(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer's Recognitions and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs

1
(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 2
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs 3
Henry Garrett 5
DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com 6
Twitter’s ID: @DrHenryGarrett | DrHenryGarrett.wordpress.com

c 7
Abstract 8
In this research, new setting is introduced for new SuperHyperNotions, namely, an 9
1-failed SuperHyperForcing and Neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Two 10
different types of SuperHyperDefinitions are debut for them but the research goes 11
further and the SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperUniform, and SuperHyperClass based 12
on that are well-defined and well-reviewed. The literature review is implemented in the 13
whole of this research. For shining the elegancy and the significancy of this research, the 14
comparison between this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions and 15
fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are featured. The definitions are followed by the 16
examples and the instances thus the clarifications are driven with different tools. The 17
applications are figured out to make sense about the theoretical aspect of this ongoing 18
research. The “Cancer’s Recognitions” are the under research to figure out the 19
challenges make sense about ongoing and upcoming research. The special case is up. 20
The cells are viewed in the deemed ways. There are different types of them. Some of 21
them are individuals and some of them are well-modeled by the group of cells. These 22
types are all officially called “SuperHyperVertex” but the relations amid them all 23
officially called “SuperHyperEdge”. The frameworks “SuperHyperGraph” and 24
“neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” are chosen and elected to research about “Cancer’s 25
Recognitions”. Thus these complex and dense SuperHyperModels open up some 26
avenues to research on theoretical segments and “Cancer’s Recognitions”. Some avenues 27
are posed to pursue this research. It’s also officially collected in the form of some 28
questions and some problems. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then an “1-failed 29
SuperHyperForcing” Z(N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) 30
is the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of black SuperHyperVertices 31
(whereas SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white) such that V (G) isn’t 32
turned black after finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: a white 33
SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white 34
SuperHyperNeighbor of a black SuperHyperVertex. The additional condition is referred 35
by “1-” about the usage of any black SuperHyperVertex only once to act on white 36
SuperHyperVertex to be black SuperHyperVertex; a “neutrosophic 1-failed 37
SuperHyperForcing” Zn (N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) 38
is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of black 39
SuperHyperVertices (whereas SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white) such 40
that V (G) isn’t turned black after finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: 41
a white SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black SuperHyperVertex if it is the only 42
white SuperHyperNeighbor of a black SuperHyperVertex. The additional condition is 43
referred by “1-” about the usage of any black SuperHyperVertex only once to act on 44
1/109
white SuperHyperVertex to be black SuperHyperVertex. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. 45
Then an “δ−1-failed SuperHyperForcing” is a maximal 1-failed SuperHyperForcing of 46
SuperHyperVertices with maximum cardinality such that either of the following 47
expressions hold for the (neutrosophic) cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 48
|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ, |S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. The first Expression, 49
holds if S is an “δ−SuperHyperOffensive”. And the second Expression, holds if S is an 50
“δ−SuperHyperDefensive”; a“neutrosophic δ−1-failed SuperHyperForcing” is a maximal 51
neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing of SuperHyperVertices with maximum 52
neutrosophic cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the 53
neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : |S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic > 54
|S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ, |S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ. 55
The first Expression, holds if S is a “neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive”. And the 56
second Expression, holds if S is a “neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperDefensive”. It’s useful to 57
define a “neutrosophic” version of an 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Since there’s more 58
ways to get type-results to make an 1-failed SuperHyperForcing more understandable. 59
For the sake of having neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, there’s a need to 60
“redefine” the notion of an “1-failed SuperHyperForcing”. The SuperHyperVertices and 61
the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In 62
this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. 63
Assume an 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. It’s redefined a neutrosophic 1-failed 64
SuperHyperForcing if the mentioned Table holds, concerning, “The Values of Vertices, 65
SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyperEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic 66
SuperHyperGraph” with the key points, “The Values of The Vertices & The Number of 67
Position in Alphabet”, “The Values of The SuperVertices&The maximum Values of Its 68
Vertices”, “The Values of The Edges&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The 69
Values of The HyperEdges&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The 70
SuperHyperEdges&The maximum Values of Its Endpoints”. To get structural examples 71
and instances, I’m going to introduce the next SuperHyperClass of SuperHyperGraph 72
based on an 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. It’s the main. It’ll be disciplinary to have the 73
foundation of previous definition in the kind of SuperHyperClass. If there’s a need to 74
have all SuperHyperConnectivities until the 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, then it’s 75
officially called an “1-failed SuperHyperForcing” but otherwise, it isn’t an 1-failed 76
SuperHyperForcing. There are some instances about the clarifications for the main 77
definition titled an “1-failed SuperHyperForcing”. These two examples get more 78
scrutiny and discernment since there are characterized in the disciplinary ways of the 79
SuperHyperClass based on an 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. For the sake of having a 80
neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of a 81
“neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing” and a “neutrosophic 1-failed 82
SuperHyperForcing”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned 83
by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of 84
the position of labels to assign to the values. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 85
It’s redefined “neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” if the intended Table holds. And an 86
1-failed SuperHyperForcing are redefined to an “neutrosophic 1-failed 87
SuperHyperForcing” if the intended Table holds. It’s useful to define “neutrosophic” 88
version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s more ways to get neutrosophic type-results 89
to make a neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing more understandable. Assume a 90
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the 91
intended Table holds. Thus SuperHyperPath, SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, 92
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and SuperHyperWheel, are 93
“neutrosophic SuperHyperPath”, “neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle”, “neutrosophic 94
SuperHyperStar”, “neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite”, “neutrosophic 95
SuperHyperMultiPartite”, and “neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel” if the intended Table 96
holds. A SuperHyperGraph has a “neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing” where it’s 97
2/109
the strongest [the maximum neutrosophic value from all the 1-failed SuperHyperForcing 98
amid the maximum value amid all SuperHyperVertices from an 1-failed 99
SuperHyperForcing.] 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. A graph is a SuperHyperUniform if 100
it’s a SuperHyperGraph and the number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. 101
Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some SuperHyperClasses as 102
follows. It’s SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 103
SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one 104
SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperStar it’s 105
only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all SuperHyperEdges; it’s 106
SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 107
SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has no 108
SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as 109
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi 110
separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s a SuperHyperWheel if it’s only 111
one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex 112
has one SuperHyperEdge with any common SuperVertex. The SuperHyperModel 113
proposes the specific designs and the specific architectures. The SuperHyperModel is 114
officially called “SuperHyperGraph” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. In this 115
SuperHyperModel, The “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells are 116
SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperVertices” and the common and intended properties 117
between “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells are SuperHyperModeled as 118
“SuperHyperEdges”. Sometimes, it’s useful to have some degrees of determinacy, 119
indeterminacy, and neutrality to have more precise SuperHyperModel which in this case 120
the SuperHyperModel is called “neutrosophic”. In the future research, the foundation 121
will be based on the “Cancer’s Recognitions” and the results and the definitions will be 122
introduced in redeemed ways. The recognition of the cancer in the long-term function. 123
The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called SuperHyperGraph] and 124
the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this research. Sometimes the 125
move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some determinacy, 126
indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the cancer on that 127
region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be neutrosophic 128
SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and what’s done. 129
There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the names, and 130
some SuperHyperGeneral SuperHyperModels. The moves and the traces of the cancer 131
on the complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a 132
neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, 133
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find 134
either the longest 1-failed SuperHyperForcing or the strongest 1-failed 135
SuperHyperForcing in those neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. For the longest 1-failed 136
SuperHyperForcing, called 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, and the strongest 137
SuperHyperCycle, called neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, some general results 138
are introduced. Beyond that in SuperHyperStar, all possible SuperHyperPaths have 139
only two SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough since it’s essential to have at least three 140
SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a SuperHyperCycle. There isn’t any formation of 141
any SuperHyperCycle but literarily, it’s the deformation of any SuperHyperCycle. It, 142
literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. A basic familiarity with SuperHyperGraph 143
theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory are proposed. 144
Keywords: SuperHyperGraph, (Neutrosophic) 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, 145
Cancer’s Recognitions 146
AMS Subject Classification: 05C17, 05C22, 05E45 147
3/109
1 Background 148
There are some researches covering the topic of this research. In what follows, there are 149
some discussion and literature reviews about them. 150
First article is titled “properties of SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic 151
SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [1] by Henry Garrett (2022). It’s first step toward the 152
research on neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs. This research article is published on the 153
journal “Neutrosophic Sets and Systems” in issue 49 and the pages 531-561. In this 154
research article, different types of notions like dominating, resolving, coloring, 155
Eulerian(Hamiltonian) neutrosophic path, n-Eulerian(Hamiltonian) neutrosophic path, 156
zero forcing number, zero forcing neutrosophic- number, independent number, 157
independent neutrosophic-number, clique number, clique neutrosophic-number, 158
matching number, matching neutrosophic-number, girth, neutrosophic girth, 159
1-zero-forcing number, 1-zero- forcing neutrosophic-number, failed 1-zero-forcing 160
number, failed 1-zero-forcing neutrosophic-number, global- offensive alliance, t-offensive 161
alliance, t-defensive alliance, t-powerful alliance, and global-powerful alliance are defined 162
in SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Some Classes of 163
SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are cases of research. Some 164
results are applied in family of SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 165
Thus this research article has concentrated on the vast notions and introducing the 166
majority of notions. 167
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “neutrosophic co-degree and 168
neutrosophic degree alongside chromatic numbers in the setting of some classes related 169
to neutrosophic hypergraphs” in Ref. [2] by Henry Garrett (2022). In this research 170
article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic 171
SuperHyperGraph based on general forms without using neutrosophic classes of 172
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is 173
entitled “Journal of Current Trends in Computer Science Research (JCTCSR)” with 174
abbreviation “J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res” in volume 1 and issue 1 with pages 06-14. 175
The research article studies deeply with choosing neutrosophic hypergraphs instead of 176
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results 177
based on initial background. 178
In some articles are titled “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 179
Recognitions Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances” in 180
Ref. [3] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With 181
SuperHyperDefensive and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On 182
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of 183
Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [4] by 184
Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 185
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions” in Ref. [5] by 186
Henry Garrett (2022), “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 187
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in 188
Cancer’s Treatments” in Ref. [6] by Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperDominating 189
and SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in 190
Game Theory and Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [7] by Henry Garrett 191
(2022), “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) 192
SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 193
in Ref. [8] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning 194
SuperHyperDominating and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph” 195
in Ref. [9] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to 196
Study Some Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in 197
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)” in Ref. [10] by Henry Garrett (2022), there 198
are some endeavors to formalize the basic SuperHyperNotions about neutrosophic 199
4/109
SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. 200
Some studies and researches about neutrosophic graphs, are proposed as book in 201
Ref. [11] by Henry Garrett (2022) which is indexed by Google Scholar and has more 202
than 2347 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs” and published 203
by Ohio: E-publishing: Educational Publisher 1091 West 1st Ave Grandview Heights, 204
Ohio 43212 United State. This research book covers different types of notions and 205
settings in neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. 206
Also, some studies and researches about neutrosophic graphs, are proposed as book 207
in Ref. [12] by Henry Garrett (2022) which is indexed by Google Scholar and has more 208
than 3048 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Neutrosophic Duality” and published by 209
Florida: GLOBAL KNOWLEDGE - Publishing House 848 Brickell Ave Ste 950 Miami, 210
Florida 33131 United States. This research book presents different types of notions 211
SuperHyperResolving and SuperHyperDominating in the setting of duality in 212
neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. This research 213
book has scrutiny on the complement of the intended set and the intended set, 214
simultaneously. It’s smart to consider a set but acting on its complement that what’s 215
done in this research book which is popular in the terms of high readers in Scribd. 216
1.1 Motivation and Contributions 217
In this research, there are some ideas in the featured frameworks of motivations. I try 218
to bring the motivations in the narrative ways. Some cells have been faced with some 219
attacks from the situation which is caused by the cancer’s attacks. In this case, there 220
are some embedded analysis on the ongoing situations which in that, the cells could be 221
labelled as some groups and some groups or individuals have excessive labels which all 222
are raised from the behaviors to overcome the cancer’s attacks. In the embedded 223
situations, the individuals of cells and the groups of cells could be considered as “new 224
groups”. Thus it motivates us to find the proper SuperHyperModels for getting more 225
proper analysis on this messy story. I’ve found the SuperHyperModels which are 226
officially called “SuperHyperGraphs” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”. In this 227
SuperHyperModel, the cells and the groups of cells are defined as “SuperHyperVertices” 228
and the relations between the individuals of cells and the groups of cells are defined as 229
“SuperHyperEdges”. Thus it’s another motivation for us to do research on this 230
SuperHyperModel based on the “Cancer’s Recognitions”. Sometimes, the situations get 231
worst. The situation is passed from the certainty and precise style. Thus it’s the beyond 232
them. There are three descriptions, namely, the degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy 233
and neutrality, for any object based on vague forms, namely, incomplete data, imprecise 234
data, and uncertain analysis. The latter model could be considered on the previous 235
SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperGraph but it’s officially 236
called “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”. The cancer is the disease but the model is 237
going to figure out what’s going on this phenomenon. The special case of this disease is 238
considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells 239
are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the 240
matter of mind. The recognition of the cancer could help to find some treatments for 241
this disease. The SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are the 242
SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognitions” and both bases are the background 243
of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, 244
groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes 245
some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the 246
forms of alliances’ styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are 247
formally called “1-failed SuperHyperForcing” in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. 248
The prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to figure out the 249
background for the SuperHyperNotions. The recognition of the cancer in the long-term 250
5/109
function. The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called 251
SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this 252
research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are 253
some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the 254
cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be 255
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and 256
what’s done. There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the 257
names, and some general models. The moves and the traces of the cancer on the 258
complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a 259
neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, 260
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find 261
either the optimal 1-failed SuperHyperForcing or the neutrosophic 1-failed 262
SuperHyperForcing in those neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. Some general results are 263
introduced. Beyond that in SuperHyperStar, all possible SuperHyperPaths have only 264
two SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough since it’s essential to have at least three 265
SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a SuperHyperCycle. There isn’t any formation of 266
any SuperHyperCycle but literarily, it’s the deformation of any SuperHyperCycle. It, 267
literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. 268
Question 1.1. How to define the SuperHyperNotions and to do research on them to 269
find the “ amount of 1-failed SuperHyperForcing” of either individual of cells or the 270
groups of cells based on the fixed cell or the fixed group of cells, extensively, the “amount 271
of 1-failed SuperHyperForcing” based on the fixed groups of cells or the fixed groups of 272
group of cells? 273
Question 1.2. What are the best descriptions for the “Cancer’s Recognitions” in terms 274
of these messy and dense SuperHyperModels where embedded notions are illustrated? 275
It’s motivation to find notions to use in this dense model is titled 276
“SuperHyperGraphs”. Thus it motivates us to define different types of “1-failed 277
SuperHyperForcing” and “neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing” on 278
“SuperHyperGraph” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. Then the research has 279
taken more motivations to define SuperHyperClasses and to find some connections amid 280
this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions. It motivates us to get some 281
instances and examples to make clarifications about the framework of this research. The 282
general results and some results about some connections are some avenues to make key 283
point of this research, “Cancer’s Recognitions”, more understandable and more clear. 284
The framework of this research is as follows. In the beginning, I introduce basic 285
definitions to clarify about preliminaries. In the subsection “Preliminaries”, initial 286
definitions about SuperHyperGraphs and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are 287
deeply-introduced and in-depth-discussed. The elementary concepts are clarified and 288
illustrated completely and sometimes review literature are applied to make sense about 289
what’s going to figure out about the upcoming sections. The main definitions and their 290
clarifications alongside some results about new notions, 1-failed SuperHyperForcing and 291
neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, are figured out in sections “1-failed 292
SuperHyperForcing” and “Neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing”. In the sense of 293
tackling on getting results and in order to make sense about continuing the research, the 294
ideas of SuperHyperUniform and Neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform are introduced and 295
as their consequences, corresponded SuperHyperClasses are figured out to debut what’s 296
done in this section, titled “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on 297
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. As going back to origin of the notions, there are 298
some smart steps toward the common notions to extend the new notions in new 299
frameworks, SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, in the sections 300
“Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. The 301
6/109
starter research about the general SuperHyperRelations and as concluding and closing 302
section of theoretical research are contained in the section “General Results”. Some 303
general SuperHyperRelations are fundamental and they are well-known as fundamental 304
SuperHyperNotions as elicited and discussed in the sections, “General Results”, 305
“1-failed SuperHyperForcing”, “Neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing”, “Results on 306
SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. There are 307
curious questions about what’s done about the SuperHyperNotions to make sense about 308
excellency of this research and going to figure out the word “best” as the description 309
and adjective for this research as presented in section, “1-failed SuperHyperForcing”. 310
The keyword of this research debut in the section “Applications in Cancer’s 311
Recognitions” with two cases and subsections “Case 1: The Initial Steps Toward 312
SuperHyperBipartite as SuperHyperModel” and “Case 2: The Increasing Steps Toward 313
SuperHyperMultipartite as SuperHyperModel”. In the section, “Open Problems”, there 314
are some scrutiny and discernment on what’s done and what’s happened in this research 315
in the terms of “questions” and “problems” to make sense to figure out this research in 316
featured style. The advantages and the limitations of this research alongside about 317
what’s done in this research to make sense and to get sense about what’s figured out are 318
included in the section, “Conclusion and Closing Remarks”. 319
1.2 Preliminaries 320
In this subsection, the basic material which is used in this research, is presented. Also, 321
the new ideas and their clarifications are elicited. 322
Definition 1.3 (Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [14],Definition 2.1,p.87). 323
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 324
+
]− 0, 1 [. 325
Definition 1.4 (Single Valued Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [17],Definition 6,p.2). 326
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 1.5. 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 ,
IA (X) = min[IA (vi ), IA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X ,

and FA (X) = min[FA (vi ), FA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X .
7/109
Definition 1.6. 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 1.7 (Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). (Ref. [16],Definition 327
3,p.291). 328
Assume V 0 is a given set. A neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an 329
ordered pair S = (V, E), where 330
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 331
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 332
1, 2, . . . , n); 333
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued neutrosophic subsets of V ; 334
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 335
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 336
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 337
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 338
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 339
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n );
0 340
(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 . 341
Here the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the neutrosophic 342
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 343
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 344
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the neutrosophic 345
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 346
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 347
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the neutrosophic 348
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 349
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 350
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 351
Definition 1.8 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 352
(Ref. [16],Section 4,pp.291-292). 353
Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered pair S = (V, E). 354
The neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the neutrosophic 355
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vi of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) 356
could be characterized as follow-up items. 357
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 358
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 359
8/109
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 360
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 361
HyperEdge; 362
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 363
SuperEdge; 364
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 365
SuperHyperEdge. 366
If we choose different types of binary operations, then we could get hugely diverse 367
types of general forms of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG). 368
Definition 1.9 (t-norm). (Ref. [15], Definition 5.1.1, pp.82-83). 369
A binary operation ⊗ : [0, 1] × [0, 1] → [0, 1] is a t-norm if it satisfies the following 370
for x, y, z, w ∈ [0, 1]: 371
(i) 1 ⊗ x = x; 372
(ii) x ⊗ y = y ⊗ x; 373
(iii) x ⊗ (y ⊗ z) = (x ⊗ y) ⊗ z; 374
(iv) If w ≤ x and y ≤ z then w ⊗ y ≤ x ⊗ z. 375
Definition 1.10. 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 1.11. 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 1.12. (General Forms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 376
Assume V 0 is a given set. A neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an 377
ordered pair S = (V, E), where 378
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 379
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 380
1, 2, . . . , n); 381
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued neutrosophic subsets of V ; 382
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 383
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 384
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 385
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 386
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 387
9/109
supp(Ei0 ) = V, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ).
P
(viii) i0 388
Here the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the neutrosophic 389
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 390
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 391
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the neutrosophic 392
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 393
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 394
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the neutrosophic 395
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 396
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 397
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 398
Definition 1.13 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 399
(Ref. [16],Section 4,pp.291-292). 400
Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered pair S = (V, E). 401
The neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the neutrosophic 402
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vi of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) 403
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 405
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 406
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 407
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 408
HyperEdge; 409
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 410
SuperEdge; 411
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 412
SuperHyperEdge. 413
This SuperHyperModel is too messy and too dense. Thus there’s a need to have 414
some restrictions and conditions on SuperHyperGraph. The special case of this 415
SuperHyperGraph makes the patterns and regularities. 416
Definition 1.14. A graph is SuperHyperUniform if it’s SuperHyperGraph and the 417
number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. 418
To get more visions on 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, the some SuperHyperClasses are 419
introduced. It makes to have 1-failed SuperHyperForcing more understandable. 420
Definition 1.15. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 421
SuperHyperClasses as follows. 422
(i). It’s SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 423
given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; 424
(ii). it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 425
given SuperHyperEdges; 426
(iii). it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all 427
SuperHyperEdges; 428
(iv). it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 429
given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has 430
no SuperHyperEdge in common; 431
10/109
(v). it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid 432
two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi separate sets, 433
has no SuperHyperEdge in common; 434
(vi). it’s SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 435
given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any 436
common SuperVertex. 437
Definition 1.16. 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 438
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V1 to neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vs if either 439
of following conditions hold: 440
(i) Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 441
(ii) there’s a vertex vi ∈ Vi such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 442
(iii) there’s a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi such that Vi0 , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 443
(iv) there’s a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 444
0 0
(v) there’s a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 445
(vi) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 446
0 0
(vii) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 447
(viii) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi0 , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 448
(ix) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1

0
∈ Vi+1 such that 449
0 0
Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 . 450
Definition 1.17. (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). 451
Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered pair S = (V, E).

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; 453
(ii) if for all Ej 0 , |Ej 0 | = 2, and there’s Vi , |Vi | ≥ 1, then NSHP is called SuperPath; 454
(iii) if for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called HyperPath; 455
(iv) if there are Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | ≥ 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called SuperHyperPath. 456
Definition 1.18. ((neutrosophic) 1-failed SuperHyperForcing). 457
Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 458
11/109
(i) an 1-failed SuperHyperForcing Z(N SHG) for a neutrosophic 459
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum cardinality of a 460
SuperHyperSet S of black SuperHyperVertices (whereas SuperHyperVertices in 461
V (G) \ S are colored white) such that V (G) isn’t turned black after finitely many 462
applications of “the color-change rule”: a white SuperHyperVertex is converted to 463
a black SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white SuperHyperNeighbor of a black 464
SuperHyperVertex with the additional condition is referred by “1-” about the 465
usage of any black SuperHyperVertex only once to act on white 466
SuperHyperVertex to be black SuperHyperVertex; 467
(ii) a neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing Zn (N SHG) for a neutrosophic 468
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a 469
V (G) \ S are colored white) such that V (G) is turned black after finitely many 471
SuperHyperVertex to be black SuperHyperVertex. 476
Definition 1.19. ((neutrosophic)δ− 1-failed SuperHyperForcing). 477
Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 478
(i) an δ−1-failed SuperHyperForcing is a maximal 1-failed SuperHyperForcing 479
of SuperHyperVertices with a maximum cardinality such that either of the 480
following expressions hold for the (neutrosophic) cardinalities of 481
SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 482
|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ; (1.1)

|S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. (1.2)
The Expression (1.1), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the 483
Expression (1.2), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; 484
(ii) a neutrosophic δ−1-failed SuperHyperForcing is a maximal neutrosophic 485
1-failed SuperHyperForcing of SuperHyperVertices with maximum neutrosophic 486
cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the neutrosophic 487
cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 488
|S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ; (1.3)

|S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ. (1.4)
The Expression (1.3), holds if S is a neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive. 489
And the Expression (1.4), holds if S is a neutrosophic 490
δ−SuperHyperDefensive. 491
For the sake of having a neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, there’s a need to 492
“redefine” the notion of “neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. The SuperHyperVertices 493
and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. 494
In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. 495
Definition 1.20. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined 496
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph if the Table (1) holds. 497
It’s useful to define a “neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s 498
more ways to get neutrosophic type-results to make a neutrosophic 1-failed 499
SuperHyperForcing more understandable. 500
12/109
Table 1. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHy-
perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition
(1.22)
The Values of The Vertices The Number of Position in Alphabet
The Values of The SuperVertices The maximum Values of Its Vertices
The Values of The Edges The maximum Values of Its Vertices
The Values of The HyperEdges The maximum Values of Its Vertices
The Values of The SuperHyperEdges The maximum Values of Its Endpoints

perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, Mentioned in the Definition
(1.21)
Definition 1.21. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 501
neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the Table (2) holds. Thus SuperHyperPath, 502
SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 503
SuperHyperWheel, are neutrosophic SuperHyperPath, neutrosophic 504
SuperHyperCycle, neutrosophic SuperHyperStar, neutrosophic 505
SuperHyperBipartite, neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 506
neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel if the Table (2) holds. 507
It’s useful to define a “neutrosophic” version of an 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 508
Since there’s more ways to get type-results to make an 1-failed SuperHyperForcing more 509
understandable. 510
For the sake of having a neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, there’s a need to 511
“redefine” the notion of “1-failed SuperHyperForcing”. The SuperHyperVertices and 512
the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In 513
this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. 514
Definition 1.22. Assume an 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. It’s redefined a 515
neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing if the Table (3) holds. 516
2 1-failed SuperHyperForcing 517
Example 2.1. Assume the SuperHyperGraphs in the Figures (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), 518
(7), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12), (13), (14), (15), (16), (17), (18), (19), and (20). 519

perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition
(1.22)
13/109
• On the Figure (1), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, is 520
up. E1 and E3 are some empty SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop 521
SuperHyperEdge and E4 is an SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of 522
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The 523
SuperHyperVertex, V3 is isolated means that there’s no SuperHyperEdge has it as 524
an endpoint. Thus SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is contained in every given 1-failed 525
SuperHyperForcing. All the following SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices are 526
the simple type-SuperHyperSet of the 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 527
{V3 , V1 }
{V3 , V2 }
{V3 , V4 }
The SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices, {V3 , V1 }, {V3 , V2 }, {V3 , V4 }, are the 528
simple type-SuperHyperSet of the 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. The 529
SuperHyperSets of the SuperHyperVertices, {V3 , V1 }, {V3 , V2 }, {V3 , V4 }, are 530
the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of black SuperHyperVertices 531
SuperHyperNeighbor of a black SuperHyperVertex with the additional condition 535
is referred by “1-” about the usage of any black SuperHyperVertex only once to 536
act on white SuperHyperVertex to be black SuperHyperVertex. There’re only two 537
SuperHyperVertices outside the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious 538
1-failed SuperHyperForcing aren’t up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet 539
of the 1-failed SuperHyperForcing is a SuperHyperSet excludes only two 540
SuperHyperVertices are titled to SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected 541
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). But the SuperHyperSets of 542
SuperHyperVertices, {V3 , V1 }, {V3 , V2 }, {V3 , V4 }, don’t have more than two 543
simple type-SuperHyperSet of the 1-failed SuperHyperForcing aren’t up. To sum 545
them up, the SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices, {V3 , V1 }, {V3 , V2 }, {V3 , V4 }, 546
aren’t the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the 1-failed 547
SuperHyperForcing. Since the SuperHyperSets of the SuperHyperVertices, 548
{V3 , V1 }, {V3 , V2 }, {V3 , V4 }, are the SuperHyperSet Ss of black 549
SuperHyperVertices (whereas SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white) 550
such that V (G) isn’t turned black after finitely many applications of “the 551
color-change rule”: a white SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black 552
SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white SuperHyperNeighbor of a black 553
SuperHyperVertex to be black SuperHyperVertex and they are 556
1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Since it’s the maximum cardinality of a 557
SuperHyperVertex to be black SuperHyperVertex. There aren’t only more than 564
two SuperHyperVertices outside the intended SuperHyperSets, 565
{V3 , V1 }, {V3 , V2 }, {V3 , V4 }. Thus the non-obvious 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, 566
{V3 , V1 }, {V3 , V2 }, {V3 , V4 }, aren’t up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSets of 567
14/109
the 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, {V3 , V1 }, {V3 , V2 }, {V3 , V4 }, are a 568
SuperHyperSets, {V3 , V1 }, {V3 , V2 }, {V3 , V4 }, doesn’t exclude only more than two 569
SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 570
N SHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only obvious simple 571
type-SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing amid those 572
obvious simple type-SuperHyperSets of the 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, is only 573
{V3 , V2 }. 574
up. E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty SuperHyperEdges but E4 is an 576
SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one 577
SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The SuperHyperVertex, V3 is isolated means that 578
there’s no SuperHyperEdge has it as an endpoint. Thus SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is 579
contained in every given 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. All the following 580
SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices are the simple type-SuperHyperSet of the 581
1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 582
{V3 , V1 }
{V3 , V2 }
{V3 , V4 }
The SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices, {V3 , V1 }, {V3 , V2 }, {V3 , V4 }, are the 583
SuperHyperSets of the SuperHyperVertices, {V3 , V1 }, {V3 , V2 }, {V3 , V4 }, are 585
SuperHyperVertices, {V3 , V1 }, {V3 , V2 }, {V3 , V4 }, don’t have more than two 598
them up, the SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices, {V3 , V1 }, {V3 , V2 }, {V3 , V4 }, 601
aren’t the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the 1-failed 602
SuperHyperForcing. Since the SuperHyperSets of the SuperHyperVertices, 603
{V3 , V1 }, {V3 , V2 }, {V3 , V4 }, are the SuperHyperSet Ss of black 604
15/109
two SuperHyperVertices outside the intended SuperHyperSets, 620
{V3 , V1 }, {V3 , V2 }, {V3 , V4 }. Thus the non-obvious 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, 621
{V3 , V1 }, {V3 , V2 }, {V3 , V4 }, aren’t up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSets of 622
the 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, {V3 , V1 }, {V3 , V2 }, {V3 , V4 }, are a 623
SuperHyperSets, {V3 , V1 }, {V3 , V2 }, {V3 , V4 }, doesn’t exclude only more than two 624
N SHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only obvious simple 626
type-SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing amid those 627
obvious simple type-SuperHyperSets of the 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, is only 628
{V3 , V2 }. 629
up. E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty SuperHyperEdges but E4 is an 631
SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one 632
SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices, 633
{V1 }, {V2 }, {V3 }, are the simple type-SuperHyperSet of the 1-failed 634
SuperHyperForcing. The SuperHyperSets of the SuperHyperVertices, 635
{V1 }, {V2 }, {V3 }, are the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of black 636
SuperHyperVertex to be black SuperHyperVertex. There’re only two 643
SuperHyperVertices, {V1 }, {V2 }, {V3 }, don’t have more than two 649
them up, the SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices, {V1 }, {V2 }, {V3 }, aren’t 652
the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 653
Since the SuperHyperSets of the SuperHyperVertices, {V1 }, {V2 }, {V3 }, are the 654
SuperHyperSet Ss of black SuperHyperVertices (whereas SuperHyperVertices in 655
1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Since they’ve the maximum cardinality of a 662
16/109
two SuperHyperVertices outside the intended SuperHyperSets, {V1 }, {V2 }, {V3 }. 670
Thus the non-obvious 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, {V1 }, {V2 }, {V3 }, aren’t up. 671
The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSets of the 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, 672
{V1 }, {V2 }, {V3 }, are the SuperHyperSets, {V1 }, {V2 }, {V3 }, don’t exclude only 673
more than two SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic 674
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only 675
obvious simple type-SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic 1-failed 676
SuperHyperForcing amid those obvious simple type-SuperHyperSets of the 677
1-failed SuperHyperForcing, is only {V1 }. 678
• On the Figure (4), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, an 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, 679
is up. There’s no empty SuperHyperEdge but E3 are a loop SuperHyperEdge on 680
{F }, and there are some SuperHyperEdges, namely, E1 on {H, V1 , V3 }, alongside 681
E2 on {O, H, V4 , V3 } and E4 , E5 on {N, V1 , V2 , V3 , F }. The SuperHyperSet of 682
SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , O, H}, is the simple type-SuperHyperSet of 683
the 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. The SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices, 684
{V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , O, H}, is the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of 685
black SuperHyperVertices (whereas SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored 686
white) such that V (G) isn’t turned black after finitely many applications of “the 687
1-failed SuperHyperForcing isn’t up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of 694
the 1-failed SuperHyperForcing is a SuperHyperSet excludes only two 695
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). But the SuperHyperSet of 697
SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , O, H}, doesn’t have more than two 698
simple type-SuperHyperSet of the 1-failed SuperHyperForcing isn’t up. To sum 700
them up, the SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , O, H}, isn’t 701
the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 702
Since the SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , O, H}, is the 703
17/109
two SuperHyperVertices outside the intended SuperHyperSet, 719
{V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , O, H}. Thus the non-obvious 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, 720
{V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , O, H}, isn’t up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the 721
1-failed SuperHyperForcing, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , O, H}, is a SuperHyperSet, 722
{V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , O, H}, doesn’t exclude only more than two SuperHyperVertices in 723
a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). 724
• On the Figure (5), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, SuperHyperForcing, is up.

There’s neither empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The
SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices,
{V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V12 , V13 , V14 , V15 },
is the simple type-SuperHyperSet of the 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. The

SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices,
{V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V12 , V13 , V14 , V15 },
is the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of black

SuperHyperVertices (whereas SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white)
such that V (G) isn’t 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 with the additional condition is referred by “1-” about the
usage of any black SuperHyperVertex only once to act on white SuperHyperVertex
to be black SuperHyperVertex. There’re only two SuperHyperVertices outside
the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious 1-failed SuperHyperForcing
isn’t up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the 1-failed
SuperHyperForcing is a SuperHyperSet excludes only two SuperHyperVertices
are titled to SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph
N SHG : (V, E). But the SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices,
{V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V12 , V13 , V14 , V15 },
doesn’t have more than two SuperHyperVertices outside the intended

SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the 1-failed
SuperHyperForcing isn’t up. To sum them up, the SuperHyperSet of
SuperHyperVertices,
{V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V12 , V13 , V14 , V15 },
isn’t the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the 1-failed

SuperHyperForcing. Since the SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices,
{V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V12 , V13 , V14 , V15 },
is the SuperHyperSet Ss of black SuperHyperVertices (whereas

SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white) such that V (G) isn’t 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 with the additional condition
is referred by “1-” about the usage of any black SuperHyperVertex only once to
act on white SuperHyperVertex to be black SuperHyperVertex and they are
1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Since it’s the maximum cardinality of a
SuperHyperSet S of black SuperHyperVertices (whereas SuperHyperVertices in
18/109
V (G) \ S are colored white) such that V (G) isn’t 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
usage of any black SuperHyperVertex only once to act on white
SuperHyperVertex to be black SuperHyperVertex. There aren’t only more than
two SuperHyperVertices outside the intended SuperHyperSet,
{V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V12 , V13 , V14 , V15 }.
Thus the non-obvious 1-failed SuperHyperForcing,
{V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V12 , V13 , V14 , V15 },

SuperHyperForcing,
{V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V12 , V13 , V14 , V15 },
is a SuperHyperSet,
{V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V12 , V13 , V14 , V15 },
doesn’t exclude only more than two SuperHyperVertices in a connected 725
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is mentioned as the 726
SuperHyperModel N SHG : (V, E) in the Figure (5). 727
• On the Figure (6), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, is

up. There’s neither empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The
{V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V12 , V13 , V14 , V15 , V16 , V17 , V18 , V19 , V20 , V22 },



19/109
SuperHyperVertices,


{V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V12 , V13 , V14 , V15 , V16 , V17 , V18 , V19 , V20 , V22 }.

SuperHyperForcing,
is a SuperHyperSet,
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) with a illustrated 729
SuperHyperModeling of the Figure (6). 730

{V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V12 , V13 , V14 },

{V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V12 , V13 , V14 },
20/109
{V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V12 , V13 , V14 },

SuperHyperVertices,
{V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V12 , V13 , V14 },

{V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V12 , V13 , V14 },

{V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V12 , V13 , V14 }.
{V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V12 , V13 , V14 },

SuperHyperForcing,
{V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V12 , V13 , V14 },
21/109
is a SuperHyperSet,
{V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V12 , V13 , V14 },
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) of depicted SuperHyperModel as 732
the Figure (7). 733

{V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V12 , V13 , V14 },

{V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V12 , V13 , V14 },

{V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V12 , V13 , V14 },

SuperHyperVertices,
{V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V12 , V13 , V14 },

{V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V12 , V13 , V14 },

22/109
{V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V12 , V13 , V14 }.
{V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V12 , V13 , V14 },

SuperHyperForcing,
{V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V12 , V13 , V14 },
is a SuperHyperSet,
{V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V12 , V13 , V14 },
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) of dense SuperHyperModel as the 735
Figure (8). 736




23/109
SuperHyperVertices,


{V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V12 , V13 , V14 , V15 , V16 , V17 , V18 , V19 , V20 , V22 }.

SuperHyperForcing,
is a SuperHyperSet,
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) with a messy 738
SuperHyperModeling of the Figure (9). 739
• On the Figure (10), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, 1-failed SuperHyperForcing,

is up. There’s neither empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The
{V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V12 , V13 , V14 },

{V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V12 , V13 , V14 },
24/109
{V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V12 , V13 , V14 },

SuperHyperVertices,
{V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V12 , V13 , V14 },

{V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V12 , V13 , V14 },

{V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V12 , V13 , V14 }.
{V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V12 , V13 , V14 },

SuperHyperForcing,
{V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V12 , V13 , V14 },
25/109
is a SuperHyperSet,
{V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V12 , V13 , V14 },
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) of highly-embedding-connected 741
SuperHyperModel as the Figure (10). 742
• On the Figure (11), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, 743
is up. There’s neither empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The 744
SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, is the simple 745
type-SuperHyperSet of the 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. The SuperHyperSet of 746
the SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, is the maximum cardinality of a 747
SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, doesn’t have more than two 760
them up, the SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, isn’t the 763
non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Since 764
the SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, is the 765
two SuperHyperVertices outside the intended SuperHyperSet, {V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 }. 781
Thus the non-obvious 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, {V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, isn’t up. The 782
obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, 783
{V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, is a SuperHyperSet, {V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, doesn’t exclude only more 784
than two SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 785
N SHG : (V, E). 786
26/109
SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 }, is the 789
SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 }, is 791
SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 }, doesn’t have more than two 804
them up, the SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, 807
{V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 }, isn’t the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet 808
of the 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Since the SuperHyperSet of the 809
SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 }, is the SuperHyperSet Ss of 810
black SuperHyperVertices (whereas SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored 811
white) such that V (G) isn’t turned black after finitely many applications of “the 812
{V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 }. Thus the non-obvious 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, 827
{V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 }, isn’t up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet 828
of the 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, {V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 }, is a 829
SuperHyperSet, {V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 }, doesn’t exclude only more than 830
two SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 831
N SHG : (V, E) in highly-multiple-connected-style SuperHyperModel On the 832
Figure (12). 833
27/109
N SHG : (V, E). 877
SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V2 }, is the simple type-SuperHyperSet of 880
the 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. The SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices, 881
{V2 }, is the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of black 882
usage of any black SuperHyperVertex only once to act on white SuperHyperVertex 888
to be black SuperHyperVertex. There’re only two SuperHyperVertices outside 889
the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious 1-failed SuperHyperForcing 890
isn’t up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the 1-failed 891
SuperHyperForcing is a SuperHyperSet excludes only two SuperHyperVertices 892
28/109
are titled to SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 893
N SHG : (V, E). But the SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V2 }, doesn’t 894
have more than two SuperHyperVertices outside the intended SuperHyperSet. 895
Thus the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the 1-failed 896
SuperHyperForcing isn’t up. To sum them up, the SuperHyperSet of 897
SuperHyperVertices, {V2 }, isn’t the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of 898
the 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Since the SuperHyperSet of the 899
SuperHyperVertices, {V2 }, is the SuperHyperSet Ss of black SuperHyperVertices 900
act on white SuperHyperVertex to be black SuperHyperVertex and they are 906
two SuperHyperVertices outside the intended SuperHyperSet, {V2 }. Thus the 915
non-obvious 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, {V2 }, isn’t up. The obvious simple 916
type-SuperHyperSet of the 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, {V2 }, is a SuperHyperSet, 917
{V2 }, doesn’t exclude only more than two SuperHyperVertices in a connected 918
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). 919
29/109
N SHG : (V, E). as Linearly-Connected SuperHyperModel On the Figure (15). 963
SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, 966
{V1 , V2 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V12 , V13 , V14 , V15 , V16 , V17 , V18 ,
V19 , V20 , V21 , V22 },
is the simple type-SuperHyperSet of the 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. The 967
SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices, 968
V19 , V20 , V21 , V22 },
is the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of black 969
N SHG : (V, E). But the SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, 981
V19 , V20 , V21 , V22 },
doesn’t have more than two SuperHyperVertices outside the intended 982
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the 1-failed 983
30/109
SuperHyperVertices, 985
V19 , V20 , V21 , V22 },
isn’t the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the 1-failed 986
SuperHyperForcing. Since the SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices, 987
V19 , V20 , V21 , V22 },
is the SuperHyperSet Ss of black SuperHyperVertices (whereas 988
SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white) such that V (G) isn’t turned 989
black after finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: a white 990
V19 , V20 , V21 , V22 }.
Thus the non-obvious 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, 1004
V19 , V20 , V21 , V22 },
SuperHyperForcing, 1006
V19 , V20 , V21 , V22 },
is a SuperHyperSet, 1007
V19 , V20 , V21 , V22 },
V19 , V20 , V21 , V22 , V23 , V24 , V25 , V26 , V27 , V28 , V29 },
31/109
V19 , V20 , V21 , V22 , V23 , V24 , V25 , V26 , V27 , V28 , V29 },
V19 , V20 , V21 , V22 , V23 , V24 , V25 , V26 , V27 , V28 , V29 },
V19 , V20 , V21 , V22 , V23 , V24 , V25 , V26 , V27 , V28 , V29 },
V19 , V20 , V21 , V22 , V23 , V24 , V25 , V26 , V27 , V28 , V29 },
V19 , V20 , V21 , V22 , V23 , V24 , V25 , V26 , V27 , V28 , V29 }.
32/109
V19 , V20 , V21 , V22 , V23 , V24 , V25 , V26 , V27 , V28 , V29 },
V19 , V20 , V21 , V22 , V23 , V24 , V25 , V26 , V27 , V28 , V29 },
V19 , V20 , V21 , V22 , V23 , V24 , V25 , V26 , V27 , V28 , V29 },
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) as Lnearly-over-packed 1055
SuperHyperModel is featured On the Figure (17). 1056
SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , R, M6 , L6 , F, P, J, M }, is the simple 1059
the SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , R, M6 , L6 , F, P, J, M }, is 1061
SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , R, M6 , L6 , F, P, J, M }, doesn’t have more than two 1074
them up, the SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , R, M6 , L6 , F, P, J, M }, 1077
{V2 , R, M6 , L6 , F, P, J, M }, is the SuperHyperSet Ss of black SuperHyperVertices 1080
33/109
{V2 , R, M6 , L6 , F, P, J, M }. Thus the non-obvious 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, 1096
{V2 , R, M6 , L6 , F, P, J, M }, isn’t up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of 1097
the 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, {V2 , R, M6 , L6 , F, P, J, M }, is a SuperHyperSet, 1098
{V2 , R, M6 , L6 , F, P, J, M }, doesn’t exclude only more than two 1099
N SHG : (V, E). 1101
{T3 , S3 , U3 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 , R6 , S6 , Z5 , W5 , T6
H6 , O6 , E6 , C6 , V2 , R, M6 , L6 , F, P, J, M },
H6 , O6 , E6 , C6 , V2 , R, M6 , L6 , F, P, J, M },
H6 , O6 , E6 , C6 , V2 , R, M6 , L6 , F, P, J, M },
H6 , O6 , E6 , C6 , V2 , R, M6 , L6 , F, P, J, M },
H6 , O6 , E6 , C6 , V2 , R, M6 , L6 , F, P, J, M },
34/109
H6 , O6 , E6 , C6 , V2 , R, M6 , L6 , F, P, J, M }.
H6 , O6 , E6 , C6 , V2 , R, M6 , L6 , F, P, J, M },
H6 , O6 , E6 , C6 , V2 , R, M6 , L6 , F, P, J, M },
H6 , O6 , E6 , C6 , V2 , R, M6 , L6 , F, P, J, M },
{V2 , V3 , V4 , T6 , U6 , H7 , V5 , R9 ,
V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , v8 , W8 , U8 , S8 , T8 , C9 , Z8 , S9
K9 , O9 , L9 , O4 , V10 , P4 , R4 , T4 , S4 },
{V2 , V3 , V4 , T6 , U6 , H7 , V5 , R9 ,
V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , v8 , W8 , U8 , S8 , T8 , C9 , Z8 , S9
K9 , O9 , L9 , O4 , V10 , P4 , R4 , T4 , S4 },
35/109
{V2 , V3 , V4 , T6 , U6 , H7 , V5 , R9 ,
V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , v8 , W8 , U8 , S8 , T8 , C9 , Z8 , S9
K9 , O9 , L9 , O4 , V10 , P4 , R4 , T4 , S4 },
{V2 , V3 , V4 , T6 , U6 , H7 , V5 , R9 ,
V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , v8 , W8 , U8 , S8 , T8 , C9 , Z8 , S9
K9 , O9 , L9 , O4 , V10 , P4 , R4 , T4 , S4 },
{V2 , V3 , V4 , T6 , U6 , H7 , V5 , R9 ,
V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , v8 , W8 , U8 , S8 , T8 , C9 , Z8 , S9
K9 , O9 , L9 , O4 , V10 , P4 , R4 , T4 , S4 },
{V2 , V3 , V4 , T6 , U6 , H7 , V5 , R9 ,
V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , v8 , W8 , U8 , S8 , T8 , C9 , Z8 , S9
K9 , O9 , L9 , O4 , V10 , P4 , R4 , T4 , S4 },
36/109
Figure 1. The SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Notions of 1-failed SuperHyper-
Forcing in the Examples (2.1) and (??)
{V2 , V3 , V4 , T6 , U6 , H7 , V5 , R9 ,
V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , v8 , W8 , U8 , S8 , T8 , C9 , Z8 , S9
K9 , O9 , L9 , O4 , V10 , P4 , R4 , T4 , S4 },
{V2 , V3 , V4 , T6 , U6 , H7 , V5 , R9 ,
V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , v8 , W8 , U8 , S8 , T8 , C9 , Z8 , S9
K9 , O9 , L9 , O4 , V10 , P4 , R4 , T4 , S4 },
{V2 , V3 , V4 , T6 , U6 , H7 , V5 , R9 ,
V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , v8 , W8 , U8 , S8 , T8 , C9 , Z8 , S9
K9 , O9 , L9 , O4 , V10 , P4 , R4 , T4 , S4 },
Proposition 2.2. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1194
N SHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally, V \ {x, z} is an 1-failed 1195
SuperHyperForcing. In other words, the most cardinality, the upper sharp bound for 1196
cardinality, of 1-failed SuperHyperForcing is the cardinality of V \ {x, z}. 1197
Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). The 1198
SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices V \ {x, y, z} is a SuperHyperSet S of black 1199
SuperHyperVertices (whereas SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white) such 1200
that V (G) isn’t turned black after finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: 1201
a white SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black SuperHyperVertex if it is the only 1202
white SuperHyperNeighbor of a black SuperHyperVertex with the additional condition 1203
37/109

38/109

39/109

40/109

41/109

42/109

43/109

44/109

45/109

46/109
is referred by “1-” about the usage of any black SuperHyperVertex only once to act on 1204
white SuperHyperVertex to be black SuperHyperVertex but it isn’t an 1-failed 1205
SuperHyperForcing. Since it doesn’t have the maximum cardinality of a 1206
applications of “the color-change rule”: a white SuperHyperVertex is converted to a 1209
black SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white SuperHyperNeighbor of a black 1210
SuperHyperVertex with the additional condition is referred by “1-” about the usage of 1211
any black SuperHyperVertex only once to act on white SuperHyperVertex to be black 1212
SuperHyperVertex. The SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices V \ {x} is the 1213
maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of black SuperHyperVertices (whereas 1214
SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white) but it isn’t an 1-failed 1215
SuperHyperForcing. Since it doesn’t do the procedure such that V (G) isn’t turned 1216
SuperHyperNeighbor of a black SuperHyperVertex with the additional condition is 1219
white SuperHyperVertex to be black SuperHyperVertex [there’s at least one white 1221
without any white SuperHyperNeighbor outside implying there’s, by the connectedness 1222
of the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E), a SuperHyperVertex, 1223
titled its SuperHyperNeighbor, to the SuperHyperSet S does the “the color-change 1224
rule”.]. There’re only two SuperHyperVertices outside the intended SuperHyperSet, 1225
V \ {x, z}. Thus the obvious 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, V \ {x, z}, is up. The obvious 1226
simple type-SuperHyperSet of the 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, V \ {x, z}, is a 1227
SuperHyperSet, V \ {x, z}, excludes only two SuperHyperVertices are titled in a 1228
connected neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). 1229
Since the SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices V \ {x, z} is the 1230
SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white) such that V (G) isn’t turned black 1232
after finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: a white SuperHyperVertex is 1233
47/109
converted to a black SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white SuperHyperNeighbor of a 1234
black SuperHyperVertex with the additional condition is referred by “1-” about the 1235
usage of any black SuperHyperVertex only once to act on white SuperHyperVertex to 1236
be black SuperHyperVertex. 1237
N SHG : (V, E). Then the extreme number of 1-failed SuperHyperForcing has, the most 1239
cardinality, the upper sharp bound for cardinality, is the extreme cardinality of V \ {x, z} 1240
if there’s an 1-failed SuperHyperForcing with the most cardinality, the upper sharp 1241
bound for cardinality. 1242
Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). Consider 1243
there’s an 1-failed SuperHyperForcing with the most cardinality, the upper sharp bound 1244
for cardinality. The SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices V \ {x, y, z} is a 1245
SuperHyperVertex but it isn’t an 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Since it doesn’t have 1252
white SuperHyperVertex to be black SuperHyperVertex. The SuperHyperSet of the 1259
SuperHyperVertices V \ {x} is the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of black 1260
SuperHyperVertices (whereas SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white) but it 1261
isn’t an 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Since it doesn’t do the procedure such that V (G) 1262
isn’t turned black after finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: a white 1263
be black SuperHyperVertex. It implies that extreme number of 1-failed 1283
SuperHyperForcing has, the most cardinality, the upper sharp bound for cardinality, is 1284
|V | − 2. Thus it induces that the extreme number of 1-failed SuperHyperForcing has, 1285
48/109
the most cardinality, the upper sharp bound for cardinality, is the extreme cardinality of 1286
V \ {x, z} if there’s an 1-failed SuperHyperForcing with the most cardinality, the upper 1287
sharp bound for cardinality. 1288
Proposition 2.4. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). 1289
If a SuperHyperEdge has z SuperHyperVertices, then z − 2 number of those 1290
SuperHyperVertices from that SuperHyperEdge belong to any 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 1291
Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). Let a 1292
SuperHyperEdge has z SuperHyperVertices. Consider z − 3 number of those 1293
SuperHyperVertices from that SuperHyperEdge belong to any given SuperHyperSet of 1294
the SuperHyperVertices. Consider there’s an 1-failed SuperHyperForcing with the most 1295
cardinality, the upper sharp bound for cardinality. The SuperHyperSet of the 1296
SuperHyperVertices V \ {x, y, z} is a SuperHyperSet S of black SuperHyperVertices 1297
white SuperHyperVertex to be black SuperHyperVertex but it isn’t an 1-failed 1303
connected neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). Since 1327
the SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices V \ {x, z} is the maximum cardinality 1328
of a SuperHyperSet S of black SuperHyperVertices (whereas SuperHyperVertices in 1329
SuperHyperVertex. It implies that extreme number of 1-failed SuperHyperForcing has, 1335
the most cardinality, the upper sharp bound for cardinality, is |V | − 2. Thus it induces 1336
that the extreme number of 1-failed SuperHyperForcing has, the most cardinality, the 1337
49/109
upper sharp bound for cardinality, is the extreme cardinality of V \ {x, z} if there’s an 1338
1-failed SuperHyperForcing with the most cardinality, the upper sharp bound for 1339
cardinality. Thus all the following SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices are the simple 1340
type-SuperHyperSet of the 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. It’s the contradiction to the 1341
SuperHyperSet either S = V \ {x, y, z} or S = V \ {x} is an 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 1342
Thus any given SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices contains the number of those 1343
SuperHyperVertices from that SuperHyperEdge with z SuperHyperVertices less than 1344
z − 2 isn’t an 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Thus if a SuperHyperEdge has z 1345
SuperHyperVertices, then z − 2 number of those SuperHyperVertices from that 1346
SuperHyperEdge belong to any 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 1347
N SHG : (V, E). There’s a SuperHyperEdge has only two distinct SuperHyperVertices 1349
outside of an 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. In other words, there’s an unique 1350
SuperHyperEdge has only two distinct white SuperHyperVertices. 1351
SuperHyperEdge has some SuperHyperVertices. Consider some numbers of those 1353
SuperHyperVertices from that SuperHyperEdge excluding three distinct 1354
SuperHyperVertices, belong to any given SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices. 1355
Consider there’s an 1-failed SuperHyperForcing with the most cardinality, the upper 1356
sharp bound for cardinality. The SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices V \ {x, y, z} 1357
is a SuperHyperSet S of black SuperHyperVertices (whereas SuperHyperVertices in 1358
50/109
sharp bound for cardinality. Thus if a SuperHyperEdge has some SuperHyperVertices, 1400
then, with excluding two distinct SuperHyperVertices, the all number of those 1401
SuperHyperVertices from that SuperHyperEdge belong to any 1-failed 1402
SuperHyperForcing. Thus, in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1403
N SHG : (V, E), there’s a SuperHyperEdge has only two distinct SuperHyperVertices 1404
outside of 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. In other words, there’s a SuperHyperEdge has 1405
only two distinct white SuperHyperVertices which are SuperHyperNeighbors. 1406
N SHG : (V, E). The all exterior SuperHyperVertices belong to any 1-failed 1408
SuperHyperForcing if there’s one of them such that there are only two interior 1409
SuperHyperVertices are mutually SuperHyperNeighbors. 1410
51/109
outside of 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. In other words, here’s a SuperHyperEdge has 1464
only two distinct white SuperHyperVertices. In a connected neutrosophic 1465
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E), the all exterior SuperHyperVertices belong to any 1466
1-failed SuperHyperForcing if there’s one of them such that there are only two interior 1467
SuperHyperVertices are mutually SuperHyperNeighbors. 1468
N SHG : (V, E). The any 1-failed SuperHyperForcing only contains all interior 1470
SuperHyperVertices and all exterior SuperHyperVertices where there’s any of them has 1471
two SuperHyperNeighbors out. 1472
52/109
SuperHyperVertices are mutually SuperHyperNeighbors. Thus in a connected 1530
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E), any 1-failed SuperHyperForcing only 1531
contains all interior SuperHyperVertices and all exterior SuperHyperVertices where 1532
there’s any of them has two SuperHyperNeighbors out. 1533
Remark 2.8. The words “1-failed SuperHyperForcing” and “SuperHyperDominating” 1534
refer to the maximum type-style and the minimum type-style. In other words, they refer 1535
to both the maximum[minimum] number and the SuperHyperSet with the 1536
maximum[minimum] cardinality. 1537
N SHG : (V, E). An 1-failed SuperHyperForcing contains the SuperHyperDominating. 1539
Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). By 1540
applying the Proposition (2.7), the results are up. Thus in a connected neutrosophic 1541
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E), an 1-failed SuperHyperForcing contains the 1542
SuperHyperDominating. 1543
53/109
3 Results on SuperHyperClasses 1544
Proposition 3.1. Assume a connected SuperHyperPath N SHP : (V, E). Then an 1545
1-failed SuperHyperForcing-style with the maximum SuperHyperCardinality is a 1546
SuperHyperSet of the exterior SuperHyperVertices. 1547
Proposition 3.2. Assume a connected SuperHyperPath N SHP : (V, E). Then an 1548
1-failed SuperHyperForcing is a SuperHyperSet of the exterior SuperHyperVertices and 1549
the interior SuperHyperVertices with only two exceptions in the form of interior 1550
SuperHyperVertices from the same SuperHyperEdge. An 1-failed SuperHyperForcing has 1551
the number of all the SuperHyperVertices minus two. 1552
Proof. Assume a connected SuperHyperPath N SHP : (V, E). Let a SuperHyperEdge 1553
has some SuperHyperVertices. Consider some numbers of those SuperHyperVertices 1554
from that SuperHyperEdge excluding three distinct SuperHyperVertices, belong to any 1555
given SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices. Consider there’s an 1-failed 1556
SuperHyperForcing with the most cardinality, the upper sharp bound for cardinality. 1557
The SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices V \ {x, y, z} is a SuperHyperSet S of 1558
black SuperHyperVertices (whereas SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white) 1559
such that V (G) isn’t turned black after finitely many applications of “the color-change 1560
rule”: a white SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black SuperHyperVertex if it is the 1561
only white SuperHyperNeighbor of a black SuperHyperVertex with the additional 1562
condition is referred by “1-” about the usage of any black SuperHyperVertex only once 1563
to act on white SuperHyperVertex to be black SuperHyperVertex but it isn’t an 1-failed 1564
54/109
Figure 21. A SuperHyperPath Associated to the Notions of 1-failed SuperHyperForcing
in the Example (3.3)
SuperHyperVertices are mutually SuperHyperNeighbors. Then an 1-failed 1610
SuperHyperForcing is a SuperHyperSet of the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the 1611
interior SuperHyperVertices with only two exceptions in the form of interior 1612
SuperHyperVertices from the same SuperHyperEdge. An 1-failed SuperHyperForcing 1613
has the number of all the SuperHyperVertices minus two. 1614
Example 3.3. In the Figure (21), the connected SuperHyperPath N SHP : (V, E), is 1615
highlighted and featured. The SuperHyperSet, 1616
V19 , V20 , V21 , V22 , V23 , V24 , V25 , V26 , V27 , V28 , V29 },
of the SuperHyperVertices of the connected SuperHyperPath N SHP : (V, E), in the 1617
SuperHyperModel (21), is the 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 1618
55/109
Proposition 3.4. Assume a connected SuperHyperCycle N SHC : (V, E). Then an 1619
SuperHyperVertices from the same SuperHyperEdge. An 1-failed SuperHyperForcing has 1622
the number of all the SuperHyperVertices minus on the 2 numbers excerpt the same 1623
exterior SuperHyperPart. 1624
Proof. Assume a connected SuperHyperCycle N SHC : (V, E). Let a SuperHyperEdge 1625
56/109
Figure 22. A SuperHyperCycle Associated to the Notions of 1-failed SuperHyperForcing
cardinality. Thus if a SuperHyperEdge has some SuperHyperVertices, then, with 1673
excluding two distinct SuperHyperVertices, the all number of those SuperHyperVertices 1674
from that SuperHyperEdge belong to any 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Thus, in a 1675
connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E), there’s a SuperHyperEdge 1676
has only two distinct SuperHyperVertices outside of 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. In 1677
other words, here’s a SuperHyperEdge has only two distinct white SuperHyperVertices. 1678
In a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E), the all exterior 1679
SuperHyperVertices belong to any 1-failed SuperHyperForcing if there’s one of them 1680
such that there are only two interior SuperHyperVertices are mutually 1681
SuperHyperNeighbors. Then an 1-failed SuperHyperForcing is a SuperHyperSet of the 1682
exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices with only two 1683
exceptions in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices from the same SuperHyperEdge. 1684
An 1-failed SuperHyperForcing has the number of all the SuperHyperVertices minus on 1685
the 2 numbers excerpt the same exterior SuperHyperPart. 1686
Example 3.5. In the Figure (22), the connected SuperHyperCycle N SHC : (V, E), is 1687
highlighted and featured. The obtained SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous 1688
result, of the SuperHyperVertices of the connected SuperHyperCycle N SHC : (V, E), in 1689
the SuperHyperModel (22), is the 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 1690
Proposition 3.6. Assume a connected SuperHyperStar N SHS : (V, E). Then an 1691
the interior SuperHyperVertices, excluding the SuperHyperCenter, with only one 1693
exception in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices from any given SuperHyperEdge. 1694
An 1-failed SuperHyperForcing has the number of the cardinality of the second 1695
SuperHyperPart minus one. 1696
Proof. Assume a connected SuperHyperStar N SHS : (V, E). Let a SuperHyperEdge 1697
57/109
58/109
Figure 23. A SuperHyperStar Associated to the Notions of 1-failed SuperHyperForcing
exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices, excluding the 1755
SuperHyperCenter, with only one exception in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices 1756
from any given SuperHyperEdge. An 1-failed SuperHyperForcing has the number of the 1757
cardinality of the second SuperHyperPart minus one. 1758
Example 3.7. In the Figure (23), the connected SuperHyperStar N SHS : (V, E), is 1759
highlighted and featured. The obtained SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous 1760
result, of the SuperHyperVertices of the connected SuperHyperStar N SHS : (V, E), in 1761
the SuperHyperModel (23), is the 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 1762
Proposition 3.8. Assume a connected SuperHyperBipartite N SHB : (V, E). Then an 1763
SuperHyperVertices from same SuperHyperEdge. An 1-failed SuperHyperForcing has the 1766
number of the cardinality of the first SuperHyperPart minus one plus the second 1767
SuperHyperPart minus one. 1768
Proof. Assume a connected SuperHyperBipartite N SHB : (V, E). Let a 1769
59/109
exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices with only two 1827
exceptions in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices from same SuperHyperEdge. An 1828
1-failed SuperHyperForcing has the number of the cardinality of the first 1829
SuperHyperPart minus one plus the second SuperHyperPart minus one. 1830
60/109
Figure 24. A SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of 1-failed SuperHyper-
Forcing in the Example (3.9)
Example 3.9. In the Figure (24), the connected SuperHyperBipartite N SHB : (V, E), 1831
is highlighted and featured. The obtained SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous 1832
result, of the SuperHyperVertices of the connected SuperHyperBipartite 1833
N SHB : (V, E), in the SuperHyperModel (24), is the 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 1834
Proposition 3.10. Assume a connected SuperHyperMultipartite N SHM : (V, E). 1835
Then an 1-failed SuperHyperForcing is a SuperHyperSet of the exterior 1836
SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices with only one exception in the 1837
form of interior SuperHyperVertices from a SuperHyperPart and only one exception in 1838
the form of interior SuperHyperVertices from another SuperHyperPart. An 1-failed 1839
SuperHyperForcing has the number of all the summation on the cardinality of the all 1840
SuperHyperParts minus two excerpt distinct SuperHyperParts. 1841
Proof. Assume a connected SuperHyperMultipartite N SHM : (V, E). Let a 1842
61/109
exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices with only one 1900
exception in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices from a SuperHyperPart and only 1901
one exception in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices from another SuperHyperPart. 1902
An 1-failed SuperHyperForcing has the number of all the summation on the cardinality 1903
of the all SuperHyperParts minus two excerpt distinct SuperHyperParts. 1904
Example 3.11. In the Figure (25), the connected SuperHyperMultipartite 1905
N SHM : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained SuperHyperSet, by the 1906
Algorithm in previous result, of the SuperHyperVertices of the connected 1907
SuperHyperMultipartite N SHM : (V, E), in the SuperHyperModel (25), is the 1-failed 1908
SuperHyperForcing. 1909
Proposition 3.12. Assume a connected SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E). Then an 1910
62/109
Figure 25. A SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of 1-failed SuperHy-
perForcing in the Example (3.11)
the interior SuperHyperVertices, excluding the SuperHyperCenter, with only one 1912
exception in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices from any given SuperHyperEdge. 1913
An 1-failed SuperHyperForcing has the number of all the number of all the 1914
SuperHyperEdges minus two numbers excerpt two SuperHyperNeighbors. 1915
Proof. Assume a connected SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E). Let a SuperHyperEdge 1916
63/109
SuperHyperVertices are mutually SuperHyperNeighbors. Then an 1-failed 1973
SuperHyperForcing is a SuperHyperSet of the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the 1974
interior SuperHyperVertices, excluding the SuperHyperCenter, with only one exception 1975
in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices from any given SuperHyperEdge. An 1-failed 1976
SuperHyperForcing has the number of all the number of all the SuperHyperEdges minus 1977
two numbers excerpt two SuperHyperNeighbors. 1978
Example 3.13. In the Figure (26), the connected SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E), 1979
is highlighted and featured. The obtained SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous 1980
result, of the SuperHyperVertices of the connected SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E), 1981
in the SuperHyperModel (26), is the 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 1982
4 General Results 1983
For the 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, and the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, 1984
some general results are introduced. 1985
Remark 4.1. Let remind that the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing is “redefined” 1986
on the positions of the alphabets. 1987
64/109
Figure 26. A SuperHyperWheel Associated to the Notions of 1-failed SuperHyperForc-
ing in the Example (3.13)
Corollary 4.2. Assume 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Then 1988
N eutrosophic 1 − f ailedSuperHyperF orcing =

{the1 − f ailedSuperHyperF orcingof theSuperHyperV ertices |
max |SuperHyperDef ensiveSuperHyper
Alliances|neutrosophiccardinalityamidthose1−f ailedSuperHyperF orcing. }
Where σi is the unary operation on the SuperHyperVertices of the SuperHyperGraph to 1989
assign the determinacy, the indeterminacy and the neutrality, for i = 1, 2, 3, respectively. 1990
Corollary 4.3. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the same identical letter 1991
of the alphabet. Then the notion of neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing and 1-failed 1992
SuperHyperForcing coincide. 1993
of the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a neutrosophic 1995
1-failed SuperHyperForcing if and only if it’s an 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 1996
of the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a strongest 1998
SuperHyperCycle if and only if it’s a longest SuperHyperCycle. 1999
Corollary 4.6. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the 2000
same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing 2001
is its 1-failed SuperHyperForcing and reversely. 2002
Corollary 4.7. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperCycle, 2003
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel) on 2004
the same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its neutrosophic 1-failed 2005
SuperHyperForcing is its 1-failed SuperHyperForcing and reversely. 2006
Corollary 4.8. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its neutrosophic 2007
1-failed SuperHyperForcing isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1-failed 2008
SuperHyperForcing isn’t well-defined. 2009
Corollary 4.9. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then 2010
its neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1-failed 2011
SuperHyperForcing isn’t well-defined. 2012
65/109
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). 2014
Then its neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing isn’t well-defined if and only if its 2015
1-failed SuperHyperForcing isn’t well-defined. 2016
Corollary 4.11. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its neutrosophic 2017
1-failed SuperHyperForcing is well-defined if and only if its 1-failed SuperHyperForcing 2018
is well-defined. 2019
Corollary 4.12. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 2020
Then its neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing is well-defined if and only if its 2021
1-failed SuperHyperForcing is well-defined. 2022
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). 2024
Then its neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing is well-defined if and only if its 2025
1-failed SuperHyperForcing is well-defined. 2026
Proposition 4.14. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then V 2027
is 2028
(i) : the dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 2029
(ii) : the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 2030
(iii) : the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 2031
(iv) : the δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 2032
(v) : the strong δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 2033
(vi) : the connected δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 2034
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider V. All 2035
SuperHyperMembers of V have at least one SuperHyperNeighbor inside the 2036
SuperHyperSet more than SuperHyperNeighbor out of SuperHyperSet. Thus, 2037
(i). V is the dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing since the 2038
following statements are equivalent. 2039
∀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.
(ii). V is the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing since the 2040
∀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.
66/109
(iii). V is the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing since 2042
the following statements are equivalent. 2043
∀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 1-failed SuperHyperForcing since the 2044
∀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 1-failed SuperHyperForcing since the 2046
∀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 1-failed SuperHyperForcing since the following statements 2048
are equivalent. 2049
∀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.
2050
Proposition 4.15. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then 2051
∅ is 2052
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 2053
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 2054
(iii) : the connected defensive SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 2055
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 2056
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 2057
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 2058
67/109
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider ∅. All 2059
SuperHyperMembers of ∅ have no SuperHyperNeighbor inside the SuperHyperSet less 2060
than SuperHyperNeighbor out of SuperHyperSet. Thus, 2061
(i). ∅ is the SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing since the following 2062
statements are equivalent. 2063
∀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 1-failed SuperHyperForcing since the following 2064
∀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 1-failed SuperHyperForcing since the 2066
∀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 1-failed SuperHyperForcing since the following 2068
∀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.
(v). ∅ is the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing since the 2070
∀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.
68/109
(vi). ∅ is the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing since the 2072
∀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.
2074
Proposition 4.16. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then an 2075
independent SuperHyperSet is 2076
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 2077
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 2078
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 2079
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 2080
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 2081
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 2082
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider S. All 2083
SuperHyperMembers of S have no SuperHyperNeighbor inside the SuperHyperSet less 2084
(i). An independent SuperHyperSet is the SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 2086
SuperHyperForcing since the following statements are equivalent. 2087
∀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 1-failed 2088
∀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 1-failed 2090
69/109
∀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 1-failed 2092
∀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 1-failed 2094
∀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 1-failed 2096
∀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.
2098
Proposition 4.17. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform 2099
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath. Then V is a maximal 2100
(i) : SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 2101
(ii) : strong SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 2102
(iii) : connected SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 2103
(iv) : O(N SHG)-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 2104
(v) : strong O(N SHG)-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 2105
(vi) : connected O(N SHG)-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 2106
70/109
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 2107
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 2108
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath. 2109
(i). Consider one segment is out of S which is SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 2110
SuperHyperForcing. This segment has 2t SuperHyperNeighbors in S, i.e, Suppose 2111
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 2112
SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s 2113
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperCycle, 2114
|N (xii=1,2,...,t )| = |N (yii=1,2,...,t )| = |N (zii=1,2,...,t )| = 2t. Thus 2115
∀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 2116
1-failed SuperHyperForcing in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperCycle. 2117
Consider one segment, with two segments related to the SuperHyperLeaves as 2118
exceptions, is out of S which is SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. This 2119
segment has 2t SuperHyperNeighbors in S, i.e, Suppose xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S such that 2120
yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By it’s the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the 2121
interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperPath, 2122
∀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.
1-failed SuperHyperForcing in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperPath. 2125
(ii), (iii) are obvious by (i). 2126
(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal and it’s a SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 2127
SuperHyperForcing. Thus it’s |V |-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 2128
(v), (vi) are obvious by (iv). 2129
Proposition 4.18. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 2130
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel. Then V is a maximal 2131
(i) : dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 2132
71/109
(ii) : strong dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 2133
(iii) : connected dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 2134
(iv) : O(N SHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 2135
(v) : strong O(N SHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 2136
(vi) : connected O(N SHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 2137
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 2138
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform 2139
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. 2140
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 2143
exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s 2144
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel, 2145
∀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 2147
1-failed SuperHyperForcing in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel. 2148
(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal and it is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 2150
SuperHyperForcing. Thus it’s a dual |V |-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 2151
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath. Then the number of 2155
(i) : the 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 2156
(ii) : the 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 2157
(iii) : the connected 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 2158
(iv) : the O(N SHG)-1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 2159
(v) : the strong O(N SHG)-1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 2160
(vi) : the connected O(N SHG)-1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 2161
72/109
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 2162
SuperHyperVertices coincide. 2163
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 2164
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath. 2165
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 2168
SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s 2169
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperCycle, 2170
∀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.
1-failed SuperHyperForcing in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperCycle. 2173
Consider one segment, with two segments related to the SuperHyperLeaves as 2174
exceptions, is out of S which is SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. This 2175
segment has 2t SuperHyperNeighbors in S, i.e, Suppose xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S such that 2176
yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By it’s the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the 2177
interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperPath, 2178
∀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.
1-failed SuperHyperForcing in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperPath. 2181
(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal and it’s a SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 2183
SuperHyperForcing. Thus it’s |V |-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 2184
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. Then the number of 2187
(i) : the dual 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 2188
73/109
(ii) : the dual 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 2189
(iii) : the dual connected 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 2190
(iv) : the dual O(N SHG)-1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 2191
(v) : the strong dual O(N SHG)-1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 2192
(vi) : the connected dual O(N SHG)-1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 2193
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 2194
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform 2196
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. 2197
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 2200
exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s 2201
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel, 2202
∀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 2204
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing in a given SuperHyperUniform 2205
SuperHyperWheel. 2206
(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal and it’s a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 2208
SuperHyperForcing. Thus it isn’t an |V |-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 2209
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperStar/SuperHyperComplete 2213
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 2214
SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of multiplying r with the 2215
number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices is a 2216
74/109
O(N SHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 2220
O(N SHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 2221
O(N SHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 2222
Proof. (i). Consider n half +1 SuperHyperVertices are in S which is 2223
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. A SuperHyperVertex has either n2 or 2224
one SuperHyperNeighbors in S. If the SuperHyperVertex is non-SuperHyperCenter, then 2225
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
If the SuperHyperVertex is SuperHyperCenter, then 2226
∀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 1-failed 2227
SuperHyperForcing in a given SuperHyperStar. 2228
Consider n half +1 SuperHyperVertices are in S which is SuperHyperDefensive 2229
1-failed SuperHyperForcing. A SuperHyperVertex has at most n2 SuperHyperNeighbors 2230
in S. 2231
n n
∀a ∈ S, > |N (a) ∩ S| > − 1 > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
2 2
n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
SuperHyperForcing in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite which isn’t a 2233
SuperHyperStar. 2234
1-failed SuperHyperForcing and they’re chosen from different SuperHyperParts, equally 2236
or almost equally as possible. A SuperHyperVertex has at most n2 2237
SuperHyperNeighbors in S. 2238
n n
∀a ∈ S, > |N (a) ∩ S| > − 1 > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
2 2
n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
SuperHyperForcing in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite which is 2240
neither a SuperHyperStar nor SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite. 2241

O(N SHG)
+1
(iv). By (i), {xi }i=1 2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 2243
SuperHyperForcing. Thus it’s O(N SHG) 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 2244
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 2249
SuperHyperSet contains the half of multiplying r with the number of all the 2250
SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart 2251
is a 2252
75/109
(iv) : δ-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 2256
(v) : strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 2257
(vi) : connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 2258
Proof. (i). Consider the half of multiplying r with the number of all the 2259
SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart 2260
are in S which is SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. A 2261
SuperHyperVertex has either n − 1, 1 or zero SuperHyperNeighbors in S. If the 2262
SuperHyperVertex is in S, then 2263
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 0 < 1.
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 2264
Consider the half of multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus 2266
one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart are in S which is 2267
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. A SuperHyperVertex has no 2268
SuperHyperNeighbor in S. 2269
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 0 < δ.
Consider the half of multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus 2273
one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart are in S which is 2274
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. A SuperHyperVertex has no 2275
SuperHyperNeighbor in S. 2276
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 0 < δ.
(iv). By (i), S is a SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Thus it’s an 2281
δ-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 2282
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then Then the 2286
number of 2287
76/109
O(N SHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 2291
O(N SHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 2292
O(N SHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 2293
is one and it’s only S, a SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of 2294
multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the 2295
SuperHyperVertices. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 2296
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. A SuperHyperVertex has either n2 or 2299
one SuperHyperNeighbors in S. If the SuperHyperVertex is non-SuperHyperCenter, then 2300
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
If the SuperHyperVertex is SuperHyperCenter, then 2301
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
1-failed SuperHyperForcing. A SuperHyperVertex has at most n2 SuperHyperNeighbors 2305
in S. 2306
n n
∀a ∈ S, > |N (a) ∩ S| > − 1 > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
2 2
n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
1-failed SuperHyperForcing and they’re chosen from different SuperHyperParts, equally 2311
or almost equally as possible. A SuperHyperVertex has at most n2 2312
n n
∀a ∈ S, > |N (a) ∩ S| > − 1 > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
2 2
n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2

O(N SHG)
+1
(iv). By (i), {xi }i=1 2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 2318
SuperHyperForcing. Thus it’s O(N SHG) 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 2319
77/109
Proposition 4.24. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. The 2322
number of connected component is |V − S| if there’s a SuperHyperSet which is a dual 2323
(iv) : 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 2327
(v) : strong 1-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 2328
(vi) : connected 1-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 2329
Proof. (i). Consider some SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 2330
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. These SuperHyperVertex-type have 2331
some SuperHyperNeighbors in S but no SuperHyperNeighbor out of S. Thus 2332
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
SuperHyperForcing and number of connected component is |V − S|. 2334
(iv). By (i), S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Thus it’s 2336
a dual 1-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 2337
Proposition 4.25. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then the 2339
number is at most O(N SHG) and the neutrosophic number is at most On (N SHG). 2340
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider V. All 2341
SuperHyperMembers of V have at least one SuperHyperNeighbor inside the 2342
SuperHyperSet more than SuperHyperNeighbor out of SuperHyperSet. Thus, 2343
V is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing since the following 2344
∀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.
V is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing since the following 2346
∀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.
78/109
V is connected a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing since the 2348
∀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 1-failed SuperHyperForcing since the following 2350
∀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 1-failed SuperHyperForcing since the 2352
∀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 1-failed SuperHyperForcing since the 2354
∀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 1-failed SuperHyperForcing and V is the biggest 2356
SuperHyperSet in N SHG : (V, E). Then the number is at most O(N SHG : (V, E)) and 2357
the neutrosophic number is at most On (N SHG : (V, E)). 2358
Proposition 4.26. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 2359
SuperHyperComplete. The number is O(N SHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and the neutrosophic number is 2360
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of dual 2361
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(N SHG:(V,E))

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 2365
79/109
(v) : strong ( O(N SHG:(V,E))
(vi) : connected ( O(N SHG:(V,E))

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 2367
Proof. (i). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 2368
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. A SuperHyperVertex has n half 2369
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
SuperHyperForcing in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraph. Thus the 2372
number is O(N SHG:(V,E))

2 + 1 and the neutrosophic number is 2373
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual SuperHyperDefensive 2374
t>
2
(ii). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 2376
∀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 1-failed 2379

min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual strong 2382
t>
2
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 2383
(iii). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 2384
∀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 1-failed 2387

min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual connected 2390
t>
2
(iv). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 2392
∀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 2395
1-failed SuperHyperForcing in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraph. Thus 2396
the number is O(N SHG:(V,E))

80/109
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual 2398
t>
2
( O(N SHG:(V,E))
(v). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 2400
∀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 2403
( O(N SHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing in a given 2404
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraph. Thus the number is O(N SHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and 2405
the neutrosophic number is min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a 2406
t>
2
dual strong ( O(N SHG:(V,E))

(vi). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 2408
∀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 2411
( O(N SHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing in a given 2412
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraph. Thus the number is O(N SHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and 2413
the neutrosophic number is min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a 2414
t>
2
dual connected ( O(N SHG:(V,E))

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 2415
∅. The number is 0 and the neutrosophic number is 0, for an independent SuperHyperSet 2418
in the setting of dual 2419
(iv) : 0-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 2423
(v) : strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 2424
(vi) : connected 0-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 2425
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider ∅. All 2426
SuperHyperMembers of ∅ have no SuperHyperNeighbor inside the SuperHyperSet less 2427
81/109
(i). ∅ is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing since the following 2429
∀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 2431
in the setting of a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 2432
(ii). ∅ is a dual strong SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing since the 2433
∀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 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 2436
(iii). ∅ is a dual connected SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing since 2437
∀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 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 2440
(iv). ∅ is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing since the following 2441
∀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 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 2444
(v). ∅ is a dual strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing since the 2445
82/109
∀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 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 2448
(vi). ∅ is a dual connected SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing since 2449
∀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 1-failed 2452
SuperHyperComplete. Then there’s no independent SuperHyperSet. 2455
SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel. The number is 2457
O(N SHG : (V, E)) and the neutrosophic number is On (N SHG : (V, E)), in the setting 2458
of a dual 2459
(iv) : O(N SHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 2463
(v) : strong O(N SHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 2464
(vi) : connected O(N SHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 2465
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 2466
SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel. 2467
(i). Consider one SuperHyperVertex is out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 2468
1-failed SuperHyperForcing. This SuperHyperVertex has one SuperHyperNeighbor in S, 2469
i.e, suppose x ∈ V \ S such that y, z ∈ N (x). By it’s SuperHyperCycle, 2470
|N (x)| = |N (y)| = |N (z)| = 2. Thus 2471
∀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.
83/109
Thus it’s contradiction. It implies every V \ {x} isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive 2472
1-failed SuperHyperForcing in a given SuperHyperCycle. 2473
Consider one SuperHyperVertex is out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 2474
i.e, Suppose x ∈ V \ S such that y, z ∈ N (x). By it’s SuperHyperPath, 2476
|N (x)| = |N (y)| = |N (z)| = 2. Thus 2477
∀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.
1-failed SuperHyperForcing in a given SuperHyperPath. 2479
Consider one SuperHyperVertex is out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 2480
i.e, Suppose x ∈ V \ S such that y, z ∈ N (x). By it’s SuperHyperWheel, 2482
|N (x)| = |N (y)| = |N (z)| = 2. Thus 2483
∀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.
1-failed SuperHyperForcing in a given SuperHyperWheel. 2485
(iv). By (i), V is maximal and it’s a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 2487
SuperHyperForcing. Thus it’s a dual O(N SHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 2488
Thus the number is O(N SHG : (V, E)) and the neutrosophic number is 2491
On (N SHG : (V, E)), in the setting of all types of a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 2492
SuperHyperStar/complete SuperHyperBipartite/complete SuperHyperMultiPartite. The 2495

min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual 2497
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(N SHG:(V,E))

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

84/109
(vi) : connected ( O(N SHG:(V,E))
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. A SuperHyperVertex has at most n 2505
half SuperHyperNeighbors in S. If the SuperHyperVertex is the non-SuperHyperCenter, 2506
then 2507
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
If the SuperHyperVertex is the SuperHyperCenter, then 2508
∀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 2511
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

δ δ
∀a ∈ S, >n− .
2 2
SuperHyperForcing in a given complete SuperHyperBipartite which isn’t a 2514
Consider n half +1 SuperHyperVertices are in S which is a dual 2516
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing and they are chosen from different 2517
SuperHyperParts, equally or almost equally as possible. A SuperHyperVertex in S has 2518
δ half SuperHyperNeighbors in S. 2519
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

δ δ
∀a ∈ S, >n− .
2 2
SuperHyperForcing in a given complete SuperHyperMultipartite which is neither a 2521
SuperHyperStar nor complete SuperHyperBipartite. 2522

O(N SHG:(V,E))
+1
(iv). By (i), {xi }i=1 2
is maximal and it’s a dual SuperHyperDefensive 2524
1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Thus it’s a dual O(N SHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1-SuperHyperDefensive 2525
Thus the number is O(N SHG:(V,E))2 + 1 and the neutrosophic number is 2528
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of all dual 1-failed 2529
t>
2
Proposition 4.31. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a SuperHyperFamily of the N SHGs : (V, E) 2531
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs which are from one-type SuperHyperClass which the 2532
result is obtained for the individuals. Then the results also hold for the 2533
SuperHyperFamily N SHF : (V, E) of these specific SuperHyperClasses of the 2534
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs. 2535
85/109
Proof. There are neither SuperHyperConditions nor SuperHyperRestrictions on the 2536
SuperHyperVertices. Thus the SuperHyperResults on individuals, N SHGs : (V, E), are 2537
extended to the SuperHyperResults on SuperHyperFamily, N SHF : (V, E). 2538
Proposition 4.32. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If 2539
S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, then ∀v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S 2540
such that 2541
(i) v ∈ Ns (x); 2542
(ii) vx ∈ E. 2543
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 2544
Consider v ∈ V \ S. Since S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, 2545
∀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 2546
v ∈ V \ S. Since S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, 2547
∀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.
2548
Proposition 4.33. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If 2549
S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, then 2550
(i) S is SuperHyperDominating set; 2551
(ii) there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic number. 2552
Consider v ∈ V \ S. Since S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, 2554
either 2555
∀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 2556
∀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. 2557
86/109
v ∈ V \ S. Since S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, either 2559
∀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 2560
∀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. 2561
The only case is about the relation amid SuperHyperVertices in S in the terms of 2562
SuperHyperNeighbors. It implies there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic 2563
number. 2564
Proposition 4.34. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 2565
Then 2566
(i) Γ ≤ O; 2567
(ii) Γs ≤ On . 2568
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Let 2569
S = V. 2570
∀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 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. For all 2571
SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S, S ⊆ V. Thus for all SuperHyperSets of 2572
SuperHyperVertices S, |S| ≤ |V |. It implies for all SuperHyperSets of 2573
SuperHyperVertices S, |S| ≤ O. So for all SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices 2574
S, Γ ≤ O. 2575
(ii). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Let S = V. 2576
∀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 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. For all 2577
SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S, S ⊆ V. Thus for all 2578
SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 2579
S, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ Σv∈V Σ3i=1 σi (v). It implies for all SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic 2580
SuperHyperVertices S, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ On . So for all SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic 2581
SuperHyperVertices S, Γs ≤ On . 2582
87/109
Proposition 4.35. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 2583
which is connected. Then 2584
(i) Γ ≤ O − 1; 2585
(ii) Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 2586
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Let 2587
S = V − {x} where x is arbitrary and x ∈ V. 2588
∀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 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. For all 2589
SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, S ⊆ V − {x}. Thus for all 2590
SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, |S| ≤ |V − {x}|. It implies for all 2591
SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, |S| ≤ O − 1. So for all SuperHyperSets 2592
of SuperHyperVertices S, Γ ≤ O − 1. 2593
(ii). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Let 2594
S = V − {x} where x is arbitrary and x ∈ V. 2595
∀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 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. For all 2596
SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, S ⊆ V − {x}. Thus for all 2597
SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 2598
S 6= V, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ Σv∈V −{x} Σ3i=1 σi (v). It implies for all SuperHyperSets of 2599
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). So for all 2600
SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S, Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 2601
Proposition 4.36. Let N SHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperPath. Then 2602
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 2603
SuperHyperForcing; 2604
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 2605
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 2606
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 2607
a dual 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 2608
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an odd SuperHyperPath. Let 2609
88/109
S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all vi , vj ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 2610
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 })|
It implies S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 2611
SuperHyperForcing. If S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } − {vi } where vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }, then 2612
∃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 2613
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. It induces S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is 2614
a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 2615
(ii) and (iii) are trivial. 2616
(iv). By (i), S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 2617
SuperHyperForcing. Thus it’s enough to show that S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual 2618
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an odd 2619
SuperHyperPath. Let S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all 2620
vi , vj ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 2621
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 4.37. Let N SHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperPath. Then 2627
(i) the set S = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 2628
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and 2630
{v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }; 2631
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 2632
89/109
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 2633
dual 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 2634
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an even SuperHyperPath. Let 2635
S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } where for all vi , vj ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 2636
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 })|
It implies S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 2637
SuperHyperForcing. If S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } − {vi } where vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, then 2638
∃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 2639
1-failed SuperHyperForcing. It induces S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual 2640
(iv). By (i), S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 2643
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an even 2645
SuperHyperPath. Let S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all 2646
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 4.38. Let N SHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperCycle. Then 2653
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 2654
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and 2656
{v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }; 2657
90/109
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } σ(s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } σ(s)}; 2658
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 2659
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an even SuperHyperCycle. Let 2661
S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } where for all vi , vj ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 2662
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 })|
It implies S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 2663
SuperHyperForcing. If S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } − {vi } where vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, then 2664
∃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 2665
1-failed SuperHyperForcing. It induces S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual 2666
(iv). By (i), S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 2669
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an even 2671
SuperHyperCycle. Let S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all 2672
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 4.39. Let N SHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperCycle. Then 2679
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 2680
91/109
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 2682
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 2683
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 2684
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an odd SuperHyperCycle. Let 2686
S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all vi , vj ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 2687
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 })|
∃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 1-failed 2694
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an odd 2696
SuperHyperCycle. Let S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all 2697
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 4.40. Let N SHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperStar. Then 2704
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c} is a dual maximal 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 2705
92/109
(ii) Γ = 1; 2706
(iii) Γs = Σ3i=1 σi (c); 2707
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c} and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 2708
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a SuperHyperStar. 2709
∀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 = {c} is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. If 2710
S = {c} − {c} = ∅, then 2711
∃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 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. It 2712
induces S = {c} is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 2713
(iv). By (i), S = {c} is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 2715
Thus it’s enough to show that S ⊆ S 0 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 2716
SuperHyperForcing. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a SuperHyperStar. Let S ⊆ S 0 . 2717
∀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 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 2718
Proposition 4.41. Let N SHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperWheel. Then 2719
6+3(i−1)≤n
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual 2720
maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 2721
6+3(i−1)≤n
(ii) Γ = |{v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 |; 2722
(iii) Γs = Σ{v1 ,v3 }∪{v6 ,v9 ··· ,vi+6 ,··· ,vn }6+3(i−1)≤n Σ3i=1 σi (s); 2723
i=1
6+3(i−1)≤n
(iv) the SuperHyperSet {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is only a dual 2724
maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 2725
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a SuperHyperWheel. Let 2726

6+3(i−1)≤n
S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 . There are either 2727
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 2 > 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
93/109
or 2728
∀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 2729
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. If 2730

6+3(i−1)≤n
S 0 = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 − {z} where 2731
6+3(i−1)≤n
z ∈ S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 , then There are either 2732
0 0 0
∀z ∈ V \ S , |Ns (z) ∩ S | = 1 < 2 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S )|
∀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 )|
or 2733
∀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 2734
6+3(i−1)≤n
z ∈ S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive 2735
1-failed SuperHyperForcing. It induces 2736

6+3(i−1)≤n
S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual maximal 2737
(ii), (iii) and (iv) are obvious. 2739
Proposition 4.42. Let N SHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperComplete. Then 2740
bn
2 c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 2741
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1; 2743
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} b n c+1

2
; 2744
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 2745
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an odd SuperHyperComplete. Let 2747

bn
2 c+1
S = {vi }i=1 . Thus 2748
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 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. If 2749
0 bn
2 c+1 bn
2 c+1
S = {vi }i=1 − {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1 , then 2750
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=12
− {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1
2
isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive 2751
bn
2 c+1
1-failed SuperHyperForcing. It induces S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 2752
94/109
Proposition 4.43. Let N SHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperComplete. Then 2755
bn
2c
(ii) Γ = b n2 c; 2758
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} bnc

2
; 2759
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 2760
bn
2c
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an even SuperHyperComplete. Let S = {vi }i=1 . 2762
Thus 2763
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 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. If 2764
n
0 b2c bn
2c
S = {vi }i=1 − {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1 , then 2765
n n
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = b c − 1 
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
bnc bnc
So S 0 = {vi }i=12
− {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1
2
isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 2766
bn2c
SuperHyperForcing. It induces S = {vi }i=1 is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 2767
Proposition 4.44. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of neutrosophic 2770
SuperHyperStars with common neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet. Then 2771
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 2772
SuperHyperForcing for N SHF; 2773
(ii) Γ = m for N SHF : (V, E); 2774
(iii) Γs = Σm 3
i=1 Σj=1 σj (ci ) for N SHF : (V, E); 2775
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual 1-failed 2776
SuperHyperForcing for N SHF : (V, E). 2777
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a SuperHyperStar. 2778
∀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 1-failed 2779
SuperHyperForcing for N SHF : (V, E). If S = {c} − {c} = ∅, then 2780
∃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)|.
95/109
So S = {c} − {c} = ∅ isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing for 2781
N SHF : (V, E). It induces S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual maximal 2782
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing for N SHF : (V, E). 2783
(iv). By (i), S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 2785
SuperHyperForcing for N SHF : (V, E). Thus it’s enough to show that S ⊆ S 0 is a dual 2786
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing for N SHF : (V, E). Suppose 2787
N SHG : (V, E) is a SuperHyperStar. Let S ⊆ S 0 . 2788
∀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 1-failed SuperHyperForcing for 2789
N SHF : (V, E). 2790
Proposition 4.45. Let N SHF : (V, E) be an m-SuperHyperFamily of odd 2791
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 2792
SuperHyperSet. Then 2793
bn
2 c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 2794
SuperHyperForcing for N SHF; 2795
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 for N SHF : (V, E); 2796
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} b n c+1

2
for N SHF : (V, E); 2797
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only a dual maximal 1-failed 2798
bn
2 c+1
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is odd SuperHyperComplete. Let S = {vi }i=1 . 2800
Thus 2801
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 1-failed SuperHyperForcing for 2802
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 2803
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=12
− {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1
2
isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive 2804
bn
2 c+1
1-failed SuperHyperForcing for N SHF : (V, E). It induces S = {vi }i=1 is a dual 2805
maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing for N SHF : (V, E). 2806
Proposition 4.46. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of even 2808
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 2809
SuperHyperSet. Then 2810
bn
2c
SuperHyperForcing for N SHF : (V, E); 2812
96/109
(ii) Γ = b n2 c for N SHF : (V, E); 2813
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} 2

bnc for N SHF : (V, E); 2814
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only dual maximal 1-failed 2815
bnc
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is even SuperHyperComplete. Let S = {vi }i=1
2
. 2817
Thus 2818
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 1-failed SuperHyperForcing for 2819
bn
2c bn
2c
N SHF : (V, E). If S 0 = {vi }i=1 − {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1 , then 2820
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
isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 2821
bn
2c
SuperHyperForcing for N SHF : (V, E). It induces S = {vi }i=1 is a dual maximal 2822
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing for N SHF : (V, E). 2823
Then following statements hold; 2826
(i) if s ≥ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 2827
t-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, then S is an 2828
s-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 2829
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 2830
t-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, then S is a dual 2831
s-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 2832
Consider a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an t-SuperHyperDefensive 2834
1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Then 2835
∀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 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 2836
a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual t-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 2838
SuperHyperForcing. Then 2839
∀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 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 2840
97/109
(i) if s ≥ t + 2 and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 2843
t-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, then S is an 2844
s-SuperHyperPowerful 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 2845
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 2846
t-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, then S is a dual 2847
s-SuperHyperPowerful 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 2848
Consider a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an t-SuperHyperDefensive 2850
1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Then 2851
∀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 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. By S is an 2852
s−SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing and S is a dual 2853
(s + 2)−SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, S is an 2854
s-SuperHyperPowerful 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 2855
a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual t-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 2857
SuperHyperForcing. Then 2858
∀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 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. By S is an 2859
(s − 2)−SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing and S is a dual 2860
s−SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, S is an s−SuperHyperPowerful 2861
Proposition 4.49. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a[an] 2863
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following 2864
statements hold; 2865
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b 2r c + 1, then N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 2868
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then N SHG : (V, E) is an r-SuperHyperDefensive 2870
1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 2871
(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 2872
r-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 2873
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic 2874
SuperHyperGraph. Then 2875
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.
98/109
Thus S is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 2876
(ii). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic 2877
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 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 2879
(iii). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic 2880
∀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 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 2882
(iv). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic 2883
∀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 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 2885
Proposition 4.50. Let N SHG : (V, E) is a[an] 2886
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following 2887
statements hold; 2888
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b 2r c + 1 if N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 2891
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if N SHG : (V, E) is an r-SuperHyperDefensive 2893
(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 2895
r-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 2896
∀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
99/109
SuperHyperGraph and a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Then 2900
∀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 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 2902
∀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 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Then 2904
∀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.
2905
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 2907
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 2908
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b O−1

2 c + 1 if N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 2911
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if N SHG : (V, E) is an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 2913
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 2916
SuperHyperGraph and an 2- SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Then 2918
∀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
100/109
SuperHyperGraph and a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Then 2920
∀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 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 2922
∀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 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Then 2924
∀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.
2925
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 2927
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 2928
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b O−1

2 c + 1, then N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 2931
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then N SHG : (V, E) is 2933
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 2934
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 2936
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperComplete. Then 2938
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 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 2945
∀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 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 2948
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperCycle. 2950
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2 if N SHG : (V, E)) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 2952
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2 if N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 2954
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if N SHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 2956
2-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 2959
SuperHyperGraph and S is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 2961
Then 2962
∀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 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 2964
102/109
Then 2965
∀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.
SuperHyperGraph and S is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 2967
∀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 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 2969
Then 2970
∀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.
2971
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperCycle. 2973
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2, then N SHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 2975
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2, then N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 2977
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then N SHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 2979
2-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 2982
SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperCycle. Then 2984
∀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.
103/109
∀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.
5 Applications in Cancer’s Recognitions 2995
The cancer is the disease but the model is going to figure out what’s going on this 2996
phenomenon. The special case of this disease is considered and as the consequences of 2997
the model, some parameters are used. The cells are under attack of this disease but the 2998
moves of the cancer in the special region are the matter of mind. The recognition of the 2999
cancer could help to find some treatments for this disease. 3000
In the following, some steps are devised on this disease. 3001
Step 1. (Definition) The recognition of the cancer in the long-term function. 3002
Step 2. (Issue) The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called 3003
SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by 3004
this research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since 3005
there are some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and 3006
the effects of the cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another 3007
model [it’s said to be neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient 3008
perception on what’s happened and what’s done. 3009
Step 3. (Model) There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve 3010
got the names, and some general models. The moves and the traces of the cancer 3011
on the complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized 3012
by a neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, 3013
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to 3014
find either the 1-failed SuperHyperForcing or the neutrosophic 1-failed 3015
SuperHyperForcing in those neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. 3016
5.1 Case 1: The Initial Steps Toward 3017
SuperHyperBipartite as SuperHyperModel 3018
Step 4. (Solution) In the Figure (27), the SuperHyperBipartite is highlighted and 3019
featured. 3020
By using the Figure (27) and the Table (4), the neutrosophic 3021
SuperHyperBipartite is obtained. 3022
104/109
Figure 27. A SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of 1-failed SuperHyper-
Forcing
Table 4. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyper-

Edges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite
105/109
Figure 28. A SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of 1-failed SuperHy-
perForcing
Table 5. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyper-

Edges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite
5.2 Case 2: The Increasing Steps Toward 3023
SuperHyperMultipartite as SuperHyperModel 3024
Step 4. (Solution) In the Figure (28), the SuperHyperMultipartite is highlighted and 3025
featured. 3026
By using the Figure (28) and the Table (5), the neutrosophic 3027
SuperHyperMultipartite is obtained. 3028
6 Open Problems 3029
In what follows, some “problems” and some “questions” are proposed. 3030
The 1-failed SuperHyperForcing and the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing 3031
are defined on a real-world application, titled “Cancer’s Recognitions”. 3032
Question 6.1. Which the else SuperHyperModels could be defined based on Cancer’s 3033
recognitions? 3034
Question 6.2. Are there some SuperHyperNotions related to 1-failed 3035
SuperHyperForcing and the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing? 3036
Question 6.3. Are there some Algorithms to be defined on the SuperHyperModels to 3037
compute them? 3038
Question 6.4. Which the SuperHyperNotions are related to beyond the 1-failed 3039
SuperHyperForcing and the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing? 3040
106/109
Problem 6.5. The 1-failed SuperHyperForcing and the neutrosophic 1-failed 3041
SuperHyperForcing do a SuperHyperModel for the Cancer’s recognitions and they’re 3042
based on 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, are there else? 3043
Problem 6.6. Which the fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are related to these 3044
SuperHyperNumbers types-results? 3045
Problem 6.7. What’s the independent research based on Cancer’s recognitions 3046
concerning the multiple types of SuperHyperNotions? 3047
7 Conclusion and Closing Remarks 3048
In this section, concluding remarks and closing remarks are represented. The drawbacks 3049
of this research are illustrated. Some benefits and some advantages of this research are 3050
highlighted. 3051
This research uses some approaches to make neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs more 3052
understandable. In this endeavor, two SuperHyperNotions are defined on the 1-failed 3053
SuperHyperForcing. For that sake in the second definition, the main definition of the 3054
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph is redefined on the position of the alphabets. Based on 3055
the new definition for the neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, the new SuperHyperNotion, 3056
neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, finds the convenient background to implement 3057
some results based on that. Some SuperHyperClasses and some neutrosophic 3058
SuperHyperClasses are the cases of this research on the modeling of the regions where 3059
are under the attacks of the cancer to recognize this disease as it’s mentioned on the 3060
title “Cancer’s Recognitions”. To formalize the instances on the SuperHyperNotion, 3061
1-failed SuperHyperForcing, the new SuperHyperClasses and SuperHyperClasses, are 3062
introduced. Some general results are gathered in the section on the 1-failed 3063
SuperHyperForcing and the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. The 3064
clarifications, instances and literature reviews have taken the whole way through. In 3065
this research, the literature reviews have fulfilled the lines containing the notions and 3066
the results. The SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are the 3067
SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognitions” and both bases are the background 3068
of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, 3069
groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes 3070
some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the 3071
longest and strongest styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are 3072
formally called “1-failed SuperHyperForcing” in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. 3073
The prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to figure out the 3074
background for the SuperHyperNotions. In the Table (6), some limitations and
Table 6. A Brief Overview about Advantages and Limitations of this Research

Advantages Limitations
1. Redefining Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1. General Results
2. 1-failed SuperHyperForcing
3. Neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing 2. Other SuperHyperNumbers
4. Modeling of Cancer’s Recognitions
5. SuperHyperClasses 3. SuperHyperFamilies
3075
advantages of this research are pointed out. 3076
107/109
References 3077
1. Henry Garrett, “Properties of SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 3078
SuperHyperGraph”, Neutrosophic Sets and Systems 49 (2022) 531-561 (doi: 3079
10.5281/zenodo.6456413). 3080
(http://fs.unm.edu/NSS/NeutrosophicSuperHyperGraph34.pdf). 3081
(https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nss journal/vol49/iss1/34). 3082
2. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Co-degree and Neutrosophic Degree alongside 3083
Chromatic Numbers in the Setting of Some Classes Related to Neutrosophic 3084
Hypergraphs”, J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res 1(1) (2022) 06-14. 3085
3. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 3086
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 3087
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 3088
4. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive 3089
and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) 3090
SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 3091
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 3092
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 3093
5. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 3094
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions”, 3095
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 3096
6. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3097
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 3098
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 3099
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 3100
7. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on 3101
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in Game Theory and 3102
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 3103
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 3104
8. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 3105
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3106
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3107
10.13140/RG.2.2.11369.16487). 3108
9. Henry Garrett, “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating 3109
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 3110
2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29173.86244). 3111
10. Henry Garrett, “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 3112
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in 3113
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3114
10.13140/RG.2.2.25385.88160). 3115
11. Henry Garrett, (2022). “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs”, Ohio: E-publishing: 3116
Educational Publisher 1091 West 1st Ave Grandview Heights, Ohio 43212 3117
United States. ISBN: 979-1-59973-725-6 3118
(http://fs.unm.edu/BeyondNeutrosophicGraphs.pdf). 3119
108/109
12. Henry Garrett, (2022). “Neutrosophic Duality”, Florida: GLOBAL 3120
KNOWLEDGE - Publishing House 848 Brickell Ave Ste 950 Miami, Florida 3121
33131 United States. ISBN: 978-1-59973-743-0 3122
(http://fs.unm.edu/NeutrosophicDuality.pdf). 3123
13. F. Smarandache, “Extension of HyperGraph to n-SuperHyperGraph and to 3124
Plithogenic n-SuperHyperGraph, and Extension of HyperAlgebra to n-ary 3125
(Classical-/Neutro-/Anti-) HyperAlgebra”, Neutrosophic Sets and Systems 33 3126
(2020) 290-296. (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3783103). 3127
14. M. Akram et al., “Single-valued neutrosophic Hypergraphs”, TWMS J. App. 3128
Eng. Math. 8 (1) (2018) 122-135. 3129
15. S. Broumi et al., “Single-valued neutrosophic graphs”, Journal of New Theory 10 3130
(2016) 86-101. 3131
16. H. Wang et al., “Single-valued neutrosophic sets”, Multispace and 3132
Multistructure 4 (2010) 410-413. 3133
17. H.T. Nguyen and E.A. Walker, “A First course in fuzzy logic”, CRC Press, 2006. 3134
109/109

(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing 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

(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer's Recognitions and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 2

Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs 3

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

In this research, new setting is introduced for new SuperHyperNotions, namely, an 9

1-failed SuperHyperForcing and Neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Two 10

further and the SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperUniform, and SuperHyperClass based 12

comparison between this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions and 15

fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are featured. The definitions are followed by the 16

officially called “SuperHyperEdge”. The frameworks “SuperHyperGraph” and 24

“neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” are chosen and elected to research about “Cancer’s 25

Recognitions”. Thus these complex and dense SuperHyperModels open up some 26

avenues to research on theoretical segments and “Cancer’s Recognitions”. Some avenues 27

questions and some problems. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then an “1-failed 29

SuperHyperForcing” Z(N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) 30

is the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of black SuperHyperVertices 31

SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white 34

SuperHyperNeighbor of a black SuperHyperVertex. The additional condition is referred 35

SuperHyperVertex to be black SuperHyperVertex; a “neutrosophic 1-failed 37

SuperHyperForcing” Zn (N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) 38

is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of black 39

SuperHyperVertices (whereas SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white) such 40

a white SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black SuperHyperVertex if it is the only 42

white SuperHyperNeighbor of a black SuperHyperVertex. The additional condition is 43

Then an “δ−1-failed SuperHyperForcing” is a maximal 1-failed SuperHyperForcing of 46

SuperHyperVertices with maximum cardinality such that either of the following 47

expressions hold for the (neutrosophic) cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 48

|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ, |S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. The first Expression, 49

holds if S is an “δ−SuperHyperOffensive”. And the second Expression, holds if S is an 50

“δ−SuperHyperDefensive”; a“neutrosophic δ−1-failed SuperHyperForcing” is a maximal 51

neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing of SuperHyperVertices with maximum 52

neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : |S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic > 54

|S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ, |S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ. 55

The first Expression, holds if S is a “neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive”. And the 56

second Expression, holds if S is a “neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperDefensive”. It’s useful to 57

define a “neutrosophic” version of an 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Since there’s more 58

ways to get type-results to make an 1-failed SuperHyperForcing more understandable. 59

For the sake of having neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, there’s a need to 60

“redefine” the notion of an “1-failed SuperHyperForcing”. The SuperHyperVertices and 61

Assume an 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. It’s redefined a neutrosophic 1-failed 64

SuperHyperForcing if the mentioned Table holds, concerning, “The Values of Vertices, 65

SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyperEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic 66

Position in Alphabet”, “The Values of The SuperVertices&The maximum Values of Its 68

SuperHyperEdges&The maximum Values of Its Endpoints”. To get structural examples 71

and instances, I’m going to introduce the next SuperHyperClass of SuperHyperGraph 72

foundation of previous definition in the kind of SuperHyperClass. If there’s a need to 74

have all SuperHyperConnectivities until the 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, then it’s 75

officially called an “1-failed SuperHyperForcing” but otherwise, it isn’t an 1-failed 76

definition titled an “1-failed SuperHyperForcing”. These two examples get more 78

SuperHyperClass based on an 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. For the sake of having a 80

neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of a 81

“neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing” and a “neutrosophic 1-failed 82

SuperHyperForcing”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned 83

the position of labels to assign to the values. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 85

It’s redefined “neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” if the intended Table holds. And an 86

1-failed SuperHyperForcing are redefined to an “neutrosophic 1-failed 87

SuperHyperForcing” if the intended Table holds. It’s useful to define “neutrosophic” 88

version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s more ways to get neutrosophic type-results 89

to make a neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing more understandable. Assume a 90

neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the 91

intended Table holds. Thus SuperHyperPath, SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, 92

SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and SuperHyperWheel, are 93

“neutrosophic SuperHyperPath”, “neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle”, “neutrosophic 94