Failed SuperHyperForcing

Failed SuperHyperForcing
Ideas | Approaches | Accessibility | Availability
Dr. Henry Garrett

Report | Exposition | References | Research #22 2022
Abstract
In this research book, there are two research chapters “Extreme 1-Failed 1
SuperHyperForcing” and “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing” about 2
some researches on Extreme 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing and neutrosophic 3

1-Failed SuperHyperForcing. With researches on the basic properties, the 4
research book starts to make Extreme 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing theory and 5
neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing theory more understandable. 6
7
In the first chapter, in this research, new setting is introduced for new 8
SuperHyperNotions, namely, an 1-failed SuperHyperForcing and Neutrosophic 9

1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Two different types of SuperHyperDefinitions 10
are debut for them but the research goes further and the SuperHyperNotion, 11
SuperHyperUniform, and SuperHyperClass based on that are well-defined 12
and well-reviewed. The literature review is implemented in the whole of this 13
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 16
the examples and the instances thus the clarifications are driven with different 17
tools. The applications are figured out to make sense about the theoretical 18
aspect of this ongoing research. The “Cancer’s Recognitions” are the under 19
research to figure out the challenges make sense about ongoing and upcoming 20
research. The special case is up. The cells are viewed in the deemed ways. There 21
are different types of them. Some of them are individuals and some of them are 22
well-modeled by the group of cells. These types are all officially called “SuperHy- 23
perVertex” but the relations amid them all officially called “SuperHyperEdge”. 24
The frameworks “SuperHyperGraph” and “neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” 25
are chosen and elected to research about “Cancer’s Recognitions”. Thus these 26
complex and dense SuperHyperModels open up some avenues to research on 27

theoretical segments and “Cancer’s Recognitions”. Some avenues are posed to 28
pursue this research. It’s also officially collected in the form of some questions 29
and some problems. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then an “1-failed SuperHy- 30
perForcing” Z(N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) 31
is the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of black SuperHyperVertices 32
(whereas SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white) such that V (G) 33

isn’t turned black after finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: a 34
white SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black SuperHyperVertex if it is the 35
only white SuperHyperNeighbor of a black SuperHyperVertex. The additional 36
condition is referred by “1-” about the usage of any black SuperHyperVertex 37
i
Abstract
only once to act on white SuperHyperVertex to be black SuperHyperVertex; 38

a “neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing” Zn (N SHG) for a neutrosophic 39
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of 40
a SuperHyperSet S of black SuperHyperVertices (whereas SuperHyperVertices 41

in V (G) \ S are colored white) such that V (G) isn’t turned black after finitely 42
many applications of “the color-change rule”: a white SuperHyperVertex is con- 43
verted to a black SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white SuperHyperNeighbor 44
of a black SuperHyperVertex. The additional condition is referred by “1-” about 45
the usage of any black SuperHyperVertex only once to act on white SuperHy- 46
perVertex to be black SuperHyperVertex. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 47

an “δ−1-failed SuperHyperForcing” is a maximal 1-failed SuperHyperForcing of 48
SuperHyperVertices with maximum cardinality such that either of the following 49
expressions hold for the (neutrosophic) cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of 50
s ∈ S : |S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ, |S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. The 51
first Expression, holds if S is an “δ−SuperHyperOffensive”. And the second Ex- 52
pression, holds if S is an “δ−SuperHyperDefensive”; a“neutrosophic δ−1-failed 53

SuperHyperForcing” is a maximal neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing of 54
SuperHyperVertices with maximum neutrosophic cardinality such that either of 55
the following expressions hold for the neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyper- 56
Neighbors of s ∈ S : |S ∩N (s)|neutrosophic > |S ∩(V \N (s))|neutrosophic +δ, |S ∩ 57
N (s)|neutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ. The first Expression, holds 58
if S is a “neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive”. And the second Expression, 59

holds if S is a “neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperDefensive”. It’s useful to define a 60
“neutrosophic” version of an 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Since there’s more 61
ways to get type-results to make an 1-failed SuperHyperForcing more under- 62
standable. For the sake of having neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, 63
there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of an “1-failed SuperHyperForcing”. The 64
SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from 65

the letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position 66
of labels to assign to the values. Assume an 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. It’s 67
redefined a neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing if the mentioned Table 68
holds, concerning, “The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, 69
and SuperHyperEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” with the 70
key points, “The Values of The Vertices & The Number of Position in Alphabet”, 71
“The Values of The SuperVertices&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The 72
Values of The Edges&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of 73
The HyperEdges&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The 74
SuperHyperEdges&The maximum Values of Its Endpoints”. To get structural 75
examples and instances, I’m going to introduce the next SuperHyperClass of 76
SuperHyperGraph based on an 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. It’s the main. It’ll 77

be disciplinary to have the foundation of previous definition in the kind of Su- 78
perHyperClass. If there’s a need to have all SuperHyperConnectivities until the 79
1-failed SuperHyperForcing, then it’s officially called an “1-failed SuperHyper- 80
Forcing” but otherwise, it isn’t an 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. There are some 81
instances about the clarifications for the main definition titled an “1-failed Supe- 82
rHyperForcing”. These two examples get more scrutiny and discernment since 83
there are characterized in the disciplinary ways of the SuperHyperClass based 84
on an 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. For the sake of having a neutrosophic 1-failed 85
SuperHyperForcing, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of a “neutrosophic 86
1-failed SuperHyperForcing” and a “neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing”. 87
ii
The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels 88
from the letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the 89
position of labels to assign to the values. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyper- 90
Graph. It’s redefined “neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” if the intended Table 91

holds. And an 1-failed SuperHyperForcing are redefined to an “neutrosophic 92
1-failed SuperHyperForcing” if the intended Table holds. It’s useful to define 93
“neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s more ways to get 94
neutrosophic type-results to make a neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing 95
more understandable. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are 96
some neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the intended Table holds. Thus 97

SuperHyperPath, SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, 98
SuperHyperMultiPartite, and SuperHyperWheel, are “neutrosophic SuperHy- 99
perPath”, “neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle”, “neutrosophic SuperHyperStar”, 100
“neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite”, “neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite”, 101
and “neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel” if the intended Table holds. A Su- 102
perHyperGraph has a “neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing” where it’s 103

the strongest [the maximum neutrosophic value from all the 1-failed Super- 104
HyperForcing amid the maximum value amid all SuperHyperVertices from 105
an 1-failed SuperHyperForcing.] 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. A graph is a 106
SuperHyperUniform if it’s a SuperHyperGraph and the number of elements 107
of SuperHyperEdges are the same. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 108
There are some SuperHyperClasses as follows. It’s SuperHyperPath if it’s only 109
one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two ex- 110
ceptions; it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid 111
two given SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex 112
as intersection amid all SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only 113
one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these 114
SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge in common; 115

it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid 116
two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi separate 117
sets, has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s a SuperHyperWheel if it’s only 118
one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and one 119
SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any common SuperVertex. The 120
SuperHyperModel proposes the specific designs and the specific architectures. 121
The SuperHyperModel is officially called “SuperHyperGraph” and “Neutro- 122
sophic SuperHyperGraph”. In this SuperHyperModel, The “specific” cells and 123
“specific group” of cells are SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperVertices” and 124
the common and intended properties between “specific” cells and “specific 125
group” of cells are SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperEdges”. Sometimes, it’s 126
useful to have some degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy, and neutrality to 127

have more precise SuperHyperModel which in this case the SuperHyperModel 128
is called “neutrosophic”. In the future research, the foundation will be based 129
on the “Cancer’s Recognitions” and the results and the definitions will be 130
introduced in redeemed ways. The recognition of the cancer in the long-term 131
function. The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called 132
SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified 133
by this research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified 134
since there are some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the 135
moves and the effects of the cancer on that region; this event leads us to 136
choose another model [it’s said to be neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have 137
iii
Abstract
convenient perception on what’s happened and what’s done. There are some 138
specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the names, and some 139
SuperHyperGeneral SuperHyperModels. The moves and the traces of the 140
cancer on the complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be 141
fantasized by a neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyper- 142
Star, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The 143
aim is to find either the longest 1-failed SuperHyperForcing or the strongest 144
1-failed SuperHyperForcing in those neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. For the 145
longest 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, called 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, and the 146
strongest SuperHyperCycle, called neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, 147

some general results are introduced. Beyond that in SuperHyperStar, all 148
possible SuperHyperPaths have only two SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough 149
since it’s essential to have at least three SuperHyperEdges to form any style of 150
a SuperHyperCycle. There isn’t any formation of any SuperHyperCycle but 151
literarily, it’s the deformation of any SuperHyperCycle. It, literarily, deforms 152
and it doesn’t form. A basic familiarity with SuperHyperGraph theory and 153
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory are proposed. 154
Keywords: SuperHyperGraph, (Neutrosophic) 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, 155
Cancer’s Recognition 156

AMS Subject Classification: 05C17, 05C22, 05E45 157
158
In the second chapter, in this research, new setting is introduced for new 159
SuperHyperNotion, namely, Neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Two 160
different types of SuperHyperDefinitions are debut for them but the research 161
goes further and the SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperUniform, and SuperHyper- 162
Class based on that are well-defined and well-reviewed. The literature review is 163
implemented in the whole of this research. For shining the elegancy and the 164
significancy of this research, the comparison between this SuperHyperNotion 165
with other SuperHyperNotions and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are 166
featured. The definitions are followed by the examples and the instances thus 167
the clarifications are driven with different tools. The applications are figured 168
out to make sense about the theoretical aspect of this ongoing research. The 169
“Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition” are the under research to figure out the 170
challenges make sense about ongoing and upcoming research. The special case 171
is up. The cells are viewed in the deemed ways. There are different types of 172
them. Some of them are individuals and some of them are well-modeled by the 173
group of cells. These types are all officially called “SuperHyperVertex” but the 174
relations amid them all officially called “SuperHyperEdge”. The frameworks 175
“SuperHyperGraph” and “neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” are chosen and elec- 176
ted to research about “Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition”. Thus these complex 177
and dense SuperHyperModels open up some avenues to research on theoretical 178
segments and “Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition”. Some avenues are posed to 179
pursue this research. It’s also officially collected in the form of some questions 180
and some problems. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then a “1-failed SuperHy- 181
perForcing” Z(N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) 182
is the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of black SuperHyperVertices 183
iv



SuperHyperVertices with maximum neutrosophic cardinality such that either 206
of the following expressions hold for the neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHy- 207
perNeighbors of s ∈ S : |S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + 208

δ, |S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ. The first Expres- 209
sion, holds if S is a “neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive”. And the second 210
Expression, holds if S is a “neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperDefensive”. It’s useful 211
to define “neutrosophic” version of 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Since there’s 212
more ways to get type-results to make 1-failed SuperHyperForcing more un- 213
derstandable. For the sake of having neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, 214

there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of “1-failed SuperHyperForcing”. The 215
of labels to assign to the values. Assume a 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. It’s 218
redefined neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing if the mentioned Table holds, 219
concerning, “The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and 220

SuperHyperEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” with the key 221
points, “The Values of The Vertices & The Number of Position in Alphabet”, 222

SuperHyperGraph based on 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. It’s the main. It’ll 228
be disciplinary to have the foundation of previous definition in the kind of 229
SuperHyperClass. If there’s a need to have all SuperHyperConnectivities until 230
the 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, then it’s officially called “1-failed SuperHyper- 231
Forcing” but otherwise, it isn’t 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. There are some 232
instances about the clarifications for the main definition titled “1-failed Super- 233
HyperForcing”. These two examples get more scrutiny and discernment since 234
on 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. For the sake of having neutrosophic 1-failed 236
v
Abstract
SuperHyperForcing, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of “neutrosophic 237

1-failed SuperHyperForcing” and “neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing”. 238
position of labels to assign to the values. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHy- 241
perGraph. It’s redefined “neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” if the intended 242
Table holds. And 1-failed SuperHyperForcing are redefined “neutrosophic 243
1-failed SuperHyperForcing” if the intended Table holds. It’s useful to define 244
“neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s more ways to get 245
neutrosophic type-results to make neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing 246

more understandable. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are 247
some neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the intended Table holds. Thus 248

and “neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel” if the intended Table holds. A Supe- 253
rHyperGraph has “neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing” where it’s the 254
strongest [the maximum neutrosophic value from all 1-failed SuperHyperForcing 255
amid the maximum value amid all SuperHyperVertices from a 1-failed Super- 256
HyperForcing.] 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. A graph is SuperHyperUniform 257
if it’s SuperHyperGraph and the number of elements of SuperHyperEdges 258

are the same. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 259
SuperHyperClasses as follows. It’s SuperHyperPath if it’s only one Super- 260
Vertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; 261
it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 262
given SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as 263
intersection amid all SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only 264

sets, has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s SuperHyperWheel if it’s only 269
group” of cells are SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperEdges”. Sometimes, it’s 277
useful to have some degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy, and neutrality to 278
have more precise SuperHyperModel which in this case the SuperHyperModel 279
is called “neutrosophic”. In the future research, the foundation will be based on 280
the “Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition” and the results and the definitions will 281
be introduced in redeemed ways. The neutrosophic recognition of the cancer 282

in the long-term function. The specific region has been assigned by the model 283
[it’s called SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer 284
is identified by this research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be 285
easily identified since there are some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality 286
vi
about the moves and the effects of the cancer on that region; this event leads 287
us to choose another model [it’s said to be neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to 288
have convenient perception on what’s happened and what’s done. There are 289
some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the names, and 290
some SuperHyperGeneral SuperHyperModels. The moves and the traces of the 291

some general results are introduced. Beyond that in SuperHyperStar, all 299
possible SuperHyperPaths have only two SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough 300

Keywords: Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, Neutrosophic 1-Failed Super- 306
HyperForcing, Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 307

309
The following references are cited by chapters. 310

311
[Ref1] Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 312
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 313
10.13140/RG.2.2.29430.88642). 314
315
[Ref2] Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 316

SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Can- 317
cer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions And Beyond”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 318
10.13140/RG.2.2.36141.77287). 319
320
The links to the contributions of this research book are listed below. 321
322
vii
Abstract
viii
[Ref1] Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi:
10.13140/RG.2.2.29430.88642).
323
Article #100 324

325
(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And 326
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs 327
328
@Wordpress: https://drhenrygarrett.wordpress.com/2022/12/31/failed- 329

superhyperforcing-19/ 330
331
@Preprints_org: ?????? 332
333
@ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/366734034 334

335
@Scribd: https://www.scribd.com/document/617236838 336
337
@Academia: https://www.academia.edu/94066409/ 338
339
ix
Abstract
@Zenodo: https://zenodo.org/record/7497386 340
[Ref2] Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyper-

Function To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recogni-
tions And Beyond”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.36141.77287).
341
Article #101 342

343
Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction To 344
Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 345
And Beyond 346
347
@Wordpress:https://drhenrygarrett.wordpress.com/2022/12/31/failed-superhyperforcing-
348
19/ 349
350
x
xi
Abstract
xii
352
@ResearchGate:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/366734034 353
354
@Scribd:https://www.scribd.com/document/617236838 355
356
@Academia:https://www.academia.edu/94066409/ 357
358
@Zenodo:https://zenodo.org/record/7497386 359
360
Some studies and researches about neutrosophic graphs, are proposed as 361
book in the following by Henry Garrett (2022) which is indexed by Google 362
Scholar and has more than 2479 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Beyond Neutro- 363
sophic Graphs” and published by Ohio: E-publishing: Educational Publisher 364
1091 West 1st Ave Grandview Heights, Ohio 43212 United State. This research 365
book covers different types of notions and settings in neutrosophic graph theory 366
xiii
Abstract
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. 367

368
369
[Ref] Henry Garrett, (2022). “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs”, Ohio: E-publishing:
Educational Publisher 1091 West 1st Ave Grandview Heights, Ohio 43212 United States.
ISBN: 978-1-59973-725-6 (http://fs.unm.edu/BeyondNeutrosophicGraphs.pdf).
370
[Ref] Henry Garrett, (2022). “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs”, 371
Ohio: E-publishing: Educational Publisher 1091 West 1st Ave Grand- 372
view Heights, Ohio 43212 United States. ISBN: 978-1-59973-725-6 373
(http://fs.unm.edu/BeyondNeutrosophicGraphs.pdf). 374
375
Also, some studies and researches about neutrosophic graphs, are proposed 376
as book in the following by Henry Garrett (2022) which is indexed by Google 377
Scholar and has more than 3192 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Neutrosophic 378
Duality” and published by Florida: GLOBAL KNOWLEDGE - Publishing 379
House 848 Brickell Ave Ste 950 Miami, Florida 33131 United States. This 380
research book presents different types of notions SuperHyperResolving and 381
SuperHyperDominating in the setting of duality in neutrosophic graph theory 382
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. This research book has scrutiny 383
on the complement of the intended set and the intended set, simultaneously. 384
It’s smart to consider a set but acting on its complement that what’s done in 385
this research book which is popular in the terms of high readers in Scribd. 386
[Ref] Henry Garrett, (2022). “Neutrosophic Duality”, Florida: GLOBAL KNOW-

LEDGE - Publishing House 848 Brickell Ave Ste 950 Miami, Florida 33131 United
States. ISBN: 978-1-59973-743-0 (http://fs.unm.edu/NeutrosophicDuality.pdf).
387
[Ref] Henry Garrett, (2022). “Neutrosophic Duality”, Florida: 388

GLOBAL KNOWLEDGE - Publishing House 848 Brickell Ave Ste 389
xiv
950 Miami, Florida 33131 United States. ISBN: 978-1-59973-743-0 390
(http://fs.unm.edu/NeutrosophicDuality.pdf). 391
Background 392
There are some researches covering the topic of this research. In what follows, 393
there are some discussion and literature reviews about them. 394
First article is titled “properties of SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic Super- 395
xv
Abstract
xvi
HyperGraph” in Ref. [HG1] by Henry Garrett (2022). It’s first step toward the 396
research on neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs. This research article is published 397
on the journal “Neutrosophic Sets and Systems” in issue 49 and the pages 531- 398
561. In this research article, different types of notions like dominating, resolving, 399
coloring, Eulerian(Hamiltonian) neutrosophic path, n-Eulerian(Hamiltonian) 400
neutrosophic path, zero forcing number, zero forcing neutrosophic- number, 401
independent number, independent neutrosophic-number, clique number, clique 402
neutrosophic-number, matching number, matching neutrosophic-number, girth, 403
neutrosophic girth, 1-zero-forcing number, 1-zero- forcing neutrosophic-number, 404
failed 1-zero-forcing number, failed 1-zero-forcing neutrosophic-number, global- 405

offensive alliance, t-offensive alliance, t-defensive alliance, t-powerful alliance, 406
and global-powerful alliance are defined in SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic 407
SuperHyperGraph. Some Classes of SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic Su- 408
perHyperGraph are cases of research. Some results are applied in family of 409
SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Thus this research 410
article has concentrated on the vast notions and introducing the majority of 411
notions. 412
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “neutrosophic co-degree 413
and neutrosophic degree alongside chromatic numbers in the setting of some 414
classes related to neutrosophic hypergraphs” in Ref. [HG2] by Henry Garrett 415
(2022). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHy- 416
perGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on general forms without 417

using neutrosophic classes of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s published in 418
prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Journal of Current Trends in Com- 419
puter Science Research (JCTCSR)” with abbreviation “J Curr Trends Comp 420
Sci Res” in volume 1 and issue 1 with pages 06-14. The research article studies 421
deeply with choosing neutrosophic hypergraphs instead of neutrosophic Super- 422
HyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results based on initial 423
background. 424
In some articles are titled “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Re- 425
cognitions Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances” 426
in Ref. [HG3] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances 427
With SuperHyperDefensive and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On 428
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling 429

of Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses” in 430
Ref. [HG4] by Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph 431
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 432
Recognitions” in Ref. [HG5] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Some SuperHy- 433
perDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs 434
and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s Treatments” in 435

Ref. [HG6] by Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperDominating and Super- 436
HyperResolving on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in 437
Game Theory and Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [HG7] by Henry 438
Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 439
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutro- 440
sophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [HG8] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic 441

Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating and Neutrosophic 442
SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [HG9] by Henry Gar- 443
rett (2022), “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 444
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in 445
xvii
Abstract
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)” in Ref. [HG10] by Henry Garrett 446
(2022), there are some endeavors to formalize the basic SuperHyperNotions 447
about neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. 448
Some studies and researches about neutrosophic graphs, are proposed as book 449
in Ref. [HG11] by Henry Garrett (2022) which is indexed by Google Scholar 450
and has more than 2479 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Beyond Neutrosophic 451
Graphs” and published by Ohio: E-publishing: Educational Publisher 1091 452
West 1st Ave Grandview Heights, Ohio 43212 United State. This research book 453
covers different types of notions and settings in neutrosophic graph theory and 454
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. 455
Also, some studies and researches about neutrosophic graphs, are proposed as 456
book in Ref. [HG12] by Henry Garrett (2022) which is indexed by Google 457

xviii
Bibliography 467
HG1 [1] Henry Garrett, “Properties of SuperHyperGraph and Neut- 468

rosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Neutrosophic Sets and Sys- 469
tems 49 (2022) 531-561 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.6456413). 470

(http://fs.unm.edu/NSS/NeutrosophicSuperHyperGraph34.pdf). 471
(https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nss_journal/vol49/iss1/34). 472
HG2 [2] Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Co-degree and Neutrosophic Degree along- 473
side Chromatic Numbers in the Setting of Some Classes Related to Neut- 474
rosophic Hypergraphs”, J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res 1(1) (2022) 06-14. 475
HG3 [3] Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 476

Recognitions Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive Super- 477
HyperAlliances”, Preprints 2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/pre- 478

prints202212.0549.v1). 479
HG4 [4] Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDe- 480

fensive and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) 481
SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 482
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 483
2022, 2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 484
HG5 [5] Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 485
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions”, 486

Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 487
HG6 [6] Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees 488

on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside 489
Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 490
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 491
HG7 [7] Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on 492

Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in Game Theory 493
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 494

10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 495
HG8 [8] Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperFor- 496

cing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recogni- 497
tions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 498
10.13140/RG.2.2.11369.16487). 499
xix
Bibliography
HG9 [9] Henry Garrett, “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyper- 500
Dominating and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph”, 501
ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29173.86244). 502
HG10 [10] Henry Garrett, “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study 503
Some Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 504
(NSHE) in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)”, ResearchGate 2022 505
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.25385.88160). 506
HG11 [11] Henry Garrett, (2022). “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs”, Ohio: E- 507
publishing: Educational Publisher 1091 West 1st Ave Grand- 508
HG12 [12] Henry Garrett, (2022). “Neutrosophic Duality”, Florida: GLOBAL 511
KNOWLEDGE - Publishing House 848 Brickell Ave Ste 950 512
Miami, Florida 33131 United States. ISBN: 978-1-59973-743-0 513
1 [13] F. Smarandache, “Extension of HyperGraph to n-SuperHyperGraph and to 515

Plithogenic n-SuperHyperGraph, and Extension of HyperAlgebra to n-ary 516
(Classical-/Neutro-/Anti-) HyperAlgebra”, Neutrosophic Sets and Systems 517
33 (2020) 290-296. (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3783103). 518
2 [14] M. Akram et al., “Single-valued neutrosophic Hypergraphs”, TWMS J. 519

App. Eng. Math. 8 (1) (2018) 122-135. 520
3 [15] S. Broumi et al., “Single-valued neutrosophic graphs”, Journal of New 521

Theory 10 (2016) 86-101. 522
4 [16] H. Wang et al., “Single-valued neutrosophic sets”, Multispace and 523

Multistructure 4 (2010) 410-413. 524
5 [17] H.T. Nguyen and E.A. Walker, “A First course in fuzzy logic”, CRC 525
Press, 2006. 526
xx
Bibliography
| Book #63
527
| Title: SuperHyperForcing
528
#Latest_Updates
529
#The_Links
530
Available at Twitter, ResearchGate, Scribd, Academia, Zenodo, LinkedIn
531
– 532
533
#Latest_Updates 534
535
#The_Links 536
537
| Book #64 538
539
|Title: Failed SuperHyperForcing 540

541
| Available at Twitter, ResearchGate, Scribd, Academia, Zenodo, LinkedIn 542
543
– 544
545
| Publisher | 546
(Paperback): ??????
547
(Hardcover): ??????
548
– 549
550
| ISBN | 551
(Paperback): ??????
552
(Hardcover): ??????
553
– 554
555
#Latest_Updates 556
557
#The_Links 558
559
| @ResearchGate: ?????? 560
561
| @Scribd: ?????? 562
563
| @Academia: ?????? 564

565
| @Zenodo: ?????? 566
567
| @Wordpress: ?????? 568
569
570
xxi
Bibliography
Failed SuperHyperForcing #20 571

572
The Link: 573
574
https://drhenrygarrett.wordpress.com/2022/12/31/failed-superhyperforcing- 575
20/ 576
577
– 578
579
Posted by Dr. Henry Garrett 580

581
December 31, 2022 582
583
Posted in 0064| Failed SuperHyperForcing 584
585
Tags: 586
1-SuperHyperForcing, Applications, Applied Mathematics, Applied Re- 587
search, Cancer, Cancer’s Recognitions, Combinatorics, Edge, Edges, Failed 588
1-SuperHyperForcing, Failed SuperHyperForcing, Graph Theory, Graphs, Latest 589
Research, Literature Reviews, Modeling, Neutrosophic 1-SuperHyperForcing, 590
Neutrosophic Failed 1-SuperHyperForcing, Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyper- 591
Forcing, Neutrosophic Graph, Neutrosophic Graph Theory, Neutrosophic 592

Science, Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses, Neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing, 593
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Theory, 594
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs, Open Problems, Open Questions, Problems, 595
Pure Math, Pure Mathematics, Questions, Real-World Applications, Recent 596
Research, Recognitions, Research, Research Article, Research Articles, Research 597
Book, Research Chapter, Research Chapters, Review, SuperHyperClasses, 598

SuperHyperEdges, SuperHyperForcing, SuperHyperGraph, SuperHyperGraph 599
Theory, SuperHyperGraphs, SuperHyperModeling, SuperHyperVertices, Theor- 600
etical Research, Vertex, Vertices 601
602
603
In this research book, there are two research chapters “Extreme 1-Failed SuperHyper-
Forcing” and “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing” about some researches on
Extreme 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing and neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing.
604
xxii
Acknowledgements 605
The author is going to express his gratitude and his appreciation about the 606
brains and their hands which are showing the importance of words in the 607
framework of every wisdom, knowledge, arts, and emotions which are streaming 608
in the lines from the words, notions, ideas and approaches to have the material The
609 words of mind and the
and the contents which are only the way to flourish the minds, to grow the minds of words, are too
610
eligible to be in the stage
notions, to advance the ways and to make the stable ways to be amid events 611
of acknowledgements
and storms of minds for surviving from them and making the outstanding 612
experiences about the tools and the ideas to be on the star lines of words and 613
shining like stars, forever. 614
xxiii
Contents 615
Abstract i 616
Bibliography xix 617
Acknowledgements xxiii 618
Contents xxv 619
List of Figures xxvi 620
List of Tables xxvii 621
1 Extreme 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing 1 622
1.1 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And 623
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 624
1.2 Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 625
1.3 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 626
1.4 1-failed SuperHyperForcing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 627
1.5 Results on SuperHyperClasses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 628
1.6 General Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 629
1.7 Applications in Cancer’s Recognitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 630
1.8 Open Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 631
1.9 Conclusion and Closing Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 632
Bibliography 125 633
2 Neutrosophic Failed 1-SuperHyperForcing 127 634
2.1 Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyper- 635

Function To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s 636
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 637
2.2 Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 638
2.3 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 639
2.4 Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing . . . . . . . . . . . 145 640
2.5 Results on Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses . . . . . . . . . . 197 641
2.6 General Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217 642
2.7 Applications in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition . . . . . . 266 643
2.8 Open Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268 644
xxv
Contents
2.9 Conclusion and Closing Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269 645
Bibliography 271 646
xxvi
List of Figures 647
1.1 The SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Notions of 1-failed 648

SuperHyperForcing in the Examples (1.4.1) and (2.4.1) . . . . . . 45 649
















xxvii
List of Figures



SuperHyperForcing in the Examples (1.4.1) and (??) . . . . . . . . 56 687
1.21 A SuperHyperPath Associated to the Notions of 1-failed SuperHy- 688

perForcing in the Example (1.5.3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 689
1.22 A SuperHyperCycle Associated to the Notions of 1-failed Super- 690

HyperForcing in the Example (1.5.5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 691
1.23 A SuperHyperStar Associated to the Notions of 1-failed SuperHy- 692

perForcing in the Example (1.5.7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 693
1.24 A SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of 1-failed 694
SuperHyperForcing in the Example (1.5.9) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 695
1.25 A SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of 1-failed 696

SuperHyperForcing in the Example (1.5.11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 697
1.26 A SuperHyperWheel Associated to the Notions of 1-failed Super- 698

HyperForcing in the Example (1.5.13) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 699
1.27 A SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of 1-failed 700

SuperHyperForcing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 701
1.28 A SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of 1-failed 702

SuperHyperForcing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 703
2.1 The neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Notions of 704

neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing in the Examples (1.4.1) 705
and (2.4.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 706

and (2.4.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178 709

and (2.4.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178 712

and (2.4.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 715

and (2.4.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 718

and (2.4.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180 721

and (2.4.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180 724

and (2.4.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 727

and (2.4.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 730
xxviii
List of Figures

and (2.4.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 733

and (2.4.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 736
and (2.4.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 739

and (2.4.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 742
and (2.4.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184 745

and (2.4.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 748
and (2.4.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 751

and (2.4.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186 754
and (2.4.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 757

and (2.4.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188 760
and (2.4.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188 763
2.21 A neutrosophic SuperHyperPath Associated to the Notions of 1- 764

failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing in the Example (2.5.3) . . 200 765
2.22 A neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle Associated to the Notions of 766
1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing in the Example (2.5.5) . 204 767
2.23 A neutrosophic SuperHyperStar Associated to the Notions of 1- 768
failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing in the Example (2.5.7) . . 207 769
2.24 A neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of 770

2.25 A neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions 772
of 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing in the Example (2.5.11) 214 773
2.26 A neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel Associated to the Notions of 774
2.27 A neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of 776

1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267 777
2.28 A neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions 778
of 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268 779
xxix
List of Tables 780
1.1 The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and 781

SuperHyperEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 782
Mentioned in the Definition (1.3.22) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 783

SuperHyperEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, 785


SuperHyperEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite 121 791
1.5 The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and Su- 792
perHyperEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite 121 793
1.6 A Brief Overview about Advantages and Limitations of this Research 123 794


SuperHyperEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, 799


SuperHyperEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath 805
Mentioned in the Example (2.5.3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200 806

SuperHyperEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle 808
SuperHyperEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar 811

2.7 The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and Su- 813
perHyperEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite 814
xxx
List of Tables

SuperHyperEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperMulti- 817
partite N SHM : (V, E), Mentioned in the Example (2.5.11) . . . . 214 818

SuperHyperEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 820
N SHW : (V, E), Mentioned in the Example (2.5.13) . . . . . . . . 218 821
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges Belong to The neutrosophic Super- 823
HyperBipartite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267 824

neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges Belong to The neutrosophic Super- 826
HyperMultipartite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268 827
2.12 A Brief Overview about Advantages and Limitations of this Research 270 828
xxxi
CHAPTER 1 829
Extreme 1-Failed 830
SuperHyperForcing 831
The following sections are cited as follows, which is my 100th manuscript and I 832
use prefix 100 as number before any labelling for items. 833
834
[Ref1] Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 835
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 836
10.13140/RG.2.2.29430.88642). 837
838
The links to the contributions of this research chapter are listed below. 839
840
1
1. Extreme 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing
2
[Ref1] Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi:
10.13140/RG.2.2.29430.88642).
841
Article #100 842

843
(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And 844
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs 845
846
@Wordpress: https://drhenrygarrett.wordpress.com/2022/12/31/failed- 847

superhyperforcing-19/ 848
849
851
@ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/366734034 852

853
@Scribd: https://www.scribd.com/document/617236838 854
855
@Academia: https://www.academia.edu/94066409/ 856
857
3
@Zenodo: https://zenodo.org/record/7497386 858

859
860
1.1 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions 861
And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs 862
1.2 Abstract 863
In this research, new setting is introduced for new SuperHyperNotions, namely, 864
an 1-failed SuperHyperForcing and Neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 865
Two different types of SuperHyperDefinitions are debut for them but the 866
research goes further and the SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperUniform, and 867
SuperHyperClass based on that are well-defined and well-reviewed. The lit- 868
4
1.2. Abstract
erature review is implemented in the whole of this research. For shining the 869
elegancy and the significancy of this research, the comparison between this 870
SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions and fundamental SuperHy- 871
perNumbers are featured. The definitions are followed by the examples and the 872
instances thus the clarifications are driven with different tools. The applications 873
are figured out to make sense about the theoretical aspect of this ongoing 874
research. The “Cancer’s Recognitions” are the under research to figure out 875
the challenges make sense about ongoing and upcoming research. The special 876
case is up. The cells are viewed in the deemed ways. There are different types 877
of them. Some of them are individuals and some of them are well-modeled 878
by the group of cells. These types are all officially called “SuperHyperVertex” 879
but the relations amid them all officially called “SuperHyperEdge”. The frame- 880
works “SuperHyperGraph” and “neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” are chosen 881
and elected to research about “Cancer’s Recognitions”. Thus these complex 882
and dense SuperHyperModels open up some avenues to research on theoretical 883
segments and “Cancer’s Recognitions”. Some avenues are posed to pursue 884
this research. It’s also officially collected in the form of some questions and 885
some problems. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then an “1-failed SuperHyper- 886
Forcing” Z(N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is 887
the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of black SuperHyperVertices 888


SuperHyperVertices with maximum neutrosophic cardinality such that either of 911
the following expressions hold for the neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyper- 912
Neighbors of s ∈ S : |S ∩N (s)|neutrosophic > |S ∩(V \N (s))|neutrosophic +δ, |S ∩ 913
N (s)|neutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ. The first Expression, holds 914

if S is a “neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive”. And the second Expression, 915
holds if S is a “neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperDefensive”. It’s useful to define a 916
“neutrosophic” version of an 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Since there’s more 917
ways to get type-results to make an 1-failed SuperHyperForcing more under- 918
5
standable. For the sake of having neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, 919

there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of an “1-failed SuperHyperForcing”. The 920
of labels to assign to the values. Assume an 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. It’s 923
redefined a neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing if the mentioned Table 924
holds, concerning, “The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, 925
and SuperHyperEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” with the 926
key points, “The Values of The Vertices & The Number of Position in Alphabet”, 927
SuperHyperGraph based on an 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. It’s the main. It’ll 933
be disciplinary to have the foundation of previous definition in the kind of Su- 934
perHyperClass. If there’s a need to have all SuperHyperConnectivities until the 935
1-failed SuperHyperForcing, then it’s officially called an “1-failed SuperHyper- 936
Forcing” but otherwise, it isn’t an 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. There are some 937
instances about the clarifications for the main definition titled an “1-failed Supe- 938
rHyperForcing”. These two examples get more scrutiny and discernment since 939
on an 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. For the sake of having a neutrosophic 1-failed 941
SuperHyperForcing, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of a “neutrosophic 942
1-failed SuperHyperForcing” and a “neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing”. 943
position of labels to assign to the values. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHy- 946

perGraph. It’s redefined “neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” if the intended 947
Table holds. And an 1-failed SuperHyperForcing are redefined to an “neutro- 948
sophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing” if the intended Table holds. It’s useful to 949
define “neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s more ways to 950
get neutrosophic type-results to make a neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperFor- 951
cing more understandable. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There 952

are some neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the intended Table holds. Thus 953
and “neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel” if the intended Table holds. A Super- 958

HyperGraph has a “neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing” where it’s the 959
strongest [the maximum neutrosophic value from all the 1-failed SuperHy- 960
perForcing amid the maximum value amid all SuperHyperVertices from an 961
1-failed SuperHyperForcing.] 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. A graph is a Su- 962
perHyperUniform if it’s a SuperHyperGraph and the number of elements of 963
SuperHyperEdges are the same. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 964

There are some SuperHyperClasses as follows. It’s SuperHyperPath if it’s only 965
one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two ex- 966
ceptions; it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid 967
two given SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex 968
6
1.2. Abstract
as intersection amid all SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only 969


sets, has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s a SuperHyperWheel if it’s only 974

group” of cells are SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperEdges”. Sometimes, 982
it’s useful to have some degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy, and neutrality 983
to have more precise SuperHyperModel which in this case the SuperHyper- 984
Model is called “neutrosophic”. In the future research, the foundation will 985
be based on the “Cancer’s Recognitions” and the results and the definitions 986
will be introduced in redeemed ways. The recognition of the cancer in the 987
long-term function. The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s 988
called SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is 989
identified by this research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily 990
identified since there are some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about 991
the moves and the effects of the cancer on that region; this event leads us 992
to choose another model [it’s said to be neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to 993

some general results are introduced. Beyond that in SuperHyperStar, all pos- 1004
sible SuperHyperPaths have only two SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough 1005
Keywords: SuperHyperGraph, (Neutrosophic) 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, 1011
Cancer’s Recognitions 1012

7
1.3 Background 1014


notions. 1034

background. 1046


8
1.3. Background



Motivation and Contributions 1089
In this research, there are some ideas in the featured frameworks of motivations. 1090
I try to bring the motivations in the narrative ways. Some cells have been 1091
faced with some attacks from the situation which is caused by the cancer’s 1092
attacks. In this case, there are some embedded analysis on the ongoing situations 1093
which in that, the cells could be labelled as some groups and some groups or 1094
individuals have excessive labels which all are raised from the behaviors to 1095
overcome the cancer’s attacks. In the embedded situations, the individuals 1096
of cells and the groups of cells could be considered as “new groups”. Thus it 1097
motivates us to find the proper SuperHyperModels for getting more proper 1098
analysis on this messy story. I’ve found the SuperHyperModels which are 1099
officially called “SuperHyperGraphs” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”. 1100

In this SuperHyperModel, the cells and the groups of cells are defined as 1101
“SuperHyperVertices” and the relations between the individuals of cells and 1102
the groups of cells are defined as “SuperHyperEdges”. Thus it’s another 1103
motivation for us to do research on this SuperHyperModel based on the “Cancer’s 1104
Recognitions”. Sometimes, the situations get worst. The situation is passed 1105
from the certainty and precise style. Thus it’s the beyond them. There 1106
are three descriptions, namely, the degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy 1107
and neutrality, for any object based on vague forms, namely, incomplete 1108
data, imprecise data, and uncertain analysis. The latter model could be 1109
considered on the previous SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperModel. It’s 1110
9
SuperHyperGraph but it’s officially called “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”. 1111

The cancer is the disease but the model is going to figure out what’s going 1112
on this phenomenon. The special case of this disease is considered and as 1113
the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells are 1114
under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region 1115
are the matter of mind. The recognition of the cancer could help to find 1116
some treatments for this disease. The SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic 1117
SuperHyperGraph are the SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognitions” 1118
and both bases are the background of this research. Sometimes the cancer has 1119
been happened on the region, full of cells, groups of cells and embedded styles. 1120
In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes some SuperHyperNotions 1121
based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the forms of alliances’ 1122
styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are formally called 1123
“1-failed SuperHyperForcing” in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. The 1124
prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to figure out 1125
the background for the SuperHyperNotions. The recognition of the cancer in 1126
the long-term function. The specific region has been assigned by the model 1127
us to choose another model [it’s said to be neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] 1132

to have convenient perception on what’s happened and what’s done. There 1133
are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the names, 1134
and some general models. The moves and the traces of the cancer on the 1135
complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized 1136
by a neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, 1137
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim 1138

is to find either the optimal 1-failed SuperHyperForcing or the neutrosophic 1139
1-failed SuperHyperForcing in those neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. Some 1140
general results are introduced. Beyond that in SuperHyperStar, all possible 1141
SuperHyperPaths have only two SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough since 1142
it’s essential to have at least three SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a 1143
SuperHyperCycle. There isn’t any formation of any SuperHyperCycle but 1144

and it doesn’t form. 1146
Question 1.3.1. How to define the SuperHyperNotions and to do research on 1147

them to find the “ amount of 1-failed SuperHyperForcing” of either individual 1148
of cells or the groups of cells based on the fixed cell or the fixed group of cells, 1149
extensively, the “amount of 1-failed SuperHyperForcing” based on the fixed 1150
groups of cells or the fixed groups of group of cells? 1151
Question 1.3.2. What are the best descriptions for the “Cancer’s Recognitions” 1152
in terms of these messy and dense SuperHyperModels where embedded notions 1153
are illustrated? 1154
It’s motivation to find notions to use in this dense model is titled 1155
“SuperHyperGraphs”. Thus it motivates us to define different types of “1- 1156
failed SuperHyperForcing” and “neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing” on 1157
“SuperHyperGraph” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. Then the research 1158
10
1.3. Background
has taken more motivations to define SuperHyperClasses and to find some 1159
connections amid this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions. It 1160
motivates us to get some instances and examples to make clarifications about 1161
the framework of this research. The general results and some results about some 1162
connections are some avenues to make key point of this research, “Cancer’s 1163
Recognitions”, more understandable and more clear. 1164
The framework of this research is as follows. In the beginning, I introduce basic 1165
definitions to clarify about preliminaries. In the subsection “Preliminaries”, 1166
initial definitions about SuperHyperGraphs and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1167
are deeply-introduced and in-depth-discussed. The elementary concepts are 1168

clarified and illustrated completely and sometimes review literature are applied 1169
to make sense about what’s going to figure out about the upcoming sections. The 1170
main definitions and their clarifications alongside some results about new notions, 1171
1-failed SuperHyperForcing and neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, are 1172
figured out in sections “1-failed SuperHyperForcing” and “Neutrosophic 1-failed 1173
SuperHyperForcing”. In the sense of tackling on getting results and in order to 1174

make sense about continuing the research, the ideas of SuperHyperUniform and 1175
Neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform are introduced and as their consequences, 1176
corresponded SuperHyperClasses are figured out to debut what’s done in this 1177
section, titled “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Neutrosophic 1178
SuperHyperClasses”. As going back to origin of the notions, there are some smart 1179
steps toward the common notions to extend the new notions in new frameworks, 1180
SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, in the sections “Results 1181
on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. The 1182
starter research about the general SuperHyperRelations and as concluding and 1183
closing section of theoretical research are contained in the section “General 1184
Results”. Some general SuperHyperRelations are fundamental and they are 1185
well-known as fundamental SuperHyperNotions as elicited and discussed in 1186

the sections, “General Results”, “1-failed SuperHyperForcing”, “Neutrosophic 1187
1-failed SuperHyperForcing”, “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results 1188
on Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. There are curious questions about 1189
what’s done about the SuperHyperNotions to make sense about excellency 1190
of this research and going to figure out the word “best” as the description and 1191
adjective for this research as presented in section, “1-failed SuperHyperForcing”. 1192

The keyword of this research debut in the section “Applications in Cancer’s 1193
Recognitions” with two cases and subsections “Case 1: The Initial Steps Toward 1194
SuperHyperBipartite as SuperHyperModel” and “Case 2: The Increasing Steps 1195
Toward SuperHyperMultipartite as SuperHyperModel”. In the section, “Open 1196
Problems”, there are some scrutiny and discernment on what’s done and what’s 1197
happened in this research in the terms of “questions” and “problems” to make 1198
sense to figure out this research in featured style. The advantages and the 1199
limitations of this research alongside about what’s done in this research to make 1200
sense and to get sense about what’s figured out are included in the section, 1201
“Conclusion and Closing Remarks”. 1202
Preliminaries 1203
In this subsection, the basic material which is used in this research, is presented. 1204
Also, the new ideas and their clarifications are elicited. 1205
11
Definition 1.3.3 (Neutrosophic Set). (Ref.[2],Definition 2.1,p.87).

Let X be a space of points (objects) with generic elements in X denoted by x;
then the neutrosophic set A (NS A) is an object having the form
A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}

+
where the functions T, I, F : X →]− 0, 1 [ define respectively the a truth-
membership function, an indeterminacy-membership function, and a
falsity-membership function of the element x ∈ X to the set A with the
condition
−
0 ≤ TA (x) + IA (x) + FA (x) ≤ 3+ .
The functions TA (x), IA (x) and FA (x) are real standard or nonstandard subsets 1206
+
of ]− 0, 1 [. 1207
Definition 1.3.4 (Single Valued Neutrosophic Set). (Ref.[5],Definition 6,p.2).

Let X be a space of points (objects) with generic elements in X denoted
by x. A single valued neutrosophic set A (SVNS A) is characterized
by truth-membership function TA (x), an indeterminacy-membership function
IA (x), and a falsity-membership function FA (x). For each point x in X,
TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) ∈ [0, 1]. A SVNS A can be written as
A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}.
Definition 1.3.5. 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 .
Definition 1.3.6. 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 1.3.7 (Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). (Ref.[4],Definition 1208

3,p.291). 1209
Assume V 0 is a given set. A neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S 1210
is an ordered pair S = (V, E), where 1211
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued neutrosophic subsets 1212
of V 0 ; 1213
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 1214
1, 2, . . . , n); 1215
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued neutrosophic 1216
subsets of V ; 1217
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 1218
0}, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 1219
12
1.3. Background
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 1220
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 1221
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n);

P
1222
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n );
0 0
P
0 1223
(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 . 1224
Here the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the neutrosophic Supe- 1225
rHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 1226
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of indeterminacy- 1227
membership and the degree of falsity-membership the neutrosophic Super- 1228
HyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 1229

TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the de- 1230
gree of indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the 1231
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1232
(NSHE) E. Thus, the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of neutrosophic 1233
SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the 1234
sets V and E are crisp sets. 1235
Definition 1.3.8 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1236

(NSHG)). (Ref.[4],Section 4,pp.291-292). 1237
Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered pair S = 1238
(V, E). The neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the neutrosophic 1239
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vi of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 1240

S = (V, E) could be characterized as follow-up items. 1241
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 1242
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 1243
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 1244
edge; 1245
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 1246
HyperEdge; 1247
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 1248
is called SuperEdge; 1249
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 1250
is called SuperHyperEdge. 1251
If we choose different types of binary operations, then we could get hugely 1252
diverse types of general forms of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG). 1253
13
Definition 1.3.9 (t-norm). (Ref.[3], Definition 5.1.1, pp.82-83). 1254

A binary operation ⊗ : [0, 1] × [0, 1] → [0, 1] is a t-norm if it satisfies the 1255
following for x, y, z, w ∈ [0, 1]: 1256
(i) 1 ⊗ x = x; 1257
(ii) x ⊗ y = y ⊗ x; 1258
(iii) x ⊗ (y ⊗ z) = (x ⊗ y) ⊗ z; 1259
(iv) If w ≤ x and y ≤ z then w ⊗ y ≤ x ⊗ z. 1260

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 1.3.11. The support of X ⊂ A of the single valued neutrosophic

set A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}:
Definition 1.3.12. (General Forms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1261

(NSHG)). 1262

of V 0 ; 1266
1, 2, . . . , n); 1268
subsets of V ; 1270
0}, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 1272
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 1273
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 1274
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n);

P
1275
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n ).
0 0
P
0 1276
14
1.3. Background


edge; 1297
HyperEdge; 1299
This SuperHyperModel is too messy and too dense. Thus there’s a need to 1304
have some restrictions and conditions on SuperHyperGraph. The special case 1305
of this SuperHyperGraph makes the patterns and regularities. 1306
Definition 1.3.14. A graph is SuperHyperUniform if it’s SuperHyperGraph 1307

and the number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. 1308
To get more visions on 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, the some SuperHyper- 1309

Classes are introduced. It makes to have 1-failed SuperHyperForcing more 1310
understandable. 1311
Definition 1.3.15. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 1312

SuperHyperClasses as follows. 1313
(i). It’s SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid 1314
two given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; 1315
(ii). it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid 1316
two given SuperHyperEdges; 1317
15
(iii). it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all 1318
SuperHyperEdges; 1319
(iv). it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection 1320

amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two 1321
separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge in common; 1322
(v). it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection 1323

amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi 1324
(vi). it’s SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection 1326

amid two given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHy- 1327
perEdge with any common SuperVertex. 1328
Definition 1.3.16. Let an ordered pair S = (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHy-

perGraph (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 1329

SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V1 to neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) 1330
Vs if either of following conditions hold: 1331
(i) Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 1332
(ii) there’s a vertex vi ∈ Vi such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 1333
(iii) there’s a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi such that Vi0 , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 1334
(iv) there’s a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 1335
(v) there’s a SuperVertex Vi+1

0
∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , Vi+1
0
∈ Ei0 ; 1336
(vi) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 1337
(vii) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1

0
∈ Vi+1 such that 1338
0
vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 1339
(viii) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that 1340
Vi0 , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 1341
(ix) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1

0
0 0
Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 . 1343
Definition 1.3.17. (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths).

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 ,
could be characterized as follow-up items. 1344
16
1.3. Background
(i) If for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | = 2, then NSHP is called path; 1345
(ii) if for all Ej 0 , |Ej 0 | = 2, and there’s Vi , |Vi | ≥ 1, then NSHP is called 1346
SuperPath; 1347
(iii) if for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called HyperPath; 1348
(iv) if there are Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | ≥ 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called SuperHy- 1349
perPath. 1350
Definition 1.3.18. ((neutrosophic) 1-failed SuperHyperForcing). 1351

Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 1352
(i) an 1-failed SuperHyperForcing Z(N SHG) for a neutrosophic Super- 1353

HyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum cardinality of a SuperHy- 1354
perSet S of black SuperHyperVertices (whereas SuperHyperVertices in 1355
V (G)\S are colored white) such that V (G) isn’t turned black after finitely 1356
many applications of “the color-change rule”: a white SuperHyperVertex 1357
is converted to a black SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white SuperHy- 1358

perNeighbor of a black SuperHyperVertex with the additional condition 1359
is referred by “1-” about the usage of any black SuperHyperVertex only 1360
once to act on white SuperHyperVertex to be black SuperHyperVertex; 1361
(ii) a neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing Zn (N SHG) for a neut- 1362

rosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum neutrosophic 1363
cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of black SuperHyperVertices (whereas 1364
SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white) such that V (G) is 1365
turned black after finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: 1366
a white SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black SuperHyperVertex if 1367
it is the only white SuperHyperNeighbor of a black SuperHyperVertex 1368

with the additional condition is referred by “1-” about the usage of any 1369
black SuperHyperVertex only once to act on white SuperHyperVertex to 1370
be black SuperHyperVertex. 1371
Definition 1.3.19. ((neutrosophic)δ− 1-failed SuperHyperForcing). 1372
(i) an δ−1-failed SuperHyperForcing is a maximal 1-failed SuperHyper- 1374

Forcing of SuperHyperVertices with a maximum cardinality such that 1375
either of the following expressions hold for the (neutrosophic) cardinalities 1376
of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 1377
|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 1378
the Expression (1.2), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; 1379
(ii) a neutrosophic δ−1-failed SuperHyperForcing is a maximal neutro- 1380

sophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing of SuperHyperVertices with maximum 1381
neutrosophic cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold 1382
for the neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 1383
|S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ; (1.3)

|S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ. (1.4)
17
Table 1.1: The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and

SuperHyperEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned
in the Definition (1.3.22)
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
100TBL3

SuperHyperEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, Mentioned

100TBL4
The Expression (1.3), holds if S is a neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive.

1384
And the Expression (1.4), holds if S is a neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperDefensive.

1385
For the sake of having a neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, there’s 1386

a need to “redefine” the notion of “neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. The 1387
of labels to assign to the values. 1390
100DEF1 Definition 1.3.20. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined 1391

neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph if the Table (1.1) holds. 1392
It’s useful to define a “neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since 1393

there’s more ways to get neutrosophic type-results to make a neutrosophic 1394
1-failed SuperHyperForcing more understandable. 1395
100DEF2 Definition 1.3.21. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 1396
neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the Table (1.2) holds. Thus Supe- 1397
rHyperPath, SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, Su- 1398
perHyperMultiPartite, and SuperHyperWheel, are neutrosophic SuperHy- 1399
perPath, neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle, neutrosophic SuperHyper- 1400

Star, neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite, neutrosophic SuperHyper- 1401
MultiPartite, and neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel if the Table (1.2) 1402
holds. 1403
It’s useful to define a “neutrosophic” version of an 1-failed SuperHyper- 1404

Forcing. Since there’s more ways to get type-results to make an 1-failed 1405
SuperHyperForcing more understandable. 1406
For the sake of having a neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, there’s a 1407
need to “redefine” the notion of “1-failed SuperHyperForcing”. The Super- 1408
18
1.4. 1-failed SuperHyperForcing


100TBL1
HyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the 1409
letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of 1410
labels to assign to the values. 1411
100DEF1 Definition 1.3.22. Assume an 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. It’s redefined a 1412

neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing if the Table (1.3) holds. 1413
1.4 1-failed SuperHyperForcing 1414
100EXM1 Example 1.4.1. Assume the SuperHyperGraphs in the Figures (1.1), (1.2), 1415
(1.3), (1.4), (1.5), (1.6), (1.7), (1.8), (1.9), (1.10), (1.11), (1.12), (1.13), (1.14), 1416
(1.15), (1.16), (1.17), (1.18), (1.19), and (??). 1417
• On the Figure (1.1), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, 1-failed SuperHyper- 1418

Forcing, is up. E1 and E3 are some empty SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a 1419
loop SuperHyperEdge and E4 is an SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of 1420
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The 1421
SuperHyperVertex, V3 is isolated means that there’s no SuperHyperEdge 1422
has it as an endpoint. Thus SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is contained in every 1423
given 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. All the following SuperHyperSets of 1424

SuperHyperVertices are the simple type-SuperHyperSet of the 1-failed 1425
SuperHyperForcing. 1426
{V3 , V1 }
{V3 , V2 }
{V3 , V4 }
The SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices, {V3 , V1 }, {V3 , V2 }, {V3 , V4 }, 1427
are the simple type-SuperHyperSet of the 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. The 1428

SuperHyperSets of the SuperHyperVertices, {V3 , V1 }, {V3 , V2 }, {V3 , V4 }, 1429
are the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of black SuperHy- 1430
perVertices (whereas SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white) 1431
such that V (G) isn’t turned black after finitely many applications of “the 1432
color-change rule”: a white SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black Supe- 1433
rHyperVertex if it is the only white SuperHyperNeighbor of a black Super- 1434

HyperVertex with the additional condition is referred by “1-” about the us- 1435
age of any black SuperHyperVertex only once to act on white SuperHyper- 1436
Vertex to be black SuperHyperVertex. There’re only two SuperHyperVer- 1437
tices outside the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious 1-failed 1438
19
SuperHyperForcing aren’t up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet 1439

of the 1-failed SuperHyperForcing is a SuperHyperSet excludes only two 1440
SuperHyperVertices are titled to SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected 1441
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). But the SuperHyperSets 1442

of SuperHyperVertices, {V3 , V1 }, {V3 , V2 }, {V3 , V4 }, don’t have more than 1443
two SuperHyperVertices outside the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus 1444
the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the 1-failed SuperHyper- 1445
Forcing aren’t up. To sum them up, the SuperHyperSets of SuperHy- 1446
perVertices, {V3 , V1 }, {V3 , V2 }, {V3 , V4 }, aren’t the non-obvious simple 1447
type-SuperHyperSet of the 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Since the Su- 1448

perHyperSets of the SuperHyperVertices, {V3 , V1 }, {V3 , V2 }, {V3 , V4 }, are 1449
the SuperHyperSet Ss of black SuperHyperVertices (whereas SuperHy- 1450
perVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white) such that V (G) isn’t turned 1451
black after finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: a white 1452
SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black SuperHyperVertex if it is the 1453
only white SuperHyperNeighbor of a black SuperHyperVertex with the 1454

additional condition is referred by “1-” about the usage of any black 1455
SuperHyperVertex only once to act on white SuperHyperVertex to be 1456
black SuperHyperVertex and they are 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 1457
Since it’s the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of black 1458
SuperHyperVertices (whereas SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored 1459
white) such that V (G) isn’t turned black after finitely many applic- 1460
ations of “the color-change rule”: a white SuperHyperVertex is con- 1461
verted to a black SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white SuperHy- 1462
perNeighbor of a black SuperHyperVertex with the additional condi- 1463
tion is referred by “1-” about the usage of any black SuperHyperVer- 1464
tex only once to act on white SuperHyperVertex to be black Super- 1465
HyperVertex. There aren’t only more than two SuperHyperVertices 1466

outside the intended SuperHyperSets, {V3 , V1 }, {V3 , V2 }, {V3 , V4 }. Thus 1467
the non-obvious 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, {V3 , V1 }, {V3 , V2 }, {V3 , V4 }, 1468
aren’t up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSets of the 1-failed 1469
SuperHyperForcing, {V3 , V1 }, {V3 , V2 }, {V3 , V4 }, are a SuperHyperSets, 1470
{V3 , V1 }, {V3 , V2 }, {V3 , V4 }, doesn’t exclude only more than two Super- 1471
HyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : 1472

(V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only obvious simple type- 1473
SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing amid 1474
those obvious simple type-SuperHyperSets of the 1-failed SuperHyperFor- 1475
cing, is only {V3 , V2 }. 1476
• On the Figure (1.2), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, 1-failed SuperHy- 1477

perForcing, is up. E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty SuperHyperEdges but 1478
E4 is an SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of SuperHyperNeighbor, 1479
there’s only one SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The SuperHyperVertex, V3 1480
is isolated means that there’s no SuperHyperEdge has it as an endpoint. 1481

Thus SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is contained in every given 1-failed SuperHy- 1482
perForcing. All the following SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices are 1483
the simple type-SuperHyperSet of the 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 1484
{V3 , V1 }
{V3 , V2 }
20
{V3 , V4 }
The SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices, {V3 , V1 }, {V3 , V2 }, {V3 , V4 }, 1485
are the simple type-SuperHyperSet of the 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. The 1486

SuperHyperSets of the SuperHyperVertices, {V3 , V1 }, {V3 , V2 }, {V3 , V4 }, 1487
are the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of black SuperHy- 1488
perVertices (whereas SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white) 1489
color-change rule”: a white SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black Supe- 1491
rHyperVertex if it is the only white SuperHyperNeighbor of a black Super- 1492

HyperVertex with the additional condition is referred by “1-” about the us- 1493
age of any black SuperHyperVertex only once to act on white SuperHyper- 1494
Vertex to be black SuperHyperVertex. There’re only two SuperHyperVer- 1495
tices outside the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious 1-failed 1496
SuperHyperForcing aren’t up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet 1497
of the 1-failed SuperHyperForcing is a SuperHyperSet excludes only two 1498

SuperHyperVertices are titled to SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected 1499
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). But the SuperHyperSets 1500
of SuperHyperVertices, {V3 , V1 }, {V3 , V2 }, {V3 , V4 }, don’t have more than 1501
Forcing aren’t up. To sum them up, the SuperHyperSets of SuperHy- 1504
perHyperSets of the SuperHyperVertices, {V3 , V1 }, {V3 , V2 }, {V3 , V4 }, are 1507

outside the intended SuperHyperSets, {V3 , V1 }, {V3 , V2 }, {V3 , V4 }. Thus 1525
the non-obvious 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, {V3 , V1 }, {V3 , V2 }, {V3 , V4 }, 1526
aren’t up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSets of the 1-failed 1527
SuperHyperForcing, {V3 , V1 }, {V3 , V2 }, {V3 , V4 }, are a SuperHyperSets, 1528

{V3 , V1 }, {V3 , V2 }, {V3 , V4 }, doesn’t exclude only more than two Super- 1529
(V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only obvious simple type- 1531
SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing amid 1532
21
those obvious simple type-SuperHyperSets of the 1-failed SuperHyperFor- 1533

cing, is only {V3 , V2 }. 1534
• On the Figure (1.3), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, 1-failed SuperHy- 1535

perForcing, is up. E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty SuperHyperEdges but 1536
E4 is an SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of SuperHyperNeighbor, 1537
there’s only one SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The SuperHyperSets of 1538
SuperHyperVertices, {V1 }, {V2 }, {V3 }, are the simple type-SuperHyperSet 1539
of the 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. The SuperHyperSets of the Supe- 1540
rHyperVertices, {V1 }, {V2 }, {V3 }, are the maximum cardinality of a 1541

SuperHyperSet S of black SuperHyperVertices (whereas SuperHyperVer- 1542
tices in V (G) \ S are colored white) such that V (G) isn’t turned black 1543
after finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: a white Su- 1544
perHyperVertex is converted to a black SuperHyperVertex if it is the 1545
additional condition is referred by “1-” about the usage of any black Su- 1547
perHyperVertex only once to act on white SuperHyperVertex to be black 1548
SuperHyperVertex. There’re only two SuperHyperVertices outside the 1549
intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious 1-failed SuperHyperFor- 1550
cing aren’t up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the 1-failed 1551
SuperHyperForcing is a SuperHyperSet excludes only two SuperHyper- 1552
Vertices are titled to SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected neutrosophic 1553

SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). But the SuperHyperSets of SuperHy- 1554
perVertices, {V1 }, {V2 }, {V3 }, don’t have more than two SuperHyperVer- 1555
tices outside the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple 1556
type-SuperHyperSet of the 1-failed SuperHyperForcing aren’t up. To sum 1557
them up, the SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices, {V1 }, {V2 }, {V3 }, 1558
aren’t the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the 1-failed Su- 1559

perHyperForcing. Since the SuperHyperSets of the SuperHyperVertices, 1560
{V1 }, {V2 }, {V3 }, are the SuperHyperSet Ss of black SuperHyperVertices 1561
(whereas SuperHyperVertices in V (G)\S are colored white) such that V (G) 1562
isn’t turned black after finitely many applications of “the color-change 1563
rule”: a white SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black SuperHyperVertex 1564
if it is the only white SuperHyperNeighbor of a black SuperHyperVertex 1565

be black SuperHyperVertex and they are 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 1568
Since they’ve the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of black 1569
white) such that V (G) isn’t turned black after finitely many applications 1571
of “the color-change rule”: a white SuperHyperVertex is converted to a 1572
black SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white SuperHyperNeighbor of 1573
a black SuperHyperVertex with the additional condition is referred by 1574
“1-” about the usage of any black SuperHyperVertex only once to act on 1575
white SuperHyperVertex to be black SuperHyperVertex. There aren’t only 1576
more than two SuperHyperVertices outside the intended SuperHyper- 1577

Sets, {V1 }, {V2 }, {V3 }. Thus the non-obvious 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, 1578
{V1 }, {V2 }, {V3 }, aren’t up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSets of 1579
the 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, {V1 }, {V2 }, {V3 }, are the SuperHyperSets, 1580
{V1 }, {V2 }, {V3 }, don’t exclude only more than two SuperHyperVertices 1581
22
in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). It’s inter- 1582

esting to mention that the only obvious simple type-SuperHyperSets of 1583
the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing amid those obvious simple 1584
type-SuperHyperSets of the 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, is only {V1 }. 1585
• On the Figure (1.4), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, an 1-failed Su- 1586

perHyperForcing, is up. There’s no empty SuperHyperEdge but E3 1587
are a loop SuperHyperEdge on {F }, and there are some SuperHy- 1588
perEdges, namely, E1 on {H, V1 , V3 }, alongside E2 on {O, H, V4 , V3 } 1589
and E4 , E5 on {N, V1 , V2 , V3 , F }. The SuperHyperSet of SuperHyper- 1590

Vertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , O, H}, is the simple type-SuperHyperSet of the 1591
1-failed SuperHyperForcing. The SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVer- 1592
tices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , O, H}, is the maximum cardinality of a Super- 1593
HyperSet S of black SuperHyperVertices (whereas SuperHyperVertices 1594
in V (G) \ S are colored white) such that V (G) isn’t turned black after 1595
finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: a white Super- 1596

HyperVertex is converted to a black SuperHyperVertex if it is the only 1597
white SuperHyperNeighbor of a black SuperHyperVertex with the addi- 1598
tional condition is referred by “1-” about the usage of any black Supe- 1599
rHyperVertex only once to act on white SuperHyperVertex to be black 1600

cing isn’t up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the 1-failed 1603
SuperHyperForcing is a SuperHyperSet excludes only two SuperHy- 1604
perVertices are titled to SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected neutro- 1605
sophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). But the SuperHyperSet of 1606
SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , O, H}, doesn’t have more than two 1607
SuperHyperVertices outside the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non- 1608

obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the 1-failed SuperHyperForcing 1609
isn’t up. To sum them up, the SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, 1610
{V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , O, H}, isn’t the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet 1611
of the 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Since the SuperHyperSet of the Supe- 1612
rHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , O, H}, is the SuperHyperSet Ss of black 1613

white SuperHyperVertex to be black SuperHyperVertex and they are 1620

1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Since it’s the maximum cardinality 1621
of a SuperHyperSet S of black SuperHyperVertices (whereas SuperHy- 1622

additional condition is referred by “1-” about the usage of any black Su- 1627
perHyperVertex only once to act on white SuperHyperVertex to be black 1628
SuperHyperVertex. There aren’t only more than two SuperHyperVer- 1629
tices outside the intended SuperHyperSet, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , O, H}. Thus 1630
23
the non-obvious 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , O, H}, isn’t 1631

up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the 1-failed SuperHyper- 1632
Forcing, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , O, H}, is a SuperHyperSet, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , O, H}, 1633
doesn’t exclude only more than two SuperHyperVertices in a connected 1634

neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). 1635
• On the Figure (1.5), 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 Super-

HyperVertices (whereas SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored
white) such that V (G) isn’t turned black after finitely many applica-
tions of “the color-change rule”: a white SuperHyperVertex is converted
to a black SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white SuperHyperNeigh-
bor of a black SuperHyperVertex with the additional condition is re-
ferred 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 SuperHy-
perSet. 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 Super-

HyperForcing. 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 SuperHy-

perVertices 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
24
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 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 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 },
isn’t up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the 1-failed

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 },

neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is mentioned as the 1637
SuperHyperModel N SHG : (V, E) in the Figure (1.5). 1638
• On the Figure (1.6), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, 1-failed SuperHy-

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


25




{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 1640
SuperHyperModeling of the Figure (1.6). 1641
26

{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 },

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

27

{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 depicted SuperHyper- 1643
Model as the Figure (1.7). 1644

{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 },
28

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

neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) of dense SuperHyper- 1646
Model as the Figure (1.8). 1647

29



30

SuperHyperForcing,
is a SuperHyperSet,
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) with a messy SuperHy- 1649
perModeling of the Figure (1.9). 1650
• On the Figure (1.10), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, 1-failed Super-

HyperForcing, is up. There’s neither empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop
{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 },
{V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V12 , V13 , V14 },
31

{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 highly-embedding- 1652
connected SuperHyperModel as the Figure (1.10). 1653
• On the Figure (1.11), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, 1-failed Supe- 1654

rHyperForcing, is up. There’s neither empty SuperHyperEdge nor 1655
loop SuperHyperEdge. The SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, 1656
{V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, is the simple type-SuperHyperSet of the 1-failed Su- 1657
perHyperForcing. The SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices, 1658

{V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, is the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S 1659
of black SuperHyperVertices (whereas SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S 1660
are colored white) such that V (G) isn’t turned black after finitely many 1661
applications of “the color-change rule”: a white SuperHyperVertex is 1662
converted to a black SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white Super- 1663
HyperNeighbor of a black SuperHyperVertex with the additional condi- 1664

tion is referred by “1-” about the usage of any black SuperHyperVertex 1665
only once to act on white SuperHyperVertex to be black SuperHyper- 1666
Vertex. There’re only two SuperHyperVertices outside the intended 1667
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious 1-failed SuperHyperForcing isn’t 1668
32
up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the 1-failed SuperHy- 1669

perForcing is a SuperHyperSet excludes only two SuperHyperVertices 1670
are titled to SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected neutrosophic SuperHy- 1671
perGraph N SHG : (V, E). But the SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVer- 1672

tices, {V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, doesn’t have more than two SuperHyperVertices 1673
outside the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple type- 1674
SuperHyperSet of the 1-failed SuperHyperForcing isn’t up. To sum them 1675
up, the SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, isn’t the 1676
non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 1677
Since the SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, is 1678


white SuperHyperVertex to be black SuperHyperVertex. There aren’t 1694
only more than two SuperHyperVertices outside the intended SuperHy- 1695
perSet, {V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 }. Thus the non-obvious 1-failed SuperHyperFor- 1696

cing, {V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, isn’t up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet 1697
of the 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, {V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, is a SuperHyperSet, 1698
{V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, doesn’t exclude only more than two SuperHyperVertices 1699
in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). 1700

{V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 }, is the simple type-SuperHyperSet of the 1704
1-failed SuperHyperForcing. The SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVer- 1705
tices, {V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 }, is the maximum cardinality of a 1706
SuperHyperSet S of black SuperHyperVertices (whereas SuperHyperVer- 1707

tices in V (G) \ S are colored white) such that V (G) isn’t turned black 1708
after finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: a white Su- 1709
perHyperVertex is converted to a black SuperHyperVertex if it is the 1710

black SuperHyperVertex. There’re only two SuperHyperVertices outside 1714
the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious 1-failed SuperHyper- 1715
Forcing isn’t up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the 1-failed 1716
33

SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). But the SuperHyperSet of Supe- 1719
rHyperVertices, {V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 }, doesn’t have more than 1720

Forcing isn’t up. To sum them up, the SuperHyperSet of SuperHy- 1723
perVertices, {V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 }, isn’t the non-obvious simple 1724
type-SuperHyperSet of the 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Since the Supe- 1725
rHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 }, is 1726


white) such that V (G) isn’t turned black after finitely many applica- 1737
tions of “the color-change rule”: a white SuperHyperVertex is converted 1738
to a black SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white SuperHyperNeigh- 1739

bor of a black SuperHyperVertex with the additional condition is re- 1740
ferred by “1-” about the usage of any black SuperHyperVertex only 1741
once to act on white SuperHyperVertex to be black SuperHyperVer- 1742
tex. There aren’t only more than two SuperHyperVertices outside 1743
the intended SuperHyperSet, {V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 }. Thus the 1744
non-obvious 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, {V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 }, 1745

isn’t up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the 1-failed 1746
SuperHyperForcing, {V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 }, is a SuperHyperSet, 1747
{V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 }, doesn’t exclude only more than two Super- 1748
(V, E) in highly-multiple-connected-style SuperHyperModel On the Figure 1750
(1.12). 1751



34





{V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, doesn’t exclude only more than two SuperHyperVertices 1797
in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). 1798
• On the Figure (1.14), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, 1-failed SuperHyper- 1799

Forcing, is up. There’s neither empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHy- 1800
perEdge. The SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V2 }, is the simple 1801
type-SuperHyperSet of the 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. The SuperHy- 1802
perSet of the SuperHyperVertices, {V2 }, is the maximum cardinality 1803
of a SuperHyperSet S of black SuperHyperVertices (whereas SuperHy- 1804
black SuperHyperVertex. There’re only two SuperHyperVertices outside 1811

the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious 1-failed SuperHyper- 1812
Forcing isn’t up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the 1-failed 1813
35
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). But the SuperHyperSet of Super- 1816

HyperVertices, {V2 }, doesn’t have more than two SuperHyperVertices 1817
outside the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple 1818
type-SuperHyperSet of the 1-failed SuperHyperForcing isn’t up. To 1819

sum them up, the SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V2 }, isn’t 1820
Forcing. Since the SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices, {V2 }, is 1822

white SuperHyperVertex to be black SuperHyperVertex. There aren’t only 1838
more than two SuperHyperVertices outside the intended SuperHyperSet, 1839
{V2 }. Thus the non-obvious 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, {V2 }, isn’t up. 1840
The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the 1-failed SuperHyperFor- 1841
cing, {V2 }, is a SuperHyperSet, {V2 }, doesn’t exclude only more than 1842
two SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1843

N SHG : (V, E). 1844




36


{V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, doesn’t exclude only more than two SuperHyperVertices in 1890
a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). as Linearly- 1891
Connected SuperHyperModel On the Figure (1.15). 1892
• On the Figure (1.16), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, 1-failed Super- 1893

HyperForcing, is up. There’s neither empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop 1894
SuperHyperEdge. The SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, 1895
{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 1896

SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices, 1897
V19 , V20 , V21 , V22 },
is the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of black Super- 1898

HyperVertices (whereas SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored 1899

once to act on white SuperHyperVertex to be black SuperHyperVertex. 1905
37
There’re only two SuperHyperVertices outside the intended SuperHy- 1906

perSet. Thus the non-obvious 1-failed SuperHyperForcing isn’t up. The 1907
is a SuperHyperSet excludes only two SuperHyperVertices are titled 1909

to SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1910
N SHG : (V, E). But the SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, 1911
V19 , V20 , V21 , V22 },
doesn’t have more than two SuperHyperVertices outside the intended 1912
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the 1913
1-failed SuperHyperForcing isn’t up. To sum them up, the SuperHyperSet 1914
of SuperHyperVertices, 1915
V19 , V20 , V21 , V22 },
isn’t the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the 1-failed Super- 1916
HyperForcing. Since the SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices, 1917
V19 , V20 , V21 , V22 },
is the SuperHyperSet Ss of black SuperHyperVertices (whereas SuperHy- 1918

black SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white SuperHyperNeighbor of a 1930
black SuperHyperVertex with the additional condition is referred by “1-” 1931
about the usage of any black SuperHyperVertex only once to act on white 1932
SuperHyperVertex to be black SuperHyperVertex. There aren’t only more 1933
than two SuperHyperVertices outside the intended SuperHyperSet, 1934
V19 , V20 , V21 , V22 }.
Thus the non-obvious 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, 1935
V19 , V20 , V21 , V22 },
SuperHyperForcing, 1937
38
V19 , V20 , V21 , V22 },

is a SuperHyperSet, 1938
V19 , V20 , V21 , V22 },

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 },
39




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 },

neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) as Lnearly-over-packed 1988
SuperHyperModel is featured On the Figure (1.17). 1989

{V2 , R, M6 , L6 , F, P, J, M }, is the simple type-SuperHyperSet of the 1- 1993
failed SuperHyperForcing. The SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices, 1994
{V2 , R, M6 , L6 , F, P, J, M }, is the maximum cardinality of a SuperHy- 1995

perSet S of black SuperHyperVertices (whereas SuperHyperVertices in 1996
V (G) \ S are colored white) such that V (G) isn’t turned black after 1997
finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: a white Super- 1998
HyperVertex is converted to a black SuperHyperVertex if it is the only 1999
40
white SuperHyperNeighbor of a black SuperHyperVertex with the addi- 2000

tional condition is referred by “1-” about the usage of any black Supe- 2001
rHyperVertex only once to act on white SuperHyperVertex to be black 2002

cing isn’t up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the 1-failed 2005
SuperHyperForcing is a SuperHyperSet excludes only two SuperHy- 2006
perVertices are titled to SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected neutro- 2007
sophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). But the SuperHyperSet of 2008
SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , R, M6 , L6 , F, P, J, M }, doesn’t have more than 2009

the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the 1-failed SuperHy- 2011
perForcing isn’t up. To sum them up, the SuperHyperSet of Super- 2012
HyperVertices, {V2 , R, M6 , L6 , F, P, J, M }, isn’t the non-obvious simple 2013
perHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , R, M6 , L6 , F, P, J, M }, is 2015


outside the intended SuperHyperSet, {V2 , R, M6 , L6 , F, P, J, M }. Thus 2033

the non-obvious 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, {V2 , R, M6 , L6 , F, P, J, M }, 2034
SuperHyperForcing, {V2 , R, M6 , L6 , F, P, J, M }, is a SuperHyperSet, 2036
{V2 , R, M6 , L6 , F, P, J, M }, doesn’t exclude only more than two Supe- 2037
rHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : 2038
(V, E). 2039

{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 },
41
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 },



42
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 },
• On the Figure (??), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, 1-failed SuperHy- 2088

perForcing, is up. There’s neither empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop 2089
{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 },


43

{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 },
{V2 , V3 , V4 , T6 , U6 , H7 , V5 , R9 ,
44
Figure 1.1: The SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Notions of 1-failed

SuperHyperForcing in the Examples (1.4.1) and (2.4.1) 100FGR1
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 1.4.2. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 2136

N SHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally, V \ {x, z} is an 1-failed 2137
SuperHyperForcing. In other words, the most cardinality, the upper sharp bound 2138
for cardinality, of 1-failed SuperHyperForcing is the cardinality of V \ {x, z}. 2139
Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). 2140

The SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices V \ {x, y, z} is a SuperHyperSet 2141
S of black SuperHyperVertices (whereas SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S 2142
applications of “the color-change rule”: a white SuperHyperVertex is converted 2144
45


46


47


48


49


50


51

to a black SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white SuperHyperNeighbor 2145

of a black SuperHyperVertex with the additional condition is referred by 2146
white SuperHyperVertex to be black SuperHyperVertex but it isn’t an 1-failed 2148
SuperHyperForcing. Since it doesn’t have the maximum cardinality of a 2149
SuperHyperSet S of black SuperHyperVertices (whereas SuperHyperVertices in 2150
V (G)\S are colored white) such that V (G) isn’t turned black after finitely many 2151
to a black SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white SuperHyperNeighbor of 2153

a black SuperHyperVertex with the additional condition is referred by “1-” 2154
SuperHyperVertex to be black SuperHyperVertex. The SuperHyperSet of the 2156
SuperHyperVertices V \ {x} is the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet 2157
are colored white) but it isn’t an 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Since it 2159

doesn’t do the procedure such that V (G) isn’t turned black after finitely many 2160
of a black SuperHyperVertex with the additional condition is referred 2163
52


53

by “1-” about the usage of any black SuperHyperVertex only once to 2164
act on white SuperHyperVertex to be black SuperHyperVertex [there’s at 2165
least one white without any white SuperHyperNeighbor outside implying 2166
there’s, by the connectedness of the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 2167
N SHG : (V, E), a SuperHyperVertex, titled its SuperHyperNeighbor, to 2168
the SuperHyperSet S does the “the color-change rule”.]. There’re only two 2169
SuperHyperVertices outside the intended SuperHyperSet, V \ {x, z}. Thus 2170

the obvious 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, V \ {x, z}, is up. The obvious 2171
simple type-SuperHyperSet of the 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, V \ {x, z}, 2172
is a SuperHyperSet, V \ {x, z}, excludes only two SuperHyperVertices are 2173
titled in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors SuperHyperGraph 2174
N SHG : (V, E). Since the SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices V \{x, z} is 2175

isn’t turned black after finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: 2178
a white SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black SuperHyperVertex if it 2179
is the only white SuperHyperNeighbor of a black SuperHyperVertex with 2180
the additional condition is referred by “1-” about the usage of any black 2181
SuperHyperVertex only once to act on white SuperHyperVertex to be black 2182

SuperHyperVertex. 2183

N SHG : (V, E). Then the extreme number of 1-failed SuperHyperForcing 2185
has, the most cardinality, the upper sharp bound for cardinality, is the extreme 2186
cardinality of V \ {x, z} if there’s an 1-failed SuperHyperForcing with the most 2187
54

cardinality, the upper sharp bound for cardinality. 2188

Consider there’s an 1-failed SuperHyperForcing with the most cardinality, the 2190
upper sharp bound for cardinality. The SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVer- 2191
tices V \ {x, y, z} is a SuperHyperSet S of black SuperHyperVertices (whereas 2192
SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white) such that V (G) isn’t turned 2193
black after finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: a white Super- 2194
HyperVertex is converted to a black SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white 2195

SuperHyperNeighbor of a black SuperHyperVertex with the additional condition 2196
is referred by “1-” about the usage of any black SuperHyperVertex only once to 2197
act on white SuperHyperVertex to be black SuperHyperVertex but it isn’t an 2198
1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Since it doesn’t have the maximum cardinality 2199
of a SuperHyperSet S of black SuperHyperVertices (whereas SuperHyperVer- 2200
tices in V (G) \ S are colored white) such that V (G) isn’t turned black after 2201
finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: a white SuperHyperVertex 2202
perNeighbor of a black SuperHyperVertex with the additional condition is 2204
referred by “1-” about the usage of any black SuperHyperVertex only once to 2205
55


SuperHyperForcing in the Examples (1.4.1) and (??) 101EXM1b
56
act on white SuperHyperVertex to be black SuperHyperVertex. The Super- 2206

HyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices V \ {x} is the maximum cardinality of a 2207
V (G) \ S are colored white) but it isn’t an 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Since it 2209
SuperHyperVertex to be black SuperHyperVertex [there’s at least one white 2215

without any white SuperHyperNeighbor outside implying there’s, by the con- 2216
nectedness of the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E), 2217
a SuperHyperVertex, titled its SuperHyperNeighbor, to the SuperHyperSet 2218
S does the “the color-change rule”.]. There’re only two SuperHyperVertices 2219
outside the intended SuperHyperSet, V \ {x, z}. Thus the obvious 1-failed 2220
SuperHyperForcing, V \ {x, z}, is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet 2221

of the 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, V \ {x, z}, is a SuperHyperSet, V \ {x, z}, 2222
excludes only two SuperHyperVertices are titled in a connected neutrosophic 2223
SuperHyperNeighbors SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). Since the SuperHy- 2224
perSet of the SuperHyperVertices V \ {x, z} is the maximum cardinality of 2225
many applications of “the color-change rule”: a white SuperHyperVertex is 2228
converted to a black SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white SuperHyper- 2229
Neighbor of a black SuperHyperVertex with the additional condition is referred 2230
by “1-” about the usage of any black SuperHyperVertex only once to act on 2231
white SuperHyperVertex to be black SuperHyperVertex. It implies that ex- 2232
treme number of 1-failed SuperHyperForcing has, the most cardinality, the 2233
upper sharp bound for cardinality, is |V | − 2. Thus it induces that the extreme 2234
number of 1-failed SuperHyperForcing has, the most cardinality, the upper 2235
sharp bound for cardinality, is the extreme cardinality of V \ {x, z} if there’s an 2236
1-failed SuperHyperForcing with the most cardinality, the upper sharp bound 2237
for cardinality. 2238

N SHG : (V, E). If a SuperHyperEdge has z SuperHyperVertices, then z − 2 2240
number of those SuperHyperVertices from that SuperHyperEdge belong to any 2241
1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 2242

Let a SuperHyperEdge has z SuperHyperVertices. Consider z − 3 number of 2244
those SuperHyperVertices from that SuperHyperEdge belong to any given 2245
SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices. Consider there’s an 1-failed 2246
SuperHyperForcing with the most cardinality, the upper sharp bound for 2247
cardinality. The SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices V \ {x, y, z} is a 2248

of a black SuperHyperVertex with the additional condition is referred by 2253
57
white SuperHyperVertex to be black SuperHyperVertex but it isn’t an 1-failed 2255
SuperHyperForcing. Since it doesn’t have the maximum cardinality of a 2256

SuperHyperVertex to be black SuperHyperVertex. The SuperHyperSet of the 2263

SuperHyperVertices V \ {x} is the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet 2264
are colored white) but it isn’t an 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Since it 2266

of a black SuperHyperVertex with the additional condition is referred 2270
by “1-” about the usage of any black SuperHyperVertex only once to 2271
act on white SuperHyperVertex to be black SuperHyperVertex [there’s at 2272
least one white without any white SuperHyperNeighbor outside implying 2273
there’s, by the connectedness of the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 2274
N SHG : (V, E), a SuperHyperVertex, titled its SuperHyperNeighbor, to 2275

the SuperHyperSet S does the “the color-change rule”.]. There’re only two 2276
SuperHyperVertices outside the intended SuperHyperSet, V \ {x, z}. Thus 2277
the obvious 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, V \ {x, z}, is up. The obvious 2278
simple type-SuperHyperSet of the 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, V \ {x, z}, 2279
is a SuperHyperSet, V \ {x, z}, excludes only two SuperHyperVertices are 2280
titled in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors SuperHyperGraph 2281

N SHG : (V, E). Since the SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices V \{x, z} is 2282
(whereas SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white) such that 2284
V (G) isn’t turned black after finitely many applications of “the color-change 2285
rule”: a white SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black SuperHyperVertex 2286
if it is the only white SuperHyperNeighbor of a black SuperHyperVertex 2287

be black SuperHyperVertex. It implies that extreme number of 1-failed 2290
SuperHyperForcing has, the most cardinality, the upper sharp bound for 2291
cardinality, is |V | − 2. Thus it induces that the extreme number of 1-failed 2292
SuperHyperForcing has, the most cardinality, the upper sharp bound for 2293
cardinality, is the extreme cardinality of V \ {x, z} if there’s an 1-failed 2294
SuperHyperForcing with the most cardinality, the upper sharp bound for 2295
cardinality. Thus all the following SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices are 2296
the simple type-SuperHyperSet of the 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. It’s the 2297
contradiction to the SuperHyperSet either S = V \ {x, y, z} or S = V \ {x} 2298
is an 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Thus any given SuperHyperSet of the 2299

SuperHyperVertices contains the number of those SuperHyperVertices from that 2300
SuperHyperEdge with z SuperHyperVertices less than z − 2 isn’t an 1-failed 2301
SuperHyperForcing. Thus if a SuperHyperEdge has z SuperHyperVertices, then 2302
z − 2 number of those SuperHyperVertices from that SuperHyperEdge belong 2303
58
to any 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 2304

N SHG : (V, E). There’s a SuperHyperEdge has only two distinct Super- 2306
HyperVertices outside of an 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. In other words, there’s 2307

an unique SuperHyperEdge has only two distinct white SuperHyperVertices. 2308

Let a SuperHyperEdge has some SuperHyperVertices. Consider some numbers 2310
of those SuperHyperVertices from that SuperHyperEdge excluding three distinct 2311

SuperHyperVertices, belong to any given SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVer- 2312
tices. Consider there’s an 1-failed SuperHyperForcing with the most cardinality, 2313
the upper sharp bound for cardinality. The SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyper- 2314
Vertices V \{x, y, z} is a SuperHyperSet S of black SuperHyperVertices (whereas 2315





59
converted to a black SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white SuperHyperNeigh- 2352

bor of a black SuperHyperVertex with the additional condition is referred by 2353
“1-” about the usage of any black SuperHyperVertex only once to act on white 2354
SuperHyperVertex to be black SuperHyperVertex. It implies that extreme 2355

sharp bound for cardinality, is |V | − 2. Thus it induces that the extreme number 2357
of 1-failed SuperHyperForcing has, the most cardinality, the upper sharp bound 2358
for cardinality, is the extreme cardinality of V \ {x, z} if there’s an 1-failed Supe- 2359
rHyperForcing with the most cardinality, the upper sharp bound for cardinality. 2360
Thus if a SuperHyperEdge has some SuperHyperVertices, then, with excluding 2361

two distinct SuperHyperVertices, the all number of those SuperHyperVertices 2362
from that SuperHyperEdge belong to any 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Thus, 2363
in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E), there’s a Su- 2364
perHyperEdge has only two distinct SuperHyperVertices outside of 1-failed 2365
SuperHyperForcing. In other words, there’s a SuperHyperEdge has only two 2366
distinct white SuperHyperVertices which are SuperHyperNeighbors. 2367

N SHG : (V, E). The all exterior SuperHyperVertices belong to any 1-failed 2369
SuperHyperForcing if there’s one of them such that there are only two interior 2370
SuperHyperVertices are mutually SuperHyperNeighbors. 2371


60




SuperHyperForcing. In other words, here’s a SuperHyperEdge has only two dis- 2429
tinct white SuperHyperVertices. In a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 2430
N SHG : (V, E), the all exterior SuperHyperVertices belong to any 1-failed 2431
SuperHyperVertices are mutually SuperHyperNeighbors. 2433
100prp Proposition 1.4.7. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 2434

N SHG : (V, E). The any 1-failed SuperHyperForcing only contains all in- 2435
terior SuperHyperVertices and all exterior SuperHyperVertices where there’s 2436
any of them has two SuperHyperNeighbors out. 2437

61







SuperHyperForcing. In other words, here’s a SuperHyperEdge has only two 2495
distinct white SuperHyperVertices. In a connected neutrosophic SuperHyper- 2496
Graph N SHG : (V, E), the all exterior SuperHyperVertices belong to any 2497
62
1.5. Results on SuperHyperClasses
1-failed SuperHyperForcing if there’s one of them such that there are only two 2498
interior SuperHyperVertices are mutually SuperHyperNeighbors. Thus in a 2499
connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E), any 1-failed Supe- 2500
rHyperForcing only contains all interior SuperHyperVertices and all exterior 2501
SuperHyperVertices where there’s any of them has two SuperHyperNeighbors 2502
out. 2503
Remark 1.4.8. The words “1-failed SuperHyperForcing” and “SuperHyper- 2504

Dominating” refer to the maximum type-style and the minimum type-style. 2505
In other words, they refer to both the maximum[minimum] number and the 2506
SuperHyperSet with the maximum[minimum] cardinality. 2507

N SHG : (V, E). An 1-failed SuperHyperForcing contains the SuperHyper- 2509
Dominating. 2510

By applying the Proposition (1.4.7), the results are up. Thus in a connected 2512
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E), an 1-failed SuperHyperForcing 2513
contains the SuperHyperDominating. 2514
1.5 Results on SuperHyperClasses 2515
Proposition 1.5.1. Assume a connected SuperHyperPath N SHP : (V, E). Then 2516
an 1-failed SuperHyperForcing-style with the maximum SuperHyperCardinality 2517
is a SuperHyperSet of the exterior SuperHyperVertices. 2518
Proposition 1.5.2. Assume a connected SuperHyperPath N SHP : (V, E). 2519

Then an 1-failed SuperHyperForcing is a SuperHyperSet of the exterior 2520
SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices with only two exceptions 2521
in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices from the same SuperHyperEdge. An 2522
1-failed SuperHyperForcing has the number of all the SuperHyperVertices minus 2523
two. 2524
Proof. Assume a connected SuperHyperPath N SHP : (V, E). Let a Super- 2525
HyperEdge has some SuperHyperVertices. Consider some numbers of those 2526
SuperHyperVertices from that SuperHyperEdge excluding three distinct Super- 2527
HyperVertices, belong to any given SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices. 2528


63







1-failed SuperHyperForcing if there’s one of them such that there are only 2585
two interior SuperHyperVertices are mutually SuperHyperNeighbors. Then 2586
an 1-failed SuperHyperForcing is a SuperHyperSet of the exterior SuperHy- 2587

perVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices with only two exceptions in 2588
the form of interior SuperHyperVertices from the same SuperHyperEdge. An 2589
two. 2591
64
Figure 1.21: A SuperHyperPath Associated to the Notions of 1-failed

SuperHyperForcing in the Example (1.5.3) 100NHG18a
100EXM18a Example 1.5.3. In the Figure (1.21), the connected SuperHyperPath N SHP : 2592
(V, E), is highlighted and featured. The SuperHyperSet, 2593
V19 , V20 , V21 , V22 , V23 , V24 , V25 , V26 , V27 , V28 , V29 },
of the SuperHyperVertices of the connected SuperHyperPath N SHP : (V, E), 2594

in the SuperHyperModel (1.21), is the 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 2595
Proposition 1.5.4. Assume a connected SuperHyperCycle N SHC : (V, E). 2596

in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices from the same SuperHyperEdge. An 2599
on the 2 numbers excerpt the same exterior SuperHyperPart. 2601
Proof. Assume a connected SuperHyperCycle N SHC : (V, E). Let a Super- 2602
65







66
Figure 1.22: A SuperHyperCycle Associated to the Notions of 1-failed

two interior SuperHyperVertices are mutually SuperHyperNeighbors. Then an 2663
1-failed SuperHyperForcing is a SuperHyperSet of the exterior SuperHyperVer- 2664
tices and the interior SuperHyperVertices with only two exceptions in the form 2665
of interior SuperHyperVertices from the same SuperHyperEdge. An 1-failed 2666
SuperHyperForcing has the number of all the SuperHyperVertices minus on the 2667
2 numbers excerpt the same exterior SuperHyperPart. 2668
100EXM19a Example 1.5.5. In the Figure (1.22), the connected SuperHyperCycle N SHC : 2669
(V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained SuperHyperSet, by the 2670
Algorithm in previous result, of the SuperHyperVertices of the connected 2671
SuperHyperCycle N SHC : (V, E), in the SuperHyperModel (1.22), is the 2672

Proposition 1.5.6. Assume a connected SuperHyperStar N SHS : (V, E). Then 2674
an 1-failed SuperHyperForcing is a SuperHyperSet of the exterior SuperHyper- 2675

Vertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices, excluding the SuperHyperCenter, 2676
with only one exception in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices from any 2677
given SuperHyperEdge. An 1-failed SuperHyperForcing has the number of the 2678
cardinality of the second SuperHyperPart minus one. 2679
Proof. Assume a connected SuperHyperStar N SHS : (V, E). Let a Super- 2680
67






68
Figure 1.23: A SuperHyperStar Associated to the Notions of 1-failed



tices and the interior SuperHyperVertices, excluding the SuperHyperCenter, 2743

given SuperHyperEdge. An 1-failed SuperHyperForcing has the number of the 2745
cardinality of the second SuperHyperPart minus one. 2746
100EXM20a Example 1.5.7. In the Figure (1.23), the connected SuperHyperStar N SHS : 2747
(V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained SuperHyperSet, by the 2748
Algorithm in previous result, of the SuperHyperVertices of the connected 2749
SuperHyperStar N SHS : (V, E), in the SuperHyperModel (1.23), is the 1-failed 2750
Proposition 1.5.8. Assume a connected SuperHyperBipartite N SHB : (V, E). 2752

in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices from same SuperHyperEdge. An 2755
1-failed SuperHyperForcing has the number of the cardinality of the first 2756
SuperHyperPart minus one plus the second SuperHyperPart minus one. 2757
69
Proof. Assume a connected SuperHyperBipartite N SHB : (V, E). Let a Supe- 2758
rHyperEdge has some SuperHyperVertices. Consider some numbers of those 2759





70
Figure 1.24: A SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of 1-failed


SuperHyperVertices are mutually SuperHyperNeighbors. Then an 1-failed Su- 2819
perHyperForcing is a SuperHyperSet of the exterior SuperHyperVertices and 2820
the interior SuperHyperVertices with only two exceptions in the form of interior 2821
SuperHyperVertices from same SuperHyperEdge. An 1-failed SuperHyperFor- 2822
cing has the number of the cardinality of the first SuperHyperPart minus one 2823
plus the second SuperHyperPart minus one. 2824
100EXM21a Example 1.5.9. In the Figure (1.24), the connected SuperHyperBipartite 2825
N SHB : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained SuperHyperSet, by 2826
the Algorithm in previous result, of the SuperHyperVertices of the connected 2827
SuperHyperBipartite N SHB : (V, E), in the SuperHyperModel (1.24), is the 2828
Proposition 1.5.10. Assume a connected SuperHyperMultipartite N SHM : 2830

(V, E). Then an 1-failed SuperHyperForcing is a SuperHyperSet of the exterior 2831
SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices with only one exception 2832
71
in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices from a SuperHyperPart and 2833

only one exception in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices from another 2834
SuperHyperPart. An 1-failed SuperHyperForcing has the number of all the 2835
summation on the cardinality of the all SuperHyperParts minus two excerpt 2836
distinct SuperHyperParts. 2837
Proof. Assume a connected SuperHyperMultipartite N SHM : (V, E). Let a Su- 2838
perHyperEdge has some SuperHyperVertices. Consider some numbers of those 2839





72


SuperHyperVertices are mutually SuperHyperNeighbors. Then an 1-failed Su- 2899
perHyperForcing is a SuperHyperSet of the exterior SuperHyperVertices and 2900
the interior SuperHyperVertices with only one exception in the form of interior 2901
SuperHyperVertices from a SuperHyperPart and only one exception in the 2902
form of interior SuperHyperVertices from another SuperHyperPart. An 1-failed 2903

SuperHyperForcing has the number of all the summation on the cardinality of 2904
the all SuperHyperParts minus two excerpt distinct SuperHyperParts. 2905
100EXM22a Example 1.5.11. In the Figure (1.25), the connected SuperHyperMultipartite 2906
N SHM : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained SuperHyperSet, by 2907
SuperHyperMultipartite N SHM : (V, E), in the SuperHyperModel (1.25), is 2909
the 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 2910
Proposition 1.5.12. Assume a connected SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E). 2911

Then an 1-failed SuperHyperForcing is a SuperHyperSet of the exterior Super- 2912
HyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices, excluding the SuperHyper- 2913
Center, with only one exception in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices from 2914
any given SuperHyperEdge. An 1-failed SuperHyperForcing has the number 2915

of all the number of all the SuperHyperEdges minus two numbers excerpt two 2916
SuperHyperNeighbors. 2917
Proof. Assume a connected SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E). Let a Supe- 2918
rHyperEdge has some SuperHyperVertices. Consider some numbers of those 2919

73
Figure 1.25: A SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of 1-failed





74
1.6. General Results




tices and the interior SuperHyperVertices, excluding the SuperHyperCenter, 2981
given SuperHyperEdge. An 1-failed SuperHyperForcing has the number of 2983
all the number of all the SuperHyperEdges minus two numbers excerpt two 2984
SuperHyperNeighbors. 2985
100EXM23a Example 1.5.13. In the Figure (1.26), the connected SuperHyperWheel 2986
N SHW : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained SuperHyperSet, by 2987
SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E), in the SuperHyperModel (1.26), is the 2989
1.6 General Results 2991
For the 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, and the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyper- 2992
Forcing, some general results are introduced. 2993
Remark 1.6.1. Let remind that the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing is 2994
“redefined” on the positions of the alphabets. 2995
Corollary 1.6.2. Assume 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Then 2996
N eutrosophic 1 − f ailedSuperHyperF orcing =

{the1 − f ailedSuperHyperF orcingof theSuperHyperV ertices |
max |SuperHyperDef ensiveSuperHyper
Alliances|neutrosophiccardinalityamidthose1−f ailedSuperHyperF orcing. }
75
Figure 1.26: A SuperHyperWheel Associated to the Notions of 1-failed

Where σi is the unary operation on the SuperHyperVertices of the SuperHy- 2997

perGraph to assign the determinacy, the indeterminacy and the neutrality, for 2998
i = 1, 2, 3, respectively. 2999
Corollary 1.6.3. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the same identical 3000

letter of the alphabet. Then the notion of neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperFor- 3001
cing and 1-failed SuperHyperForcing coincide. 3002
letter of the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices 3004

is a neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing if and only if it’s an 1-failed 3005

letter of the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is 3008
a strongest SuperHyperCycle if and only if it’s a longest SuperHyperCycle. 3009
Corollary 1.6.6. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a neutrosophic SuperHyper- 3010

Graph on the same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its neutrosophic 3011
1-failed SuperHyperForcing is its 1-failed SuperHyperForcing and reversely. 3012
Corollary 1.6.7. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperCycle, 3013

SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyper- 3014
Wheel) on the same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its neutrosophic 3015
1-failed SuperHyperForcing is its 1-failed SuperHyperForcing and reversely. 3016
Corollary 1.6.8. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its neutro- 3017

sophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1-failed 3018
SuperHyperForcing isn’t well-defined. 3019

Graph. Then its neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing isn’t well-defined if 3021
and only if its 1-failed SuperHyperForcing isn’t well-defined. 3022
76

Wheel). Then its neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing isn’t well-defined if 3025
and only if its 1-failed SuperHyperForcing isn’t well-defined. 3026
Corollary 1.6.11. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its neut- 3027
rosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing is well-defined if and only if its 1-failed 3028

SuperHyperForcing is well-defined. 3029

Graph. Then its neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing is well-defined if and 3031
only if its 1-failed SuperHyperForcing is well-defined. 3032

Wheel). Then its neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing is well-defined if and 3035
only if its 1-failed SuperHyperForcing is well-defined. 3036
Proposition 1.6.14. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 3037

Then V is 3038
(i) : the dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 3039
(ii) : the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 3040
(iii) : the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 3041
(iv) : the δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 3042
(v) : the strong δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 3043
(vi) : the connected δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 3044
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider 3045

V. All SuperHyperMembers of V have at least one SuperHyperNeighbor inside 3046
the SuperHyperSet more than SuperHyperNeighbor out of SuperHyperSet. 3047
Thus, 3048
(i). V is the dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing since the 3049
following statements are equivalent. 3050
∀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.
77
(ii). V is the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing since 3051

the following statements are equivalent. 3052
∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |Ns (a) ∩ ∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(iii). V is the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing 3053
since the following statements are equivalent. 3054
∀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 3055
∀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 3057
∀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 3059
statements are equivalent. 3060
∀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.
3061
78
Proposition 1.6.15. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a neutrosophic SuperHyper- 3062

Graph. Then ∅ is 3063
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 3064
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 3065
(iii) : the connected defensive SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 3066
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 3067
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 3068
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 3069

∅. All SuperHyperMembers of ∅ have no SuperHyperNeighbor inside the 3071
SuperHyperSet less than SuperHyperNeighbor out of SuperHyperSet. Thus, 3072

(i). ∅ is the SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing since the following 3073
∀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 3075

∀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 3077

∀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.
79
(iv). ∅ is the δ-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing since the 3079

∀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 3081
∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |(Ns (a) ∩ ∅) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ ∅))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |(Ns (a) ∩ ∅) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
(vi). ∅ is the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing 3083

∀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.
3085

Then an independent SuperHyperSet is 3087
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 3088
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 3089
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 3090
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 3091
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 3092
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 3093

S. All SuperHyperMembers of S have no SuperHyperNeighbor inside the 3095
(i). An independent SuperHyperSet is the SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 3097
SuperHyperForcing since the following statements are equivalent. 3098
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
80
∀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 3099

∀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 3101

1-failed SuperHyperForcing since the following statements are equivalent. 3102
∀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 3103

∀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 3105
∀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.
81
(vi). An independent SuperHyperSet is the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive 3107

1-failed SuperHyperForcing since the following statements are equivalent. 3108
∀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.
3109
Proposition 1.6.17. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform 3110

SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath. Then V is a 3111
maximal 3112
(i) : SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 3113
(ii) : strong SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 3114
(iii) : connected SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 3115
(iv) : O(N SHG)-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 3116
(v) : strong O(N SHG)-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 3117
(vi) : connected O(N SHG)-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 3118
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices 3119

coincide. 3120
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 3121

SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath. 3122
(i). Consider one segment is out of S which is SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 3123
SuperHyperForcing. This segment has 2t SuperHyperNeighbors in S, i.e, 3124
Suppose xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S such that yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). 3125

By it’s the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices 3126
coincide and it’s SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperCycle, |N (xii=1,2,...,t )| = 3127
|N (yii=1,2,...,t )| = |N (zii=1,2,...,t )| = 2t. Thus 3128
∀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 SuperHyperDe- 3129
fensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyper- 3130
Cycle. 3131
82
Consider one segment, with two segments related to the SuperHyperLeaves as ex- 3132
ceptions, is out of S which is SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 3133
This segment has 2t SuperHyperNeighbors in S, i.e, Suppose xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S 3134
such that yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By it’s the exterior SuperHyper- 3135
Vertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s SuperHyperUni- 3136
form SuperHyperPath, |N (xii=1,2,...,t )| = |N (yii=1,2,...,t )| = |N (zii=1,2,...,t )| = 2t. 3137
Thus 3138
∀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.
Thus it’s contradiction. It implies every V \{xii=1,2,...,t } isn’t SuperHyperDefens- 3139

ive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperPath. 3140
(ii), (iii) are obvious by (i). 3141
(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal and it’s a SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHy- 3142

perForcing. Thus it’s |V |-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 3143
(v), (vi) are obvious by (iv). 3144
Proposition 1.6.18. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 3145

which is a SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel. Then V is a maximal 3146
(i) : dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 3147
(ii) : strong dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 3148
(iii) : connected dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 3149
(iv) : O(N SHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 3150
(v) : strong O(N SHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 3151
(vi) : connected O(N SHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperFor- 3152

cing; 3153
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices 3154

coincide. 3155
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform 3156
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. 3157

(i). Consider one segment is out of S which is SuperHyperDefensive 1- 3158
failed SuperHyperForcing. This segment has 3t SuperHyperNeighbors in S, 3159
i.e, Suppose xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S such that yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ 3160
N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By it’s the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 3161
83
SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel, 3162

|N (xii=1,2,...,t )| = |N (yii=1,2,...,t )| = |N (zii=1,2,...,t )| = 3t. Thus 3163
∀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 3164

1-failed SuperHyperForcing in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel. 3165

(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal and it is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 3167
SuperHyperForcing. Thus it’s a dual |V |-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 3168

SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath. Then the 3172
number of 3173
(i) : the 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 3174
(ii) : the 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 3175
(iii) : the connected 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 3176
(iv) : the O(N SHG)-1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 3177
(v) : the strong O(N SHG)-1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 3178
(vi) : the connected O(N SHG)-1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 3179
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 3180
SuperHyperVertices coincide. 3181

SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath. 3183
(i). Consider one segment is out of S which is SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 3184
SuperHyperForcing. This segment has 2t SuperHyperNeighbors in S, i.e, 3185
Suppose xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S such that yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). 3186

By it’s the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices 3187
coincide and it’s SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperCycle, |N (xii=1,2,...,t )| = 3188
|N (yii=1,2,...,t )| = |N (zii=1,2,...,t )| = 2t. Thus 3189
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
84
∀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.
Thus it’s contradiction. It implies every V \ {xii=1,2,...,t } isn’t SuperHyperDe- 3190

fensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyper- 3191
Cycle. 3192
Consider one segment, with two segments related to the SuperHyperLeaves as ex- 3193
ceptions, is out of S which is SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 3194
This segment has 2t SuperHyperNeighbors in S, i.e, Suppose xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S 3195
such that yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By it’s the exterior SuperHyper- 3196
Vertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s SuperHyperUni- 3197
form SuperHyperPath, |N (xii=1,2,...,t )| = |N (yii=1,2,...,t )| = |N (zii=1,2,...,t )| = 2t. 3198

Thus 3199
∀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.
Thus it’s contradiction. It implies every V \{xii=1,2,...,t } isn’t SuperHyperDefens- 3200
ive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperPath. 3201

(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal and it’s a SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHy- 3203
perForcing. Thus it’s |V |-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 3204

SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. Then the number of 3207
(i) : the dual 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 3208
(ii) : the dual 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 3209
(iii) : the dual connected 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 3210
(iv) : the dual O(N SHG)-1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 3211
(v) : the strong dual O(N SHG)-1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 3212
(vi) : the connected dual O(N SHG)-1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 3213
85
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 3214
SuperHyperVertices coincide. 3215

SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. 3217
(i). Consider one segment is out of S which is SuperHyperDefensive 1- 3218
failed SuperHyperForcing. This segment has 3t SuperHyperNeighbors in S, 3219

i.e, Suppose xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S such that yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ 3220
N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By it’s the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 3221
SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel, 3222
∀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| <
|{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 Supe- 3224
rHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing in a given SuperHyperUniform 3225
SuperHyperWheel. 3226
(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal and it’s a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 3228
SuperHyperForcing. Thus it isn’t an |V |-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed Super- 3229
HyperForcing. 3230

SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperStar/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyper- 3233
Bipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a SuperHyperSet 3234
contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of multiplying r with the number 3235
of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices is a 3236
O(N SHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 3240
O(N SHG)
(v) : strong 2 +1-dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 3241
86
O(N SHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyper- 3242
Forcing. 3243
Proof. (i). Consider n half +1 SuperHyperVertices are in S which is SuperHyper- 3244

Defensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. A SuperHyperVertex has either n2 or one 3245
SuperHyperNeighbors in S. If the SuperHyperVertex is non-SuperHyperCenter, 3246
then 3247
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
If the SuperHyperVertex is SuperHyperCenter, then 3248
∀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 3249
SuperHyperForcing in a given SuperHyperStar. 3250
Consider n half +1 SuperHyperVertices are in S which is SuperHyperDefensive 3251
1-failed SuperHyperForcing. A SuperHyperVertex has at most n2 SuperHyper- 3252
Neighbors in S. 3253
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 3255
isn’t a SuperHyperStar. 3256
1-failed SuperHyperForcing and they’re chosen from different SuperHyperParts, 3258
equally or almost equally as possible. A SuperHyperVertex has at most n2 3259

SuperHyperNeighbors in S. 3260
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 3262
which is neither a SuperHyperStar nor SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBi- 3263

partite. 3264
O(N SHG)
+1
(iv). By (i), {xi }i=1 2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHy- 3266
O(N SHG)
perForcing. Thus it’s 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed Super- 3267
HyperForcing. 3268

Bipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a SuperHyperSet 3272
87
contains the half of multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges 3273
plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart is a 3274
(iv) : δ-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 3278
(v) : strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 3279
(vi) : connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 3280
Proof. (i). Consider the half of multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHy- 3281
perEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart 3282
are in S which is SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. A Supe- 3283
rHyperVertex has either n − 1, 1 or zero SuperHyperNeighbors in S. If the 3284
SuperHyperVertex is in S, then 3285
∀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 3286

Consider the half of multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges 3288
plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart 3289
are in S which is SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. A 3290
SuperHyperVertex has no SuperHyperNeighbor in S. 3291
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 0 < δ.
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 3292

Consider the half of multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges 3295
plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart 3296
are in S which is SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. A 3297
SuperHyperVertex has no SuperHyperNeighbor in S. 3298
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 0 < δ.
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed Super- 3299

HyperForcing in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite which 3300
is neither a SuperHyperStar nor SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite. 3301

(iv). By (i), S is a SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Thus it’s 3303
an δ-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 3304
88

Bipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then Then the number 3308
of 3309
O(N SHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 3313
O(N SHG)
(v) : strong 2 +1-dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 3314
O(N SHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyper- 3315
Forcing. 3316
is one and it’s only S, a SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] 3317
the half of multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one 3318
of all the SuperHyperVertices. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the 3319
interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 3320
Proof. (i). Consider n half +1 SuperHyperVertices are in S which is SuperHyper- 3321
Defensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. A SuperHyperVertex has either n2 or one 3322

SuperHyperNeighbors in S. If the SuperHyperVertex is non-SuperHyperCenter, 3323
then 3324
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
If the SuperHyperVertex is SuperHyperCenter, then 3325
∀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 SuperHyper- 3329
Neighbors in S. 3330
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, 3335
89
equally or almost equally as possible. A SuperHyperVertex has at most n

2 3336
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 3339
which is neither a SuperHyperStar nor SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBi- 3340
partite. 3341

O(N SHG)
+1
(iv). By (i), {xi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHy- 3343
O(N SHG)
perForcing. Thus it’s 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed Super- 3344
HyperForcing. 3345

The number of connected component is |V − S| if there’s a SuperHyperSet which 3348
is a dual 3349
(iv) : 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 3353
(v) : strong 1-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 3354
(vi) : connected 1-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 3355
Proof. (i). Consider some SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 3356
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. These SuperHyperVertex- 3357

type have some SuperHyperNeighbors in S but no SuperHyperNeighbor out of 3358
S. Thus 3359
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.

SuperHyperForcing and number of connected component is |V − S|. 3361
(iv). By (i), S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Thus 3363
it’s a dual 1-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 3364

Then the number is at most O(N SHG) and the neutrosophic number is at most 3367
On (N SHG). 3368
90

V. All SuperHyperMembers of V have at least one SuperHyperNeighbor inside 3370
the SuperHyperSet more than SuperHyperNeighbor out of SuperHyperSet. 3371
Thus, 3372
V is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing since the following 3373
∀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 3375
∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |Ns (a) ∩ ∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
V is connected a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing since 3377

∀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 3379

∀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 3381
91
∀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 3383

∀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 3385

the biggest SuperHyperSet in N SHG : (V, E). Then the number is at most 3386
O(N SHG : (V, E)) and the neutrosophic number is at most On (N SHG : 3387
(V, E)). 3388
which is SuperHyperComplete. The number is O(N SHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and the 3390
neutrosophic number is min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting 3391
t>
2
of dual 3392
(iv) : ( O(N SHG:(V,E))

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 3396
(v) : strong ( O(N SHG:(V,E))

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperFor- 3397
cing; 3398
(vi) : connected ( O(N SHG:(V,E))

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyper- 3399
Forcing. 3400
Proof. (i). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 3401
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. A SuperHyperVertex has n 3402
half SuperHyperNeighbors in S. 3403
∀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- 3404
failed SuperHyperForcing in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraph. 3405
92
Thus the number is O(N SHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and the neutrosophic number is 3406
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual SuperHy- 3407
t>
2
perDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 3408
(ii). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual Super- 3409
HyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. A SuperHyperVertex has n half 3410
∀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 3412
1-failed SuperHyperForcing in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraph. 3413
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual strong 3415
t>
2
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 3416
(iii). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 3417
∀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 3420
1-failed SuperHyperForcing in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraph. 3421
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual connected 3423
t>
2
(iv). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 3425

∀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)- 3428
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing in a given SuperHyperCom- 3429
plete SuperHyperGraph. Thus the number is O(N SHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and the neut- 3430
rosophic number is min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of 3431
t>
2
a dual ( O(N SHG:(V,E))

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 3432
(v). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual Super- 3433
HyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. A SuperHyperVertex has n half 3434
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
93
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual strong ( O(N SHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1)- 3436
plete SuperHyperGraph. Thus the number is O(N SHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and the neut- 3438
rosophic number is min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of 3439
t>
2
a dual strong ( O(N SHG:(V,E))

Forcing. 3441
(vi). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 3442
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

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

2 + 1)- 3445
plete SuperHyperGraph. Thus the number is O(N SHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and the 3447
neutrosophic number is min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the set- 3448
t>
2
ting of a dual connected ( O(N SHG:(V,E))

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 3449

which is ∅. The number is 0 and the neutrosophic number is 0, for an independent 3452
SuperHyperSet in the setting of dual 3453
(iv) : 0-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 3457
(v) : strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 3458
(vi) : connected 0-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 3459

∅. All SuperHyperMembers of ∅ have no SuperHyperNeighbor inside the 3461
(i). ∅ is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing since the 3463
∀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.
94
The number is 0 and the neutrosophic number is 0, for an independent SuperHy- 3465
perSet in the setting of a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 3466
(ii). ∅ is a dual strong SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing since 3467
∀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.
The number is 0 and the neutrosophic number is 0, for an independent 3469
SuperHyperSet in the setting of a dual strong SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 3470
(iii). ∅ is a dual connected SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing 3472
∀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.
SuperHyperSet in the setting of a dual connected SuperHyperDefensive 1- 3475

failed SuperHyperForcing. 3476
(iv). ∅ is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing since the 3477
∀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.
SuperHyperSet in the setting of a dual 0-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 3480
(v). ∅ is a dual strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing since 3482
∀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.
95

SuperHyperSet in the setting of a dual strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 3485
(vi). ∅ is a dual connected SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing 3487

∀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.
The number is 0 and the neutrosophic number is 0, for an independent Super- 3489
HyperSet in the setting of a dual connected 0-offensive SuperHyperDefensive 3490


which is SuperHyperComplete. Then there’s no independent SuperHyperSet. 3493

which is SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel. The number is 3495
O(N SHG : (V, E)) and the neutrosophic number is On (N SHG : (V, E)), in 3496
the setting of a dual 3497
(iv) : O(N SHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 3501
(v) : strong O(N SHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperFor- 3502

cing; 3503
(vi) : connected O(N SHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyper- 3504

Forcing. 3505
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 3506
SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel. 3507
(i). Consider one SuperHyperVertex is out of S which is a dual SuperHy- 3508
perDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. This SuperHyperVertex has one 3509
SuperHyperNeighbor in S, i.e, suppose x ∈ V \ S such that y, z ∈ N (x). By it’s 3510
SuperHyperCycle, |N (x)| = |N (y)| = |N (z)| = 2. Thus 3511
∀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.
96
Thus it’s contradiction. It implies every V \ {x} isn’t a dual SuperHyperDe- 3512
fensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing in a given SuperHyperCycle. 3513
Consider one SuperHyperVertex is out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 3514
1-failed SuperHyperForcing. This SuperHyperVertex has one SuperHyperNeigh- 3515

bor in S, i.e, Suppose x ∈ V \ S such that y, z ∈ N (x). By it’s SuperHyperPath, 3516
|N (x)| = |N (y)| = |N (z)| = 2. Thus 3517
∀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.
Thus it’s contradiction. It implies every V \ {x} isn’t a dual SuperHyperDe- 3518
fensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing in a given SuperHyperPath. 3519
Consider one SuperHyperVertex is out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 3520
1-failed SuperHyperForcing. This SuperHyperVertex has one SuperHyperNeigh- 3521

bor in S, i.e, Suppose x ∈ V \S such that y, z ∈ N (x). By it’s SuperHyperWheel, 3522
|N (x)| = |N (y)| = |N (z)| = 2. Thus 3523
∀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.
Thus it’s contradiction. It implies every V \{x} isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive 3524
1-failed SuperHyperForcing in a given SuperHyperWheel. 3525
(iv). By (i), V is maximal and it’s a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 3527

SuperHyperForcing. Thus it’s a dual O(N SHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive 3528
Thus the number is O(N SHG : (V, E)) and the neutrosophic number is 3531
On (N SHG : (V, E)), in the setting of all types of a dual SuperHyperDefensive 3532

which is SuperHyperStar/complete SuperHyperBipartite/complete SuperHyper- 3535
MultiPartite. The number is O(N SHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and the neutrosophic number 3536
is min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual 3537
t>
2
97
(iv) : ( O(N SHG:(V,E))

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 3541

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperFor- 3542
cing; 3543

Forcing. 3545
Proof. (i). Consider n half +1 SuperHyperVertices are in S which is Supe- 3546

rHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. A SuperHyperVertex has at 3547
most n half SuperHyperNeighbors in S. If the SuperHyperVertex is the non- 3548
SuperHyperCenter, then 3549
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
If the SuperHyperVertex is the SuperHyperCenter, then 3550
∀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 SuperHyper- 3553
Defensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 3554
∀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 3556
SuperHyperStar. 3557
Consider n half +1 SuperHyperVertices are in S which is a dual SuperHy- 3558
perDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing and they are chosen from different 3559
SuperHyperParts, equally or almost equally as possible. A SuperHyperVertex 3560
in S has δ half SuperHyperNeighbors in S. 3561
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

δ δ
∀a ∈ S, >n− .
2 2
3562
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed Su- 3563
perHyperForcing in a given complete SuperHyperMultipartite which is neither 3564

a SuperHyperStar nor complete SuperHyperBipartite. 3565
O(N SHG:(V,E))
+1
(iv). By (i), {xi }i=1 2
is maximal and it’s a dual SuperHyperDe- 3567
fensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Thus it’s a dual O(N SHG:(V,E))

2 + 1- 3568
98
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of all dual 1-failed Su- 3572
t>
2
perHyperForcing. 3573
Proposition 1.6.31. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a SuperHyperFamily of the 3574

N SHGs : (V, E) neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs which are from one-type 3575
SuperHyperClass which the result is obtained for the individuals. Then the 3576
results also hold for the SuperHyperFamily N SHF : (V, E) of these specific 3577
SuperHyperClasses of the neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs. 3578
Proof. There are neither SuperHyperConditions nor SuperHyperRestrictions 3579

on the SuperHyperVertices. Thus the SuperHyperResults on individuals, 3580
N SHGs : (V, E), are extended to the SuperHyperResults on SuperHyperFamily, 3581
N SHF : (V, E). 3582
Proposition 1.6.32. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a strong neutrosophic SuperHyper- 3583

Graph. If S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, then 3584
∀v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S such that 3585
(i) v ∈ Ns (x); 3586
(ii) vx ∈ E. 3587
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 3588

Consider v ∈ V \ S. Since S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 3589
∀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. 3591

∀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.
3594
Proposition 1.6.33. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a strong neutrosophic SuperHy- 3595

perGraph. If S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, 3596
then 3597
(i) S is SuperHyperDominating set; 3598
(ii) there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic number. 3599
99

SuperHyperForcing, either 3602
∀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 3603
∀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. 3604

SuperHyperForcing, either 3607
∀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 3608
∀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.
Thus every SuperHyperVertex v ∈ V \ S, has at least one SuperHyperNeighbor 3609

in S. The only case is about the relation amid SuperHyperVertices in S in 3610
the terms of SuperHyperNeighbors. It implies there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is 3611

SuperHyperChromatic number. 3612

Graph. Then 3614
(i) Γ ≤ O; 3615
(ii) Γs ≤ On . 3616

Let S = V. 3618
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ V, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ V )|
100
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. 3619

For all SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S, S ⊆ V. Thus for all 3620
SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S, |S| ≤ |V |. It implies for all 3621
SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S, |S| ≤ O. So for all SuperHyperSets 3622
of SuperHyperVertices S, Γ ≤ O. 3623
(ii). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Let 3624

S = V. 3625
∀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 3626

all SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S, S ⊆ V. Thus for 3627
all SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ 3628
Σv∈V Σ3i=1 σi (v). It implies for all SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyper- 3629
Vertices S, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ On . So for all SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic 3630

SuperHyperVertices S, Γs ≤ On . 3631

Graph which is connected. Then 3633
(i) Γ ≤ O − 1; 3634
(ii) Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 3635

Let S = V − {x} where x is arbitrary and x ∈ V. 3637
∀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. 3638
For all SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, S ⊆ V − {x}. Thus for 3639

all SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, |S| ≤ |V − {x}|. It implies 3640
for all SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S = 6 V, |S| ≤ O − 1. So for all 3641
SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S, Γ ≤ O − 1. 3642
101
S = V − {x} where x is arbitrary and x ∈ V. 3644
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

|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. 3645

For all SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, S ⊆ 3646
V − {x}. Thus for all SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 3647
S= 6 V, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ Σv∈V −{x} Σ3i=1 σi (v). It implies for all SuperHyperSets 3648
of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 3649
So for all SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S, Γs ≤ 3650

On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 3651
Proposition 1.6.36. Let N SHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperPath. Then 3652
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 3653

1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 3654
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 3655
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 3656
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } 3657

are only a dual 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 3658
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an odd SuperHyperPath. Let S = 3659

{v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all vi , vj ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }, vi vj 6∈ E and 3660
vi , vj ∈ V. 3661
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 Super- 3662

HyperForcing. If S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } − {vi } where vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }, 3663
then 3664
∃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 Super- 3665
HyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. It induces S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } 3666
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 3667
102
(ii) and (iii) are trivial. 3668

(iv). By (i), S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 3669
SuperHyperForcing. Thus it’s enough to show that S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } is 3670
a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Suppose N SHG : 3671

(V, E) is an odd SuperHyperPath. Let S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all 3672
vi , vj ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 3673
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 })|

then 3676
∃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 1.6.37. Let N SHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperPath. Then 3680
(i) the set S = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 3681

SuperHyperForcing; 3682
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and 3683

{v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }; 3684
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 3685
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are 3686
only dual 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 3687
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an even SuperHyperPath. Let S = 3688

{v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } where for all vi , vj ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 3689
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 3690

SuperHyperForcing. If S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } − {vi } where vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, 3691
103
then 3692
∃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 SuperHyper- 3693

Defensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. It induces S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual 3694
(iv). By (i), S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed Supe- 3697

rHyperForcing. Thus it’s enough to show that S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual 3698
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) 3699
is an even SuperHyperPath. Let S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all 3700
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 })|

then 3704
∃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 1.6.38. Let N SHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperCycle. Then 3708
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 3709

(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and 3711

{v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }; 3712
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } σ(s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } σ(s)}; 3713
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are 3714

only dual 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 3715
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an even SuperHyperCycle. Let 3716

S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } where for all vi , vj ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, vi vj 6∈ E and 3717
vi , vj ∈ V. 3718
v ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn }| = 2 >
104
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 3719

SuperHyperForcing. If S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } − {vi } where vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, 3720
then 3721
∃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 SuperHyper- 3722

Defensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. It induces S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual 3723
(iv). By (i), S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed Supe- 3726

is an even SuperHyperCycle. Let S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all 3729
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 })|

then 3733
∃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 1.6.39. Let N SHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperCycle. Then 3737
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 3738

(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 3740
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 3741
105
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } 3742

are only dual 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 3743
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an odd SuperHyperCycle. Let S = 3744

{v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all vi , vj ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }, vi vj 6∈ E and 3745
vi , vj ∈ V. 3746
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 })|

then 3749
∃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 Supe- 3754

is an odd SuperHyperCycle. Let S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all 3757
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 })|

then 3761
∃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 1.6.40. Let N SHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperStar. Then 3765
106
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c} is a dual maximal 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 3766
(ii) Γ = 1; 3767
(iii) Γs = Σ3i=1 σi (c); 3768
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c} and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual 1-failed 3769
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a SuperHyperStar. 3771
∀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. 3772
If S = {c} − {c} = ∅, then 3773
∃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 SuperHyper- 3774

Forcing. It induces S = {c} is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHy- 3775
perForcing. 3776
(iv). By (i), S = {c} is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 3778
Thus it’s enough to show that S ⊆ S 0 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 3779
SuperHyperForcing. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a SuperHyperStar. Let S ⊆ S 0 . 3780
∀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. 3781

3782
Proposition 1.6.41. Let N SHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperWheel. Then 3783
6+3(i−1)≤n
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a 3784
dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 3785
6+3(i−1)≤n
(ii) Γ = |{v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 |; 3786
(iii) Γs = Σ{v1 ,v3 }∪{v6 ,v9 ··· ,vi+6 ,··· ,vn }6+3(i−1)≤n Σ3i=1 σi (s); 3787
i=1
6+3(i−1)≤n
(iv) the SuperHyperSet {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is only 3788
a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 3789
107
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a SuperHyperWheel. Let S = 3790

6+3(i−1)≤n
{v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 . There are either 3791
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 2 > 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
or 3792
∀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 3793
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. If S 0 = {v1 , v3 } ∪ 3794
6+3(i−1)≤n
{v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 − {z} where z ∈ S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ 3795
6+3(i−1)≤n
{v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 , then There are either 3796
∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | = 1 < 2 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|

∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | < |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
or 3797
∀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 z ∈ 3798
6+3(i−1)≤n
S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 isn’t a dual SuperHy- 3799
perDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. It induces S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ 3800
6+3(i−1)≤n
{v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 3801
(ii), (iii) and (iv) are obvious. 3803
Proposition 1.6.42. Let N SHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperComplete. Then 3804
b n c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 3805
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1; 3807
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} b n c+1

2
; 3808
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual SuperHyperDefensive 3809
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an odd SuperHyperComplete. Let 3811

bn
2 c+1
S = {vi }i=1 . Thus 3812
n n
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = b c + 1 > b c − 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
2 2
108
∀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 SuperHyper- 3813
bn
2 c+1 bn
2 c+1
Forcing. If S = {vi }i=1 − {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1
0
, then 3814
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 SuperHyper- 3815
bn
2 c+1
Defensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. It induces S = {vi }i=1 is a dual 3816
Proposition 1.6.43. Let N SHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperComplete. 3819

Then 3820
bn
2c
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 3821
(ii) Γ = b n2 c; 3823
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} bnc

2
; 3824
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual maximal SuperHyperDe- 3825
fensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 3826
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an even SuperHyperComplete. Let 3827

bn
2c
S = {vi }i=1 . Thus 3828
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 SuperHyperFor- 3829
bn2c bn
2c
cing. If S = {vi }i=1 − {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1
0
, then 3830
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 3831
bn
2c
1-failed SuperHyperForcing. It induces S = {vi }i=1 is a dual maximal 3832
Proposition 1.6.44. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of 3835

neutrosophic SuperHyperStars with common neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 3836
SuperHyperSet. Then 3837
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 3838

1-failed SuperHyperForcing for N SHF; 3839
109
(ii) Γ = m for N SHF : (V, E); 3840
(iii) Γs = Σm
i=1 Σj=1 σj (ci ) for N SHF : (V, E);
3
3841
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual 1-failed 3842
SuperHyperForcing for N SHF : (V, E). 3843
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a SuperHyperStar. 3844
∀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 3845

SuperHyperForcing for N SHF : (V, E). If S = {c} − {c} = ∅, then 3846
∃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 SuperHyper- 3847
Forcing for N SHF : (V, E). It induces S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual maximal 3848
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing for N SHF : (V, E). 3849
(iv). By (i), S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed Supe- 3851
rHyperForcing for N SHF : (V, E). Thus it’s enough to show that S ⊆ S 0 is 3852
a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing for N SHF : (V, E). 3853
Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a SuperHyperStar. Let S ⊆ S 0 . 3854
∀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 3855

for N SHF : (V, E). 3856
Proposition 1.6.45. Let N SHF : (V, E) be an m-SuperHyperFamily of odd 3857

SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common neutrosophic SuperHy- 3858
perVertex SuperHyperSet. Then 3859
b n c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 3860
1-failed SuperHyperForcing for N SHF; 3861
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 for N SHF : (V, E); 3862

2
for N SHF : (V, E); 3863
S={vi }i=1
110
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only a dual maximal 1-failed 3864
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is odd SuperHyperComplete. Let S = 3866

bn
2 c+1
{vi }i=1 . Thus 3867
n n
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
b n c+1
2
bn
2 c+1 bn
2 c+1
Forcing for N SHF : (V, E). If S 0 = {vi }i=1 − {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1 , 3869
then 3870
n n
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
b n c+1 b n c+1
So S 0 = {vi }i=1 2
− {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1
2
isn’t a dual Super- 3871
HyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing for N SHF : (V, E). It induces 3872

bn2 c+1
S = {vi }i=1 is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyper- 3873
Forcing for N SHF : (V, E). 3874
Proposition 1.6.46. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of even 3876

SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common neutrosophic SuperHy- 3877
perVertex SuperHyperSet. Then 3878
bn
2c
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 3879
SuperHyperForcing for N SHF : (V, E); 3880
(ii) Γ = b n2 c for N SHF : (V, E); 3881

2
for N SHF : (V, E); 3882
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1 2
are only dual maximal 1-failed 3883
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is even SuperHyperComplete. Let 3885

bn
2c
S = {vi }i=1 . Thus 3886
n n
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
bnc
2
bn
2c bn
2c
Forcing for N SHF : (V, E). If S 0 = {vi }i=1 − {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1 , 3888
then 3889
n n
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
111
bnc bnc
So S 0 = {vi }i=1
2
− {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1
2
isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive 3890
bn
2c
1-failed SuperHyperForcing for N SHF : (V, E). It induces S = {vi }i=1 is a dual 3891
maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing for N SHF : (V, E). 3892
Graph. Then following statements hold; 3895
(i) if s ≥ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an t- 3896

SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, then S is an s- 3897
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 3898
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual t- 3899
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, then S is a dual s- 3900


Consider a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an t-SuperHyperDefensive 3903
1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Then 3904
∀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. 3905
(ii). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Con- 3906

sider a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual t-SuperHyperDefensive 3907
∀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. 3909

(i) if s ≥ t + 2 and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 3912
t-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, then S is an s- 3913

SuperHyperPowerful 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 3914
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual t- 3915

SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, then S is a dual s- 3916
SuperHyperPowerful 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 3917

Consider a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an t-SuperHyperDefensive 3919
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < t;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < t ≤ t + 2 ≤ s;
112
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < s.
Thus S is an (t + 2)−SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. By 3921
S is an s−SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing and S is a 3922

dual (s + 2)−SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, S is an s- 3923
SuperHyperPowerful 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 3924
sider a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual t-SuperHyperDefensive 3926
∀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. 3928

By S is an (s − 2)−SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing and 3929
S is a dual s−SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, S is an 3930
s−SuperHyperPowerful 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 3931
Proposition 1.6.49. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform- 3932
strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following statements hold; 3933
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b 2r c + 1, then N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 3936
2-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 3937
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then N SHG : (V, E) is an r- 3938

(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 3940

r-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 3941
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong- 3942

neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then 3943
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.
Thus S is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 3944

(ii). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong- 3945
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.
113
Thus S is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 3947

(iii). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong- 3948
∀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. 3950

(iv). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong- 3951
∀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. 3953
Proposition 1.6.50. Let N SHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform- 3954

strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following statements hold; 3955
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b 2r c + 1 if N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 2- 3958

(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a)∩V \S| = 0 if N SHG : (V, E) is an r-SuperHyperDefensive 3960

(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if N SHG : (V, E) is a dual r- 3962

∀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
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 3967
SuperHyperForcing. Then 3968
∀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
114
r r
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| = b c + 1, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S) = b c − 1.
2 2
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and an r-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed Su- 3970
perHyperForcing. 3971
∀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.

neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and a dual r-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 3973
∀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.
3975

strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperComplete. Then 3977
following statements hold; 3978
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b O−12 c + 1 if N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 3981

(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if N SHG : (V, E) is an (O − 1)- 3983
(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if N SHG : (V, E) is a dual (O − 1)- 3985


neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and an 2- SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 3988
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2;

O−1 O−1
2 2
O−1 O−1
2 2
O−1 O−1
2 2
115

neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 3991
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2;

O−1 O−1
2 2
O−1 O−1
2 2
O−1 O−1
2 2
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 3994
∀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.

neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and a dual r-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 3997
∀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.
3999

strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperComplete. Then 4001
following statements hold; 4002
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < + 1, then N SHG : (V, E) is an 2-

b O−1
2 c 4003
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > b O−1

2 c + 1, then N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 4005
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then N SHG : (V, E) is (O − 1)- 4007


(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 4010

neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperComplete. Then 4012
O−1 O−1
2 2
116
O−1 O−1
2 2
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2.

O−1 O−1
2 2
O−1 O−1
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. 4019

∀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. 4022

strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperCycle. Then fol- 4024
lowing statements hold; 4025
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2 if N SHG : (V, E)) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 4026
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2 if N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 2- 4028

(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a)∩V \S| = 0 if N SHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 4030

(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 2- 4032


neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and S is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 4035
117
∀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.
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and S is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 4038

∀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.

neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and S is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 4041
∀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.

neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and S is a dual r-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 4044
∀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.
4046

strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperCycle. Then fol- 4048
lowing statements hold; 4049
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2, then N SHG : (V, E) is an 2- 4050

(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2, then N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 2- 4052

(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then N SHG : (V, E) is an 2- 4054


2-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 4057
118
1.7. Applications in Cancer’s Recognitions

neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperCycle. Then 4059
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2 − 0;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2 − 0 = 2;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2.

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2 − 0;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2 − 0 = 2;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2.

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2 − 0;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2 − 0 = 2;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2.

∀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.
1.7 Applications in Cancer’s Recognitions 4070
on this phenomenon. The special case of this disease is considered and as the 4072
consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells are under 4073
attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are 4074
the matter of mind. The recognition of the cancer could help to find some 4075
treatments for this disease. 4076

In the following, some steps are devised on this disease. 4077
Step 1. (Definition) The recognition of the cancer in the long-term function. 4078
Step 2. (Issue) The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called 4079
SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is 4080
identified by this research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be 4081
easily identified since there are some determinacy, indeterminacy and 4082
neutrality about the moves and the effects of the cancer on that region; 4083
119
Figure 1.27: A SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of 1-failed

SuperHyperForcing 100NHGaa21aa
this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be neutrosophic 4084
SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened 4085

and what’s done. 4086
Step 3. (Model) There are some specific models, which are well-known and 4087
they’ve got the names, and some general models. The moves and the 4088
traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and between complicated 4089
groups of cells could be fantasized by a neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(- 4090
/SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyper- 4091
Multipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find either the 1-failed 4092

SuperHyperForcing or the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing in 4093
those neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. 4094
Case 1: The Initial Steps Toward SuperHyperBipartite as 4095
SuperHyperModel 4096
Step 4. (Solution) In the Figure (1.27), the SuperHyperBipartite is highlighted 4097

and featured. 4098
By using the Figure (1.27) and the Table (1.4), the neutrosophic 4099
SuperHyperBipartite is obtained. 4100
Case 2: The Increasing Steps Toward 4101
SuperHyperMultipartite as SuperHyperModel 4102
Step 4. (Solution) In the Figure (1.28), the SuperHyperMultipartite is high- 4103

lighted and featured. 4104
120
1.8. Open Problems

SuperHyperEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite

100TBLaa21aa
Figure 1.28: A SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of 1-failed

SuperHyperForcing 100NHGaa22aa

SuperHyperEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite

100TBLaa22aa
By using the Figure (1.28) and the Table (1.5), the neutrosophic Super- 4105
HyperMultipartite is obtained. 4106
1.8 Open Problems 4107
In what follows, some “problems” and some “questions” are proposed. 4108
The 1-failed SuperHyperForcing and the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperFor- 4109
cing are defined on a real-world application, titled “Cancer’s Recognitions”. 4110
4111
121
Question 1.8.1. Which the else SuperHyperModels could be defined based on 4112
Cancer’s recognitions? 4113
Question 1.8.2. Are there some SuperHyperNotions related to 1-failed Super- 4114
HyperForcing and the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing? 4115
Question 1.8.3. Are there some Algorithms to be defined on the SuperHyper- 4116
Models to compute them? 4117
Question 1.8.4. Which the SuperHyperNotions are related to beyond the 1-failed 4118
SuperHyperForcing and the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing? 4119
Problem 1.8.5. The 1-failed SuperHyperForcing and the neutrosophic 1-failed 4120
SuperHyperForcing do a SuperHyperModel for the Cancer’s recognitions and 4121
they’re based on 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, are there else? 4122
Problem 1.8.6. Which the fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are related to these 4123
SuperHyperNumbers types-results? 4124
Problem 1.8.7. What’s the independent research based on Cancer’s recognitions 4125
concerning the multiple types of SuperHyperNotions? 4126
1.9 Conclusion and Closing Remarks 4127
In this section, concluding remarks and closing remarks are represented. The 4128
drawbacks of this research are illustrated. Some benefits and some advantages 4129
of this research are highlighted. 4130
This research uses some approaches to make neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs 4131
more understandable. In this endeavor, two SuperHyperNotions are defined 4132
on the 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. For that sake in the second definition, 4133
the main definition of the neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph is redefined 4134
on the position of the alphabets. Based on the new definition for the 4135
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, the new SuperHyperNotion, neutrosophic 4136
1-failed SuperHyperForcing, finds the convenient background to implement 4137
some results based on that. Some SuperHyperClasses and some neutrosophic 4138
SuperHyperClasses are the cases of this research on the modeling of the regions 4139
where are under the attacks of the cancer to recognize this disease as it’s 4140
mentioned on the title “Cancer’s Recognitions”. To formalize the instances on 4141
the SuperHyperNotion, 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, the new SuperHyperClasses 4142
and SuperHyperClasses, are introduced. Some general results are gathered in 4143
the section on the 1-failed SuperHyperForcing and the neutrosophic 1-failed 4144
SuperHyperForcing. The clarifications, instances and literature reviews have 4145

taken the whole way through. In this research, the literature reviews have 4146
fulfilled the lines containing the notions and the results. The SuperHyperGraph 4147
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are the SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s 4148
Recognitions” and both bases are the background of this research. Sometimes 4149
the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, groups of cells 4150
and embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes some 4151
SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer 4152
in the longest and strongest styles with the formation of the design and the 4153
architecture are formally called “1-failed SuperHyperForcing” in the themes of 4154
jargons and buzzwords. The prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the 4155
122
1.9. Conclusion and Closing Remarks
embedded styles to figure out the background for the SuperHyperNotions. In
Table 1.6: A Brief Overview about Advantages and Limitations of this Research 100TBLTBL
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
4156
the Table (1.6), some limitations and advantages of this research are pointed 4157
out. 4158
123
Bibliography 4159

tems 49 (2022) 531-561 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.6456413). 4162



prints202212.0549.v1). 4171

2022, 2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 4176


10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 4183


10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 4187

10.13140/RG.2.2.11369.16487). 4191
125
Bibliography
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.25385.88160). 4198

33 (2020) 290-296. (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3783103). 4210

App. Eng. Math. 8 (1) (2018) 122-135. 4212

Theory 10 (2016) 86-101. 4214

Multistructure 4 (2010) 410-413. 4216
Press, 2006. 4218
126
CHAPTER 2 4219
Neutrosophic Failed 4220
1-SuperHyperForcing 4221
The following sections are cited as follows, which is my 101st manuscript and I 4222
use prefix 101 as number before any labelling for items. 4223
4224
[Ref2] Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 4225
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Can- 4226
cer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions And Beyond”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 4227
10.13140/RG.2.2.36141.77287). 4228
4229
The links to the contributions of this research chapter are listed below. 4230
4231
127
2. Neutrosophic Failed 1-SuperHyperForcing
128
129
[Ref2] Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyper-

Function To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recogni-
tions And Beyond”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.36141.77287).
4232
Article #101 4233
4234
Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction To 4235
Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 4236
And Beyond 4237
4238
@Wordpress:https://drhenrygarrett.wordpress.com/2022/12/31/failed-superhyperforcing-
4239
19/ 4240
4241
4243
@ResearchGate:https://www.researchgate.net/publication/366734034 4244
130
2.1. Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction To
Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition
And Beyond
4245
@Scribd:https://www.scribd.com/document/617236838 4246
4247
@Academia:https://www.academia.edu/94066409/ 4248
4249
@Zenodo:https://zenodo.org/record/7497386 4250
4251
4252
2.1 Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 4253
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic 4254
SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic 4255
Recognition And Beyond 4256
2.2 Abstract 4257
In this research, new setting is introduced for new SuperHyperNotion, namely, 4258
Neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Two different types of SuperHyper- 4259
Definitions are debut for them but the research goes further and the Super- 4260
HyperNotion, SuperHyperUniform, and SuperHyperClass based on that are 4261
well-defined and well-reviewed. The literature review is implemented in the 4262

whole of this research. For shining the elegancy and the significancy of this 4263
research, the comparison between this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHy- 4264
perNotions and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are featured. The definitions 4265
are followed by the examples and the instances thus the clarifications are driven 4266
with different tools. The applications are figured out to make sense about 4267
the theoretical aspect of this ongoing research. The “Cancer’s Neutrosophic 4268
Recognition” are the under research to figure out the challenges make sense 4269
about ongoing and upcoming research. The special case is up. The cells are 4270
viewed in the deemed ways. There are different types of them. Some of them 4271
are individuals and some of them are well-modeled by the group of cells. These 4272
types are all officially called “SuperHyperVertex” but the relations amid them 4273
all officially called “SuperHyperEdge”. The frameworks “SuperHyperGraph” 4274

and “neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” are chosen and elected to research about 4275
“Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition”. Thus these complex and dense Super- 4276
HyperModels open up some avenues to research on theoretical segments and 4277
“Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition”. Some avenues are posed to pursue this 4278
research. It’s also officially collected in the form of some questions and some 4279
problems. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then a “1-failed SuperHyperForcing” 4280

Z(N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the max- 4281
imum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of black SuperHyperVertices (whereas 4282
SuperHyperNeighbor of a black SuperHyperVertex. The additional condition is 4286

act on white SuperHyperVertex to be black SuperHyperVertex; a “neutrosophic 4288
1-failed SuperHyperForcing” Zn (N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 4289
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a SuperHyperSet 4290
131
S of black SuperHyperVertices (whereas SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are 4291

colored white) such that V (G) isn’t turned black after finitely many applica- 4292
tions of “the color-change rule”: a white SuperHyperVertex is converted to a 4293
black SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white SuperHyperNeighbor of a black 4294

SuperHyperVertex. The additional condition is referred by “1-” about the usage 4295
of any black SuperHyperVertex only once to act on white SuperHyperVertex to 4296
be black SuperHyperVertex. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then an “δ−1-failed 4297
SuperHyperForcing” is a maximal 1-failed SuperHyperForcing of SuperHyper- 4298
Vertices with maximum cardinality such that either of the following expressions 4299
hold for the (neutrosophic) cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 4300

|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ, |S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. The first 4301
Expression, holds if S is an “δ−SuperHyperOffensive”. And the second Ex- 4302
SuperHyperVertices with maximum neutrosophic cardinality such that either 4305
of the following expressions hold for the neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHy- 4306
perNeighbors of s ∈ S : |S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + 4307
δ, |S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ. The first Expres- 4308
sion, holds if S is a “neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive”. And the second 4309
Expression, holds if S is a “neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperDefensive”. It’s useful 4310
to define “neutrosophic” version of 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Since there’s 4311
more ways to get type-results to make 1-failed SuperHyperForcing more un- 4312
derstandable. For the sake of having neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, 4313
there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of “1-failed SuperHyperForcing”. The 4314
of labels to assign to the values. Assume a 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. It’s 4317
redefined neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing if the mentioned Table holds, 4318

concerning, “The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and 4319
SuperHyperEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” with the key 4320
points, “The Values of The Vertices & The Number of Position in Alphabet”, 4321
SuperHyperGraph based on 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. It’s the main. It’ll 4327
be disciplinary to have the foundation of previous definition in the kind of 4328
SuperHyperClass. If there’s a need to have all SuperHyperConnectivities until 4329
the 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, then it’s officially called “1-failed SuperHyper- 4330
Forcing” but otherwise, it isn’t 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. There are some 4331
instances about the clarifications for the main definition titled “1-failed Super- 4332
HyperForcing”. These two examples get more scrutiny and discernment since 4333
on 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. For the sake of having neutrosophic 1-failed 4335
SuperHyperForcing, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of “neutrosophic 1- 4336

failed SuperHyperForcing” and “neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing”. The 4337
of labels to assign to the values. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s 4340
132
2.2. Abstract
redefined “neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” if the intended Table holds. And 4341

1-failed SuperHyperForcing are redefined “neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperFor- 4342
cing” if the intended Table holds. It’s useful to define “neutrosophic” version of 4343
SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s more ways to get neutrosophic type-results to 4344

make neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing more understandable. Assume 4345
a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some neutrosophic SuperHyper- 4346
Classes if the intended Table holds. Thus SuperHyperPath, SuperHyperCycle, 4347
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and Super- 4348
HyperWheel, are “neutrosophic SuperHyperPath”, “neutrosophic SuperHyper- 4349
Cycle”, “neutrosophic SuperHyperStar”, “neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite”, 4350

“neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite”, and “neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel” 4351
if the intended Table holds. A SuperHyperGraph has “neutrosophic 1-failed 4352
SuperHyperForcing” where it’s the strongest [the maximum neutrosophic value 4353
from all 1-failed SuperHyperForcing amid the maximum value amid all Super- 4354
HyperVertices from a 1-failed SuperHyperForcing.] 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 4355
A graph is SuperHyperUniform if it’s SuperHyperGraph and the number of 4356

elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHy- 4357
perGraph. There are some SuperHyperClasses as follows. It’s SuperHyperPath 4358
if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges 4359
with two exceptions; it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as in- 4360
tersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one 4361
SuperVertex as intersection amid all SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperBipart- 4362

ite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges 4363
and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge in 4364
common; it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection 4365
amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi sep- 4366
arate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s SuperHyperWheel if it’s 4367
only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and one 4368
the common and intended properties between “specific” cells and “specific group” 4374
of cells are SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperEdges”. Sometimes, it’s useful 4375
to have some degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy, and neutrality to have 4376
more precise SuperHyperModel which in this case the SuperHyperModel is 4377
called “neutrosophic”. In the future research, the foundation will be based on 4378
the “Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition” and the results and the definitions will 4379
be introduced in redeemed ways. The neutrosophic recognition of the cancer 4380

in the long-term function. The specific region has been assigned by the model 4381
us to choose another model [it’s said to be neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to 4386

133


some general results are introduced. Beyond that in SuperHyperStar, all pos- 4397
sible SuperHyperPaths have only two SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough 4398

Keywords: Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, Neutrosophic 1-Failed Super- 4404
HyperForcing, Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 4405

2.3 Background 4407

notions. 4427

134
2.3. Background

background. 4439






Motivation and Contributions 4482
In this research, there are some ideas in the featured frameworks of motivations. 4483
I try to bring the motivations in the narrative ways. Some cells have been 4484
135
faced with some attacks from the situation which is caused by the cancer’s 4485
attacks. In this case, there are some embedded analysis on the ongoing situations 4486
which in that, the cells could be labelled as some groups and some groups or 4487
individuals have excessive labels which all are raised from the behaviors to 4488
overcome the cancer’s attacks. In the embedded situations, the individuals 4489
of cells and the groups of cells could be considered as “new groups”. Thus it 4490
motivates us to find the proper SuperHyperModels for getting more proper 4491
analysis on this messy story. I’ve found the SuperHyperModels which are 4492
officially called “SuperHyperGraphs” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”. 4493
In this SuperHyperModel, the cells and the groups of cells are defined as 4494
“SuperHyperVertices” and the relations between the individuals of cells and 4495
the groups of cells are defined as “SuperHyperEdges”. Thus it’s another 4496
motivation for us to do research on this SuperHyperModel based on the “Cancer’s 4497
Neutrosophic Recognition”. Sometimes, the situations get worst. The situation 4498
is passed from the certainty and precise style. Thus it’s the beyond them. 4499
There are three descriptions, namely, the degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy 4500
and neutrality, for any object based on vague forms, namely, incomplete data, 4501
imprecise data, and uncertain analysis. The latter model could be considered on 4502
the previous SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperGraph 4503
but it’s officially called “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”. The cancer is the 4504
disease but the model is going to figure out what’s going on this phenomenon. 4505
The special case of this disease is considered and as the consequences of the 4506
model, some parameters are used. The cells are under attack of this disease 4507
but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the matter of mind. The 4508
neutrosophic recognition of the cancer could help to find some treatments for 4509
this disease. The SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are 4510
the SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition” and both 4511
bases are the background of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been 4512
happened on the region, full of cells, groups of cells and embedded styles. In 4513
this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes some SuperHyperNotions based 4514
on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the forms of alliances’ styles 4515
with the formation of the design and the architecture are formally called “1- 4516
failed SuperHyperForcing” in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. The prefix 4517
“SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to figure out the 4518
background for the SuperHyperNotions. The neutrosophic recognition of the 4519
cancer in the long-term function. The specific region has been assigned by the 4520
model [it’s called SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the 4521
cancer is identified by this research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be 4522
us to choose another model [it’s said to be neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] 4525
to have convenient perception on what’s happened and what’s done. There 4526
are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the names, 4527
and some general models. The moves and the traces of the cancer on the 4528
complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized 4529
by a neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, 4530

SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim 4531
is to find either the optimal 1-failed SuperHyperForcing or the neutrosophic 4532
1-failed SuperHyperForcing in those neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. Some 4533
general results are introduced. Beyond that in SuperHyperStar, all possible 4534
136
2.3. Background
SuperHyperPaths have only two SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough since 4535
it’s essential to have at least three SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a 4536
SuperHyperCycle. There isn’t any formation of any SuperHyperCycle but 4537
and it doesn’t form. 4539
Question 2.3.1. How to define the SuperHyperNotions and to do research on 4540

them to find the “ amount of 1-failed SuperHyperForcing” of either individual 4541
of cells or the groups of cells based on the fixed cell or the fixed group of cells, 4542
extensively, the “amount of 1-failed SuperHyperForcing” based on the fixed 4543

groups of cells or the fixed groups of group of cells? 4544
Question 2.3.2. What are the best descriptions for the “Cancer’s Neutrosophic 4545
Recognition” in terms of these messy and dense SuperHyperModels where 4546
embedded notions are illustrated? 4547
It’s motivation to find notions to use in this dense model is titled 4548
“SuperHyperGraphs”. Thus it motivates us to define different types of “1- 4549
failed SuperHyperForcing” and “neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing” on 4550
“SuperHyperGraph” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. Then the research 4551
has taken more motivations to define SuperHyperClasses and to find some 4552
connections amid this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions. It 4553
motivates us to get some instances and examples to make clarifications about 4554
the framework of this research. The general results and some results about some 4555
connections are some avenues to make key point of this research, “Cancer’s 4556
Neutrosophic Recognition”, more understandable and more clear. 4557
The framework of this research is as follows. In the beginning, I introduce basic 4558
definitions to clarify about preliminaries. In the subsection “Preliminaries”, 4559
initial definitions about SuperHyperGraphs and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 4560

are deeply-introduced and in-depth-discussed. The elementary concepts are 4561
clarified and illustrated completely and sometimes review literature are applied 4562
to make sense about what’s going to figure out about the upcoming sections. The 4563
main definitions and their clarifications alongside some results about new notions, 4564
1-failed SuperHyperForcing and neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, are 4565
figured out in sections “1-failed SuperHyperForcing” and “Neutrosophic 1-failed 4566

SuperHyperForcing”. In the sense of tackling on getting results and in order to 4567
make sense about continuing the research, the ideas of SuperHyperUniform and 4568
Neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform are introduced and as their consequences, 4569
corresponded SuperHyperClasses are figured out to debut what’s done in this 4570
section, titled “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Neutrosophic 4571
SuperHyperClasses”. As going back to origin of the notions, there are some smart 4572
steps toward the common notions to extend the new notions in new frameworks, 4573
SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, in the sections “Results 4574
on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. The 4575
starter research about the general SuperHyperRelations and as concluding and 4576
closing section of theoretical research are contained in the section “General 4577
Results”. Some general SuperHyperRelations are fundamental and they are 4578
well-known as fundamental SuperHyperNotions as elicited and discussed in 4579
the sections, “General Results”, “1-failed SuperHyperForcing”, “Neutrosophic 4580
1-failed SuperHyperForcing”, “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results 4581
on Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. There are curious questions about 4582
137
what’s done about the SuperHyperNotions to make sense about excellency 4583
of this research and going to figure out the word “best” as the description and 4584
adjective for this research as presented in section, “1-failed SuperHyperForcing”. 4585
The keyword of this research debut in the section “Applications in Cancer’s 4586
Neutrosophic Recognition” with two cases and subsections “Case 1: The Initial 4587
Steps Toward SuperHyperBipartite as SuperHyperModel” and “Case 2: The 4588
Increasing Steps Toward SuperHyperMultipartite as SuperHyperModel”. In 4589
the section, “Open Problems”, there are some scrutiny and discernment on 4590
what’s done and what’s happened in this research in the terms of “questions” 4591
and “problems” to make sense to figure out this research in featured style. The 4592
advantages and the limitations of this research alongside about what’s done 4593
in this research to make sense and to get sense about what’s figured out are 4594
included in the section, “Conclusion and Closing Remarks”. 4595
Preliminaries 4596
In this subsection, the basic material which is used in this research, is presented. 4597
Also, the new ideas and their clarifications are elicited. 4598
Definition 2.3.3 (Neutrosophic Set). (Ref.[2],Definition 2.1,p.87).

Let X be a space of points (objects) with generic elements in X denoted by x;
then the neutrosophic set A (NS A) is an object having the form
A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}

+
where the functions T, I, F : X →]− 0, 1 [ define respectively the a truth-
membership function, an indeterminacy-membership function, and a
falsity-membership function of the element x ∈ X to the set A with the
condition
−
0 ≤ TA (x) + IA (x) + FA (x) ≤ 3+ .
The functions TA (x), IA (x) and FA (x) are real standard or nonstandard subsets 4599
+
of ]− 0, 1 [. 4600
Definition 2.3.4 (Single Valued Neutrosophic Set). (Ref.[5],Definition 6,p.2).

Let X be a space of points (objects) with generic elements in X denoted
by x. A single valued neutrosophic set A (SVNS A) is characterized
by truth-membership function TA (x), an indeterminacy-membership function
IA (x), and a falsity-membership function FA (x). For each point x in X,
TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) ∈ [0, 1]. A SVNS A can be written as
A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}.

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 .
138
2.3. Background
Definition 2.3.6. The support of X ⊂ A of the single valued neutrosophic set

A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}:
Definition 2.3.7 (Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). (Ref.[4],Definition 4601
3,p.291). 4602
of V 0 ; 4606
1, 2, . . . , n); 4608
subsets of V ; 4610
0}, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 4612
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 4613
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n );
0 0
4614
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n);

P
4615
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n );
0 0
P
0 4616
(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 . 4617


139
edge; 4638
HyperEdge; 4640
If we choose different types of binary operations, then we could get hugely 4645
diverse types of general forms of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG). 4646
Definition 2.3.9 (t-norm). (Ref.[3], Definition 5.1.1, pp.82-83). 4647

A binary operation ⊗ : [0, 1] × [0, 1] → [0, 1] is a t-norm if it satisfies the 4648
following for x, y, z, w ∈ [0, 1]: 4649
(i) 1 ⊗ x = x; 4650
(ii) x ⊗ y = y ⊗ x; 4651
(iii) x ⊗ (y ⊗ z) = (x ⊗ y) ⊗ z; 4652
(iv) If w ≤ x and y ≤ z then w ⊗ y ≤ x ⊗ z. 4653

valued neutrosophic set A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X} (with
respect to t-norm Tnorm ):
TA (X) = Tnorm [TA (vi ), TA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X ,
IA (X) = Tnorm [IA (vi ), IA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X ,

and FA (X) = Tnorm [FA (vi ), FA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X .
Definition 2.3.11. The support of X ⊂ A of the single valued neutrosophic
set A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}:
Definition 2.3.12. (General Forms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 4654

(NSHG)). 4655
of V 0 ; 4659
1, 2, . . . , n); 4661
140
2.3. Background
subsets of V ; 4663
0}, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 4665
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 4666
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 4667
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n);

P
4668
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n ).
0 0
P
0 4669


edge; 4690
HyperEdge; 4692
This SuperHyperModel is too messy and too dense. Thus there’s a need to 4697
have some restrictions and conditions on SuperHyperGraph. The special case 4698
of this SuperHyperGraph makes the patterns and regularities. 4699
Definition 2.3.14. A graph is SuperHyperUniform if it’s SuperHyperGraph 4700

and the number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. 4701
141
To get more visions on 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, the some SuperHyper- 4702

Classes are introduced. It makes to have 1-failed SuperHyperForcing more 4703
understandable. 4704
Definition 2.3.15. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 4705

SuperHyperClasses as follows. 4706
(i). It’s SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid 4707
two given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; 4708
(ii). it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid 4709
two given SuperHyperEdges; 4710
(iii). it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all 4711
SuperHyperEdges; 4712
(iv). it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection 4713
amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two 4714
(v). it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection 4716

amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi 4717
(vi). it’s SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection 4719

amid two given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHy- 4720
perEdge with any common SuperVertex. 4721
Definition 2.3.16. Let an ordered pair S = (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHy-

perGraph (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 4722

SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V1 to neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) 4723
Vs if either of following conditions hold: 4724
(i) Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 4725
(ii) there’s a vertex vi ∈ Vi such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 4726
(iii) there’s a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi such that Vi0 , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 4727
(iv) there’s a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 4728
(v) there’s a SuperVertex Vi+1

0
∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , Vi+1
0
∈ Ei0 ; 4729
(vi) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 4730
(vii) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1

0
vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei ;
0 0 4732
(viii) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that 4733
Vi0 , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 4734
142
2.3. Background
(ix) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1

0
0 0
Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 . 4736
Definition 2.3.17. (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths).

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 ,
could be characterized as follow-up items. 4737
(i) If for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | = 2, then NSHP is called path; 4738
(ii) if for all Ej 0 , |Ej 0 | = 2, and there’s Vi , |Vi | ≥ 1, then NSHP is called 4739
SuperPath; 4740
(iii) if for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called HyperPath; 4741
(iv) if there are Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | ≥ 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called SuperHy- 4742
perPath. 4743
Definition 2.3.18. ((neutrosophic) 1-failed SuperHyperForcing). 4744

(i) a 1-failed SuperHyperForcing Z(N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHy- 4746
perGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet 4747

converted to a black SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white SuperHy- 4751
perNeighbor of a black SuperHyperVertex. The additional condition is 4752
referred by “1-” about the usage of any black SuperHyperVertex only 4753
once to act on white SuperHyperVertex to be black SuperHyperVertex; 4754
(ii) a neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing Zn (N SHG) for a neut- 4755

rosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum neutrosophic 4756
cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of black SuperHyperVertices (whereas 4757
SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white) such that V (G) is 4758

turned black after finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: 4759
a white SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black SuperHyperVertex if 4760
it is the only white SuperHyperNeighbor of a black SuperHyperVertex. 4761
The additional condition is referred by “1-” about the usage of any black 4762
black SuperHyperVertex. 4764
Definition 2.3.19. ((neutrosophic)δ− 1-failed SuperHyperForcing). 4765

(i) a δ−1-failed SuperHyperForcing is a maximal 1-failed SuperHyper- 4767

Forcing of SuperHyperVertices with maximum cardinality such that either 4768
143


101TBL3b
of the following expressions hold for the (neutrosophic) cardinalities of 4769

SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 4770
|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ; (2.1)

|S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. (2.2)
The Expression (2.1), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And 4771

the Expression (2.2), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; 4772
(ii) a neutrosophic δ−1-failed SuperHyperForcing is a maximal neutro- 4773

sophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing of SuperHyperVertices with maximum 4774
neutrosophic cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold 4775
for the neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 4776
|S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ; (2.3)

|S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ. (2.4)
The Expression (2.3), holds if S is a neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive.

4777
And the Expression (2.4), holds if S is a neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperDefensive.

4778
For the sake of having neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, there’s 4779

a need to “redefine” the notion of “neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. The 4780
of labels to assign to the values. 4783
101DEF1b Definition 2.3.20. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined 4784

neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph if the Table (2.1) holds. 4785
It’s useful to define “neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since 4786

there’s more ways to get neutrosophic type-results to make neutrosophic 1-failed 4787
SuperHyperForcing more understandable. 4788
101DEF2b Definition 2.3.21. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 4789
neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the Table (2.2) holds. Thus Supe- 4790
rHyperPath, SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, Su- 4791
perHyperMultiPartite, and SuperHyperWheel, are neutrosophic SuperHy- 4792

perPath, neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle, neutrosophic SuperHyper- 4793
Star, neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite, neutrosophic SuperHyper- 4794
MultiPartite, and neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel if the Table (2.2) 4795
holds. 4796
144
2.4. Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing

SuperHyperEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, Mentioned

101TBL4b


101TBL1bb
It’s useful to define “neutrosophic” version of 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 4797

Since there’s more ways to get type-results to make 1-failed SuperHyperForcing 4798
more understandable. 4799

For the sake of having neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, there’s a need to 4800
“redefine” the notion of “1-failed SuperHyperForcing”. The SuperHyperVertices 4801
and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the 4802
alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign 4803
to the values. 4804
101DEF1bb Definition 2.3.22. Assume a 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. It’s redefined 4805

neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing if the Table (2.3) holds. 4806
2.4 Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing 4807
101EXM1b Example 2.4.1. Assume the neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs in the Figures 4808
(2.1), (2.2), (2.3), (2.4), (2.5), (2.6), (2.7), (2.8), (2.9), (2.10), (2.11), (2.12), 4809
(2.13), (2.14), (2.15), (2.16), (2.17), (2.18), (2.19), and (2.20). 4810
• On the Figure (2.1), the neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion, namely, 4811

neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, is up. E1 and E3 are some 4812
empty neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop neutrosophic 4813
SuperHyperEdge and E4 is an neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the 4814
terms of neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one neutrosophic 4815
SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 is 4816

isolated means that there’s no neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has it as 4817
an endpoint. Thus neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is contained in 4818
every given neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. All the following 4819
neutrosophic SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are 4820
145
the simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 1-failed 4821

{V3 , V1 }
{V3 , V2 }
{V3 , V4 }
The neutrosophic SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVer- 4823

tices, {V3 , V1 }, {V3 , V2 }, {V3 , V4 }, are the simple type-neutrosophic Su- 4824
perHyperSet of the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. The 4825
neutrosophic SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, 4826
{V3 , V1 }, {V3 , V2 }, {V3 , V4 }, are the maximum neutrosophic cardinality 4827
of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of black neutrosophic SuperHyperVer- 4828
tices (whereas neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored 4829
of “the color-change rule”: a white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is 4831
converted to a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white 4832
neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor of a black neutrosophic SuperHyper- 4833
Vertex with the additional condition is referred by “1-” about the usage of 4834
any black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex only once to act on white neut- 4835
rosophic SuperHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex. 4836
There’re only two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices outside the intended 4837
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic 1-failed 4838
SuperHyperForcing aren’t up. The obvious simple type-neutrosophic 4839
SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing is a neut- 4840
rosophic SuperHyperSet excludes only two neutrosophic SuperHyper- 4841
Vertices are titled to neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected 4842
neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). 4843
But the neutrosophic SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVer- 4844
tices, {V3 , V1 }, {V3 , V2 }, {V3 , V4 }, don’t have more than two neutrosophic 4845
SuperHyperVertices outside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyper- 4846
Set. Thus the non-obvious simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet 4847
of the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing aren’t up. To sum 4848
them up, the neutrosophic SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHy- 4849
type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHy- 4851
perForcing. Since the neutrosophic SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic 4852
SuperHyperVertices, {V3 , V1 }, {V3 , V2 }, {V3 , V4 }, are the neutrosophic 4853
SuperHyperSet Ss of black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (whereas 4854
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white) such 4855
that V (G) isn’t turned black after finitely many applications of “the 4856
color-change rule”: a white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is converted 4857
to a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white neutro- 4858
sophic SuperHyperNeighbor of a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 4859
black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex only once to act on white neutro- 4861
sophic SuperHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 4862
and they are neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Since it’s 4863
the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHy- 4864
perSet S of black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (whereas neutrosophic 4865
146
SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white) such that V (G) isn’t 4866
turned black after finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: a 4867
white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black neutrosophic 4868
SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white neutrosophic SuperHyperNeigh- 4869

bor of a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex with the additional 4870
condition is referred by “1-” about the usage of any black neutrosophic Su- 4871
perHyperVertex only once to act on white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 4872
to be black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex. There aren’t only more than 4873
two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices outside the intended neutrosophic 4874
SuperHyperSets, {V3 , V1 }, {V3 , V2 }, {V3 , V4 }. Thus the non-obvious neut- 4875

rosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, {V3 , V1 }, {V3 , V2 }, {V3 , V4 }, aren’t 4876
up. The obvious simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSets of the neut- 4877
rosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, {V3 , V1 }, {V3 , V2 }, {V3 , V4 }, are a 4878
neutrosophic SuperHyperSets, {V3 , V1 }, {V3 , V2 }, {V3 , V4 }, doesn’t exclude 4879
only more than two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in a connected 4880
neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). It’s 4881

interesting to mention that the only obvious simple type-neutrosophic Su- 4882
perHyperSets of the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing amid those 4883
obvious simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic 4884
1-failed SuperHyperForcing, is only {V3 , V2 }. 4885
• On the Figure (2.2), the neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion, namely, neut- 4886
rosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, is up. E1 , E2 and E3 are some 4887

empty neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges but E4 is an neutrosophic SuperHy- 4888
perEdge. Thus in the terms of neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s 4889
only one neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The neutrosophic 4890
SuperHyperVertex, V3 is isolated means that there’s no neutrosophic Supe- 4891
rHyperEdge has it as an endpoint. Thus neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, 4892
V3 , is contained in every given neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 4893

All the following neutrosophic SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic Super- 4894
HyperVertices are the simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 4895
neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 4896
{V3 , V1 }
{V3 , V2 }
{V3 , V4 }
The neutrosophic SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVer- 4897
tices, {V3 , V1 }, {V3 , V2 }, {V3 , V4 }, are the simple type-neutrosophic Su- 4898
perHyperSet of the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. The 4899
neutrosophic SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, 4900
{V3 , V1 }, {V3 , V2 }, {V3 , V4 }, are the maximum neutrosophic cardinality 4901
Vertex with the additional condition is referred by “1-” about the usage of 4908
any black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex only once to act on white neut- 4909
rosophic SuperHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex. 4910
147
There’re only two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices outside the intended 4911

neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic 1-failed 4912

But the neutrosophic SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVer- 4918
tices, {V3 , V1 }, {V3 , V2 }, {V3 , V4 }, don’t have more than two neutrosophic 4919

of the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing aren’t up. To sum 4922
them up, the neutrosophic SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHy- 4923
perForcing. Since the neutrosophic SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic 4926

SuperHyperVertices, {V3 , V1 }, {V3 , V2 }, {V3 , V4 }, are the neutrosophic 4927



SuperHyperSets, {V3 , V1 }, {V3 , V2 }, {V3 , V4 }. Thus the non-obvious neut- 4949
rosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, {V3 , V1 }, {V3 , V2 }, {V3 , V4 }, aren’t 4950

up. The obvious simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSets of the neut- 4951
rosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, {V3 , V1 }, {V3 , V2 }, {V3 , V4 }, are a 4952
neutrosophic SuperHyperSets, {V3 , V1 }, {V3 , V2 }, {V3 , V4 }, doesn’t exclude 4953
neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). It’s 4955
interesting to mention that the only obvious simple type-neutrosophic Su- 4956
perHyperSets of the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing amid those 4957
obvious simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic 4958
1-failed SuperHyperForcing, is only {V3 , V2 }. 4959
148

neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, is up. E1 , E2 and E3 are 4961
some empty neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges but E4 is an neutrosophic 4962
SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of neutrosophic SuperHyper- 4963

Neighbor, there’s only one neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . 4964
The neutrosophic SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, 4965
{V1 }, {V2 }, {V3 }, are the simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 4966
neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. The neutrosophic SuperHy- 4967
perSets of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V1 }, {V2 }, {V3 }, are 4968

perSet S of black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (whereas neutro- 4970
sophic SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white) such that V (G) 4971
rule”: a white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black 4973
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white neutrosophic Su- 4974
perHyperNeighbor of a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex with the 4975

neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex only once to act on white neutrosophic 4977
SuperHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex. There’re 4978
only two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices outside the intended neut- 4979
rosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic 1-failed 4980

neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). But 4985
the neutrosophic SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, 4986
{V1 }, {V2 }, {V3 }, don’t have more than two neutrosophic SuperHyper- 4987
Vertices outside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the 4988
non-obvious simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 4989
1-failed SuperHyperForcing aren’t up. To sum them up, the neutrosophic 4990
SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V1 }, {V2 }, {V3 }, 4991
aren’t the non-obvious simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 4992
neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Since the neutrosophic Super- 4993

HyperSets of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V1 }, {V2 }, {V3 }, are 4994
the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet Ss of black neutrosophic SuperHyperVer- 4995

Vertex with the additional condition is referred by “1-” about the usage 5001
of any black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex only once to act on white 5002
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic SuperHyperVer- 5003
tex and they are neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Since 5004
they’ve the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic 5005

SuperHyperSet S of black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (whereas 5006
that V (G) isn’t turned black after finitely many applications of “the color- 5008
change rule”: a white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is converted to a 5009
149
black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white neutrosophic 5010

SuperHyperNeighbor of a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex with the 5011

SuperHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex. There 5014
aren’t only more than two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices outside 5015
the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSets, {V1 }, {V2 }, {V3 }. Thus the 5016
non-obvious neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, {V1 }, {V2 }, {V3 }, 5017
aren’t up. The obvious simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSets of 5018
the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, {V1 }, {V2 }, {V3 }, are the 5019
neutrosophic SuperHyperSets, {V1 }, {V2 }, {V3 }, don’t exclude only more 5020
than two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic 5021
SuperHyperNotion SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). It’s interesting 5022
to mention that the only obvious simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyper- 5023
Sets of the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing amid those obvious 5024
simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic 1-failed 5025

SuperHyperForcing, is only {V1 }. 5026
• On the Figure (2.4), the neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion, namely, an 5027

neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, is up. There’s no empty neut- 5028
rosophic SuperHyperEdge but E3 are a loop neutrosophic SuperHy- 5029
perEdge on {F }, and there are some neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges, 5030

namely, E1 on {H, V1 , V3 }, alongside E2 on {O, H, V4 , V3 } and E4 , E5 on 5031
{N, V1 , V2 , V3 , F }. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic Su- 5032
perHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , O, H}, is the simple type-neutrosophic 5033
SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. The 5034
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, 5035
{V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , O, H}, is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of 5036

a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of black neutrosophic SuperHyperVer- 5037
ations of “the color-change rule”: a white neutrosophic SuperHyper- 5040
Vertex is converted to a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex if it 5041
is the only white neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor of a black neut- 5042

rosophic SuperHyperVertex with the additional condition is referred 5043
by “1-” about the usage of any black neutrosophic SuperHyperVer- 5044
tex only once to act on white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to be 5045
black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex. There’re only two neutrosophic 5046
Set. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing 5048

isn’t up. The obvious simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 5049
neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing is a neutrosophic SuperHyper- 5050
Set excludes only two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are titled to 5051
neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected neutrosophic Super- 5052
HyperNotion SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). But the neutrosophic Su- 5053
perHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , O, H}, 5054

doesn’t have more than two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices outside 5055
the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple 5056
perForcing isn’t up. To sum them up, the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet 5058
150
of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , O, H}, isn’t the non- 5059

obvious simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 5060
1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Since the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of 5061
the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , O, H}, is the neut- 5062

rosophic SuperHyperSet Ss of black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 5063
(whereas neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white) 5064

black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex only once to act on white neut- 5070
rosophic SuperHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 5071

SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor 5078
of a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex with the additional condition 5079
is referred by “1-” about the usage of any black neutrosophic SuperHy- 5080
perVertex only once to act on white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to 5081
be black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex. There aren’t only more than 5082
SuperHyperSet, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , O, H}. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic 5084
1-failed SuperHyperForcing, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , O, H}, isn’t up. The obvious 5085
simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 1-failed Su- 5086

perHyperForcing, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , O, H}, is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, 5087
{V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , O, H}, doesn’t exclude only more than two neutrosophic 5088
SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion Su- 5089
perHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). 5090
• On the Figure (2.5), the neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion, namely, Super-

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

SuperHyperForcing. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices,
{V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V12 , V13 , V14 , V15 },
is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic Super-

HyperSet S of black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (whereas neutro-
sophic 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 neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black
151
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white neutrosophic Su-

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

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

neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Since the neutrosophic Super-
HyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
{V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V12 , V13 , V14 , V15 },
is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet Ss of black neutrosophic SuperHy-

perVertices (whereas neutrosophic 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 neutrosophic SuperHy-
perVertex is converted to a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex if it is
the only white neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor of a black neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex with the additional condition is referred by “1-” about
the usage of any black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex only once to act on
white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic SuperHy-
perVertex and they are neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing.
Since it’s the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet S of black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (whereas
neutrosophic 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 neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is converted to a
black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white neutrosophic
SuperHyperNeighbor of a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex with the
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex only once to act on white neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex. There
aren’t only more than two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices outside the
152
intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet,

{V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V12 , V13 , V14 , V15 }.
Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing,
{V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V12 , V13 , V14 , V15 },
isn’t up. The obvious simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the
neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing,
{V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V12 , V13 , V14 , V15 },
is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet,
{V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V12 , V13 , V14 , V15 },
doesn’t exclude only more than two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in 5091
a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion SuperHyperGraph N SHG : 5092
(V, E) is mentioned as the SuperHyperModel N SHG : (V, E) in the Figure 5093
(2.5). 5094
• On the Figure (2.6), the neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion, namely,

neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, is up. There’s neither empty
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge nor loop neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge.
The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
SuperHyperVertices,
153

(V, E) with a illustrated SuperHyperModeling of the Figure (2.6). 5097
154

{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 },

155

{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 },

(V, E) of depicted SuperHyperModel as the Figure (2.7). 5100

{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 },

156

{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 },

157

{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 },

(V, E) of dense SuperHyperModel as the Figure (2.8). 5103


SuperHyperVertices,

158





159
(V, E) with a messy SuperHyperModeling of the Figure (2.9). 5106

{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 },
160

{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 },

(V, E) of highly-embedding-connected SuperHyperModel as the Figure 5109
(2.10). 5110

rosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, is up. There’s neither empty 5112
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge nor loop neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. 5113
The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, 5114
{V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, is the simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 5115
neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. The neutrosophic Super- 5116

HyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, is 5117
161

SuperHyperForcing isn’t up. The obvious simple type-neutrosophic Su- 5130

perHyperSet of the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing is a neut- 5131
the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, 5135
{V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, doesn’t have more than two neutrosophic SuperHyper- 5136

1-failed SuperHyperForcing isn’t up. To sum them up, the neutrosophic 5139
SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, isn’t 5140
the non-obvious simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neut- 5141
rosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Since the neutrosophic SuperHy- 5142

perSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, is the 5143
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet Ss of black neutrosophic SuperHyperVer- 5144
converted to a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex if it is the only 5148

white neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor of a black neutrosophic Super- 5149
HyperVertex with the additional condition is referred by “1-” about the 5150
usage of any black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex only once to act on 5151
white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic SuperHy- 5152
perVertex and they are neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 5153
Since it’s the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic 5154


the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, {V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 }. Thus the non- 5165
obvious neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, {V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, isn’t up. 5166

The obvious simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 5167
1-failed SuperHyperForcing, {V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, is a neutrosophic SuperHy- 5168
perSet, {V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, doesn’t exclude only more than two neutrosophic 5169
162
neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, is up. There’s neither 5173

empty neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge nor loop neutrosophic Su- 5174
perHyperEdge. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutro- 5175
sophic SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 }, is the 5176
simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 1- 5177
failed SuperHyperForcing. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 5178
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 }, is 5179

SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white) such that V (G) 5182
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white neutrosophic 5185

SuperHyperNeighbor of a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex with 5186

SuperHyperForcing isn’t up. The obvious simple type-neutrosophic 5192

{V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 }, doesn’t have more than two neutrosophic 5198
of the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing isn’t up. To sum 5201
them up, the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHy- 5202
perVertices, {V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 }, isn’t the non-obvious simple 5203

perForcing. Since the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 5205
SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 }, is the neutrosophic 5206

163

SuperHyperSet, {V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 }. Thus the non-obvious 5228
neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, {V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 }, 5229

neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, {V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 }, 5231
is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, {V2 , V4 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 }, doesn’t 5232
exclude only more than two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in a connec- 5233
ted neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) in 5234
highly-multiple-connected-style SuperHyperModel On the Figure (2.12). 5235




164






empty neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge nor loop neutrosophic Super- 5299
HyperEdge. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic Su- 5300
perHyperVertices, {V2 }, is the simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyper- 5301

Set of the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. The neutro- 5302
sophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V2 }, 5303
is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic Super- 5304
HyperSet S of black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (whereas neutro- 5305
additional condition is referred by “1-” about the usage of any black neut- 5311
rosophic SuperHyperVertex only once to act on white neutrosophic Supe- 5312
rHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex. There’re only 5313

SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyper- 5315
Forcing isn’t up. The obvious simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of 5316
the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing is a neutrosophic SuperHy- 5317
165
perSet excludes only two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are titled to 5318

neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected neutrosophic SuperHy- 5319
perNotion SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). But the neutrosophic Supe- 5320
rHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V2 }, doesn’t have more 5321

than two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices outside the intended neutro- 5322
sophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple type-neutrosophic 5323
SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing isn’t up. 5324
To sum them up, the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic Su- 5325
perHyperVertices, {V2 }, isn’t the non-obvious simple type-neutrosophic 5326
SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Since 5327

the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, 5328
{V2 }, is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet Ss of black neutrosophic Supe- 5329
rHyperVertices (whereas neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S 5330
applications of “the color-change rule”: a white neutrosophic SuperHy- 5332
perVertex is converted to a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex if it is 5333

the only white neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor of a black neutrosophic 5334
SuperHyperVertex with the additional condition is referred by “1-” about 5335
the usage of any black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex only once to act on 5336


aren’t only more than two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices outside the 5349
intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, {V2 }. Thus the non-obvious neut- 5350
rosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, {V2 }, isn’t up. The obvious simple 5351
perForcing, {V2 }, is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, {V2 }, doesn’t exclude 5353


166







SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion Supe- 5415
rHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). as Linearly-Connected SuperHyperModel 5416
167
On the Figure (2.15). 5417

neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, is up. There’s neither empty 5419

V19 , V20 , V21 , V22 },
is the simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 1-failed 5422
SuperHyperForcing. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 5423

SuperHyperVertices, 5424
V19 , V20 , V21 , V22 },

Forcing isn’t up. The obvious simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet 5437
of the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing is a neutrosophic Super- 5438
HyperSet excludes only two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are titled 5439

to neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected neutrosophic Supe- 5440
rHyperNotion SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). But the neutrosophic 5441
SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, 5442
V19 , V20 , V21 , V22 },
the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious 5444
simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 1-failed 5445
SuperHyperForcing isn’t up. To sum them up, the neutrosophic 5446
V19 , V20 , V21 , V22 },
isn’t the non-obvious simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 5448
HyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, 5450
168
V19 , V20 , V21 , V22 },
is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet Ss of black neutrosophic SuperHy- 5451

perVertices (whereas neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are 5452
colored white) such that V (G) isn’t turned black after finitely many 5453


intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, 5472
V19 , V20 , V21 , V22 }.
Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, 5473
V19 , V20 , V21 , V22 },

neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, 5475
V19 , V20 , V21 , V22 },
is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, 5476
V19 , V20 , V21 , V22 },

(V, E). 5479

169

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 },
170




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 },

(V, E) as Lnearly-over-packed SuperHyperModel is featured On the Figure 5541
(2.17). 5542

empty neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge nor loop neutrosophic Su- 5545
perHyperEdge. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutro- 5546
sophic SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , R, M6 , L6 , F, P, J, M }, is the simple 5547
171
type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 1-failed 5548

SuperHyperForcing. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 5549
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , R, M6 , L6 , F, P, J, M }, is 5550

SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white) such that V (G) 5553
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white neutrosophic 5556
SuperHyperNeighbor of a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex with 5557

SuperHyperForcing isn’t up. The obvious simple type-neutrosophic 5563

{V2 , R, M6 , L6 , F, P, J, M }, doesn’t have more than two neutrosophic 5569

of the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing isn’t up. To sum 5572
them up, the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHy- 5573
perVertices, {V2 , R, M6 , L6 , F, P, J, M }, isn’t the non-obvious simple 5574

perForcing. Since the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 5576
SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , R, M6 , L6 , F, P, J, M }, is the neutrosophic Su- 5577
perHyperSet Ss of black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (whereas 5578



172

SuperHyperSet, {V2 , R, M6 , L6 , F, P, J, M }. Thus the non-obvious neut- 5599
rosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, {V2 , R, M6 , L6 , F, P, J, M }, isn’t up. 5600

1-failed SuperHyperForcing, {V2 , R, M6 , L6 , F, P, J, M }, is a neutrosophic 5602
SuperHyperSet, {V2 , R, M6 , L6 , F, P, J, M }, doesn’t exclude only more 5603
than two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic 5604
SuperHyperNotion SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). 5605

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 },

173
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 },
174
H6 , O6 , E6 , C6 , V2 , R, M6 , L6 , F, P, J, M },

(V, E). 5667

{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 },

175

{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 },
{V2 , V3 , V4 , T6 , U6 , H7 , V5 , R9 ,
176
Figure 2.1: The neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Notions of

neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing in the Examples (1.4.1) and (2.4.1) 101FGRb1
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 },

(V, E). 5729
Proposition 2.4.2. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion Super- 5730
HyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally, V \ {x, z} is an 5731
neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. In other words, the most neutrosophic 5732
cardinality, the upper sharp bound for neutrosophic cardinality, of neutrosophic 5733
1-failed SuperHyperForcing is the neutrosophic cardinality of V \ {x, z}. 5734
Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion SuperHyperGraph 5735

N SHG : (V, E). The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Su- 5736
perHyperVertices V \ {x, y, z} is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of black 5737
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (whereas neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 5738
many applications of “the color-change rule”: a white neutrosophic Super- 5740

HyperVertex is converted to a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex if it is 5741
the only white neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor of a black neutrosophic Su- 5742
perHyperVertex with the additional condition is referred by “1-” about the 5743
usage of any black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex only once to act on white 5744
177


178


179


180


181


182


183

neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 5745

but it isn’t an neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Since it doesn’t have 5746
the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet 5747

S of black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (whereas neutrosophic SuperHy- 5748
perVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white) such that V (G) isn’t turned black 5749
after finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: a white neutrosophic 5750
SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex if 5751
it is the only white neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor of a black neutrosophic 5752

white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic SuperHyperVer- 5755
tex. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 5756
V \ {x} is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic Super- 5757
HyperSet S of black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (whereas neutrosophic 5758
SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white) but it isn’t an neutrosophic 5759

1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Since it doesn’t do the procedure such that V (G) 5760
a white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black neutrosophic 5762
184


185

of a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex with the additional condition is 5764

referred by “1-” about the usage of any black neutrosophic SuperHyperVer- 5765
tex only once to act on white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to be black 5766

neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex [there’s at least one white without any white 5767
neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor outside implying there’s, by the connec- 5768
tedness of the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion SuperHyperGraph 5769
N SHG : (V, E), a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, titled its neutrosophic 5770
SuperHyperNeighbor, to the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S does the “the color- 5771
change rule”.]. There’re only two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices outside 5772

the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, V \ {x, z}. Thus the obvious neut- 5773
rosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, V \ {x, z}, is up. The obvious simple 5774
type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyper- 5775
Forcing, V \ {x, z}, is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, V \ {x, z}, excludes 5776
only two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are titled in a connected neut- 5777
rosophic neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 5778

N SHG : (V, E). Since the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 5779
SuperHyperVertices V \ {x, z} is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality 5780
tices (whereas neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white) 5782
color-change rule”: a white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is converted to 5784

a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white neutrosophic 5785
SuperHyperNeighbor of a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex with the addi- 5786
tional condition is referred by “1-” about the usage of any black neutrosophic 5787
SuperHyperVertex only once to act on white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 5788
186

to be black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex. 5789
Proposition 2.4.3. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion Su- 5790

perHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). Then the extreme number of neutrosophic 5791
1-failed SuperHyperForcing has, the most neutrosophic cardinality, the upper 5792
sharp bound for neutrosophic cardinality, is the extreme neutrosophic cardinality 5793
of V \ {x, z} if there’s an neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing with the most 5794
neutrosophic cardinality, the upper sharp bound for neutrosophic cardinality. 5795

N SHG : (V, E). Consider there’s an neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing 5797
with the most neutrosophic cardinality, the upper sharp bound for neutro- 5798
sophic cardinality. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Su- 5799
perHyperVertices V \ {x, y, z} is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of black 5800
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (whereas neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 5801

many applications of “the color-change rule”: a white neutrosophic Super- 5803
HyperVertex is converted to a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex if it is 5804
the only white neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor of a black neutrosophic Su- 5805
187


188
perHyperVertex with the additional condition is referred by “1-” about the 5806
but it isn’t an neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Since it doesn’t have 5809


white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic SuperHyperVer- 5818
tex. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 5819
V \ {x} is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic Super- 5820
HyperSet S of black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (whereas neutrosophic 5821

SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white) but it isn’t an neutrosophic 5822
1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Since it doesn’t do the procedure such that V (G) 5823

neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex [there’s at least one white without any white 5830
neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor outside implying there’s, by the connec- 5831
tedness of the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion SuperHyperGraph 5832

the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, V \ {x, z}. Thus the obvious neut- 5836
rosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, V \ {x, z}, is up. The obvious simple 5837
type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyper- 5838



to be black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex. It implies that extreme number 5852
of neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing has, the most neutrosophic cardin- 5853
ality, the upper sharp bound for neutrosophic cardinality, is |V | − 2. Thus it 5854
induces that the extreme number of neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing 5855
189
has, the most neutrosophic cardinality, the upper sharp bound for neutrosophic 5856
cardinality, is the extreme neutrosophic cardinality of V \ {x, z} if there’s an 5857
neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing with the most neutrosophic cardinality, 5858
the upper sharp bound for neutrosophic cardinality. 5859

HyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). If a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has z neutro- 5861
sophic SuperHyperVertices, then z − 2 number of those neutrosophic SuperHy- 5862
perVertices from that neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge belong to any neutrosophic 5863

N SHG : (V, E). Let a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has z neutrosophic Super- 5866
HyperVertices. Consider z −3 number of those neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 5867
from that neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge belong to any given neutrosophic Su- 5868
perHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Consider there’s an 5869

neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing with the most neutrosophic cardin- 5870
ality, the upper sharp bound for neutrosophic cardinality. The neutrosophic 5871
SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices V \ {x, y, z} is a neut- 5872
rosophic SuperHyperSet S of black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (whereas 5873
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white) such that V (G) 5874
SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor of a 5877
black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex with the additional condition is referred 5878
by “1-” about the usage of any black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex only 5879
once to act on white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic 5880
SuperHyperVertex but it isn’t an neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 5881

Since it doesn’t have the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutro- 5882
sophic SuperHyperSet S of black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (whereas 5883

neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neut- 5891
rosophic SuperHyperVertices V \ {x} is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality 5892
of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 5893

(whereas neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white) but 5894
it isn’t an neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Since it doesn’t do the 5895
procedure such that V (G) isn’t turned black after finitely many applications of 5896
“the color-change rule”: a white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is converted 5897
to a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white neutrosophic 5898

SuperHyperVertex only once to act on white neutrosophic SuperHyperVer- 5901
tex to be black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex [there’s at least one white 5902
without any white neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor outside implying there’s, 5903
190
by the connectedness of the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion Su- 5904

perHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E), a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, titled its 5905
neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, to the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S does 5906
the “the color-change rule”.]. There’re only two neutrosophic SuperHyperVer- 5907
tices outside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, V \ {x, z}. Thus the 5908
obvious neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, V \ {x, z}, is up. The obvious 5909
simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHy- 5910
perForcing, V \ {x, z}, is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, V \ {x, z}, excludes 5911


to be black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex. It implies that extreme num- 5924
ber of neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing has, the most neutrosophic 5925

cardinality, the upper sharp bound for neutrosophic cardinality, is |V | − 2. 5926
Thus it induces that the extreme number of neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHy- 5927
perForcing has, the most neutrosophic cardinality, the upper sharp bound for 5928
neutrosophic cardinality, is the extreme neutrosophic cardinality of V \ {x, z} if 5929
there’s an neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing with the most neutrosophic 5930
cardinality, the upper sharp bound for neutrosophic cardinality. Thus all the 5931
following neutrosophic SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are 5932
the simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 1-failed Super- 5933
HyperForcing. It’s the contradiction to the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet either 5934
S = V \ {x, y, z} or S = V \ {x} is an neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 5935
Thus any given neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyper- 5936
Vertices contains the number of those neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from 5937

that neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge with z neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 5938
less than z − 2 isn’t an neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Thus if a 5939
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has z neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, then 5940
z − 2 number of those neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from that neutrosophic 5941
SuperHyperEdge belong to any neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 5942

perHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). There’s a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has 5944
only two distinct neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices outside of an neutrosophic 5945
1-failed SuperHyperForcing. In other words, there’s an unique neutrosophic 5946
SuperHyperEdge has only two distinct white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. 5947

N SHG : (V, E). Let a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has some neutrosophic 5949
SuperHyperVertices. Consider some numbers of those neutrosophic SuperHy- 5950
perVertices from that neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge excluding three distinct 5951
191
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, belong to any given neutrosophic SuperHy- 5952

perSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Consider there’s an neutro- 5953
sophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing with the most neutrosophic cardinality, the 5954
upper sharp bound for neutrosophic cardinality. The neutrosophic SuperHy- 5955
perSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices V \ {x, y, z} is a neutrosophic 5956
SuperHyperSet S of black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (whereas neut- 5957
rosophic SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white) such that V (G) 5958





192


the upper sharp bound for neutrosophic cardinality. Thus if a neutrosophic 6015
SuperHyperEdge has some neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, then, with ex- 6016
cluding two distinct neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, the all number of those 6017
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from that neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge be- 6018
long to any neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Thus, in a connected 6019
neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E), there’s a 6020
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has only two distinct neutrosophic SuperHyper- 6021
Vertices outside of neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. In other words, 6022
there’s a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has only two distinct white neutrosophic 6023
SuperHyperVertices which are neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors. 6024

HyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). The all exterior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 6026
belong to any neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing if there’s one of them such 6027
that there are only two interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are mutually 6028
neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors. 6029



193








194


here’s a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has only two distinct white neutrosophic 6105
SuperHyperVertices. In a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion Super- 6106
HyperGraph N SHG : (V, E), the all exterior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 6107
belong to any neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing if there’s one of them 6108
such that there are only two interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are 6109
mutually neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors. 6110
101PRPb Proposition 2.4.7. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion Super- 6111

HyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). The any neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing 6112
only contains all interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and all exterior neut- 6113
rosophic SuperHyperVertices where there’s any of them has two neutrosophic 6114
SuperHyperNeighbors out. 6115




195







here’s a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has only two distinct white neutrosophic 6191
SuperHyperVertices. In a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion Super- 6192
HyperGraph N SHG : (V, E), the all exterior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 6193
belong to any neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing if there’s one of them 6194
such that there are only two interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are 6195
mutually neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors. Thus in a connected neutro- 6196
sophic SuperHyperNotion SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E), any neutrosophic 6197
196
2.5. Results on Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses
1-failed SuperHyperForcing only contains all interior neutrosophic SuperHyper- 6198

Vertices and all exterior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices where there’s any of 6199
them has two neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors out. 6200
Remark 2.4.8. The words “neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing” and 6201

“neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating” refer to the maximum type-style and the 6202
minimum type-style. In other words, they refer to both the maximum[minimum] 6203
number and the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet with the maximum[minimum] 6204
neutrosophic cardinality. 6205

perHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). An neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing 6207
contains the neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating. 6208

N SHG : (V, E). By applying the Proposition (2.4.7), the results are up. Thus 6210
in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion SuperHyperGraph N SHG : 6211
(V, E), an neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing contains the neutrosophic 6212
SuperHyperDominating. 6213
2.5 Results on Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses 6214
Proposition 2.5.1. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperPath N SHP : 6215

(V, E). Then an 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing-style with the max- 6216
imum neutrosophic cardinality is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the exterior 6217
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. 6218
Proposition 2.5.2. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperPath N SHP : 6219

(V, E). Then an 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing is a neutrosophic 6220
SuperHyperSet of the exterior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and the interior 6221
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with only two exceptions in the form of interior 6222
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from the same neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. 6223
An 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing has the neutrosophic number of all 6224
the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices minus two. Thus, 6225
N eutrosophic 1 − f ailedSuperHyperF orcing = {The number-of-all

-the-SuperHyperVertices
-minus-on-two-numbers-of-interior-SuperHyperNeighbors
SuperHyperSets of the
SuperHyperVertices | min |the
SuperHyperSets of the SuperHyperVertices with only
two exceptions in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices from any same
SuperHyperEdge.|neutrosophic cardinality amid those SuperHyperSets. }

Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperPath N SHP : (V, E). Let 6229
a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has some neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. 6230
197
Consider some neutrosophic numbers of those neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 6231

from that neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge excluding three distinct neutrosophic 6232
SuperHyperVertices, belong to any given neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 6233
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Consider there’s an 1-failed neutrosophic 6234

SuperHyperForcing with the most neutrosophic cardinality, the upper sharp 6235
bound for neutrosophic cardinality. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 6236
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices V \ {x, y, z} is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet 6237
SuperHyperVertex with the additional condition is referred by “1-” about the 6243
but it isn’t an 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Since it doesn’t have 6246

S of black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (whereas neutrosophic SuperHyper- 6248
Vertices in V (G) \ S are colored white) such that V (G) isn’t turned black after 6249
finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: a white neutrosophic Supe- 6250
rHyperVertex is converted to a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex if it is the 6251
only white neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor of a black neutrosophic SuperHy- 6252

perVertex with the additional condition is referred by “1-” about the usage of any 6253
black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex only once to act on white neutrosophic 6254
SuperHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex. The neutro- 6255
sophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices V \ {x} is the 6256
maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of black 6257
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (whereas neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in 6258

V (G) \ S are colored white) but it isn’t an 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyper- 6259
Forcing. Since it doesn’t do the procedure such that V (G) isn’t turned black 6260
SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex if it 6262
is the only white neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor of a black neutrosophic Su- 6263
perHyperVertex with the additional condition is referred by “1-” about the usage 6264
of any black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex only once to act on white neutro- 6265
sophic SuperHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex [there’s at 6266
least one white without any white neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor outside im- 6267
plying there’s, by the connectedness of the connected neutrosophic neutrosophic 6268
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E), a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, titled its 6269

obvious 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing, V \ {x, z}, is up. The obvious 6273
simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHy- 6274

198

color-change rule”: a white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is converted to a 6283
black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white neutrosophic Supe- 6284

rHyperNeighbor of a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex with the additional 6285
condition is referred by “1-” about the usage of any black neutrosophic SuperHy- 6286
perVertex only once to act on white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to be black 6287
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex. It implies that neutrosophic number of 1-failed 6288
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing has, the most neutrosophic cardinality, the up- 6289
per sharp bound for neutrosophic cardinality, is |V | − 2. Thus it induces that the 6290
neutrosophic number of 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing has, the most 6291
neutrosophic cardinality, the upper sharp bound for neutrosophic cardinality, 6292
is the neutrosophic cardinality of V \ {x, z} if there’s an 1-failed neutrosophic 6293
bound for neutrosophic cardinality. Thus if a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has 6295
some neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, then, with excluding two distinct neut- 6296
rosophic SuperHyperVertices, the all neutrosophic number of those neutrosophic 6297
SuperHyperVertices from that neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge belong to any 6298
1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Thus, in a connected neutrosophic 6299
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E), there’s a neutrosophic Super- 6300
HyperEdge has only two distinct neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices outside of 6301
1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. In other words, here’s a neutrosophic 6302

SuperHyperEdge has only two distinct white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. 6303
In a connected neutrosophic neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E), 6304
the all exterior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong to any 1-failed neut- 6305
rosophic SuperHyperForcing if there’s one of them such that there are only 6306
two interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are mutually neutrosophic Su- 6307
perHyperNeighbors. Then an 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing is a 6308

neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the exterior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 6309
and the interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with only two exceptions in 6310
the form of interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from the same neutro- 6311
sophic SuperHyperEdge. An 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing has the 6312
neutrosophic number of all the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices minus two. 6313
Thus, 6314

-minus-on-two-numbers-of-interior-SuperHyperNeighbors
SuperHyperVertices | min |the
SuperHyperSets of the SuperHyperVertices with only
two exceptions in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices from any same

199
Figure 2.21: A neutrosophic SuperHyperPath Associated to the Notions of

1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing in the Example (2.5.3) 101NHGb18a

SuperHyperEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath Mentioned in
the Example (2.5.3)

101TBLb18
101EXMb18a Example 2.5.3. In the Figure (2.21), the connected neutrosophic SuperHyper- 6318
Path N SHP : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. By using the Figure (2.21) 6319
and the Table (2.4), the neutrosophic SuperHyperPath is obtained. 6320
The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, 6321
V19 , V20 , V21 , V22 , V23 , V24 , V25 , V26 , V27 , V28 , V29 },
of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected neutrosophic Super- 6322

HyperPath N SHP : (V, E), in the neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (2.21), is 6323
the 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. 6324
Proposition 2.5.4. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle N SHC : 6325

neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with only two exceptions in the form of interior 6328
200
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from the same neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. 6329

An 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing has the neutrosophic number of 6330
all the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices minus on the 2 neutrosophic numbers 6331
excerpt the same exterior neutrosophic SuperHyperPart. Thus, 6332

-minus-on-2-numbers-of-same-exterior-SuperHyperPart
SuperHyperVertices | min |the SuperHyperSets of the
SuperHyperVertices with only
two exceptions in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices
from same
neutrosophic

Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle N SHC : (V, E). 6336

Let a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has some neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. 6337



201



condition is referred by “1-” about the usage of any black neutrosophic Super- 6393
HyperVertex only once to act on white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to be 6394
black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex. It implies that neutrosophic number of 6395
1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing has, the most neutrosophic cardinality, 6396
the upper sharp bound for neutrosophic cardinality, is |V | − 2. Thus it induces 6397
that the neutrosophic number of 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing has, 6398
the most neutrosophic cardinality, the upper sharp bound for neutrosophic 6399
cardinality, is the neutrosophic cardinality of V \ {x, z} if there’s an 1-failed 6400
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing with the most neutrosophic cardinality, the 6401
upper sharp bound for neutrosophic cardinality. Thus if a neutrosophic Super- 6402
HyperEdge has some neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, then, with excluding 6403

two distinct neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, the all neutrosophic number 6404
of those neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from that neutrosophic SuperHy- 6405
perEdge belong to any 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Thus, in 6406
a connected neutrosophic neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E), 6407
there’s a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has only two distinct neutrosophic 6408
SuperHyperVertices outside of 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. In 6409

other words, here’s a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has only two distinct white 6410
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. In a connected neutrosophic neutrosophic 6411
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E), the all exterior neutrosophic SuperHyper- 6412
Vertices belong to any 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing if there’s one of 6413
202

SuperHyperEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle Mentioned in
the Example (2.5.5)

101TBLb19
them such that there are only two interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are 6414
mutually neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors. Then an 1-failed neutrosophic Su- 6415
perHyperForcing is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the exterior neutrosophic 6416

SuperHyperVertices and the interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with only 6417
two exceptions in the form of interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from the 6418
same neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. An 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperFor- 6419
cing has the neutrosophic number of all the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 6420
minus on the 2 neutrosophic numbers excerpt the same exterior neutrosophic 6421
SuperHyperPart. Thus, 6422

-minus-on-2-numbers-of-same-exterior-SuperHyperPart
two exceptions in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices
from same
neutrosophic

Cycle N SHC : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. By using the Figure (2.22) 6427
and the Table (2.5), the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle is obtained. 6428
The obtained neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, 6429

HyperCycle N SHC : (V, E), in the neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (2.22), is 6431
Proposition 2.5.6. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperStar N SHS : 6433

neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, excluding the neutrosophic SuperHyperCenter, 6436
with only one exception in the form of interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 6437
203
Figure 2.22: A neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle Associated to the Notions of

from any given neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. An 1-failed neutrosophic 6438

SuperHyperForcing has the neutrosophic number of the neutrosophic cardinality 6439
of the second neutrosophic SuperHyperPart minus one. Thus, 6440

-of-the-cardinality-of-second-SuperHyperPart-minus-one
two exceptions in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices from any
given SuperHyperEdge.|neutrosophic cardinality amid those SuperHyperSets. }

Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperStar N SHS : (V, E). Let 6444
a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has some neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. 6445

204






205



mutually neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors. Then an 1-failed neutrosophic 6523

SuperHyperForcing is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the exterior neutro- 6524
sophic SuperHyperVertices and the interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, 6525
excluding the neutrosophic SuperHyperCenter, with only one exception in the 6526
form of interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from any given neutrosophic 6527
SuperHyperEdge. An 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing has the neut- 6528
rosophic number of the neutrosophic cardinality of the second neutrosophic 6529

SuperHyperPart minus one. Thus, 6530

-of-the-cardinality-of-second-SuperHyperPart-minus-one
two exceptions in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices from any
given SuperHyperEdge.|neutrosophic cardinality amid those SuperHyperSets. }

Star N SHS : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. By using the Figure (2.23) 6535
and the Table (2.6), the neutrosophic SuperHyperStar is obtained. 6536
of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected neutrosophic Supe- 6538
206
Figure 2.23: A neutrosophic SuperHyperStar Associated to the Notions of


SuperHyperEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar Mentioned in
the Example (2.5.7)

101TBLb20
rHyperStar N SHS : (V, E), in the neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (2.23), is 6539
Proposition 2.5.8. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite 6541
N SHB : (V, E). Then an 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing is a neut- 6542

rosophic SuperHyperSet of the exterior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and 6543
the interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with only two exceptions in the 6544
form of interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from same neutrosophic Supe- 6545
rHyperEdge. An 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing has the neutrosophic 6546
number of the neutrosophic cardinality of the first neutrosophic SuperHyperPart 6547
minus one plus the second neutrosophic SuperHyperPart minus one. Thus, 6548

207
-minus-on-the-cardinality-of-first-SuperHyperPart-minus-1
-plus-second-SuperHyperPart-minus-1
SuperHyperSets of the SuperHyperVertices | min |
the SuperHyperSets of the
SuperHyperVertices with only two exceptions in the form of interior
SuperHyperVertices from same SuperHyperEdge.
|neutrosophic cardinality amid those SuperHyperSets. }
Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite N SHB : (V, E). 6552




208







SuperHyperVertices and the interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with 6633
only two exceptions in the form of interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 6634

from same neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. An 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHy- 6635
perForcing has the neutrosophic number of the neutrosophic cardinality of the 6636
first neutrosophic SuperHyperPart minus one plus the second neutrosophic 6637
209
Figure 2.24: A neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of

SuperHyperPart minus one. Thus, 6638

-minus-on-the-cardinality-of-first-SuperHyperPart-minus-1
-plus-second-SuperHyperPart-minus-1
SuperHyperSets of the SuperHyperVertices | min |
the SuperHyperSets of the
SuperHyperVertices with only two exceptions in the form of interior
SuperHyperVertices from same SuperHyperEdge.

101EXMb21a Example 2.5.9. In the Figure (2.24), the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperBi- 6642
partite N SHB : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. By using the Figure (2.24) 6643
and the Table (2.7), the neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite N SHB : (V, E), is 6644
obtained. 6645
HyperBipartite N SHB : (V, E), in the neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (2.24), 6648
is the 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. 6649
210

SuperHyperEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite Mentioned
in the Example (2.5.9)

101TBLb21
Proposition 2.5.10. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite 6650

N SHM : (V, E). Then an 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing is a neutro- 6651
sophic SuperHyperSet of the exterior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and the 6652

interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with only one exception in the form of 6653
interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from a neutrosophic SuperHyperPart 6654
and only one exception in the form of interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVer- 6655
tices from another neutrosophic SuperHyperPart. An 1-failed neutrosophic 6656
SuperHyperForcing has the neutrosophic number of all the summation on the 6657
neutrosophic cardinality of the all neutrosophic SuperHyperParts minus two 6658

excerpt distinct neutrosophic SuperHyperParts. Thus, 6659

-the-summation
-on-cardinalities-of-SuperHyperParts-minus-two-excerpt-SuperHyperParts
SuperHyperSets of the SuperHyperVertices | min |the SuperHyperSets of the
SuperHyperVertices with only one exception in the form of interior
SuperHyperVertices from a SuperHyperPart and only one exception
in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices from another SuperHyperPart.

Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite N SHM : 6663

(V, E). Let a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has some neutrosophic Super- 6664
HyperVertices. Consider some neutrosophic numbers of those neutrosophic 6665
SuperHyperVertices from that neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge excluding three 6666

distinct neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, belong to any given neutrosophic 6667
SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Consider there’s an 6668
1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing with the most neutrosophic cardin- 6669
ality, the upper sharp bound for neutrosophic cardinality. The neutrosophic 6670
SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices V \ {x, y, z} is a neut- 6671
rosophic SuperHyperSet S of black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (whereas 6672

211

SuperHyperVertex but it isn’t an 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. 6680



it isn’t an 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Since it doesn’t do the 6694

to be black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex [there’s at least one white without 6701
any white neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor outside implying there’s, by the 6702
connectedness of the connected neutrosophic neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 6703

the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, V \ {x, z}. Thus the obvious 1- 6707
failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing, V \ {x, z}, is up. The obvious simple 6708
type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyper- 6709



212

SuperHyperVertices and the interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with 6745
only one exception in the form of interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from 6746
a neutrosophic SuperHyperPart and only one exception in the form of interior 6747
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from another neutrosophic SuperHyperPart. 6748

An 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing has the neutrosophic number 6749
of all the summation on the neutrosophic cardinality of the all neutrosophic 6750
SuperHyperParts minus two excerpt distinct neutrosophic SuperHyperParts. 6751
Thus, 6752

-the-summation
-on-cardinalities-of-SuperHyperParts-minus-two-excerpt-SuperHyperParts
SuperHyperSets of the SuperHyperVertices | min |the SuperHyperSets of the
SuperHyperVertices with only one exception in the form of interior
SuperHyperVertices from a SuperHyperPart and only one exception
in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices from another SuperHyperPart.

101EXMb22a Example 2.5.11. In the Figure (2.25), the connected neutrosophic SuperHy- 6756
perMultipartite N SHM : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. By using the 6757
Figure (2.25) and the Table (2.8), the neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite 6758
N SHM : (V, E), is obtained. 6759

of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected neutrosophic Supe- 6761
rHyperMultipartite N SHM : (V, E), in the neutrosophic SuperHyperModel 6762
(2.25), is the 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. 6763
213
Figure 2.25: A neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions

of 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing in the Example (2.5.11) 101NHGb22a
Table 2.8: The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges,

and SuperHyperEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite
N SHM : (V, E), Mentioned in the Example (2.5.11)

101TBLb22
Proposition 2.5.12. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 6764

N SHW : (V, E). Then an 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing is a neut- 6765
rosophic SuperHyperSet of the exterior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and 6766
the interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, excluding the neutrosophic Su- 6767
perHyperCenter, with only one exception in the form of interior neutrosophic 6768
SuperHyperVertices from any given neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. An 1-failed 6769
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing has the neutrosophic number of all the neutro- 6770
sophic number of all the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges minus two neutrosophic 6771
numbers excerpt two neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors. Thus, 6772
N eutrosophic 1 − f ailed SuperHyperF orcing =

{The number-of-all-the-SuperHyperVertices
-minus-the-number-of-all-the-SuperHyperEdges
-minus-two-numbers-excerpt-two-
SuperHyperNeighbors SuperHyperSets of the
214
SuperHyperVertices, excluding the SuperHyperCenter

with only
one exception in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices from any given
Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E). 6776



215





mutually neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors. Then an 1-failed neutrosophic 6855
SuperHyperForcing is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the exterior neutro- 6856

sophic SuperHyperVertices and the interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, 6857
excluding the neutrosophic SuperHyperCenter, with only one exception in 6858
the form of interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from any given neutro- 6859
sophic SuperHyperEdge. An 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing has the 6860
neutrosophic number of all the neutrosophic number of all the neutrosophic 6861
SuperHyperEdges minus two neutrosophic numbers excerpt two neutrosophic 6862

SuperHyperNeighbors. Thus, 6863
N eutrosophic 1 − f ailed SuperHyperF orcing =

{The number-of-all-the-SuperHyperVertices
216
Figure 2.26: A neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel Associated to the Notions of

-minus-the-number-of-all-the-SuperHyperEdges
-minus-two-numbers-excerpt-two-
SuperHyperNeighbors SuperHyperSets of the
SuperHyperVertices, excluding the SuperHyperCenter
with only
one exception in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices from any given

Wheel N SHW : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. By using the Figure (2.26) 6868
and the Table (2.9), the neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E), is 6869
obtained. 6870
HyperWheel N SHW : (V, E), in the neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (2.26), is 6873
2.6 General Results 6875
For the 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing, and the neutrosophic 1-failed 6876
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing, some general results are introduced. 6877
Remark 2.6.1. Let remind that the neutrosophic 1-failed neutrosophic Super- 6878
HyperForcing is “redefined” on the positions of the alphabets. 6879
217

SuperHyperEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel N SHW :
(V, E), Mentioned in the Example (2.5.13)

101TBLb23
Corollary 2.6.2. Assume 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Then 6880
N eutrosophic 1 − f ailedneutrosophicSuperHyperF orcing =

{the1 − f ailedneutrosophicSuperHyperF orcingof theneutrosophicSuperHyperV ertices |
max |neutrosophicSuperHyperDef ensiveneutrosophicSuperHyper
Alliances|neutrosophiccardinalityamidthose1−f ailedneutrosophicSuperHyperF orcing. }
Where σi is the unary operation on the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the 6881

neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph to assign the determinacy, the indeterminacy 6882
and the neutrality, for i = 1, 2, 3, respectively. 6883

letter of the alphabet. Then the notion of neutrosophic 1-failed neutrosophic 6885
SuperHyperForcing and 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing coincide. 6886

letter of the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the neutrosophic 6888
SuperHyperVertices is a neutrosophic 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing 6889
if and only if it’s an 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. 6890

letter of the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the neutrosophic 6892
SuperHyperVertices is a strongest neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle if and only if 6893
it’s a longest neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. 6894
Corollary 2.6.6. Assume neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of a neutrosophic 6895
SuperHyperGraph on the same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its 6896
neutrosophic 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing is its 1-failed neutrosophic 6897
SuperHyperForcing and reversely. 6898
Corollary 2.6.7. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/neutrosophic Supe- 6899

rHyperCycle, neutrosophic SuperHyperStar, neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite, 6900
neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite, neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel) on the 6901
same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its neutrosophic 1-failed neutrosophic 6902
SuperHyperForcing is its 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing and reversely. 6903

sophic 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing isn’t well-defined if and only if 6905
its 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing isn’t well-defined. 6906
Corollary 2.6.9. Assume neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of a neutrosophic Su- 6907

perHyperGraph. Then its neutrosophic 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing 6908
218
isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing isn’t 6909
well-defined. 6910

neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite, neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel). Then 6913
its neutrosophic 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing isn’t well-defined if 6914
and only if its 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing isn’t well-defined. 6915

sophic 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing is well-defined if and only if its 6917
1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing is well-defined. 6918
Corollary 2.6.12. Assume neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of a neutrosophic 6919

SuperHyperGraph. Then its neutrosophic 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperFor- 6920
cing is well-defined if and only if its 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing is 6921
well-defined. 6922

neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite, neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel). Then 6925

its neutrosophic 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing is well-defined if and 6926
only if its 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing is well-defined. 6927
Then V is 6929
(i) : the dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic Super- 6930

HyperForcing; 6931
(ii) : the strong dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 6932

(iii) : the connected dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 6934
(iv) : the δ-dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic Super- 6936

HyperForcing; 6937
(v) : the strong δ-dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 6938

(vi) : the connected δ-dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutro- 6940

sophic SuperHyperForcing. 6941

V. All neutrosophic SuperHyperMembers of V have at least one neutrosophic 6943
SuperHyperNeighbor inside the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet more than 6944
neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor out of neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus, 6945
(i). V is the dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 6946
219
∀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 neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutro- 6948
sophic SuperHyperForcing since the following statements are equivalent. 6949
∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |Ns (a) ∩ ∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(iii). V is the connected dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 6950

neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing since the following statements are equivalent. 6951
∀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 neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 6952

∀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 neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutro- 6954

∀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.
220
(vi). V is connected δ-dual 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing since the 6956

∀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.
6958
Proposition 2.6.15. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a neutrosophic SuperHyper- 6959

Graph. Then ∅ is 6960
(i) : the neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyper- 6961

Forcing; 6962
(ii) : the strong neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic Super- 6963

HyperForcing; 6964
(iii) : the connected defensive neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neut- 6965
rosophic SuperHyperForcing; 6966
(iv) : the δ-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHy- 6967

perForcing; 6968
(v) : the strong δ-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 6969

(vi) : the connected δ-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 6971

∅. All neutrosophic SuperHyperMembers of ∅ have no neutrosophic SuperHy- 6974
perNeighbor inside the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet less than neutrosophic 6975
SuperHyperNeighbor out of neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus, 6976
(i). ∅ is the neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHy- 6977

perForcing since the following statements are equivalent. 6978
∀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.
221
(ii). ∅ is the strong neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 6979

∀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 neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 6981
∀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-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 6983
∀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-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 6985
∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |(Ns (a) ∩ ∅) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ ∅))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |(Ns (a) ∩ ∅) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
(vi). ∅ is the connected δ-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutro- 6987
∀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.
6989
222

Then an independent neutrosophic SuperHyperSet is 6991
(i) : the neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyper- 6992

Forcing; 6993
(ii) : the strong neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic Super- 6994

HyperForcing; 6995
(iii) : the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 6996

(iv) : the δ-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHy- 6998

perForcing; 6999
(v) : the strong δ-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 7000

(vi) : the connected δ-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 7002

S. All neutrosophic SuperHyperMembers of S have no neutrosophic SuperHy- 7005
(i). An independent neutrosophic SuperHyperSet is the neutrosophic Super- 7008
HyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing since the following 7009
∀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 neutrosophic SuperHyperSet is the strong neutrosophic 7011

SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing since the 7012
∀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 neutrosophic SuperHyperSet is the connected neutrosophic 7014

223
∀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 neutrosophic SuperHyperSet is the δ-neutrosophic 7017

∀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 neutrosophic SuperHyperSet is the strong δ-neutrosophic 7020

∀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 neutrosophic SuperHyperSet is the connected δ- 7023

neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing 7024
∀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.
7026

neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle/neut- 7028
rosophic SuperHyperPath. Then V is a maximal 7029
(i) : neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperFor- 7030

cing; 7031
224
(ii) : strong neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHy- 7032

perForcing; 7033
(iii) : connected neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic Super- 7034

HyperForcing; 7035
(iv) : O(N SHG)-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic Su- 7036

perHyperForcing; 7037
(v) : strong O(N SHG)-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutro- 7038

sophic SuperHyperForcing; 7039
(vi) : connected O(N SHG)-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutro- 7040

Where the exterior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and the interior neutro- 7042
sophic SuperHyperVertices coincide. 7043

neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle/neutrosophic 7045
SuperHyperPath. 7046
(i). Consider one segment is out of S which is neutrosophic SuperHyperDe- 7047

fensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. This segment has 2t neut- 7048
rosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in S, i.e, Suppose xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S such 7049
that yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By it’s the exterior neutrosophic 7050
SuperHyperVertices and the interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices coin- 7051
cide and it’s neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle, 7052
∀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.
Thus it’s contradiction. It implies every V \ {xii=1,2,...,t } isn’t neutrosophic 7054

SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing in a given neut- 7055
rosophic SuperHyperUniform neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. 7056
Consider one segment, with two segments related to the neutrosophic Su- 7057
perHyperLeaves as exceptions, is out of S which is neutrosophic SuperHy- 7058
perDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. This segment has 2t 7059

neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in S, i.e, Suppose xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S such 7060
cide and it’s neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform neutrosophic SuperHyperPath, 7063
225
∀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.

rosophic SuperHyperUniform neutrosophic SuperHyperPath. 7067
(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal and it’s a neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 7069
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Thus it’s |V |-neutrosophic SuperHyperDe- 7070

fensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. 7071

which is a neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel. 7074
Then V is a maximal 7075
(i) : dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyper- 7076

Forcing; 7077
(ii) : strong dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 7078

(iii) : connected dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 7080

(iv) : O(N SHG)-dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 7082

(v) : strong O(N SHG)-dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neut- 7084

rosophic SuperHyperForcing; 7085
(vi) : connected O(N SHG)-dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 7086

neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing; 7087
Where the exterior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and the interior neutro- 7088
sophic SuperHyperVertices coincide. 7089

neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel. 7091
(i). Consider one segment is out of S which is neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 7092
1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. This segment has 3t neutrosophic 7093
SuperHyperNeighbors in S, i.e, Suppose xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S such that 7094
226
yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By it’s the exterior neutrosophic 7095

SuperHyperVertices and the interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices coincide 7096
and it’s neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel, 7097
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
|{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 neutrosophic 7099

SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing in a given 7100
neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel. 7101
(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal and it is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 7103
1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Thus it’s a dual |V |-neutrosophic 7104
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. 7105


neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle/neut- 7108
rosophic SuperHyperPath. Then the number of 7109
(i) : the 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing; 7110
(ii) : the 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing; 7111
(iii) : the connected 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing; 7112
(iv) : the O(N SHG)-1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing; 7113
(v) : the strong O(N SHG)-1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing; 7114
(vi) : the connected O(N SHG)-1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. 7115
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and 7116
the interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices coincide. 7117
neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle/neutrosophic 7119

SuperHyperPath. 7120
(i). Consider one segment is out of S which is neutrosophic SuperHyperDe- 7121
fensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. This segment has 2t neut- 7122
rosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in S, i.e, Suppose xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S such 7123
227

cide and it’s neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle, 7126
∀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.
rosophic SuperHyperUniform neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. 7130
Consider one segment, with two segments related to the neutrosophic Su- 7131
perHyperLeaves as exceptions, is out of S which is neutrosophic SuperHy- 7132
perDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. This segment has 2t 7133
neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in S, i.e, Suppose xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S such 7134

cide and it’s neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform neutrosophic SuperHyperPath, 7137
∀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.
rosophic SuperHyperUniform neutrosophic SuperHyperPath. 7141

(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal and it’s a neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 7143
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Thus it’s |V |-neutrosophic SuperHyperDe- 7144

neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel. Then 7148
the number of 7149
228
(i) : the dual 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing; 7150
(ii) : the dual 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing; 7151
(iii) : the dual connected 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing; 7152
(iv) : the dual O(N SHG)-1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing; 7153
(v) : the strong dual O(N SHG)-1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing; 7154
(vi) : the connected dual O(N SHG)-1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. 7155
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and 7156
the interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices coincide. 7157

neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel. 7159
(i). Consider one segment is out of S which is neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 7160

1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. This segment has 3t neutrosophic 7161
SuperHyperNeighbors in S, i.e, Suppose xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S such that 7162
yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By it’s the exterior neutrosophic 7163
SuperHyperVertices and the interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices coincide 7164
and it’s neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel, 7165
∀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| <
|{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 neutrosophic 7167
neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel. 7169
(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal and it’s a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 7171
1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Thus it isn’t an |V |-neutrosophic 7172


neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a neutrosophic SuperHyperStar/neut- 7176
rosophic SuperHyperComplete neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite/neutrosophic 7177
SuperHyperComplete neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a neutrosophic 7178
229
SuperHyperSet contains [the neutrosophic SuperHyperCenter and] the half of 7179

multiplying r with the number of all the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges plus one 7180
of all the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is a 7181

Forcing; 7183


O(N SHG)
(iv) : 2 +1-dualneutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 7188
(v) : strong O(N SHG)

2 + 1-dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 7190
(vi) : connected O(N SHG)

neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. 7193
Proof. (i). Consider n half +1 neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are in S which 7194

is neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. 7195
A neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex has either n2 or one neutrosophic SuperHy- 7196
perNeighbors in S. If the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is non-neutrosophic 7197
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
If the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is neutrosophic SuperHyperCenter, then 7199
∀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 neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 7200
1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing in a given neutrosophic SuperHyper- 7201
Star. 7202
Consider n half +1 neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are in S which is neut- 7203
rosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. A 7204
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex has at most n2 neutrosophic SuperHyperNeigh- 7205
bors in S. 7206
n n
∀a ∈ S, > |N (a) ∩ S| > − 1 > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
2 2
n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing in a given neutrosophic SuperHy- 7208
perComplete neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite which isn’t a neutrosophic 7209
230

rosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing and 7212
they’re chosen from different neutrosophic SuperHyperParts, equally or al- 7213
most equally as possible. A neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex has at most n2 7214

neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in S. 7215
n n
∀a ∈ S, > |N (a) ∩ S| > − 1 > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
2 2
n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2

Complete neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite which is neither a neutrosophic 7218
SuperHyperStar nor neutrosophic SuperHyperComplete neutrosophic SuperHy- 7219
perBipartite. 7220
O(N SHG)
+1
(iv). By (i), {xi }i=1
2
is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 7222
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Thus it’s O(N SHG) 2 + 1-dual neutrosophic 7223


SuperHyperComplete neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a neutrosophic 7229
SuperHyperSet contains the half of multiplying r with the number of all the neut- 7230
rosophic SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 7231
in the biggest neutrosophic SuperHyperPart is a 7232

cing; 7234

perForcing; 7236

HyperForcing; 7238
(iv) : δ-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyper- 7239

Forcing; 7240
(v) : strong δ-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic Super- 7241
HyperForcing; 7242
(vi) : connected δ-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 7243

Proof. (i). Consider the half of multiplying r with the number of all the neut- 7245
rosophic SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 7246
in the biggest neutrosophic SuperHyperPart are in S which is neutrosophic 7247
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. A neutrosophic 7248
231
SuperHyperVertex has either n−1, 1 or zero neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors 7249

in S. If the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is in S, then 7250
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 0 < 1.
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1- 7251
failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing in a given neutrosophic SuperHyperStar. 7252

Consider the half of multiplying r with the number of all the neutrosophic 7253
SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in 7254
the biggest neutrosophic SuperHyperPart are in S which is neutrosophic 7255
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. A neutrosophic 7256
SuperHyperVertex has no neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor in S. 7257
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 0 < δ.
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 7258

Consider the half of multiplying r with the number of all the neutrosophic 7262
SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in the 7263
biggest neutrosophic SuperHyperPart are in S which is neutrosophic Supe- 7264

rHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. A neutrosophic 7265
SuperHyperVertex has no neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor in S. 7266
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 0 < δ.
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 7267


perBipartite. 7271
(iv). By (i), S is a neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 7273
SuperHyperForcing. Thus it’s an δ-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 7274

SuperHyperComplete neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite. Then Then the 7280
number of 7281

Forcing; 7283

232

O(N SHG)
(iv) : 2 +1-dualneutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 7288
(v) : strong O(N SHG)

(vi) : connected O(N SHG)

is one and it’s only S, a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet contains [the neutrosophic 7294
SuperHyperCenter and] the half of multiplying r with the number of all the 7295
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the neutrosophic SuperHyper- 7296
Vertices. Where the exterior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and the interior 7297
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices coincide. 7298

A neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex has either n2 or one neutrosophic SuperHy- 7301
perNeighbors in S. If the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is non-neutrosophic 7302

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

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
If the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is neutrosophic SuperHyperCenter, then 7304
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2

Star. 7307
rosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. A 7309
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex has at most n2 neutrosophic SuperHyperNeigh- 7310
bors in S. 7311
n n
∀a ∈ S, > |N (a) ∩ S| > − 1 > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
2 2
n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2

rosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing and 7317
233
they’re chosen from different neutrosophic SuperHyperParts, equally or al- 7318

most equally as possible. A neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex has at most n2 7319
n n
∀a ∈ S, > |N (a) ∩ S| > − 1 > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
2 2
n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
perBipartite. 7325
O(N SHG)
+1
(iv). By (i), {xi }i=1
2
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Thus it’s O(N SHG) 2 + 1-dual neutrosophic 7328


The number of connected component is |V − S| if there’s a neutrosophic 7332
SuperHyperSet which is a dual 7333

cing; 7335

perForcing; 7337

HyperForcing; 7339
(iv) : 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing; 7340
(v) : strong 1-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic Super- 7341

HyperForcing; 7342
(vi) : connected 1-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 7343

Proof. (i). Consider some neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are out of S which 7345
is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyper- 7346
Forcing. These neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex-type have some neutrosophic 7347
SuperHyperNeighbors in S but no neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor out of S. 7348
Thus 7349
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.

1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing and number of connected component 7351
is |V − S|. 7352
234

(iv). By (i), S is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 7354
SuperHyperForcing. Thus it’s a dual 1-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 7355
1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. 7356


Then the number is at most O(N SHG) and the neutrosophic number is at most 7359
On (N SHG). 7360
V. All neutrosophic SuperHyperMembers of V have at least one neutrosophic 7362

SuperHyperNeighbor inside the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet more than neutro- 7363
sophic SuperHyperNeighbor out of neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus, 7364
V is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHy- 7365
∀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 neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHy- 7367
∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |Ns (a) ∩ ∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
V is connected a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 7369

∀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.
235
V is a dual δ-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic Super- 7371

HyperForcing since the following statements are equivalent. 7372
∀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-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 7373

∀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-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 7375

∀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 neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 7377

SuperHyperForcing and V is the biggest neutrosophic SuperHyperSet in 7378
N SHG : (V, E). Then the number is at most O(N SHG : (V, E)) and the 7379
neutrosophic number is at most On (N SHG : (V, E)). 7380
which is neutrosophic SuperHyperComplete. The number is O(N SHG:(V,E)) 2 +1 7382

and the neutrosophic number is min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in 7383
t>
2
the setting of dual 7384

cing; 7386

perForcing; 7388

HyperForcing; 7390
(iv) : ( O(N SHG:(V,E))

2 + 1)-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutro- 7391
236

2 + 1)-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 7393

Proof. (i). Consider n half −1 neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are out of 7397

S which is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 7398
SuperHyperForcing. A neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex has n half neutrosophic 7399
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
Complete neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Thus the number is O(N SHG:(V,E)) 2 + 7403

1 and the neutrosophic number is min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in 7404
t>
2
the setting of a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 7405
(ii). Consider n half −1 neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is 7407

a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyper- 7408
Forcing. A neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex has n half neutrosophic SuperHy- 7409
perNeighbors in S. 7410
∀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 neutrosophic Su- 7411
perHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing in a given 7412
neutrosophic SuperHyperComplete neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Thus 7413
the number is O(N SHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and the neutrosophic number is 7414

min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual strong neut- 7415
t>
2
rosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. 7416
(iii). Consider n half −1 neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are out of S which 7417

is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic Super- 7418
HyperForcing. A neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex has n half neutrosophic 7419
∀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 neutro- 7421
sophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing in 7422
a given neutrosophic SuperHyperComplete neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 7423
t>
2
neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. 7426
237
(iv). Consider n half −1 neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are out of S which 7427

is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic Super- 7428
HyperForcing. A neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex has n half neutrosophic 7429
∀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)- 7431
in a given neutrosophic SuperHyperComplete neutrosophic SuperHyper- 7433
Graph. Thus the number is O(N SHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and the neutrosophic 7434
number is min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual 7435
t>
2
( O(N SHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 7436
(v). Consider n half −1 neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is 7438

a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyper- 7439
Forcing. A neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex has n half neutrosophic SuperHy- 7440
perNeighbors in S. 7441
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

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

2 + 1)- 7442
in a given neutrosophic SuperHyperComplete neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 7444
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual strong 7446
t>
2
( O(N SHG:(V,E))
(vi). Consider n half −1 neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are out of S 7449
which is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 7450
SuperHyperForcing. A neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex has n half neutrosophic 7451

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

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

2 + 1)- 7453
in a given neutrosophic SuperHyperComplete neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 7455
t>
2
( O(N SHG:(V,E))
238

which is ∅. The number is 0 and the neutrosophic number is 0, for an independent 7461
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet in the setting of dual 7462

cing; 7464

perForcing; 7466
HyperForcing; 7468
(iv) : 0-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyper- 7469

Forcing; 7470
(v) : strong 0-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic Super- 7471

HyperForcing; 7472
(vi) : connected 0-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 7473

∅. All neutrosophic SuperHyperMembers of ∅ have no neutrosophic SuperHy- 7476
(i). ∅ is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic Super- 7479
HyperForcing since the following statements are equivalent. 7480
∀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 neutro- 7481
sophic SuperHyperSet in the setting of a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 7482

(ii). ∅ is a dual strong neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 7484
∀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.
sophic SuperHyperSet in the setting of a dual strong neutrosophic SuperHyper- 7487
Defensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. 7488
239
(iii). ∅ is a dual connected neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutro- 7489

∀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.

neutrosophic SuperHyperSet in the setting of a dual connected neutrosophic 7492
(iv). ∅ is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 7494
∀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.
sophic SuperHyperSet in the setting of a dual 0-neutrosophic SuperHyperDe- 7497

(v). ∅ is a dual strong 0-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 7499
∀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.
sophic SuperHyperSet in the setting of a dual strong 0-neutrosophic SuperHy- 7502
perDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. 7503
(vi). ∅ is a dual connected neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutro- 7504
∀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.

neutrosophic SuperHyperSet in the setting of a dual connected 0-offensive 7507
240

7509

which is neutrosophic SuperHyperComplete. Then there’s no independent 7511
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. 7512

which is neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle/neutrosophic SuperHyperPath/neutro- 7514
sophic SuperHyperWheel. The number is O(N SHG : (V, E)) and the neutro- 7515
sophic number is On (N SHG : (V, E)), in the setting of a dual 7516

cing; 7518

perForcing; 7520

HyperForcing; 7522
(iv) : O(N SHG : (V, E))-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutro- 7523

(v) : strong O(N SHG : (V, E))-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 7525

(vi) : connected O(N SHG : (V, E))-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 7527

Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 7529

neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle/neutrosophic SuperHyperPath/neutrosophic 7530
SuperHyperWheel. 7531
(i). Consider one neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is out of S which is a dual 7532
This neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex has one neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor 7534
in S, i.e, suppose x ∈ V \ S such that y, z ∈ N (x). By it’s neutrosophic 7535

SuperHyperCycle, |N (x)| = |N (y)| = |N (z)| = 2. Thus 7536
∀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.
Thus it’s contradiction. It implies every V \ {x} isn’t a dual neutrosophic 7537

neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. 7539
Consider one neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is out of S which is a dual 7540
241
in S, i.e, Suppose x ∈ V \ S such that y, z ∈ N (x). By it’s neutrosophic 7543

SuperHyperPath, |N (x)| = |N (y)| = |N (z)| = 2. Thus 7544
∀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.
neutrosophic SuperHyperPath. 7547
Consider one neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is out of S which is a dual 7548

in S, i.e, Suppose x ∈ V \ S such that y, z ∈ N (x). By it’s neutrosophic 7551
SuperHyperWheel, |N (x)| = |N (y)| = |N (z)| = 2. Thus 7552
∀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.
neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel. 7555
(iv). By (i), V is maximal and it’s a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 7557
1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Thus it’s a dual O(N SHG : (V, E))- 7558

Thus the number is O(N SHG : (V, E)) and the neutrosophic number is 7561
On (N SHG : (V, E)), in the setting of all types of a dual neutrosophic 7562
Proposition 2.6.30. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic Super- 7564

HyperGraph which is neutrosophic SuperHyperStar/complete neutro- 7565
sophic SuperHyperBipartite/complete neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPart- 7566
ite. The number is O(N SHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and the neutrosophic number is 7567
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual 7568
t>
2

cing; 7570

perForcing; 7572
242

HyperForcing; 7574
(iv) : ( O(N SHG:(V,E))

2 + 1)-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutro- 7575



A neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex has at most n half neutrosophic SuperHyper- 7583
Neighbors in S. If the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is the non-neutrosophic 7584
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
If the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is the neutrosophic SuperHyperCenter, 7586
then 7587
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2

Star. 7590
Consider n half +1 neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are in S which is a dual 7591
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

δ δ
∀a ∈ S, >n− .
2 2
1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing in a given complete neutrosophic 7594
SuperHyperBipartite which isn’t a neutrosophic SuperHyperStar. 7595
Consider n half +1 neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are in S which is a dual 7596

and they are chosen from different neutrosophic SuperHyperParts, equally or 7598
almost equally as possible. A neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in S has δ half 7599
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

δ δ
∀a ∈ S, >n− .
2 2
7601
243
1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing in a given complete neutrosophic 7603

SuperHyperMultipartite which is neither a neutrosophic SuperHyperStar nor 7604
complete neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite. 7605

O(N SHG:(V,E))
+1
(iv). By (i), {xi }i=1 2
is maximal and it’s a dual neutrosophic 7607
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Thus it’s a 7608
dual O(N SHG:(V,E))

2 +1-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 7609
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of all dual 1-failed 7613
t>
2
Proposition 2.6.31. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperFamily 7615

of the N SHGs : (V, E) neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs which are from one-type 7616
neutrosophic SuperHyperClass which the result is obtained for the individuals. 7617
Then the results also hold for the neutrosophic SuperHyperFamily N SHF : 7618
(V, E) of these specific neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of the neutrosophic 7619

SuperHyperGraphs. 7620
Proof. There are neither neutrosophic SuperHyperConditions nor neutrosophic 7621
SuperHyperRestrictions on the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Thus the 7622

neutrosophic SuperHyperResults on individuals, N SHGs : (V, E), are extended 7623
to the neutrosophic SuperHyperResults on neutrosophic SuperHyperFamily, 7624
N SHF : (V, E). 7625
Graph. If S is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 7627

SuperHyperForcing, then ∀v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S such that 7628
(i) v ∈ Ns (x); 7629
(ii) vx ∈ E. 7630

Consider v ∈ V \ S. Since S is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 7632
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing, 7633
∀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).

Consider v ∈ V \ S. Since S is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 7635
1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing, 7636
∀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).
244
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S : vx ∈ E.
7637

Graph. If S is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 7639
SuperHyperForcing, then 7640
(i) S is neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating set; 7641
(ii) there’s S ⊆ S such that |S | is neutrosophic SuperHyperChromatic

0 0
7642
number. 7643

Consider v ∈ V \ S. Since S is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 7645
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing, either 7646
∀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 7647
∀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.
It implies S is neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating neutrosophic SuperHyper- 7648
Set. 7649
sider v ∈ V \ S. Since S is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 7651
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing, either 7652
∀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 7653
∀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.
Thus every neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex v ∈ V \ S, has at least one 7654
neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor in S. The only case is about the relation 7655
amid neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in S in the terms of neutrosophic 7656
SuperHyperNeighbors. It implies there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is neutrosophic 7657
SuperHyperChromatic number. 7658
245

Graph. Then 7660
(i) Γ ≤ O; 7661
(ii) Γs ≤ On . 7662

Let S = V. 7664
∀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 neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 7665

SuperHyperForcing. For all neutrosophic SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic 7666
SuperHyperVertices S, S ⊆ V. Thus for all neutrosophic SuperHyperSets of 7667
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S, |S| ≤ |V |. It implies for all neutrosophic 7668
SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S, |S| ≤ O. So for all 7669

neutrosophic SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S, Γ ≤ O. 7670
S = V. 7672
∀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 neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 7673

SuperHyperForcing. For all neutrosophic SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic 7674
SuperHyperVertices S, S ⊆ V. Thus for all neutrosophic SuperHyperSets 7675
of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ Σv∈V Σ3i=1 σi (v). It 7676
implies for all neutrosophic SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 7677
S, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ On . So for all neutrosophic SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic 7678

SuperHyperVertices S, Γs ≤ On . 7679

Graph which is connected. Then 7681
(i) Γ ≤ O − 1; 7682
(ii) Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 7683

Let S = V − {x} where x is arbitrary and x ∈ V. 7685
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

246
|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > |Ns (x) ∩ {x}|

|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > |∅|
|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > 0
It implies V − {x} is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 7686

neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. For all neutrosophic SuperHyperSets of 7687
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, S ⊆ V −{x}. Thus for all neutrosophic 7688
SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, |S| ≤ |V − {x}|. It 7689
implies for all neutrosophic SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 7690
S 6= V, |S| ≤ O − 1. So for all neutrosophic SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic 7691
SuperHyperVertices S, Γ ≤ O − 1. 7692
S = V − {x} where x is arbitrary and x ∈ V. 7694
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > |Ns (x) ∩ {x}|
|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > |∅|
|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > 0
It implies V − {x} is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 7695

neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. For all neutrosophic SuperHyperSets 7696
of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, S ⊆ V − {x}. Thus for 7697
all neutrosophic SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S 6= 7698
V, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ Σv∈V −{x} Σ3i=1 σi (v). It implies for all neutrosophic 7699
SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S = 6 V, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ 7700

On − Σi=1 σi (x). So for all neutrosophic SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic
3
7701
SuperHyperVertices S, Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 7702
Proposition 2.6.36. Let N SHG : (V, E) be an odd neutrosophic SuperHyper- 7703
Path. Then 7704
(i) the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual neutro- 7705

sophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing; 7706
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded neutrosophic SuperHyperSet is S = 7707

{v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 7708
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 7709
(iv) the neutrosophic SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } and S2 = 7710
{v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only a dual 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperFor- 7711

cing. 7712
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an odd neutrosophic SuperHyperPath. 7713

Let S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all vi , vj ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }, vi vj 6∈ E 7714
247
and vi , vj ∈ V. 7715
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 neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1- 7716
failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. If S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } − {vi } where 7717

vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }, then 7718
∃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 7719
It induces S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 7721

(iv). By (i), S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 7724
1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Thus it’s enough to show that 7725
S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 7726
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an odd 7727
neutrosophic SuperHyperPath. Let S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all 7728

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 ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, then 7732
∃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 2.6.37. Let N SHG : (V, E) be an even neutrosophic SuperHyper- 7737

Path. Then 7738
248
(i) the set S = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 7739

1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing; 7740
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded neutrosophic SuperHyperSets are 7741
{v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }; 7742
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 7743
(iv) the neutrosophic SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and S2 = 7744

{v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only dual 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. 7745
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an even neutrosophic SuperHyperPath. 7746

Let S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } where for all vi , vj ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, vi vj 6∈ E and 7747
vi , vj ∈ V. 7748
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 neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 7749

1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. If S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } − {vi } where 7750
vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, then 7751
∃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 neutrosophic 7752

SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. It induces 7753
S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 7754
(iv). By (i), S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 7757

neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an even 7760
neutrosophic SuperHyperPath. Let S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all 7761
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 })|

249
vi ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, then 7765
∃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)|.



Cycle. Then 7771
(i) the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual neutro- 7772

(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded neutrosophic SuperHyperSets are 7774

{v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }; 7775
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } σ(s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } σ(s)}; 7776
(iv) the neutrosophic SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and S2 = 7777

{v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only dual 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. 7778
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an even neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. 7779
Let S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } where for all vi , vj ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, vi vj 6∈ E and 7780

vi , vj ∈ V. 7781
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 neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 7782

1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. If S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } − {vi } where 7783
vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, then 7784
∃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 neutrosophic 7785

S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 7787

(iv). By (i), S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 7790
250

neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an even 7793
neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. Let S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all 7794
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 ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, then 7798
∃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)|.


Cycle. Then 7804
(i) the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual neutro- 7805

(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded neutrosophic SuperHyperSet is S = 7807
{v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 7808
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 7809
(iv) the neutrosophic SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 } and S2 = 7810

{v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only dual 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. 7811
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an odd neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. 7812

Let S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all vi , vj ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }, vi vj 6∈ E 7813
and vi , vj ∈ V. 7814
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 })|

251
vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }, then 7817
∃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 neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 7823

neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an odd 7826
neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. Let S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all 7827
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 ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, then 7831
∃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 2.6.40. Let N SHG : (V, E) be neutrosophic SuperHyperStar. 7836

Then 7837
(i) the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S = {c} is a dual maximal 1-failed 7838

(ii) Γ = 1; 7840
(iii) Γs = Σ3i=1 σi (c); 7841
(iv) the neutrosophic SuperHyperSets S = {c} and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual 7842
252
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperStar. 7844
∀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 neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 7845
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. If S = {c} − {c} = ∅, then 7846
∃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 neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 7847
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. It induces S = {c} is a dual neutrosophic 7848

(iv). By (i), S = {c} is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 7851
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Thus it’s enough to show that S ⊆ S 0 is a dual 7852
Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperStar. Let S ⊆ S 0 . 7854
∀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 neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 7855
Proposition 2.6.41. Let N SHG : (V, E) be neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel. 7857

Then 7858
6+3(i−1)≤n
(i) the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S = {v1 , v3 }∪{v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 7859
is a dual maximal neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 7860

6+3(i−1)≤n
(ii) Γ = |{v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 |; 7862
(iii) Γs = Σ{v1 ,v3 }∪{v6 ,v9 ··· ,vi+6 ,··· ,vn }6+3(i−1)≤n Σ3i=1 σi (s); 7863
i=1
6+3(i−1)≤n
(iv) the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet {v1 , v3 }∪{v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 7864
is only a dual maximal neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutro- 7865
sophic SuperHyperForcing. 7866
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel. Let 7867

6+3(i−1)≤n
S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 . There are either 7868
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 2 > 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
253
or 7869
∀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 neut- 7870
rosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. If 7871
6+3(i−1)≤n
S 0 = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 − {z} where z ∈ S = 7872
6+3(i−1)≤n
{v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 , then There are either 7873
∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | = 1 < 2 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|

∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | < |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
or 7874
∀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 z ∈ 7875
6+3(i−1)≤n
S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 isn’t a dual neutrosophic 7876
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. It induces S = 7877
6+3(i−1)≤n
{v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual maximal neutrosophic 7878

Complete. Then 7882
bn
2 c+1
(i) the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual neutrosophic 7883
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing; 7884
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1; 7885

2
; 7886
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual neutrosophic 7887
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an odd neutrosophic SuperHyperCom- 7889

bn
2 c+1
plete. Let S = {vi }i=1 . Thus 7890
n n
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
b n c+1
2
is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1- 7891
bn
2 c+1
failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. If S 0 = {vi }i=1 − {z} where 7892
bn c+1
z ∈ S = {vi }i=1 , then
2
7893
n n
2 2
254
∀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 neutrosophic 7894

bn
2 c+1
S = {vi }i=1 is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 7896

Complete. Then 7900
bn
2c
(i) the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual neutrosophic 7901
(ii) Γ = b n2 c; 7903

2
; 7904
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual maximal neut- 7905
rosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. 7906
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an even neutrosophic SuperHyperCom- 7907

bn
2c
plete. Let S = {vi }i=1 . Thus 7908
n n
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
bnc
2
bn
2c bn
2c
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. If S 0 = {vi }i=1 − {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1 , 7910
then 7911
n n
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
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 neutrosophic 7912
bn
2c
S = {vi }i=1 is a dual maximal neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 7914
Proposition 2.6.44. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-neutrosophic SuperHyperFam- 7917

ily of neutrosophic SuperHyperStars with common neutrosophic SuperHyperVer- 7918
tex neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Then 7919
(i) the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual neutro- 7920

sophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing for 7921
N SHF; 7922
(ii) Γ = m for N SHF : (V, E); 7923
(iii) Γs = Σm
i=1 Σj=1 σj (ci ) for N SHF : (V, E);
3
7924
255
(iv) the neutrosophic SuperHyperSets S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } and S ⊂ S 0 are 7925

only dual 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing for N SHF : (V, E). 7926
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperStar. 7927
∀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 neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1- 7928
failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing for N SHF : (V, E). If S = {c}−{c} = ∅, 7929

then 7930
∃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 neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 7931

1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing for N SHF : (V, E). It induces 7932
S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual maximal neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 7933
1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing for N SHF : (V, E). 7934

(iv). By (i), S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 7936
1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing for N SHF : (V, E). Thus it’s enough 7937
to show that S ⊆ S 0 is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 7938
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing for N SHF : (V, E). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) 7939
is a neutrosophic SuperHyperStar. Let S ⊆ S 0 . 7940
∀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 neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 7941

neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing for N SHF : (V, E). 7942
Proposition 2.6.45. Let N SHF : (V, E) be an m-neutrosophic SuperHyper- 7943

Family of odd neutrosophic SuperHyperComplete neutrosophic SuperHyper- 7944
Graphs with common neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex neutrosophic SuperHyper- 7945
Set. Then 7946
bn
2 c+1
(i) the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
is a dual maximal neutro- 7947
sophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing for 7948
N SHF; 7949
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 for N SHF : (V, E); 7950

2
for N SHF : (V, E); 7951
S={vi }i=1
256
b n c+1
(iv) the neutrosophic SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only a dual maximal 7952
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is odd neutrosophic SuperHyperComplete. 7954

bn
2 c+1
Let S = {vi }i=1 . Thus 7955
n n
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
b n c+1
2
bn
2 c+1
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing for N SHF : (V, E). If S 0 = {vi }i=1 − {z} 7957
n
b 2 c+1
where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1 , then 7958
n n
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > 6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
b n c+1 b n c+1
So S 0 = {vi }i=1
2
−{z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=12
isn’t a dual neutrosophic Supe- 7959
rHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing for N SHF : (V, E). 7960
bn
2 c+1
It induces S = {vi }i=1 is a dual maximal neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 7961
Proposition 2.6.46. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-neutrosophic SuperHyper- 7964

Family of even neutrosophic SuperHyperComplete neutrosophic SuperHyper- 7965
Graphs with common neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex neutrosophic SuperHyper- 7966
Set. Then 7967
bn
2c
(i) the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
is a dual neutrosophic Su- 7968
perHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing for N SHF : 7969

(V, E); 7970
(ii) Γ = b n2 c for N SHF : (V, E); 7971

2
for N SHF : (V, E); 7972
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the neutrosophic SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1 2
are only dual maximal 7973
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is even neutrosophic SuperHyperComplete. 7975

bn
2c
Let S = {vi }i=1 . Thus 7976
n n
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
bnc
2
bn
2c
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing for N SHF : (V, E). If S 0 = {vi }i=1 − {z} 7978
bn c
where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1 , then
2
7979
n n
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
257
bnc bnc
So S 0 = {vi }i=1
2
− {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1
2
isn’t a dual neutrosophic Super- 7980
HyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing for N SHF : (V, E). 7981
bn
2c
It induces S = {vi }i=1 is a dual maximal neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 7982


(i) if s ≥ t and a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyper- 7987

Vertices is an t-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 7988
SuperHyperForcing, then S is an s-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 7989
1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing; 7990
(ii) if s ≤ t and a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyper- 7991

Vertices is a dual t-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 7992
SuperHyperForcing, then S is a dual s-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 7993

Consider a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 7996
is an t-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyper- 7997
Forcing. Then 7998
∀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-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic Super- 7999

HyperForcing. 8000
sider a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is a 8002
dual t-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperFor- 8003

cing. Then 8004
∀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-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 8005

(i) if s ≥ t + 2 and a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHy- 8009

perVertices is an t-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 8010
SuperHyperForcing, then S is an s-neutrosophic SuperHyperPowerful 1- 8011
failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing; 8012
258
(ii) if s ≤ t and a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyper- 8013

Vertices is a dual t-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 8014
SuperHyperForcing, then S is a dual s-neutrosophic SuperHyperPowerful 8015

Consider a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 8018
is an t-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyper- 8019

Forcing. Then 8020
∀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)−neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 8021

SuperHyperForcing. By S is an s−neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 8022
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing and S is a dual (s + 2)−neutrosophic SuperHy- 8023
perDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing, S is an s-neutrosophic 8024

SuperHyperPowerful 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. 8025
sider a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is a 8027
dual t-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperFor- 8028
cing. Then 8029
∀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)−neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic Su- 8030

perHyperForcing. By S is an (s−2)−neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 8031
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing and S is a dual s−neutrosophic SuperHyper- 8032
Defensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing, S is an s−neutrosophic 8033
SuperHyperPowerful 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. 8034
Proposition 2.6.49. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a[an] [r-]neutrosophic 8035

SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following 8036
statements hold; 8037
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a)∩S| b 2r c + 1, then N SHG : (V, E) 8040

is a dual 2-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 8041
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then N SHG : (V, E) is an r-neutrosophic 8043

r-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperFor- 8046
cing. 8047
259
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform- 8048

strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then 8049
r r
2 2
r r
2 2
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2.
Thus S is an 2-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 8050
(ii). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform- 8052
r r
2 2
r r
2 2
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2.
Thus S is a dual 2-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 8054

(iii). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform- 8056
∀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-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 8058

(iv). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform- 8060
∀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-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 8062

Proposition 2.6.50. Let N SHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]neutrosophic 8064

SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following 8065
statements hold; 8066
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b 2r c+1 if N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-neutrosophic 8069
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if N SHG : (V, E) is an r-neutrosophic 8071

260
(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if N SHG : (V, E) is a dual r-neutrosophic 8073


∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2;

r r
2 2
r r
2 2
r r
2 2
strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and a dual 2-neutrosophic SuperHyper- 8078
Defensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Then 8079
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2;

r r
2 2
r r
2 2
r r
2 2
strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and an r-neutrosophic SuperHyperDe- 8081
∀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.

strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and a dual r-neutrosophic SuperHyper- 8084
∀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.
8086
SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a neutro- 8088

sophic SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 8089
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b O−12 c + 1 if N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 8092

2-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperFor- 8093
cing; 8094
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if N SHG : (V, E) is an (O − 1)-neutrosophic 8095

(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if N SHG : (V, E) is a dual (O − 1)- 8097

neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperFor- 8098
cing. 8099

strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and an 2- neutrosophic SuperHyperDe- 8101
fensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Then 8102
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2;

O−1 O−1
2 2
O−1 O−1
2 2
O−1 O−1
2 2
strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and a dual 2-neutrosophic SuperHyper- 8104
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2;

O−1 O−1
2 2
O−1 O−1
2 2
O−1 O−1
2 2
strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and an (O − 1)-neutrosophic SuperHy- 8107
perDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. 8108
∀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.

strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and a dual r-neutrosophic SuperHyper- 8110
∀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;
262
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| = O − 1, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| = 0.

8112
SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a neutro- 8114

sophic SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 8115
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b O−1

2 c + 1, then N SHG : (V, E) 8119
is a dual 2-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 8120
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a)∩V \S| = 0, then N SHG : (V, E) is (O−1)-neutrosophic 8122
(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then N SHG : (V, E) is a 8124
dual (O − 1)-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 8125


strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a neutrosophic SuperHyper- 8128
Complete. Then 8129
O−1 O−1
2 2
O−1 O−1
2 2
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2.
Thus S is an 2-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic Super- 8130
HyperForcing. 8131
Complete. Then 8134
O−1 O−1
2 2
O−1 O−1
2 2
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2.
Complete. Then 8139
∀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.
263
Thus S is an (O − 1)-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 8140


Complete. Then 8144
∀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)-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 8145


SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is neutro- 8148
sophic SuperHyperCycle. Then following statements hold; 8149
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2 if N SHG : (V, E)) is an 2-neutrosophic 8150

(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2 if N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-neutrosophic 8152

(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if N SHG : (V, E) is an 2-neutrosophic 8154

(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-neutrosophic 8156

strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and S is an 2-neutrosophic SuperHyper- 8159
∀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.

strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and S is a dual 2-neutrosophic Super- 8162
HyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Then 8163
∀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.

strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and S is an 2-neutrosophic SuperHyper- 8165
Defensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. 8166
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2;
264
∀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.

strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and S is a dual r-neutrosophic Super- 8168
HyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Then 8169
∀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.
8170

SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is neutro- 8172
sophic SuperHyperCycle. Then following statements hold; 8173
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2, then N SHG : (V, E) is an 2-neutrosophic 8174

(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2, then N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 2- 8176

cing; 8178
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then N SHG : (V, E) is an 2-neutrosophic 8179


2-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperFor- 8182
cing. 8183

strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. 8185
Then 8186
∀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.

Then 8191
∀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.
265


Then 8196
∀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.

Then 8201
∀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.

2.7 Applications in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 8204
on this phenomenon. The special case of this disease is considered and as the 8206
consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells are under 8207
attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the 8208
matter of mind. The neutrosophic recognition of the cancer could help to find 8209
some treatments for this disease. 8210
In the following, some steps are devised on this disease. 8211
Step 1. (Definition) The neutrosophic recognition of the cancer in the long- 8212
term function. 8213
Step 2. (Issue) The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called 8214
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the 8215
cancer is identified by this research. Sometimes the move of the cancer 8216
hasn’t be easily identified since there are some determinacy, indeterminacy 8217
and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the cancer on that region; 8218
this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be neutrosophic 8219
SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened 8220

and what’s done. 8221
Step 3. (Model) There are some specific models, which are well-known and 8222
they’ve got the names, and some general models. The moves and the 8223
traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and between complicated 8224
groups of cells could be fantasized by a neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(- 8225
/neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle, neutrosophic SuperHyperStar, neutro- 8226
266
2.7. Applications in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition
Figure 2.27: A neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of

1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing 101NHGbb21b

neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges Belong to The neutrosophic SuperHyperBipart-
ite

The Values of The neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges The maximum Values of Its Endpoints
101TBLbb21b
sophic SuperHyperBipartite, neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite, neut- 8227

rosophic SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find either the 1-failed neut- 8228
rosophic SuperHyperForcing or the neutrosophic 1-failed neutrosophic 8229
SuperHyperForcing in those neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. 8230
Case 1: The Initial Steps Toward neutrosophic 8231
SuperHyperBipartite as neutrosophic SuperHyperModel 8232
Step 4. (Solution) In the Figure (2.27), the neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite 8233

is highlighted and featured. 8234
By using the Figure (2.27) and the Table (2.10), the neutrosophic 8235
SuperHyperBipartite is obtained. 8236
267
Figure 2.28: A neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions

of 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing 101NHGbb22b

neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges Belong to The neutrosophic SuperHyperMulti-
partite

101TBLbb22b
The Values of The neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges The maximum Values of Its Endpoints
Case 2: The Increasing Steps Toward neutrosophic 8237
SuperHyperMultipartite as neutrosophic SuperHyperModel 8238
Step 4. (Solution) In the Figure (2.28), the neutrosophic SuperHyperMulti- 8239

partite is highlighted and featured. 8240
By using the Figure (2.28) and the Table (2.11), the neutrosophic Super- 8241
HyperMultipartite is obtained. 8242
2.8 Open Problems 8243
In what follows, some “problems” and some “questions” are proposed. 8244
The 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing and the neutrosophic 1-failed 8245
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing are defined on a real-world application, titled 8246

“Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition”. 8247
Question 2.8.1. Which the else neutrosophic SuperHyperModels could be defined 8248
based on Cancer’s neutrosophic recognition? 8249
268
2.9. Conclusion and Closing Remarks
Question 2.8.2. Are there some neutrosophic SuperHyperNotions related 8250

to 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing and the neutrosophic 1-failed 8251
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing? 8252
Question 2.8.3. Are there some Algorithms to be defined on the neutrosophic 8253
SuperHyperModels to compute them? 8254
Question 2.8.4. Which the neutrosophic SuperHyperNotions are related to 8255

beyond the 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing and the neutrosophic 1- 8256
failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing? 8257
Problem 2.8.5. The 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing and the neutro- 8258
sophic 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing do a neutrosophic SuperHyper- 8259
Model for the Cancer’s neutrosophic recognition and they’re based on 1-failed 8260
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing, are there else? 8261
Problem 2.8.6. Which the fundamental neutrosophic SuperHyperNumbers are 8262

related to these neutrosophic SuperHyperNumbers types-results? 8263
Problem 2.8.7. What’s the independent research based on Cancer’s neutrosophic 8264
recognition concerning the multiple types of neutrosophic SuperHyperNotions? 8265
2.9 Conclusion and Closing Remarks 8266
In this section, concluding remarks and closing remarks are represented. The 8267
drawbacks of this research are illustrated. Some benefits and some advantages 8268
of this research are highlighted. 8269
This research uses some approaches to make neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs 8270
more understandable. In this endeavor, two neutrosophic SuperHyperNotions 8271
are defined on the 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. For that sake in 8272
the second definition, the main definition of the neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 8273
is redefined on the position of the alphabets. Based on the new definition for 8274
the neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, the new neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion, 8275
neutrosophic 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing, finds the convenient 8276
background to implement some results based on that. Some neutrosophic 8277
SuperHyperClasses and some neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses are the cases of 8278

this research on the modeling of the regions where are under the attacks 8279
of the cancer to recognize this disease as it’s mentioned on the title 8280
“Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition”. To formalize the instances on the 8281
neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion, 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing, the 8282
new neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses and neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses, are 8283
introduced. Some general results are gathered in the section on the 1-failed 8284
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing and the neutrosophic 1-failed neutrosophic 8285
SuperHyperForcing. The clarifications, instances and literature reviews have 8286
taken the whole way through. In this research, the literature reviews have 8287
fulfilled the lines containing the notions and the results. The neutrosophic 8288
SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are the neutrosophic 8289
SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition” and both 8290

bases are the background of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been 8291
happened on the region, full of cells, groups of cells and embedded styles. In 8292
this segment, the neutrosophic SuperHyperModel proposes some neutrosophic 8293
SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer 8294
269
in the longest and strongest styles with the formation of the design and the 8295
architecture are formally called “1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing” in 8296
the themes of jargons and buzzwords. The prefix “neutrosophic SuperHyper” 8297
refers to the theme of the embedded styles to figure out the background for the 8298
neutrosophic SuperHyperNotions. In the Table (2.12), some limitations and
Table 2.12: A Brief Overview about Advantages and Limitations of this Research 101TBLTBLB
Advantages Limitations
1. Redefining neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1. General Results
2. 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing
3. Neutrosophic 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing 2. Other neutrosophic SuperHyperNu
4. Modeling of Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition
5. neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses 3. neutrosophic SuperHyperFamili

8299
advantages of this research are pointed out. 8300
270
Bibliography 8301

tems 49 (2022) 531-561 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.6456413). 8304



prints202212.0549.v1). 8313

2022, 2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 8318


10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 8325


10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 8329

10.13140/RG.2.2.11369.16487). 8333
271
Bibliography
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.25385.88160). 8340

33 (2020) 290-296. (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3783103). 8352

App. Eng. Math. 8 (1) (2018) 122-135. 8354

Theory 10 (2016) 86-101. 8356

Multistructure 4 (2010) 410-413. 8358
Press, 2006. 8360
272
Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Tehran, Iran · DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com · +989120790848
Henry Garrett CV
Status: Known as Henry Garrett. I use a published name for my contributions.
I’ll change my name in the future but now, I use this name. I’ll migrate
to the U.S. and after that, I will change my name to this published name.
I want to start a new life there. 8361
Fields: Combinatorics, Algebraic Structures, Algebraic Hyperstructures, Fuzzy

Logic
Prefers: Graph Theory, Domination, Metric Dimension, Neutrosophic Graph

Theory, Neutrosophic Domination, Lattice Theory, Groups and
Hypergroups
Activities: Traveling, Painting, Writing, Reading books and Papers
Education
2017 - 2022 Ph.D. in Pure Math Payame Noor University
Title of Ph.D.’s Thesis: Domination On Fuzzy and Neutrosophic (Hyper) Graphs

Supervisors: Dr. Mohammad Hamidi and Dr. Akefe Radfar
2014 - 2016 Graduated as M.Sc. Pure Math SRTTU
Title of Master’s Thesis: Simultaneous Metric Dimension of Graph Families

Supervisor: Dr. Hamidreza Maimani, Advisor: Dr. Ali Zaeembashi
2010 - 2013 B.Sc. in Mathematical Teacher (Ministry of Education Scholarship) University of Qom
Inter-cultural classes in Persian, covering special topics in Mathematics, Teaching, Com-

puter Science, Statistics, Teacher Training and Educational Psychology
Professionalized in research methods, software development and e-assessment
2011 / 2012 Semester in others
Undergraduated six months of study and trans-cultural experiences at Arak and Malayer
Universities in the summer semester
Finished Calculus III, Statistics and Probability I
Course
2017-2022 Ph.D. Payame Noor University
Implicative Algebras- 4 units, Topics in Fuzzy Algebra- 4 units, Topics in Theory of Hy-
perstructures - 4 units
Theory of Ordered Algebras- 4 units, Special Topics in Theory of Categories - 2 units
2014-2016 M.Sc. SRTTU
Real Analysis- 4 units, Advanced Algebra- 4 units

Algebraic Topology- 4 units, Graph Theory- 4 units, Coding Theory- 4 units
2010-2013 B.Sc. University of Qom

Math: Calculus I, II, III (Vector Calculus)- 12 units, Principle of Mathematics- 4 units,
Statistics and Probability I, II- 8 units, Linear Algebra I- 4 units, Algebra I, II (Galois
Theory),III- 12 units, Numbers Theory -3 units, Mathematical Analysis I, II- 8 units,
Numerical Analysis- 4 units, Differential Equations- 3 units, The Basics of Dynamic
Systems- 3 units, Discrete Mathematics- 4 units, Mathematics History- 2 units, Operation
Research- 4 units, Math lab. (MATLAB)- 1 units 8362
Computer: Computer Principles and Programming- 4 units
Teacher: Fundamentals of Geometry- 4 units, Math Education I,II- 8 units, Child and
adolescent psychology- 2 units, Fundamentals of Curriculum Planning- 2 units,
Evaluating and Measuring- 2 units, Educational Psychology- 2 units, Principles
and techniques of advice and guidance- 2 units, Production and application of
educational materials- 2 units, Principles and philosophy of education- 3 units, Education
Management- 2 units, Teacher Training- No unit, Methods and techniques of teaching
(general)- No unit
Optional: Principles of Management and Organization Theory- 2 units, Assess- ment of work
and time- 3 units
General: Physics-10 units, Persian Literature- 3 units, English Language- 7 units, Islamic
courses- 11 units, Exercise I,II- 2 unit
Teaching Experiences
2017 - Present Math Official Teacher of Grades 10 to 12 Ministry of Education
I tried to show that teaching math is as much a human endeavor as a scientific one
I tried to show them that Science is not only interesting, it’s beautiful and exciting.
2015 - 2017 Math Official Teacher of Grades 7 to 9 Ministry of Education
They come in with very different abilities and interests, and while I can’t make them better
at mathematics, I believe I can increase their interest
I tried to show that teaching math is as much a human endeavor as a scientific one
2008 - 2015 Math Official Teacher of Grades 10 to 12 Ministry of Education
I studied with the scholarship of this Ministry and started working as an formal teacher
Professional Experiences
2017 - Present Continuous Member AMS
Participating in the academic space of the largest mathematical Society gave me valuable
experiences. The use of Bulletin and Notice of the American Mathematical Society is another
benefit of this presence.
2017 - 2019 Continuous Member EMS
The use Newsletter of the European Mathematical Society is benefit of this membership.
I am interested in giving a small, though small, effect on math epidemic progress
2017 - 2019 Continuous Member IFSS
IFSS is an abbreviation for Iranian Fuzzy Systems Society

Help to grow this field and get more people to know about it
2016- 2018 Continuous Member IMS
IMS is an abbreviation for Iranian Mathematical Society

The right to participate in the election, the use of newsletters and bulletins, as in the AMS,
were the experiences of membership in this mathematical society.
Miscellaneous Experiences
8363
2016 First Grade SRTTU
Ranked 1st among M.Sci. students of Pure Mathematics (Tehran, Iran) 2016
I got this rank by GPA of 18.59 out of 20.
Technical Skills
Language
Persian (C2)
English (A1)
Programming Languages and other technologies
C (Advanced), Pascal (Advanced), HTML (Intermediate), Java (Beginner)

JavaScript (Beginner)
Operating Systems
Dos (Intermediate), Windows 98 (Advanced), Windows xp (Advanced), Windows 7 (Ad-

vanced), Windows 8 (Advanced), Windows 10 (Advanced)
MacOS (Advanced), MacOS High Sierra 10.13.4 (17E199) (Advanced), Linux (Beginner)
Application Software
Latex (Advanced), Matlab (Advanced), Autoplay Media Studio (Advanced)

Photoshop (intermediate), Internet related tools (Advanced), Corel (Beginner)
Awards and Achievements
Sep 2022 Award: Selected as an Editorial Board Member to JMTCM JMTCM
Award: Selected as an Editorial Board Member to Journal of Mathematical Techniques and

Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)
Journal of Mathematical Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)
Jun 2022 Award: Selected as an Editorial Board Member to JCTCSR JCTCSR
Award: Selected as an Editorial Board Member to Journal of Current Trends in Computer

Science Research(JCTCSR)
Journal of Current Trends in Computer Science Research(JCTCSR)
Jan 23, 2022 Award: Diploma By Neutrosophic Science International Association Neutrosophic Science International
Association
Award: Distinguished Achievements

Honorary Memebrship
Aug 2018 Award: Selected as a Reviewer to JME JME

Award: Selected as a Reviewer to Journal of Mathematical Extension (JME)

JME is abstracted and indexed in the following databases: Thomson Reuters(ESCI) Google
Scholar Islamic World Science Citation Center(ISC) Mathematical Reviews(MathSciNet)
Zentralblatt MATH AMS Digital Mathematics Registry Ebsco Directory of Open Access
Journals(DOAJ) OCLC WorldCat knowledge base English E-Journals Database (RICeST)
Scientific Information Database (SID) According to the authentication letter numbered
3/18/311314 dated 25 February 2019 issued by the Iranian Ministry of Science, Research
8364
and
Technology, Journal of Mathematical Extension is ranked as a “Scientific” Journal.
Aug 2018 Award: Selected as a Reviewer to IJIM IJIM
Award: Selected as a Reviewer to International Journal of Industrial Mathematics (IJIM)

Indexing and Abstracting in: ISC, University of Zurich, Zentralblatt MATH, Universal Im-
pact Factor, Magiran, SID, Journalseeker, Active Search Results (ASR), Index Copernicus,
Entireweb, CrossRef, Google Scholar, ISC Journals Master List, Social Science Research Center
Berlin, IRCeST
Sep 2016 Award: First Grade SRTTU
Award: 1st among M.Sci. students of Pure Mathematics (Tehran, Iran) 2016
I got this award by GPA of 18.59 out of 20.
Journal Referee
Sep 2022 Editorial Board Member to JMTCM JMTCM
Editorial Board Member to Journal of Mathematical Techniques and Computational

Mathematics(JMTCM)
Journal of Mathematical Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)
Jun 2022 Editorial Board Member to JCTCSR JCTCSR
Editorial Board Member to Journal of Current Trends in Computer Science

Research(JCTCSR)
Journal of Current Trends in Computer Science Research(JCTCSR)
Aug 2018 Reviewer to International Journal of Industrial Mathematics (IJIM) IJIM
Reviewer to International Journal of Industrial Mathematics (IJIM)

Indexing and Abstracting in: ISC, University of Zurich, Zentralblatt MATH, Universal Im-
pact Factor, Magiran, SID, Journalseeker, Active Search Results (ASR), Index Copernicus,
Entireweb, CrossRef, Google Scholar, ISC Journals Master List, Social Science Research Center
Berlin, IRCeST
Aug 2018 Reviewer to Journal of Mathematical Extension (JME) JME
Reviewer to Journal of Mathematical Extension (JME)

JME is abstracted and indexed in the following databases: Thomson Reuters(ESCI) Google
Scholar Islamic World Science Citation Center(ISC) Mathematical Reviews(MathSciNet)
Zentralblatt MATH AMS Digital Mathematics Registry Ebsco Directory of Open Access
Journals(DOAJ) OCLC WorldCat knowledge base English E-Journals Database (RICeST)
Scientific Information Database (SID) According to the authentication letter numbered
3/18/311314 dated 25 February 2019 issued by the Iranian Ministry of Science, Research and
Technology, Journal of Mathematical Extension is ranked as a “Scientific” Journal.
Publications: Articles
2022 0099 | Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling Manuscript
in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs
Henry Garrett,“Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic)
SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”,
ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11369.16487).
2022 0098 | (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions Featuring (Neutrosophic) Manuscript
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances
Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions Featuring
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 2022, 2022120549 (doi:
10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1).
2022 0098 | (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions Featuring (Neutrosophic) Manuscript

8365
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances
Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, ResearchGate 2022,
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19380.94084).
2022 0097 | (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive and SuperHyperOffensive Manuscript

Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling
of Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses

Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive and
SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph With
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic)
SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1).
2022 0097 | (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive and SuperHyperOffensive Manuscript

Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling
of Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses

Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive and
SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph With
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic)
SuperHyperClasses”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.14426.41923).
2022 0096 | SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph With Manuscript

SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions
Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions”, Preprints 2022,
2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1).
2022 0096 | SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph With Manuscript

SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions
Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions”, ResearchGate
2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20993.12640).
2022 0095 | Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Manuscript

and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s Treatments
Henry Garrett,“Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”,
Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1).
2022 0095 | Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Manuscript

And SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s Treatments
Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraphs And SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”,
ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23123.04641).
2022 0094 | SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Manuscript

Their Directions in Game Theory and Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses
Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic

SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in Game Theory and Neutrosophic
SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1).
2022 0094 | SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Manuscript

Their Directions in Game Theory and Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses 8366
Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in Game Theory and Neutrosophic
SuperHyperClasses”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23324.56966).
2022 0093 | Neutrosophic Co-degree and Neutrosophic Degree alongside Chromatic Numbers in the Setting Article
of Some Classes Related to Neutrosophic Hypergraphs
Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Co-degree and Neutrosophic Degree alongside Chromatic
Numbers in the Setting of Some Classes Related to Neutrosophic Hypergraphs”, J Curr Trends
Comp Sci Res 1(1) (2022) 06-14.
PDF,Abstract,Issue.
2022 0092 | Recognition of the Pattern for Vertices to Make Dimension by Resolving in some Classes of Manuscript
Neutrosophic Graphs
Henry Garrett, “Recognition of the Pattern for Vertices to Make Dimension
by Resolving in some Classes of Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi:
10.13140/RG.2.2.27281.51046).
2022 0091 | Regularity of Every Element to Function in the Type of Domination in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Regularity of Every Element to Function in the Type of Domination in

Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22861.10727).
2022 0090 | Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some Neutrosophic Notions Based on Manuscript
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)
Henry Garrett, “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some Neutrosophic
Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph
(NSHG)”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.25385.88160).
2022 0089 | Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating and Manuscript
Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph
Henry Garrett, “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning Neutrosophic
SuperHyperDominating and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29173.86244).
2022 0088 | Seeking Empty Subgraphs To Determine Different Measurements in Some Classes of Manuscript
Neutrosophic Graphs
Henry Garrett, “Seeking Empty Subgraphs To Determine Different Measurements in Some
Classes of Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30448.53766).
2022 0087 | Impacts of Isolated Vertices To Cover Other Vertices in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Impacts of Isolated Vertices To Cover Other Vertices in Neutrosophic

Graphs”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16185.44647).
2022 0086 | Perfect Locating of All Vertices in Some Classes of Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Perfect Locating of All Vertices in Some Classes of Neutrosophic Graphs”,
2022 0085 | Complete Connections Between Vertices in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Complete Connections Between Vertices in Neutrosophic

8367
Graphs”,
2022 0084 | Unique Distance Differentiation By Collection of Vertices in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Unique Distance Differentiation By Collection of Vertices in Neutrosophic

2022 0083 | Single Connection Amid Vertices From Two Given Sets Partitioning Vertex Set in Some Classes Manuscript
of Neutrosophic Graphs
Henry Garrett, “Single Connection Amid Vertices From Two Given Sets Partitioning
Vertex Set in Some Classes of Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi:
10.13140/RG.2.2.32189.33764).
2022 0082 | Separate Joint-Sets Representing Separate Numbers Where Classes of Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
and Applications are Cases of Study
Henry Garrett, “Separate Joint-Sets Representing Separate Numbers Where Classes
of Neutrosophic Graphs and Applications are Cases of Study”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi:
10.13140/RG.2.2.22666.95686).
2022 0081 | Repetitive Joint-Sets Featuring Multiple Numbers For Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Repetitive Joint-Sets Featuring Multiple Numbers For Neutrosophic

2022 0080 | Dual-Resolving Numbers Excerpt from Some Classes of Neutrosophic Graphs With Some Manuscript
Applications
Henry Garrett, “Dual-Resolving Numbers Excerpt from Some Classes of Neutrosophic
Graphs With Some Applications”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.14971.39200).
2022 0079 | Dual-Dominating Numbers in Neutrosophic Setting and Crisp Setting Obtained From Classes Manuscript
of Neutrosophic Graphs
Henry Garrett, “Dual-Dominating Numbers in Neutrosophic Setting and Crisp
Setting Obtained From Classes of Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi:
10.13140/RG.2.2.19925.91361).
2022 0078 | Neutrosophic Path-Coloring Numbers BasedOn Endpoints In Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Path-Coloring Numbers BasedOn Endpoints In Neutrosophic

2022 0077 | Neutrosophic Dominating Path-Coloring Numbers in New Visions of Classes of Neutrosophic Manuscript
Graphs
Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Dominating Path-Coloring Numbers in New Visions of Classes
of Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32151.65445).
2022 0076 | Path Coloring Numbers of Neutrosophic Graphs Based on Shared Edges and Neutrosophic Manuscript
Cardinality of Edges With Some Applications from Real-World Problems
Henry Garrett, “Path Coloring Numbers of Neutrosophic Graphs Based on Shared Edges
and Neutrosophic Cardinality of Edges With Some Applications from Real-World Problems”,
2022 0075 | Neutrosophic Collapsed Numbers in the Viewpoint of Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
8368
Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Collapsed Numbers in the Viewpoint of Neutrosophic Graphs”,
2022 0074 | Bulky Numbers of Classes of Neutrosophic Graphs Based on Neutrosophic Edges Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Bulky Numbers of Classes of Neutrosophic Graphs Based on Neutrosophic

Edges”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.24204.18564).
2022 0073 | Dense Numbers and Minimal Dense Sets of Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Dense Numbers and Minimal Dense Sets of Neutrosophic Graphs”,
2022 0072 | Connectivities of Neutrosophic Graphs in the terms of Crisp Cycles Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Connectivities of Neutrosophic Graphs in the terms of Crisp Cycles”,

2022 0071 | Strong Paths Defining Connectivities in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Strong Paths Defining Connectivities in Neutrosophic Graphs”,

2022 0070 | Finding Longest Weakest Paths assigning numbers to some Classes of Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Finding Longest Weakest Paths assigning numbers to some Classes of
Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35579.59689).
April 12, 2022 0069 | Properties of SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Article
Henry Garrett, “Properties of SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic

SuperHyperGraph”, Neutrosophic Sets and Systems 49 (2022) 531-561 (doi:
10.5281/zenodo.6456413). (http://fs.unm.edu/NSS/NeutrosophicSuperHyperGraph34.pdf).
(https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nss_journal/vol49/iss1/34).
Available at NSS, NSS Gallery, UNM Digital Repository, Twitter, ResearchGate, Scribd,
Academia, Zenodo, LinkedIn
2022 0068 | Relations and Notions amid Hamiltonicity and Eulerian Notions in Some Classes of Manuscript
Neutrosophic Graphs
Henry Garrett, “Relations and Notions amid Hamiltonicity and Eulerian Notions in Some
Classes of Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35579.59689).
2022 0067 | Eulerian Results In Neutrosophic Graphs With Applications Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Eulerian Results In Neutrosophic Graphs With Applic- ations”,

2022 0066 | Finding Hamiltonian Neutrosophic Cycles in Classes of Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Finding Hamiltonian Neutrosophic Cycles in Classes of Neutrosophic

2022 0065 | Extending Sets Type-Results in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Extending Sets Type-Results in Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate 2022

(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13317.01767). 8369
2022 0064 | Some Polynomials Related to Numbers in Classes of (Strong) Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Some Polynomials Related to Numbers in Classes of (Strong) Neutrosophic

2022 0063 | Finding Shortest Sequences of Consecutive Vertices in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Finding Shortest Sequences of Consecutive Vertices in Neutrosophic

2022 0062 | Neutrosophic Girth Based On Crisp Cycle in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Girth Based On Crisp Cycle in Neutrosophic Graphs”,

2022 0061 | e-Matching Number and e-Matching Polynomials in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “e-Matching Number and e-Matching Polynomials in Neutrosophic Graphs”,

2022 0060 | Matching Polynomials in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Matching Polynomials in Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi:

10.13140/RG.2.2.33630.72002).
2022 0059 | Some Results in Classes Of Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Some Results in Classes Of Neutrosophic Graphs”, Preprints 2022,

2022030248 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202203.0248.v1).
2022 0058 | Matching Number in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Matching Number in Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi:

10.13140/RG.2.2.18609.86882).
2022 0057 | Fuzzy Dominating Number Based On Fuzzy Bridge And Applicaions Article
M. Hamidi, and M. Nikfar, “Fuzzy Dominating Number Based On Fuzzy

Bridge And Applicaions”, Fuzzy Systems and its Applications 4(2) (2022) 205-229
(https://doi.org/10.22034/jfsa.2022.306606.1092).
Oct 2018 0056 | The Effects of Mathematics on Computer Sciences Conference Article
M. Nikfar, “The Effects of Mathematics on Computer Sciences”, Second Conference

on the Education and Applications of Mathematics, Kermanshah, Iran, 2018
(https://en.civilica.com/doc/824659).
2022 0055 | (Failed) 1-clique Number in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript

8370
Henry Garrett, “(Failed) 1-Clique Number in Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate 2022
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.14241.89449).
2022 0054 | Failed Clique Number in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Failed Clique Number in Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi:
10.13140/RG.2.2.36039.16800).
2022 0053 | Clique Number in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Clique Number in Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi:

10.13140/RG.2.2.28338.68800).
2022 0052 | (Failed) 1-independent Number in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “(Failed) 1-Independent Number in Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate

2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30593.12643).
2022 0051 | Failed Independent Number in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Failed Independent Number in Neutrosophic Graphs”, Preprints 2022,

2022020334 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202202.0334.v2)
2022 0051 | Failed Independent Number in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Failed Independent Number in Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate 2022

(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31196.05768).
2022 0050 | Independent Set in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Independent Set in Neutrosophic Graphs”, Preprints 2022, 2022020334 (doi:
10.20944/preprints202202.0334.v1).
2022 0050 | Independent Set in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Independent Set in Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi:

10.13140/RG.2.2.17472.81925).
2022 0049 | (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “(Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate

2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35241.26724).
2022 0048 | Failed Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript

Henry Garrett, “Failed Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs”, Preprints 2022,

2022020343 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202202.0343.v1).
2022 0048 | Failed Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Failed Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs”, 8371

ResearchGate 2022
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.24873.47209).
2022 0047 | Zero Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Zero Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi:
10.13140/RG.2.2.32265.93286).
2022 0046 | Quasi-Number in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Quasi-Number in Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi:

10.13140/RG.2.2.18470.60488).
2022 0045 | Quasi-Degree in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Quasi-Degree in Neutrosophic Graphs”, Preprints 2022, 2022020100 (doi:

10.20944/preprints202202.0100.v1).
2022 0045 | Quasi-Degree in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Quasi-Degree in ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.25460.01927).

2022 0044 | Co-Neighborhood in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Co-Neighborhood in Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi:

10.13140/RG.2.2.17687.44964).
2022 0043 | Global Powerful Alliance in Strong Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Global Powerful Alliance in Strong Neutrosophic Graphs”, Preprints 2022,
2022010429 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202201.0429.v1).
2022 0043 | Global Powerful Alliance in Strong Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Global Powerful Alliance in Strong Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate

2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31784.24322).
2022 0042 | Global Offensive Alliance in Strong Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Global Offensive Alliance in Strong Neutrosophic Graphs”, Preprints 2022,
2022010429 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202201.0429.v1).
2022 0042 | Global Offensive Alliance in Strong Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Global Offensive Alliance in Strong Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate

2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.26541.20961).
2022 0041 | Three Types of Neutrosophic Alliances based on Connectedness and (Strong) Edges Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Three Types of Neutrosophic Alliances based on Connectedness and (Strong)
Edges”, Preprints 2022, 2022010239 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202201.0239.v1).
2022 0041 | Three Types of Neutrosophic Alliances based on Connectedness and (Strong) Edges Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Three Types of Neutrosophic Alliances based on Connectedness and (Strong)
8372
Edges”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18486.83521).

2022 0040 | Three types of neutrosophic alliances based of connectedness and (strong) edges (In-Progress) Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Three types of neutrosophic alliances based of connectedness and (strong)
edges (In-Progress)”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.27570.12480).
2022 0039 | Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as (Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring Manuscript
alongside (Dual)Dominating in (Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph
Henry Garrett, “Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as (Dual)Resolving and
(Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in (Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints
2022, 2022010145 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202201.0145.v1).
2022 0039 | Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as (Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring Manuscript
alongside (Dual)Dominating in (Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph
Henry Garrett, “Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as (Dual)Resolving
and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in (Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph”,
ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18909.54244/1).
2022 0038 | Co-degree and Degree of classes of Neutrosophic Hypergraphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Co-degree and Degree of classes of Neutrosophic Hypergraphs”, Preprints

2022, 2022010027 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202201.0027.v1).
2022 0038 | Co-degree and Degree of classes of Neutrosophic Hypergraphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Co-degree and Degree of classes of Neutrosophic Hypergraphs”,

2021 0037 | Dimension and Coloring alongside Domination in Neutrosophic Hypergraphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Dimension and Coloring alongside Domination in Neutrosophic

Hypergraphs”, Preprints 2021, 2021120448 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202112.0448.v1).
2021 0037 | Dimension and Coloring alongside Domination in Neutrosophic Hypergraphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Dimension and Coloring alongside Domination in Neutrosophic

Hypergraphs”, ResearchGate 2021 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13070.28483).
2021 0036 | Different Types of Neutrosophic Chromatic Number Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Different Types of Neutrosophic Chromatic Number”, Preprints 2021,

2021120335 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202112.0335.v1).
2021 0036 | Different Types of Neutrosophic Chromatic Number Manuscript

Henry Garrett, “Different Types of Neutrosophic Chromatic Number”, ResearchGate 2021

(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19068.46723).
2021 0035 | Neutrosophic Chromatic Number Based on Connectedness Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Chromatic Number Based on Connectedness”,

8373
Preprints 2021,
2021120226 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202112.0226.v1).
2021 0035 | Neutrosophic Chromatic Number Based on Connectedness Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Chromatic Number Based on Connectedness”, ResearchGate

2021 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18563.84001).
2021 0034 | Chromatic Number and Neutrosophic Chromatic Number Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Chromatic Number and Neutrosophic Chromatic Number”, Preprints 2021,
2021120177 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202112.0177.v1).
2021 0034 | Chromatic Number and Neutrosophic Chromatic Number Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Chromatic Number and Neutrosophic Chromatic Number”, ResearchGate

2021 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.36035.73766).
2021 0033 | Metric Dimension in fuzzy(neutrosophic) Graphs #12 Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Metric Dimension in fuzzy(neutrosophic) Graphs #12”, ResearchGate 2021

(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20690.48322).

(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29308.46725).

(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21614.54085).

(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.34040.16648).

(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19464.96007).
2021 0028 | Metric Dimension in fuzzy(neutrosophic) Graphs-VII Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Metric Dimension in fuzzy(neutrosophic) Graphs-VII”, ResearchGate 2021

(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.14667.72481).
2021 0028 | Metric Dimension in fuzzy(neutrosophic) Graphs-VII Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Metric Dimension in fuzzy(neutrosophic) Graphs-VII”, Preprints 2021,

2021110142 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202111.0142.v7).
2021 0027 | Metric Dimension in fuzzy(neutrosophic) Graphs-VI Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Metric Dimension in fuzzy(neutrosophic) Graphs-VI”, Preprints

83742021,
2021110142 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202111.0142.v6).

2021 0026 | Metric Dimension in fuzzy(neutrosophic) Graphs-V Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Metric Dimension in fuzzy(neutrosophic) Graphs-V”, Preprints 2021,

2021110142 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202111.0142.v5).
2021 0025 | Metric Dimension in fuzzy(neutrosophic) Graphs-IV Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Metric Dimension in fuzzy(neutrosophic) Graphs-IV”, Preprints 2021,

2021110142 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202111.0142.v4).
2021 0024 | Metric Dimension in fuzzy(neutrosophic) Graphs-III Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Metric Dimension in fuzzy(neutrosophic) Graphs-III”, Preprints 2021,

2021110142 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202111.0142.v3).
2021 0023 | Metric Dimension in fuzzy(neutrosophic) Graphs-II Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Metric Dimension in fuzzy(neutrosophic) Graphs-II”, Preprints 2021,

2021110142 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202111.0142.v2).
2021 0022 | Metric Dimension in Fuzzy Graphs and Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Metric Dimension in Fuzzy Graphs and Neutrosophic Graphs”, Preprints
2021, 2021110142 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202111.0142.v1)
2021 0021 | Valued Number And Set Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Valued Number And Set”, Preprints 2021, 2021080229 (doi:
10.20944/preprints202108.0229.v1).
2021 0020 | Notion of Valued Set Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Notion of Valued Set”, Preprints 2021, 2021070410 (doi:

10.20944/preprints202107.0410.v1).
2021 0019 | Set And Its Operations Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Set And Its Operations”, Preprints 2021, 2021060508 (doi:
10.20944/preprints202106.0508.v1).
2021 0018 | Metric Dimensions Of Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Metric Dimensions Of Graphs”, Preprints 2021, 2021060392 (doi:

10.20944/preprints202106.0392.v1).
2021 0017 | New Graph Of Graph Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “New Graph Of Graph”, Preprints 2021, 2021060323 (doi:

10.20944/preprints202106.0323.v1).
2021 0016 | Numbers Based On Edges Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Numbers Based On Edges”, Preprints 2021, 8375

2021060315 (doi:
10.20944/preprints202106.0315.v1).
2021 0015 | Locating And Location Number Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Locating And Location Number”, Preprints 2021, 2021060206 (doi:
10.20944/preprints202106.0206.v1).
2021 0014 | Big Sets Of Vertices Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Big Sets Of Vertices”, Preprints 2021, 2021060189 (doi:

10.20944/preprints202106.0189.v1).
2021 0013 | Matroid And Its Outlines Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Matroid And Its Outlines”, Preprints 2021, 2021060146 (doi:
10.20944/preprints202106.0146.v1).
2021 0012 | Matroid And Its Relations Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Matroid And Its Relations”, Preprints 2021, 2021060080 (doi:
10.20944/preprints202106.0080.v1).
2021 0011 | Metric Number in Dimension Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Metric Number in Dimension”, Preprints 2021, 2021060004 (doi:

10.20944/preprints202106.0004.v1).
2018 0010 | A Study on Domination in two Fuzzy Models Manuscript
M. Nikfar, “A Study on Domination in two Fuzzy Models”, Preprints 2018, 2018040119 (doi:
10.20944/preprints201804.0119.v2).
2019 0009 | Nikfar Domination Versus Others: Restriction, Extension Theorems and Monstrous Examples Manuscript
M. Nikfar, “Nikfar Domination Versus Others: Restriction, Extension Theorems and

Monstrous Examples”, Preprints 2019, 2019010024 (doi: 10.20944/preprints201901.0024.v3).
2019 0008 | Nikfar Dominations: Definitions, Theorems, and Connections Manuscript
M. Nikfar, “Nikfar Dominations: Definitions, Theorems, and Connections”, ResearchGate

2019 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28955.31526/1).
2019 0007 | Nikfar Domination in Fuzzy Graphs Manuscript
M. Nikfar, “Nikfar Domination in Fuzzy Graphs”, Preprints 2019, 2019010024 (doi:

10.20944/preprints201901.0024.v2).

10.20944/preprints201901.0024.v2).
2018 0005 | The Results on Vertex Domination in Fuzzy Graphs Manuscript
M. Nikfar, “The Results on Vertex Domination in Fuzzy Graphs”, Preprints 2018, 2018040085
8376
(doi: 10.20944/preprints201804.0085.v2).

10.20944/preprints201901.0024.v1).
2019 0003 | Nikfar Domination in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
M. Nikfar, “Nikfar Domination in Neutrosophic Graphs”, Preprints 2019, 2019010025 (doi:

10.20944/preprints201901.0025.v1).
2018 0002 | Vertex Domination in t-Norm Fuzzy Graphs Manuscript
M. Nikfar, “Vertex Domination in t-Norm Fuzzy Graphs”, Preprints 2018, 2018040119 (doi:
10.20944/preprints201804.0119.v1).
2018 0001 | The Results on Vertex Domination in Fuzzy Graphs Manuscript
M. Nikfar, “The Results on Vertex Domination in Fuzzy Graphs”, Preprints 2018, 2018040085
(doi: 10.20944/preprints201804.0085.v1).
Publications: Books
2022 0063 | SuperHyperForcing Amazon
ASIN : B0BRDG1KN1 Publisher : Independently published (December 30, 2022) Language

: English Paperback : 285 pages ISBN-13 : 979-8371873347 Item Weight : 1.82 pounds
Dimensions : 8.5 x 0.67 x 11 inches
ASIN : B0BRDFFQMF Publisher : Independently published (December 30, 2022)
Language : English Hardcover : 285 pages ISBN-13 : 979-8371874092 Item Weight : 1.77
pounds Dimensions : 8.25 x 0.86 x 11 inches
2022 0062 | SuperHyperAlliances Amazon
ASIN : B0BR6YC3HG Publisher : Independently published (December 27, 2022) Language

ASIN : B0BR7CBTC6 Publisher : Independently published (December 27, 2022) Language
: English Hardcover : 189 pages ISBN-13 : 979-8371494849 Item Weight : 1.21 pounds
2022 0061 | SuperHyperGraphs Amazon
ASIN : B0BR1NHY4Z Publisher : Independently published (December 24, 2022) Language

: English Paperback : 117 pages ISBN-13 : 979-8371090133 Item Weight : 13 ounces
ASIN : B0BQXTHTXY Publisher : Independently published (December 24, 2022)
ounces Dimensions : 8.25 x 0.47 x 11 inches
2022 0060 | Neut. SuperHyperEdges Amazon
ASIN : B0BNH11ZDY Publisher : Independently published (November 27, 2022) Language

ASIN : B0BNGZGPP6 Publisher : Independently published (November 27, 2022) Language
: English Hardcover : 107 pages ISBN-13 : 979-8365923980 Item Weight : 11.7 ounces
8377
2022 0059 | Neutrosophic k-Number Amazon
ASIN : B0BF3P5X4N Publisher : Independently published (September 14, 2022) Language

ASIN : B0BF2XCDZM Publisher : Independently published (September 14, 2022)
pounds Dimensions : 8.25 x 0.57 x 11 inches
2022 0058 | Neutrosophic Schedule Amazon
ASIN : B0BBJWJJZF Publisher : Independently published (August 22, 2022) Language

ASIN : B0BBJLPWKH Publisher : Independently published (August 22, 2022) Language
2022 0057 | Neutrosophic Wheel Amazon
ASIN : B0BBJRHXXG Publisher : Independently published (August 22, 2022) Language

ASIN : B0BBK3KG82 Publisher : Independently published (August 22, 2022) Language
2022 0056 | Neutrosophic t-partite Amazon
ASIN : B0BBJLZCHS Publisher : Independently published (August 22, 2022) Language

ASIN : B0BBJDFGJS Publisher : Independently published (August 22, 2022) Language
2022 0055 | Neutrosophic Bipartite Amazon
ASIN : B0BB5Z9GHW Publisher : Independently published (August 22, 2022) Language

ASIN : B0BBGG9RDZ Publisher : Independently published (August 22, 2022) Language
2022 0054 | Neutrosophic Star Amazon
ASIN : B0BB5ZHSSZ Publisher : Independently published (August 22, 2022) Language

ASIN : B0BBC4BL9P Publisher : Independently published (August 22, 2022) Language
2022 0053 | Neutrosophic Cycle Amazon

ASIN : B0BB62NZQK Publisher : Independently published (August 22, 2022) Language

ASIN : B0BB65QMKQ Publisher : Independently published (August 22, 2022) Language
Dimensions : 8.25 x 1 x 11 inches
8378
2022 0052 | Neutrosophic Path Amazon
ASIN : B0BB67WCXL Publisher : Independently published (August 8, 2022) Language

: English Paperback : 315 pages ISBN-13 : 979-8847730570 Item Weight : 2 pounds
ASIN : B0BB5Z9FXL Publisher : Independently published (August 8, 2022) Language
2022 0051 | Neutrosophic Complete Amazon
ASIN : B0BB6191KN Publisher : Independently published (August 8, 2022) Language

ASIN : B0BB5RRQN7 Publisher : Independently published (August 8, 2022) Language
2022 0050 | Neutrosophic Dominating Amazon
ASIN : B0BB5QV8WT Publisher : Independently published (August 8, 2022) Language

ASIN : B0BB61WL9M Publisher : Independently published (August 8, 2022) Language
2022 0049 | Neutrosophic Resolving Amazon
ASIN : B0BBCJMRH8 Publisher : Independently published (August 8, 2022) Language

ASIN : B0BBCB6DFC Publisher : Independently published (August 8, 2022) Language
2022 0048 | Neutrosophic Stable Amazon
ASIN : B0B7QGTNFW Publisher : Independently published (July 28, 2022) Language

: English Paperback : 133 pages ISBN-13 : 979-8842880348 Item Weight : 14.6 ounces
ASIN : B0B7QJWQ35 Publisher : Independently published (July 28, 2022) Language
2022 0047 | Neutrosophic Total Amazon
ASIN : B0B7GLB23F Publisher : Independently published (July 25, 2022) Language

ASIN : B0B6XVTDYC Publisher : Independently published (July 25, 2022) Language
2022 0046 | Neutrosophic Perfect Amazon

ASIN : B0B7CJHCYZ Publisher : Independently published (July 22, 2022) Language

ASIN : B0B7C732Z1 Publisher : Independently published (July 22, 2022) Language
8379
2022 0045 | Neutrosophic Joint Set Amazon
ASIN : B0B6L8WJ77 Publisher : Independently published (July 15, 2022) Language

ASIN : B0B6L9GJWR Publisher : Independently published (July 15, 2022) Language
August 30, 0044 | Neutrosophic Duality GLOBAL

2022 KNOWLEDGE -
Publishing
House&Amazon
Neutrosophic Duality, GLOBAL KNOWLEDGE - Publishing House:
GLOBAL KNOWLEDGE - Publishing House 848 Brickell Ave Ste 950 Miami, Florida 33131
United States. ISBN: 978-1-59973-743-0
Henry Garrett, (2022). “Neutrosophic Duality”, Florida: GLOBAL KNOWLEDGE - Publishing
House 848 Brickell Ave Ste 950 Miami, Florida 33131 United States. ISBN: 978-1-59973-743-0
(http://fs.unm.edu/NeutrosophicDuality.pdf).
ASIN : B0B4SJ8Y44 Publisher : Independently published (June 22, 2022) Language
ASIN : B0B46B4CXT Publisher : Independently published (June 22, 2022) Language :
English Hardcover : 115 pages ISBN-13 : 979-8837649981 Item Weight : 12.5 ounces
2022 0043 | Neutrosophic Path-Coloring Amazon
ASIN : B0B3F2BZC4 Publisher : Independently published (June 7, 2022) Language :

English Paperback : 161 pages ISBN-13 : 979-8834894469 Item Weight : 1.08 pounds
ASIN : B0B3FGPGQ3 Publisher : Independently published (June 7, 2022) Language
2022 0042 | Neutrosophic Density Amazon
ASIN : B0B19CDX7W Publisher : Independently published (May 15, 2022) Language

ASIN : B0B14PLPGL Publisher : Independently published (May 15, 2022) Language
2022 0041 | Properties of SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Google Commerce Ltd
Publisher Infinite Study Seller Google Commerce Ltd Published on Apr 27, 2022 Pages
30 Features Original pages Best for web, tablet, phone, eReader Language English Genres
Antiques & Collectibles / Reference Content protection This content is DRM free GooglePlay
Properties of SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Front Cover Henry
Garrett Infinite Study, 27 Apr 2022 - Antiques & Collectibles - 30 pages GoogleBooks
Henry Garrett, “Properties of SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”,
Neutrosophic Sets and Systems 49 (2022) 531-561 (doi: 893 10.5281/zenodo.6456413).
(http://fs.unm.edu/NSS/NeutrosophicSuperHyperGraph34.pdf).
2022 0040 | Neutrosophic Connectivity Amazon
ASIN : B09YQJG2ZV Publisher : Independently published (April 26, 2022) Language

ASIN : B09YQJG2DZ Publisher : Independently published (April 26, 2022) Language
8380
2022 0039 | Neutrosophic Cycles Amazon
ASIN : B09X4KVLQG Publisher : Independently published (April 8, 2022) Language

ASIN : B09X4LZ3HL Publisher : Independently published (April 8, 2022) Language
2022 0038 | Girth in Neutrosophic Graphs Amazon
ASIN : B09WQ5PFV8 Publisher : Independently published (March 29, 2022) Language

ASIN : B09WQQGXPZ Publisher : Independently published (March 29, 2022) Language
2022 0037 | Matching Number in Neutrosophic Graphs Amazon
ASIN : B09W7FT8GM Publisher : Independently published (March 22, 2022) Language

ASIN : B09W4HF99L Publisher : Independently published (March 22, 2022) Language
: English Hardcover : 153 pages ISBN-13 : 979-8437539057 Item Weight : 1 pounds
2022 0036 | Clique Number in Neutrosophic Graph Amazon
ASIN : B09TV82Q7T Publisher : Independently published (March 7, 2022) Language

ASIN : B09TZBPWJG Publisher : Independently published (March 7, 2022) Language
2022 0035 | Independence in Neutrosophic Graphs Amazon
ASIN : B09TF227GG Publisher : Independently published (February 27, 2022) Language

: English Paperback : 149 pages ISBN-13 : 979-8424231681 Item Weight : 1 pounds
ASIN : B09TL1LSKD Publisher : Independently published (February 27, 2022) Language
2022 0034 | Zero Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs Amazon
ASIN : B09SW2YVKB Publisher : Independently published (February 18, 2022) Language

ASIN : B09SWLK7BG Publisher : Independently published (February 18, 2022) Language
2022 0033 | Neutrosophic Quasi-Order Amazon

ASIN : B09S3RXQ5C Publisher : Independently published (February 8, 2022) Language

ASIN : B09S232DQH Publisher : Independently published (February 8, 2022) Language
8381
Jan 29, 2022 0032 | Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs E-publishing&Amazon
Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs, E-publishing:

Educational Publisher 1091 West 1st Ave Grandview Heights, Ohio 43212 United States
ISBN 978-1-59973-725-6
Henry Garrett, (2022). “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs”, Ohio: E-publishing: Educational
Publisher 1091 West 1st Ave Grandview Heights, Ohio 43212 United States. ISBN: 978-1-
59973-725-6 (http://fs.unm.edu/BeyondNeutrosophicGraphs.pdf).
ASIN : B0BBCQJQG5 Publisher : Independently published (August 8, 2022) Language
ASIN : B0BBC4BJZ5 Publisher : Independently published (August 8, 2022) Language :
English Hardcover : 257 pages ISBN-13 : 979-8847567497 Item Weight : 1.61 pounds
2022 0031 | Neutrosophic Alliances Amazon
ASIN : B09RB5XLVB Publisher : Independently published (January 26, 2022) Language

ASIN : B09R39MTSW Publisher : Independently published (January 26, 2022) Language

2022 0030 | Neutrosophic Hypergraphs Amazon
ASIN : B09PMBKVD4 Publisher : Independently published (January 7, 2022) Language

ASIN : B09PP8VZ3D Publisher : Independently published (January 7, 2022) Language
2022 0029 | Collections of Articles Amazon
-
ASIN : B09PHHDDQK Publisher : Independently published (January 2, 2022) Language
2022 0028 | Collections of Math Amazon
-
ASIN : B09PHBWT5D Publisher : Independently published (January 1, 2022) Language
2022 0027 | Collections of US Amazon
-
ASIN : B09PHBT924 Publisher : Independently published (December 31, 2021) Language
2021 0026 | Neutrosophic Chromatic Number Amazon

ASIN : B09NRD25MG Publisher : Independently published (December 20, 2021) Language

Dimensions : 8.5 x 0.16 x 11 inches Language : English
-
2021 0025 | Simple Ideas Amazon

8382
ASIN : B09MYTN6NT Publisher : Independently published (December 9, 2021) Language
-
2021 0024 | Neutrosophic Graphs Amazon
ASIN : B09MYXVNF9 Publisher : Independently published (December 7, 2021) Language

-
2021 0023 | List Amazon
ASIN : B09M554XCL Publisher : Independently published (November 20, 2021) Language

-
2021 0022 | Theorems Amazon
ASIN : B09KDZXGPR Publisher : Independently published (October 28, 2021) Language

-
2021 0021 | Dimension Amazon
ASIN : B09K2BBQG7 Publisher : Independently published (October 25, 2021) Language :

English Paperback : 55 pages ISBN-13 : 979-8753577146 Item Weight : 7 ounces Dimensions
: 8.5 x 0.13 x 11 inches
-
2021 0020 | Beyond The Graph Theory Amazon
ASIN : B09KDZXGPR Publisher : Independently published (October 28, 2021) Language

-
2021 0019 | Located Heart And Memories Amazon
ASIN : B09F14PL8T Publisher : Independently published (August 31, 2021) Language :

: 8.5 x 0.14 x 11 inches
-
2021 0018 | Number Graphs And Numbers Amazon
ASIN : B099BQRSF8 Publisher : Independently published (July 14, 2021) Language

-
2021 0017 | First Place Is Reserved Amazon

ASIN : B098CWD5PT Publisher : Independently published (June 30, 2021) Language :

: 8.5 x 0.13 x 11 inches
-
2021 0016 | Detail-oriented Groups And Ideas Amazon

8383
ASIN : B098CYYG3Q Publisher : Independently published (June 30, 2021) Language
-
2021 0015 | Definition And Its Necessities Amazon
ASIN : B098DHRJFD Publisher : Independently published (June 30, 2021) Language

-
2021 0014 | Words And Their Directionss Amazon
ASIN : B098CYS8G2 Publisher : Independently published (June 30, 2021) Language :

: 8.5 x 0.16 x 11 inches
-
2021 0013 | Tattooed Heart But Forever Amazon
ASIN : B098CR8HM6 Publisher : Independently published (June 30, 2021) Language

-
2021 0012 | Metric Number In Dimension Amazon
ASIN : B0913597TV Publication date : March 24, 2021 Language : English File size :
28445 KB Text-to-Speech : Enabled Enhanced typesetting : Enabled X-Ray : Not Enabled
Word Wise : Not Enabled Print length : 48 pages Lending : Not Enabled Kindle
-
2021 0011 | Domination Theory And Beyond Amazon
ASIN : B098DMMZ87 Publisher : Independently published (June 30, 2021) Language

-
2021 0010 | Vital Glory Amazon
ASIN : B08PVNJYRM Publication date : December 6, 2020 Language : English File

size : 1544 KB Simultaneous device usage : Unlimited Text-to-Speech : Enabled Screen
Reader : Supported Enhanced typesetting : Enabled X-Ray : Not Enabled Word Wise :
Enabled Print length : 24 pages Lending : Enabled Kindle
-
2021 0009 | Análisis de modelos y orientación más allá AmazonUK&MoreBooks

Análisis de modelos y orientación más allá Planteamiento y problemas en dos modelos
Ediciones Nuestro Conocimiento (2021-04-06) eligible for voucher ISBN-13: 978-620-3-59902-
2 ISBN-10:6203599026EAN:9786203599022Book language:Blurb/Shorttext:El enfoque para la
resolución de problemas es una selección obvia para hacer la investigación y el análisis de la
situación que puede provocar las perspectivas vagas que queremos no ser para extraer ideas
creativas y nuevas que queremos ser. Estudio simultáneamente dos modelos. Este estudio se
basa tanto en la investigación como en la discusión que el autor piensa que puede ser útil
para entender y hacer crecer nuestra fantası́a y la realidad juntas.Publishing house: Ediciones
Nuestro Conocimiento Website: https://sciencia-scripts.com By (author) : Henry 8384 Garrett
Number of pages:64Published on:2021-04-06Stock:Available Category: Mathematics Price:39.90
Keywords:Dos modelos, optimización de rutas y transporte, Two Models, Optimizing Routes
and Transportation
MoreBooks
https://www.morebooks.shop/store/gb/book/análisis-de-modelos-y-orientación-más-
allá/isbn/978-620-3-59902-2
Product details Publisher : Ediciones Nuestro Conocimiento (6 April 2021) Language :
Spanish ISBN-10 : 6203599026 ISBN-13 : 978-6203599022 Dimensions : 15 x 0.4 x 22 cm
Paperback:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Análisis-modelos-orientación-allá-Planteamiento/dp/6203599026
2021 0008 | Анализ моделей и руководство за пределами Amazon&MoreBooks
Анализ моделей и руководство за пределами Подход и проблемы в двух моде-

лях Sciencia Scripts (2021-04-06) eligible for voucher ISBN-13: 978-620-3-59908-4 ISBN-
10:6203599085EAN:9786203599084Book language: Russian Blurb/Shorttext:Подход к реше-
нию проблем является очевидным выбором для проведения исследований и анализа си-
туации, которая может вызвать смутные перспективы, которыми мы не хотим быть для
извлечения творческих и новых идей, которыми мы хотим быть. Я одновременно изучаю
две модели. Это исследование основано как на исследовании, так и на обсуждении, кото-
рое, по мнению автора, может быть полезным для понимания и развития наших фантазий
и реальности вместе.Publishing house: Sciencia Scripts Website: https://sciencia-scripts.com
By (author) : Генри Гарретт Number of pages:68Published on:2021-04-06Stock:Available
Category: Mathematics Price:39.90 Keywords:Две модели, оптимизация маршрутов и
транспорта, Two Models, Optimizing Routes and Transportation
MoreBooks
https://www.morebooks.shop/store/gb/book/анализ-моделей-и-руководство-за-
пределами/isbn/978-620-3-59908-4
Анализ моделей и руководство за пределами: Подход и проблемы в двух моделях

(Russian Edition) Publisher : Sciencia Scripts (April 6, 2021) Language : Russian Paperback
: 68 pages ISBN-10 : 6203599085 ISBN-13 : 978-6203599084 Item Weight : 5.3 ounces
Dimensions : 5.91 x 0.16 x 8.66 inches
2021 0007 | Análise e Orientação de Modelos Além Amazon | MoreBooks |

Walmart
Análise e Orientação de Modelos Além Abordagem e Problemas em Dois Modelos Edições
Nosso Conhecimento (2021-04-06 ) eligible for voucher ISBN-13: 978-620-3-59907-7 ISBN-
10:6203599077EAN:9786203599077Book language:Blurb/Shorttext:A abordagem para resolver
problemas é uma seleção óbvia para fazer pesquisa e análise da situação, que pode trazer
as perspectivas vagas que queremos não ser para extrair idéias criativas e novas idéias que
queremos ser. Eu estudo simultaneamente dois modelos. Este estudo é baseado tanto na
pesquisa como na discussão que o autor pensa que pode ser útil para compreender e fazer crescer
juntos a nossa fantasia e realidade.Publishing house: Edições Nosso Conhecimento Website:
https://sciencia-scripts.com By (author) : Henry Garrett Number of 8385 pages:64Published
on:2021-04-06Stock:Available Category: Mathematics Price:39.90 Keywords:Dois Modelos,
Otimização de Rotas e Transporte, Two Models, Optimizing Routes and Transportation
MoreBooks:
https://www.morebooks.shop/store/gb/book/análise-e-orientação-de-modelos-
além/isbn/978-620-3-59907-7
Henry Garrett Análise e Orientação de Modelos Além (Paperback) About this item
Product details
A abordagem para resolver problemas é uma seleção óbvia para fazer pesquisa e análise da
situação, que pode trazer as perspectivas vagas que queremos não ser para extrair idéias
criativas e novas idéias que queremos ser. Eu estudo simultaneamente dois modelos. Este
estudo é baseado tanto na pesquisa como na discussão que o autor pensa que pode ser útil
para compreender e fazer crescer juntos a nossa fantasia e realidade. Análise e Orientação de
Modelos Além (Paperback) We aim to show you accurate product information. Manufacturers,
suppliers and others provide what you see here, and we have not verified it. See our disclaimer
Specifications
Language Portuguese Publisher KS Omniscriptum Publishing Book Format Paperback Number
of Pages 64 Author Henry Garrett Title Análise e Orientação de Modelos Além ISBN-13
9786203599077 Publication Date April, 2021 Assembled Product Dimensions (L x W x H) 9.00
x 6.00 x 1.50 Inches ISBN-10 6203599077 Walmart
Análise e Orientação de Modelos Além: Abordagem e Problemas em Dois Modelos

(Portuguese Edition) Publisher : Edições Nosso Conhecimento (April 6, 2021) Language
: Portuguese Paperback : 64 pages ISBN-10 : 6203599077 ISBN-13 : 978-6203599077 Item
Weight : 3.67 ounces Dimensions : 5.91 x 0.15 x 8.66 inches
2021 0006 | Analizy modelowe i wytyczne wykraczaja˛ce poza Amazon&MoreBooks
Analizy modelowe i wytyczne wykraczaja˛ce poza Podejście i problemy w dwóch

modelach Wydawnictwo Nasza Wiedza (2021-04-06 ) eligible for voucher ISBN-13: 978-620-3-
59906-0 ISBN-10:6203599069EAN:9786203599060Book language:Blurb/Shorttext:Podejście do
rozwia˛zywania problemów jest oczywistym wyborem do prowadzenia badań i analizowania
sytuacji, które moga˛ wywo lywać niejasne perspektywy, których nie chcemy dla wydobycia
kreatywnych i nowych pomys lów, które chcemy. I jednocześnie studiować dwa modele.
Badanie to oparte jest zarówno na badaniach jak i dyskusji, które zdaniem autora moga˛
być przydatne do zrozumienia i rozwoju naszych fantazji i rzeczywistości razem.Publishing
house: Wydawnictwo Nasza Wiedza Website: https://sciencia-scripts.com By (author) : Henry
Garrett Number of pages:64Published on:2021-04-06Stock:Available Category: Mathematics
Price:39.90 Keywords:Dwa modele, optymalizacja tras i transportu, Two Models, Optimizing
Routes and Transportation
MoreBooks:
https://www.morebooks.shop/store/gb/book/analizy-modelowe-i-wytyczne-wykraczaja˛ce-
poza/isbn/978-620-3-59906-0
Analizy modelowe i wytyczne wykraczaja˛ce poza: Podejście i problemy w dwóch modelach
(Polish Edition) Publisher : Wydawnictwo Nasza Wiedza (April 6, 2021) Language : Polish
Paperback : 64 pages ISBN-10 : 6203599069 ISBN-13 : 978-6203599060 Item Weight :
3.67 ounces Dimensions : 5.91 x 0.15 x 8.66 inches
2021 0005 | Modelanalyses en begeleiding daarna Amazon&MoreBooks

Modelanalyses en begeleiding daarna Aanpak en problemen in twee modellen
Uitgeverij Onze Kennis (2021-04-06 ) eligible for voucher ISBN-13: 978-620-3-59905-3
ISBN-10:6203599050EAN:9786203599053Book language:Blurb/Shorttext:De aanpak voor het
oplossen van problemen is een voor de hand liggende keuze voor het doen van onderzoek en het
analyseren van de situatie die de vage perspectieven kan oproepen die we niet willen zijn voor
het extraheren van creatieve en nieuwe ideeën die we willen zijn. Ik bestudeer tegelijkertijd twee
modellen. Deze studie is gebaseerd op zowel onderzoek als discussie waarvan de auteur denkt dat
ze nuttig kunnen zijn voor het begrijpen en laten groeien van onze fantasieën en de werkelijkheid
samen.Publishing house: Uitgeverij Onze Kennis Website: https://sciencia-scripts.com 8386 By
(author) : Henry Garrett Number of pages:64Published on:2021-04-06Stock:Available Category:
Mathematics Price:39.90 Keywords:Twee modellen, optimalisering van routes en transport,
Two Models, Optimizing Routes and Transportation
MoreBooks
Modelanalyses en begeleiding daarna: Aanpak en problemen in twee modellen (Dutch
Edition) Publisher : Uitgeverij Onze Kennis (April 6, 2021) Language : Dutch Paperback
2021 0004 | Analisi dei modelli e guida oltre Amazon | MoreBooks |

Walmart
Analisi dei modelli e guida oltre Approccio e problemi in due modelli Edizioni
Sapienza (2021-04-06 ) eligible for voucher ISBN-13: 978-620-3-59904-6 ISBN-
10:6203599042EAN:9786203599046Book language:Blurb/Shorttext:L’approccio per risolvere
i problemi è una selezione ovvia per fare ricerca e analisi della situazione che può suscitare
le prospettive vaghe che non vogliamo essere per estrarre idee creative e nuove che vogliamo
essere. Studio contemporaneamente due modelli. Questo studio si basa sia sulla ricerca che
sulla discussione che l’autore pensa possa essere utile per capire e far crescere insieme la nostra
fantasia e la realtà.Publishing house: Edizioni Sapienza Website: https://sciencia-scripts.com
By (author) : Henry Garrett Number of pages:60Published on:2021-04-06Stock:Available
Category: Mathematics Price:39.90 Keywords:Due modelli, ottimizzazione dei percorsi e del
trasporto, Two Models, Optimizing Routes and Transportation
MoreBooks Henry Garrett Analisi dei modelli e guida oltre (Paperback) About this item
Product details
L’approccio per risolvere i problemi è una selezione ovvia per fare ricerca e analisi della
situazione che può suscitare le prospettive vaghe che non vogliamo essere per estrarre idee
creative e nuove che vogliamo essere. Studio contemporaneamente due modelli. Questo studio
si basa sia sulla ricerca che sulla discussione che l’autore pensa possa essere utile per capire e far
crescere insieme la nostra fantasia e la realtà. Analisi dei modelli e guida oltre (Paperback) We
aim to show you accurate product information. Manufacturers, suppliers and others provide
what you see here, and we have not verified it. See our disclaimer Specifications
Publisher KS Omniscriptum Publishing Book Format Paperback Number of Pages 60 Author
Henry Garrett Title Analisi dei modelli e guida oltre ISBN-13 9786203599046 Publication Date
April, 2021 Assembled Product Dimensions (L x W x H) 9.00 x 6.00 x 1.50 Inches ISBN-10
6203599042 Walmart
Analisi dei modelli e guida oltre: Approccio e problemi in due modelli (Italian Edition)
Publisher : Edizioni Sapienza (April 6, 2021) Language : Italian Paperback : 60 pages
ISBN-10 : 6203599042 ISBN-13 : 978-6203599046 Item Weight : 3.53 ounces Dimensions
: 5.91 x 0.14 x 8.66 inches
2021 0003 | Analyses de modèles et orientations au-delà Amazon | MoreBooks |

Walmart
Analyses de modèles et orientations au-delà Approche et problèmes dans deux
modèles Editions Notre Savoir (2021-04-06 ) eligible for voucher eligible for voucher
ISBN-13: 978-620-3-59903-9 ISBN-10:6203599034EAN:9786203599039Book language: French
Blurb/Shorttext:L’approche pour résoudre les problèmes est une sélection évidente pour faire
la recherche et l’analyse de la situation qui peut éliciter les perspectives vagues que nous ne
voulons pas être pour extraire des idées créatives et nouvelles que nous voulons être. J’étudie
simultanément deux modèles. Cette étude est basée à la fois sur la recherche et la discussion,
ce qui, selon l’auteur, peut être utile pour comprendre et développer nos fantasmes et la réalité
ensemble.Publishing house: Editions Notre Savoir Website: https://sciencia-scripts.com
8387 By
(author) : Henry Garrett Number of pages:64Published on:2021-04-06Stock:Available Category:
Mathematics Price:39.90 Keywords:Two Models, Optimizing Routes and Transportation, Deux
modèles, optimisation des itinéraires et des transports
MoreBooks:
https://www.morebooks.shop/store/gb/book/analyses-de-modèles-et-orientations-au-
delà/isbn/978-620-3-59903-9
Henry Garrett Analyses de modèles et orientations au-delà (Paperback) About this item
Product details
L’approche pour résoudre les problèmes est une sélection évidente pour faire la recherche et
l’analyse de la situation qui peut éliciter les perspectives vagues que nous ne voulons pas être
pour extraire des idées créatives et nouvelles que nous voulons être. J’étudie simultanément
deux modèles. Cette étude est basée à la fois sur la recherche et la discussion, ce qui, selon
l’auteur, peut être utile pour comprendre et développer nos fantasmes et la réalité ensemble.
Analyses de modèles et orientations au-delà (Paperback) We aim to show you accurate product
information. Manufacturers, suppliers and others provide what you see here, and we have not
verified it. See our disclaimer Specifications
Language French Publisher KS Omniscriptum Publishing Book Format Paperback Number of
Pages 64 Author Henry Garrett Title Analyses de modèles et orientations au-delà ISBN-13
9786203599039 Publication Date April, 2021 Assembled Product Dimensions (L x W x H) 9.00
x 6.00 x 1.50 Inches ISBN-10 6203599034 Walmart
Analyses de modèles et orientations au-delà: Approche et problèmes dans deux modèles

(French Edition) Publisher : Editions Notre Savoir (April 6, 2021) Language : French
3.67 ounces Dimensions : 5.91 x 0.15 x 8.66 inches
2021 0002 | Modell-Analysen und Anleitungen darüber hinaus Amazon | MoreBooks |

Walmart | eBay
eligible for voucher ISBN-13: 978-620-3-59901-5 ISBN-
10:6203599018EAN:9786203599015Book language: German Blurb/Shorttext:Die
Herangehensweise zur Lösung von Problemen ist eine offensichtliche Auswahl für die
Forschung und Analyse der Situation, die die vagen Perspektiven, die wir nicht sein wollen,
für die Extraktion von kreativen und neuen Ideen, die wir sein wollen, hervorbringen kann.
Ich studiere gleichzeitig zwei Modelle. Diese Studie basiert sowohl auf der Forschung als
auch auf der Diskussion, von der der Autor denkt, dass sie für das Verständnis und das
Zusammenwachsen unserer Fantasie und Realität nützlich sein kann.Publishing house: Verlag
Unser Wissen Website: https://sciencia-scripts.com By (author) : Henry Garrett Number 8388
of pages:68Published on:2021-04-06Stock:Available Category: Mathematics Price:39.90

Keywords:Zwei Modelle, Optimierung von Routen und Transport, Two Models, Optimizing
Routes and Transportation
MoreBooksHenry Garrett Modell-Analysen und Anleitungen darüber hinaus (Paperback)
About this item
Product details
Die Herangehensweise zur Lösung von Problemen ist eine offensichtliche Auswahl für die
Forschung und Analyse der Situation, die die vagen Perspektiven, die wir nicht sein wollen,
für die Extraktion von kreativen und neuen Ideen, die wir sein wollen, hervorbringen kann.
Ich studiere gleichzeitig zwei Modelle. Diese Studie basiert sowohl auf der Forschung als
auch auf der Diskussion, von der der Autor denkt, dass sie für das Verständnis und das
Zusammenwachsen unserer Fantasie und Realität nützlich sein kann. Modell-Analysen und
Anleitungen darüber hinaus (Paperback) We aim to show you accurate product information.
Manufacturers, suppliers and others provide what you see here, and we have not verified it.
See our disclaimer Specifications
Language German Publisher KS Omniscriptum Publishing Book Format Paperback Number
of Pages 68 Author Henry Garrett Title Modell-Analysen und Anleitungen darüber hinaus
ISBN-13 9786203599015 Publication Date April, 2021 Assembled Product Dimensions (L x W
x H) 9.00 x 6.00 x 1.50 Inches ISBN-10 6203599018
Walmart
Seller assumes all responsibility for this listing. Item specifics Condition: New: A new, unread,
unused book in perfect condition with no missing or damaged pages. See the ... Read
moreabout the condition ISBN: 9786203599015 EAN: 9786203599015 Publication Year: 2021
Type: Textbook Format: Paperback Language: German Publication Name: Modell-Analysen
Und Anleitungen Daruber Hinaus Item Height: 229mm Author: Henry Garrett Publisher:
Verlag Unser Wissen Item Width: 152mm Subject: Mathematics Item Weight: 113g Number of
Pages: 68 Pages About this product Product Information Die Herangehensweise zur Loesung
von Problemen ist eine offensichtliche Auswahl fur die Forschung und Analyse der Situation, die
die vagen Perspektiven, die wir nicht sein wollen, fur die Extraktion von kreativen und neuen
Ideen, die wir sein wollen, hervorbringen kann. Ich studiere gleichzeitig zwei Modelle. Diese
Studie basiert sowohl auf der Forschung als auch auf der Diskussion, von der der Autor denkt,
dass sie fur das Verstandnis und das Zusammenwachsen unserer Fantasie und Realitat nutzlich
sein kann. Product Identifiers Publisher Verlag Unser Wissen ISBN-13 9786203599015 eBay
Product ID (ePID) 11049032082 Product Key Features Publication Name Modell-Analysen
Und Anleitungen Daruber Hinaus Format Paperback Language German Subject Mathematics
Publication Year 2021 Type Textbook Author Henry Garrett Number of Pages 68 Pages
Dimensions Item Height 229mm Item Width 152mm Item Weight 113g Additional Product
Features Title_Author Henry Garrett
eBay
Modell-Analysen und Anleitungen darüber hinaus: Ansatz und Probleme in zwei Modellen
(German Edition) Publisher : Verlag Unser Wissen (April 6, 2021) Language : German
3.99 ounces Dimensions : 5.91 x 0.16 x 8.66 inches Paperback
2021 0001 | Model Analyses and Guidance Beyond Amazon&MoreBooks

Model Analyses and Guidance Beyond Approach and Problems in Two Models LAP
LAMBERT Academic Publishing (2020-12-02 ) eligible for voucher ISBN-13: 978-620-3-19506-
4 ISBN-10:6203195065EAN:9786203195064Book language: English Blurb/Shorttext:Approach
for solving problems is an obvious selection for doing research and analysis the situation
which may elicit the vague perspectives which we want not to be for extracting creative
and new ideas which we want to be. I simultaneously study two models. This study is based
both research and discussion which the author thinks that may be useful for understanding
and growing our fantasizing and reality together.Publishing house: LAP LAMBERT
Academic Publishing Website: https://www.lap-publishing.com/ By (author)
8389 : Henry Garrett
Number of pages:52Published on:2020-12-02Stock:Available Category: Mathematics Price:39.90

Keywords:Two Models, Optimizing Routes and Transportation
MoreBooks
Model Analyses and Guidance Beyond: Approach and Problems in Two Models Publisher
: LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing (December 2, 2020) Language : English Paperback
Workshops and Seminars
2015 LATEX Workshop SRTTU
I received a certificate for this workshop

In this course, we got acquainted with various topics in the field of this software
2015 Geogebra Workshop SRTTU
I received a certificate for this workshop

In this course, we got acquainted with various topics in the field of this software
Participating in Seminars
I’ve participated in all virtual conferences which are listed below [Some of them without selective process].
–https://web.math.princeton.edu/ pds/onlinetalks/talks.html
...
Also, I’ve participated in following events [Some of them without selective process]:
-The Hidden NORMS seminar

-Talk Math With Your Friends (TMWYF)
-MATHEMATICS COLLOQUIUM: https://www.csulb.edu/mathematics-statistics/mathematics-colloquium
-Lathisms: Cafe Con Leche
-Big Math network
...
I’m in mailing list in following [Some of them without selective process] organizations:
-[Algebraic-graph-theory] AGT Seminar (lists-uwaterloo-ca)

-Combinatorics Lectures Online (https://web.math.princeton.edu/ pds/onlinetalks/talks.html)
-Women in Combinatorics
-CMSA-Seminar (unsw-au)
-OURFA2M2 Online Undergraduate Resource Fair for the Advancement and Alliance of Marginalized Mathematicians
...
Social Accounts
I’ve listed my accounts below.
-My website [Covering all my contributions containing articles and books as free access to download with PDF
extension and more]: https://drhenrygarrett.wordpress.com
-Amazon [Some of my all books, here]: https://www.amzn.com/author/drhenrygarrett

8390
-Twitter: @DrHenryGarrett (www.twitter.com/DrHenryGarrett)
– ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Henry-Garrett-2
-Academia: https://independent.academia.edu/drhenrygarrett/
-Scribd: https://www.scribd.com/user/596815491/Henry-Garrett
-Scholar: https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=enuser=SUjFCmcAAAAJviewo p = listw orkssortby = pubdate
− LinkedIn : https : //www.linkedin.com/in/drhenrygarrett/

References
2019-2022 Dr. Mohammad Hamidi PNU
Department of Mathematics, Payame Noor University, P. O. Box: 19395-3697, Tehran, Iran.

E-mail address: m.hamidi@pnu.ac.ir
2019-2022 Dr. Akefe Radfar 8391

PNU
Department of Mathematics, Payame Noor University, P. O. Box: 19395-3697, Tehran, Iran.

E-mail address: radfar@pnu.ac.ir
2014-2016 Dr. Hamidreza Maimani SRTTU
Mathematics Section, Department of Basic Sciences, Shahid Rajaee Teacher Training

University, P.O. Box 16785-163, Tehran, Iran, and School of Mathematics, Institute for Re-
search in Fundamental Sciences (IPM), P.O. Box 19395-5746, Tehran, Iran.
E-mail address: maimani@ipm.ir
2014-2016 Dr. Ali Zaeembashi SRTTU
Mathematics Section, Department of Basic Sciences, Shahid Rajaee Teacher Training

University, P.O. Box 16785-163, Tehran, Iran.
E-mail address: azaeembashi@sru.ac.ir
2010-2013 Dr. Seyed Ali Moosavi University of Qom
Mathematics Section, Department of Basic Sciences, Qom University, Qom, Iran.

E-mail address: s.a.mousavi@qom.ac.ir
DrHenryGarrett.wordpress.com · Twitter.com/DrHenryGarrett

Failed SuperHyperForcing

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Failed SuperHyperForcing

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Failed SuperHyperForcing

Ideas | Approaches | Accessibility | Availability

Dr. Henry Garrett

some researches on Extreme 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing and neutrosophic 3

SuperHyperNotions, namely, an 1-failed SuperHyperForcing and Neutrosophic 9

comparison between this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions and 15

complex and dense SuperHyperModels open up some avenues to research on 27

(whereas SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white) such that V (G) 33

only once to act on white SuperHyperVertex to be black SuperHyperVertex; 38

a SuperHyperSet S of black SuperHyperVertices (whereas SuperHyperVertices 41

perVertex to be black SuperHyperVertex. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 47

pression, holds if S is an “δ−SuperHyperDefensive”; a“neutrosophic δ−1-failed 53

if S is a “neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive”. And the second Expression, 59

SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from 65

SuperHyperGraph based on an 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. It’s the main. It’ll 77

Graph. It’s redefined “neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” if the intended Table 91

some neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the intended Table holds. Thus 97

perHyperGraph has a “neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing” where it’s 103

SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge in common; 115

useful to have some degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy, and neutrality to 127

strongest SuperHyperCycle, called neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, 147

Cancer’s Recognition 156

a “neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing” Zn (N SHG) for a neutrosophic 190

of a black SuperHyperVertex. The additional condition is referred by “1-” about 196

s ∈ S : |S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ, |S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. The 202

perNeighbors of s ∈ S : |S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + 208

derstandable. For the sake of having neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, 214

concerning, “The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and 220

SuperHyperEdges&The maximum Values of Its Endpoints”. To get structural 226

SuperHyperForcing, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of “neutrosophic 237

neutrosophic type-results to make neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing 246

“neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite”, “neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite”, 252

if it’s SuperHyperGraph and the number of elements of SuperHyperEdges 258

intersection amid all SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only 264

be introduced in redeemed ways. The neutrosophic recognition of the cancer 282

1-failed SuperHyperForcing in those neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. For the 296

a SuperHyperCycle. There isn’t any formation of any SuperHyperCycle but 302

HyperForcing, Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 307

The following references are cited by chapters. 310

[Ref2] Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 316

Article #100 324

@Wordpress: https://drhenrygarrett.wordpress.com/2022/12/31/failed- 329

@ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/366734034 334

@Zenodo: https://zenodo.org/record/7497386 340

[Ref2] Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyper-

Article #101 342

and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. 367

[Ref] Henry Garrett, (2022). “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs”, 371

[Ref] Henry Garrett, (2022). “Neutrosophic Duality”, Florida: GLOBAL KNOW-

[Ref] Henry Garrett, (2022). “Neutrosophic Duality”, Florida: 388

failed 1-zero-forcing number, failed 1-zero-forcing neutrosophic-number, global- 405

perGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on general forms without 417

(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling 429

and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s Treatments” in 435

sophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [HG8] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic 441

Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)” in Ref. [HG10] by Henry Garrett 446

Duality” and published by Florida: GLOBAL KNOWLEDGE - Publishing 459

HG1 [1] Henry Garrett, “Properties of SuperHyperGraph and Neut- 468

tems 49 (2022) 531-561 (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.6456413). 470

HG3 [3] Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 476

HyperAlliances”, Preprints 2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/pre- 478

HG4 [4] Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDe- 480

HG5 [5] Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 485

SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions”, 486