with common neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet. Then
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperForcing for N SHF;
(ii) Γ = m for N SHF : (V, E);
(iii) Γs = Σm 3
i=1 Σj=1 σj (ci ) for N SHF : (V, E);
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual

SuperHyperForcing for N SHF : (V, E).
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a SuperHyperStar.
∀v ∈ V \ {c}, |Ns (v) ∩ {c}| = 1 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {c})|∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 >
0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {c}, |Ns (v) ∩ {c}| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {c})|
It implies S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing for

N SHF : (V, E). If S = {c} − {c} = ∅, then
∃v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 0 = 0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 0 6> 0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
So S = {c} − {c} = ∅ isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing for

N SHF : (V, E). It induces S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual minimal SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperForcing for N SHF : (V, E).
(iv). By (i), S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing
for N SHF : (V, E). Thus it’s enough to show that S ⊆ S 0 is a dual
126/139
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing for N SHF : (V, E). Suppose N SHG : (V, E)
is a SuperHyperStar. Let S ⊆ S 0 .
∀v ∈ V \ {c}, |Ns (v) ∩ {c}| = 1 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {c})|∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | = 1 >
0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
It implies S 0 ⊆ S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing for

N SHF : (V, E).
Proposition 7.45. Let N SHF : (V, E) be an m-SuperHyperFamily of odd
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex
SuperHyperSet. Then
b n c+1
2
is a dual minimal SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperForcing for N SHF;
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 for N SHF : (V, E);
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} b n c+1
2
for N SHF : (V, E);
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only a dual minimal SuperHyperForcing
for N SHF : (V, E).
b n c+1
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is odd SuperHyperComplete. Let S = {vi }i=1
2
.
Thus
n n
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = b c + 1 > b c − 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
b n c+1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing for
bn
2 c+1 bn
2 c+1
N SHF : (V, E). If S 0 = {vi }i=1 − {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1 , then
n n
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = b c = b c = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
b n c+1 b n c+1
So S 0 = {vi }i=1
2
− {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1
2
bn
2 c+1
SuperHyperForcing for N SHF : (V, E). It induces S = {vi }i=1 is a dual minimal
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing for N SHF : (V, E).
Proposition 7.46. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of even
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex
SuperHyperSet. Then
bnc
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing
for N SHF : (V, E);
(ii) Γ = b n2 c for N SHF : (V, E);
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} bnc
2
for N SHF : (V, E);
S={vi }i=1
127/139
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only dual minimal SuperHyperForcing for
N SHF : (V, E).
bnc
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is even SuperHyperComplete. Let S = {vi }i=1
2
.
Thus
n n
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = b c > b c − 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
bnc
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing for
0 bn
2c bn
2c
N SHF : (V, E). If S = {vi }i=1 − {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1 , then
n n
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = b c − 1 
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
bnc bnc
So S 0 = {vi }i=1
2
− {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1
2
bn
2c
SuperHyperForcing for N SHF : (V, E). It induces S = {vi }i=1 is a dual minimal
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing for N SHF : (V, E).

Then following statements hold;
(i) if s ≥ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing, then S is an s-SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperForcing;
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual

t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing, then S is a dual
s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing.
Consider a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an t-SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperForcing. Then
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < t;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < t ≤ s;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < s.
Thus S is an s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing.

a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual t-SuperHyperDefensive
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > t;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > t ≥ s;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > s.
Thus S is a dual s-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing.

128/139
(i) if s ≥ t + 2 and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing, then S is an s-SuperHyperPowerful
SuperHyperForcing;
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual
t-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing, then S is a dual s-SuperHyperPowerful
SuperHyperForcing.
Consider a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an t-SuperHyperDefensive
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < t;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < t ≤ t + 2 ≤ s;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < s.
Thus S is an (t + 2)−SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing. By S is an

s−SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing and S is a dual
(s + 2)−SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing, S is an s-SuperHyperPowerful
SuperHyperForcing.
a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual t-SuperHyperDefensive
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > t;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > t ≥ s > s − 2;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > s − 2.
Thus S is an (s − 2)−SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing. By S is an

(s − 2)−SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing and S is a dual
s−SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing, S is an s−SuperHyperPowerful
SuperHyperForcing.
Proposition 7.49. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a[an]
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following
statements hold;
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b 2r c + 1, then N SHG : (V, E) is a dual
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then N SHG : (V, E) is an r-SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperForcing;
(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then N SHG : (V, E) is a dual
r-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing.
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph. Then
r r
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < b c + 1 − (b c − 1);
2 2
r r
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < b c + 1 − (b c − 1) < 2;
2 2
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2.
129/139
Thus S is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing.
(ii). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic
r r
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > b c + 1 − (b c − 1);
2 2
r r
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > b c + 1 − (b c − 1) > 2;
2 2
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2.
Thus S is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing.

(iii). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < r − 0;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < r − 0 = r;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < r.
Thus S is an r-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing.

(iv). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > r − 0;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > r − 0 = r;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > r.
Thus S is a dual r-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing.

Proposition 7.50. Let N SHG : (V, E) is a[an]
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following
statements hold;
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b 2r c + 1 if N SHG : (V, E) is a dual
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if N SHG : (V, E) is an r-SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperForcing;
(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if N SHG : (V, E) is a dual

r-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing.
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2;

r r
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2 = b c + 1 − (b c − 1);
2 2
r r
2 2
r r
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| = b c + 1, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| = b c − 1.
2 2
130/139
SuperHyperGraph and a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing. Then
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2;

r r
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2 = b c + 1 − (b c − 1);
2 2
r r
2 2
r r
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| = b c + 1, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S) = b c − 1.
2 2
SuperHyperGraph and an r-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing.
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < r;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < r = r − 0;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < r − 0;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| = r, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| = 0.

SuperHyperGraph and a dual r-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing. Then
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > r;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > r = r − 0;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > r − 0;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| = r, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| = 0.

[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold;
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b O−1
2 c + 1 if N SHG : (V, E) is a dual
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if N SHG : (V, E) is an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperForcing;

(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing.
SuperHyperGraph and an 2- SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing. Then
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2;

O−1 O−1
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2 = b c + 1 − (b c − 1);
2 2
O−1 O−1
2 2
O−1 O−1
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| = b c + 1, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| = b c − 1.
2 2
131/139
SuperHyperGraph and a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing. Then
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2;

O−1 O−1
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2 = b c + 1 − (b c − 1);
2 2
O−1 O−1
2 2
O−1 O−1
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| = b c + 1, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S) = b c − 1.
2 2
SuperHyperGraph and an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing.
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < O − 1;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < O − 1 = O − 1 − 0;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < O − 1 − 0;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| = O − 1, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| = 0.

SuperHyperGraph and a dual r-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing. Then
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > O − 1;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > O − 1 = O − 1 − 0;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > O − 1 − 0;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| = O − 1, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| = 0.

[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold;
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b O−1
2 c + 1, then N SHG : (V, E) is a dual
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then N SHG : (V, E) is
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing;
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing.
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperComplete. Then
O−1 O−1
2 2
O−1 O−1
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| b c + 1 − (b c − 1) > 2;
2 2
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2.
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < O − 1 − 0;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < O − 1 − 0 = O − 1;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < O − 1.
Thus S is an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing.
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > O − 1 − 0;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > O − 1 − 0 = O − 1;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > O − 1.
Thus S is a dual (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing.
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperCycle.
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2 if N SHG : (V, E)) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperForcing;
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2 if N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperForcing;
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if N SHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperForcing;
SuperHyperGraph and S is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing. Then
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2 = 2 − 0;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| < 2, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| = 0.
SuperHyperGraph and S is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing. Then
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2 = 2 − 0;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| > 2, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S) = 0.
133/139
SuperHyperGraph and S is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing.
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2 = 2 − 0;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2 − 0;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| < 2, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| = 0.
SuperHyperGraph and S is a dual r-SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing. Then
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2 = 2 − 0;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2 − 0;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| > 2, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| = 0.

[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperCycle.
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2, then N SHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperForcing;
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2, then N SHG : (V, E) is a dual
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then N SHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperForcing;
SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperCycle. Then
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2 − 0;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2 − 0 = 2;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2.
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2 − 0;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2 − 0 = 2;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2.
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2 − 0;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2 − 0 = 2;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2.
134/139
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2 − 0;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2 − 0 = 2;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2.
8 Applications in Cancer’s Recognitions

The cancer is the disease but the model is going to figure out what’s going on this
phenomenon. The special case of this disease is considered and as the consequences of
the model, some parameters are used. The cells are under attack of this disease but the
moves of the cancer in the special region are the matter of mind. The recognition of the
cancer could help to find some treatments for this disease.
In the following, some steps are devised on this disease.
Step 1. (Definition) The recognition of the cancer in the long-term function.
Step 2. (Issue) The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called
SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by
this research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since
there are some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and
the effects of the cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another
model [it’s said to be neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient
perception on what’s happened and what’s done.
Step 3. (Model) There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve
got the names, and some general models. The moves and the traces of the cancer
on the complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized
by a neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar,
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to
find either the SuperHyperForcing or the neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing in
those neutrosophic SuperHyperModels.
8.1 Case 1: The Initial Steps Toward

SuperHyperBipartite as SuperHyperModel
Step 4. (Solution) In the Figure (33), the SuperHyperBipartite is highlighted and
featured.
By using the Figure (33) and the Table (10), the neutrosophic
SuperHyperBipartite is obtained.
8.2 Case 2: The Increasing Steps Toward

SuperHyperMultipartite as SuperHyperModel
Step 4. (Solution) In the Figure (34), the SuperHyperMultipartite is highlighted and
featured.
By using the Figure (34) and the Table (11), the neutrosophic
SuperHyperMultipartite is obtained.
135/139
Figure 33. A SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of SuperHyperForcing
Edges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite
Figure 34. A SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of SuperHyperForcing
136/139
Edges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite
9 Open Problems
In what follows, some “problems” and some “questions” are proposed.
The SuperHyperForcing and the neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing are defined on a
real-world application, titled “Cancer’s Recognitions”.
Question 9.1. Which the else SuperHyperModels could be defined based on Cancer’s
recognitions?
Question 9.2. Are there some SuperHyperNotions related to SuperHyperForcing and
the neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing?
Question 9.3. Are there some Algorithms to be defined on the SuperHyperModels to
compute them?
Question 9.4. Which the SuperHyperNotions are related to beyond the

SuperHyperForcing and the neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing?
Problem 9.5. The SuperHyperForcing and the neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing do a
SuperHyperModel for the Cancer’s recognitions and they’re based on SuperHyperForcing,
are there else?
Problem 9.6. Which the fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are related to these

SuperHyperNumbers types-results?
Problem 9.7. What’s the independent research based on Cancer’s recognitions
concerning the multiple types of SuperHyperNotions?
10 Conclusion and Closing Remarks

In this section, concluding remarks and closing remarks are represented. The drawbacks
of this research are illustrated. Some benefits and some advantages of this research are
highlighted.
This research uses some approaches to make neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs more
understandable. In this endeavor, two SuperHyperNotions are defined on the
SuperHyperForcing. For that sake in the second definition, the main definition of the
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph is redefined on the position of the alphabets. Based on
the new definition for the neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, the new SuperHyperNotion,
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing, finds the convenient background to implement some
results based on that. Some SuperHyperClasses and some neutrosophic
SuperHyperClasses are the cases of this research on the modeling of the regions where
are under the attacks of the cancer to recognize this disease as it’s mentioned on the
title “Cancer’s Recognitions”. To formalize the instances on the SuperHyperNotion,
SuperHyperForcing, the new SuperHyperClasses and SuperHyperClasses, are
introduced. Some general results are gathered in the section on the SuperHyperForcing
and the neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. The clarifications, instances and literature
137/139
reviews have taken the whole way through. In this research, the literature reviews have
fulfilled the lines containing the notions and the results. The SuperHyperGraph and
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are the SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s
Recognitions” and both bases are the background of this research. Sometimes the
cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, groups of cells and embedded
styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes some SuperHyperNotions based
on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the longest and strongest styles with
the formation of the design and the architecture are formally called “SuperHyperForcing”
in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. The prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme
of the embedded styles to figure out the background for the SuperHyperNotions. In the
Table 12. A Brief Overview about Advantages and Limitations of this Research
Advantages Limitations
1. Redefining Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1. General Results
2. SuperHyperForcing
3. Neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing 2. Other SuperHyperNumbers
4. Modeling of Cancer’s Recognitions
5. SuperHyperClasses 3. SuperHyperFamilies
Table (12), some limitations and advantages of this research are pointed out.
References
1. Henry Garrett, “Properties of SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph”, Neutrosophic Sets and Systems 49 (2022) 531-561 (doi:
10.5281/zenodo.6456413).
(http://fs.unm.edu/NSS/NeutrosophicSuperHyperGraph34.pdf).
(https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nss journal/vol49/iss1/34).
2. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Co-degree and Neutrosophic Degree alongside
Chromatic Numbers in the Setting of Some Classes Related to Neutrosophic
Hypergraphs”, J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res 1(1) (2022) 06-14.
Henry Garrett, “”, Preprints 2022, 2022120549 (doi:
10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1).
3. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1).
4. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive
and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic)
SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022,
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1).
5. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions”,
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1).
138/139
6. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi:
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1).
7. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in Game Theory and
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi:
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1).
8. Henry Garrett, “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating

and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate
2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29173.86244).
9. Henry Garrett, “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi:
10.13140/RG.2.2.25385.88160).
10. Henry Garrett, (2022). “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs”, Ohio: E-publishing:
Educational Publisher 1091 West 1st Ave Grandview Heights, Ohio 43212
United States. ISBN: 979-1-59973-725-6
(http://fs.unm.edu/BeyondNeutrosophicGraphs.pdf).
11. Henry Garrett, (2022). “Neutrosophic Duality”, Florida: GLOBAL
KNOWLEDGE - Publishing House 848 Brickell Ave Ste 950 Miami, Florida
33131 United States. ISBN: 978-1-59973-743-0
(http://fs.unm.edu/NeutrosophicDuality.pdf).
12. F. Smarandache, “Extension of HyperGraph to n-SuperHyperGraph and to

Plithogenic n-SuperHyperGraph, and Extension of HyperAlgebra to n-ary
(Classical-/Neutro-/Anti-) HyperAlgebra”, Neutrosophic Sets and Systems 33
(2020) 290-296. (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3783103).
13. M. Akram et al., “Single-valued neutrosophic Hypergraphs”, TWMS J. App.
Eng. Math. 8 (1) (2018) 122-135.
14. S. Broumi et al., “Single-valued neutrosophic graphs”, Journal of New Theory 10
(2016) 86-101.
15. H. Wang et al., “Single-valued neutrosophic sets”, Multispace and
Multistructure 4 (2010) 410-413.
16. H.T. Nguyen and E.A. Walker, “A First course in fuzzy logic”, CRC Press, 2006.
139/139
View publication stats

Basic Notions On (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer's Recognitions and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Basic Notions On (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer's Recognitions and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic)

Preprint · December 2022

193 PUBLICATIONS 500 CITATIONS

On Fuzzy Logic View project

Metric Dimension in fuzzy(neutrosophic) Graphs View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Twitter’s ID: @DrHenryGarrett | DrHenryGarrett.wordpress.com

Keywords: (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph, (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing,

2.1 Motivation and Contributions

A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}

TA (X) = min[TA (vi ), TA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X ,

supp(X) = {x ∈ X : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) > 0}.

Definition 2.7 (Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). (Ref. [15],Definition

(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ;

(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 );

(ix) and the following conditions hold:

TV0 (Ei0 ) ≤ min[TV 0 (Vi ), TV 0 (Vj )]Vi ,Vj ∈Ei0 ,

IV0 (Ei0 ) ≤ min[IV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vj )]Vi ,Vj ∈Ei0 ,

TA (X) = Tnorm [TA (vi ), TA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X ,

IA (X) = Tnorm [IA (vi ), IA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X ,

supp(X) = {x ∈ X : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) > 0}.

Definition 2.12. (General Forms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)).

Here the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the neutrosophic

Definition 2.13 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)).

To get more visions on SuperHyperForcing, the some SuperHyperClasses are

is called a neutrosophic SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from neutrosophic

could be characterized as follow-up items.

Definition 3.5. ((neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing).

Definition 3.6. ((neutrosophic)δ− SuperHyperForcing).

|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ; (3.1)

The Expression (4.1), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the

(ii) a neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperForcing is a minimal neutrosophic

|S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ; (3.3)

The Expression (4.3), holds if S is a neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive.

The SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 }, is a SuperHyperSet

since the SuperHyperSets of the SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 }, {V1 , V3 }, {V2 , V3 }

• On the Figure (5), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, SuperHyperForcing, is up.

• On the Figure (6), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, SuperHyperForcing, is up.

• On the Figure (10), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, SuperHyperForcing, is up.

• On the Figure (13), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, SuperHyperForcing, is up.

• On the Figure (16), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, SuperHyperForcing, is up.

is the simple type-SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperForcing. The SuperHyperSet

is the minimum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of black

is the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperForcing. Since

is the SuperHyperSet Ss of black SuperHyperVertices (whereas

Thus the non-obvious SuperHyperForcing,

is up. The non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperForcing,

excludes only more than one SuperHyperVertex in a connected neutrosophic

is the simple type-SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperForcing. The SuperHyperSet

is the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperForcing. Since

is the SuperHyperSet Ss of black SuperHyperVertices (whereas

Thus the non-obvious SuperHyperForcing,

is up. The non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperForcing,

excludes only more than one SuperHyperVertex in a connected neutrosophic

is the simple type-SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperForcing. The SuperHyperSet

is the minimum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of black

is the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperForcing. Since

is the SuperHyperSet Ss of black SuperHyperVertices (whereas

Thus the non-obvious SuperHyperForcing,

excludes only more than one SuperHyperVertex in a connected neutrosophic

• On the Figure (20), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, SuperHyperForcing, is up.

is the simple type-SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperForcing. The SuperHyperSet