Using The Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To SuperHyperModel Cancer's Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs

1
Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable 2
To SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled 3
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs 4
Henry Garrett 6
DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com 7
Twitter’s ID: @DrHenryGarrett | DrHenryGarrett.wordpress.com

c 8
Abstract 9
In this research, new setting is introduced for new SuperHyperNotions, namely, a Failed 10
SuperHyperStable and Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. Two different types of 11
SuperHyperDefinitions are debut for them but the research goes further and the 12
SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperUniform, and SuperHyperClass based on that are 13
well-defined and well-reviewed. The literature review is implemented in the whole of this 14
research. For shining the elegancy and the significancy of this research, the comparison 15
between this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions and fundamental 16
SuperHyperNumbers are featured. The definitions are followed by the examples and the 17
instances thus the clarifications are driven with different tools. The applications are 18
figured out to make sense about the theoretical aspect of this ongoing research. The 19
“Cancer’s Recognitions” are the under research to figure out the challenges make sense 20
about ongoing and upcoming research. The special case is up. The cells are viewed in 21
the deemed ways. There are different types of them. Some of them are individuals and 22
some of them are well-modeled by the group of cells. These types are all officially called 23
“SuperHyperVertex” but the relations amid them all officially called “SuperHyperEdge”. 24
The frameworks “SuperHyperGraph” and “neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” are chosen 25
and elected to research about “Cancer’s Recognitions”. Thus these complex and dense 26
SuperHyperModels open up some avenues to research on theoretical segments and 27
“Cancer’s Recognitions”. Some avenues are posed to pursue this research. It’s also 28
officially collected in the form of some questions and some problems. Assume a 29
SuperHyperGraph. Then a “Failed SuperHyperStable” I(N SHG) for a neutrosophic 30
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of 31
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge 32
in common. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then an “δ−Failed SuperHyperStable” is a 33
maximal Failed SuperHyperStable of SuperHyperVertices with maximum cardinality 34
such that either of the following expressions hold for the (neutrosophic) cardinalities of 35
SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 36
|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ, |S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. The first Expression, 37
holds if S is an “δ−SuperHyperOffensive”. And the second Expression, holds if S is an 38
“δ−SuperHyperDefensive”; a“neutrosophic δ−Failed SuperHyperStable” is a maximal 39
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable of SuperHyperVertices with maximum 40
neutrosophic cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the 41
neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : |S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic > 42
|S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ, |S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ. 43
The first Expression, holds if S is a “neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive”. And the 44
1/94
second Expression, holds if S is a “neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperDefensive”. It’s useful to 45
define a “neutrosophic” version of a Failed SuperHyperStable. Since there’s more ways 46
to get type-results to make a Failed SuperHyperStable more understandable. For the 47
sake of having neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, there’s a need to “redefine” the 48
notion of a “Failed SuperHyperStable”. The SuperHyperVertices and the 49
SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this 50
procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. Assume a 51
Failed SuperHyperStable. It’s redefined a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable if the 52
mentioned Table holds, concerning, “The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, 53
HyperEdges, and SuperHyperEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” 54
with the key points, “The Values of The Vertices & The Number of Position in 55
Alphabet”, “The Values of The SuperVertices&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, 56
“The Values of The Edges&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The 57
HyperEdges&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The 58
SuperHyperEdges&The maximum Values of Its Endpoints”. To get structural examples 59
and instances, I’m going to introduce the next SuperHyperClass of SuperHyperGraph 60
based on a Failed SuperHyperStable. It’s the main. It’ll be disciplinary to have the 61
foundation of previous definition in the kind of SuperHyperClass. If there’s a need to 62
have all SuperHyperConnectivities until the Failed SuperHyperStable, then it’s officially 63
called a “Failed SuperHyperStable” but otherwise, it isn’t a Failed SuperHyperStable. 64
There are some instances about the clarifications for the main definition titled a “Failed 65
SuperHyperStable”. These two examples get more scrutiny and discernment since there 66
are characterized in the disciplinary ways of the SuperHyperClass based on a Failed 67
SuperHyperStable. For the sake of having a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, 68
there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of a “neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable” 69
and a “neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable”. The SuperHyperVertices and the 70
SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this 71
procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. Assume a 72
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined “neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” if the 73
intended Table holds. And a Failed SuperHyperStable are redefined to a “neutrosophic 74
Failed SuperHyperStable” if the intended Table holds. It’s useful to define 75
“neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s more ways to get 76
neutrosophic type-results to make a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable more 77
understandable. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 78
neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the intended Table holds. Thus SuperHyperPath, 79
SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 80
SuperHyperWheel, are “neutrosophic SuperHyperPath”, “neutrosophic 81
SuperHyperCycle”, “neutrosophic SuperHyperStar”, “neutrosophic 82
SuperHyperBipartite”, “neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite”, and “neutrosophic 83
SuperHyperWheel” if the intended Table holds. A SuperHyperGraph has a 84
“neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable” where it’s the strongest [the maximum 85
neutrosophic value from all the Failed SuperHyperStable amid the maximum value amid 86
all SuperHyperVertices from a Failed SuperHyperStable.] Failed SuperHyperStable. A 87
graph is a SuperHyperUniform if it’s a SuperHyperGraph and the number of elements 88
of SuperHyperEdges are the same. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There 89
are some SuperHyperClasses as follows. It’s SuperHyperPath if it’s only one 90
SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; it’s 91
SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 92
SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid 93
all SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection 94
amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, 95
has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one 96
SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, 97
2/94
forming multi separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s a 98
SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 99
SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any common 100
SuperVertex. The SuperHyperModel proposes the specific designs and the specific 101
architectures. The SuperHyperModel is officially called “SuperHyperGraph” and 102
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. In this SuperHyperModel, The “specific” cells and 103
“specific group” of cells are SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperVertices” and the 104
common and intended properties between “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells 105
are SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperEdges”. Sometimes, it’s useful to have some 106
degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy, and neutrality to have more precise 107
SuperHyperModel which in this case the SuperHyperModel is called “neutrosophic”. In 108
the future research, the foundation will be based on the “Cancer’s Recognitions” and 109
the results and the definitions will be introduced in redeemed ways. The recognition of 110
the cancer in the long-term function. The specific region has been assigned by the 111
model [it’s called SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is 112
identified by this research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified 113
since there are some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and 114
the effects of the cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s 115
said to be neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s 116
happened and what’s done. There are some specific models, which are well-known and 117
they’ve got the names, and some SuperHyperGeneral SuperHyperModels. The moves 118
and the traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and between complicated groups of 119
cells could be fantasized by a neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperCycle, 120
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). 121
The aim is to find either the longest Failed SuperHyperStable or the strongest Failed 122
SuperHyperStable in those neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. For the longest Failed 123
SuperHyperStable, called Failed SuperHyperStable, and the strongest SuperHyperCycle, 124
called neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, some general results are introduced. 125
Beyond that in SuperHyperStar, all possible SuperHyperPaths have only two 126
SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough since it’s essential to have at least three 127
SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a SuperHyperCycle. There isn’t any formation of 128
any SuperHyperCycle but literarily, it’s the deformation of any SuperHyperCycle. It, 129
literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. A basic familiarity with SuperHyperGraph 130
theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory are proposed. 131
Keywords: SuperHyperGraph, (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable, Cancer’s 132
Recognition 133
AMS Subject Classification: 05C17, 05C22, 05E45 134
1 Background 135
There are some researches covering the topic of this research. In what follows, there are 136
some discussion and literature reviews about them. 137
First article is titled “properties of SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic 138
SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [1] by Henry Garrett (2022). It’s first step toward the 139
research on neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs. This research article is published on the 140
journal “Neutrosophic Sets and Systems” in issue 49 and the pages 531-561. In this 141
research article, different types of notions like dominating, resolving, coloring, 142
Eulerian(Hamiltonian) neutrosophic path, n-Eulerian(Hamiltonian) neutrosophic path, 143
zero forcing number, zero forcing neutrosophic- number, independent number, 144
independent neutrosophic-number, clique number, clique neutrosophic-number, 145
matching number, matching neutrosophic-number, girth, neutrosophic girth, 146
3/94
1-zero-forcing number, 1-zero- forcing neutrosophic-number, failed 1-zero-forcing 147
number, failed 1-zero-forcing neutrosophic-number, global- offensive alliance, t-offensive 148
alliance, t-defensive alliance, t-powerful alliance, and global-powerful alliance are defined 149
in SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Some Classes of 150
SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are cases of research. Some 151
results are applied in family of SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 152
Thus this research article has concentrated on the vast notions and introducing the 153
majority of notions. 154
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “neutrosophic co-degree and 155
neutrosophic degree alongside chromatic numbers in the setting of some classes related 156
to neutrosophic hypergraphs” in Ref. [2] by Henry Garrett (2022). In this research 157
article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic 158
SuperHyperGraph based on general forms without using neutrosophic classes of 159
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is 160
entitled “Journal of Current Trends in Computer Science Research (JCTCSR)” with 161
abbreviation “J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res” in volume 1 and issue 1 with pages 06-14. 162
The research article studies deeply with choosing neutrosophic hypergraphs instead of 163
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results 164
based on initial background. 165
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Super Hyper Dominating 166
and Super Hyper Resolving on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions 167
in Game Theory and Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes” in Ref. [3] by Henry Garrett 168
(2022). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 169
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental SuperHyperNumber and 170
using neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s 171
published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Journal of Mathematical 172
Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with abbreviation “J Math 173
Techniques Comput Math” in volume 1 and issue 3 with pages 242-263. The research 174
article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and 175
SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results based on initial 176
background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. 177
In some articles are titled “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 178
Recognitions Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances” in 179
Ref. [4] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With 180
SuperHyperDefensive and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On 181
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of 182
Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [5] by 183
Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 184
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions” in Ref. [6] by 185
Henry Garrett (2022), “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 186
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in 187
Cancer’s Treatments” in Ref. [7] by Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperDominating 188
and SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in 189
Game Theory and Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [8] by Henry Garrett 190
(2022), “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To 191
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in 192
Ref. [9] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To 193
Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 194
Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [10] by Henry Garrett (2023), “(Neutrosophic) 195
SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by Well-SuperHyperModelled 196
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [11] by Henry Garrett (2023), 197
“Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction To Use 198
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond” 199
4/94
in Ref. [12] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in 200
Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [13] by Henry 201
Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 202
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) 203
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [14] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Neutrosophic Notions 204
Concerning SuperHyperDominating and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in 205
SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [15] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Initial Material of 206
Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some Neutrosophic Notions Based on 207
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)” in 208
Ref. [16] by Henry Garrett (2022), there are some endeavors to formalize the basic 209
SuperHyperNotions about neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. 210
Some studies and researches about neutrosophic graphs, are proposed as book in 211
Ref. [17] by Henry Garrett (2022) which is indexed by Google Scholar and has more 212
than 2347 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs” and published 213
by Ohio: E-publishing: Educational Publisher 1091 West 1st Ave Grandview Heights, 214
Ohio 43212 United State. This research book covers different types of notions and 215
settings in neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. 216
Also, some studies and researches about neutrosophic graphs, are proposed as book 217
in Ref. [18] by Henry Garrett (2022) which is indexed by Google Scholar and has more 218
than 3048 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Neutrosophic Duality” and published by 219
Florida: GLOBAL KNOWLEDGE - Publishing House 848 Brickell Ave Ste 950 Miami, 220
Florida 33131 United States. This research book presents different types of notions 221
SuperHyperResolving and SuperHyperDominating in the setting of duality in 222
neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. This research 223
book has scrutiny on the complement of the intended set and the intended set, 224
simultaneously. It’s smart to consider a set but acting on its complement that what’s 225
done in this research book which is popular in the terms of high readers in Scribd. 226
2 Motivation and Contributions 227
In this research, there are some ideas in the featured frameworks of motivations. I try 228
to bring the motivations in the narrative ways. Some cells have been faced with some 229
attacks from the situation which is caused by the cancer’s attacks. In this case, there 230
are some embedded analysis on the ongoing situations which in that, the cells could be 231
labelled as some groups and some groups or individuals have excessive labels which all 232
are raised from the behaviors to overcome the cancer’s attacks. In the embedded 233
situations, the individuals of cells and the groups of cells could be considered as “new 234
groups”. Thus it motivates us to find the proper SuperHyperModels for getting more 235
proper analysis on this messy story. I’ve found the SuperHyperModels which are 236
officially called “SuperHyperGraphs” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”. In this 237
SuperHyperModel, the cells and the groups of cells are defined as “SuperHyperVertices” 238
and the relations between the individuals of cells and the groups of cells are defined as 239
“SuperHyperEdges”. Thus it’s another motivation for us to do research on this 240
SuperHyperModel based on the “Cancer’s Recognitions”. Sometimes, the situations get 241
worst. The situation is passed from the certainty and precise style. Thus it’s the beyond 242
them. There are three descriptions, namely, the degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy 243
and neutrality, for any object based on vague forms, namely, incomplete data, imprecise 244
data, and uncertain analysis. The latter model could be considered on the previous 245
SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperGraph but it’s officially 246
called “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”. The cancer is the disease but the model is 247
going to figure out what’s going on this phenomenon. The special case of this disease is 248
considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells 249
5/94
are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the 250
matter of mind. The recognition of the cancer could help to find some treatments for 251
this disease. The SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are the 252
SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognitions” and both bases are the background 253
of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, 254
groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes 255
some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the 256
forms of alliances’ styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are 257
formally called “ Failed SuperHyperStable” in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. 258
The prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to figure out the 259
background for the SuperHyperNotions. The recognition of the cancer in the long-term 260
function. The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called 261
SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this 262
research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are 263
some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the 264
cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be 265
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and 266
what’s done. There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the 267
names, and some general models. The moves and the traces of the cancer on the 268
complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a 269
neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, 270
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find 271
either the optimal Failed SuperHyperStable or the neutrosophic Failed 272
SuperHyperStable in those neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. Some general results are 273
introduced. Beyond that in SuperHyperStar, all possible SuperHyperPaths have only 274
two SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough since it’s essential to have at least three 275
SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a SuperHyperCycle. There isn’t any formation of 276
any SuperHyperCycle but literarily, it’s the deformation of any SuperHyperCycle. It, 277
literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. 278
Question 2.1. How to define the SuperHyperNotions and to do research on them to 279
find the “ amount of Failed SuperHyperStable” of either individual of cells or the groups 280
of cells based on the fixed cell or the fixed group of cells, extensively, the “amount of 281
Failed SuperHyperStable” based on the fixed groups of cells or the fixed groups of group 282
of cells? 283
Question 2.2. What are the best descriptions for the “Cancer’s Recognitions” in terms 284
of these messy and dense SuperHyperModels where embedded notions are illustrated? 285
It’s motivation to find notions to use in this dense model is titled 286
“SuperHyperGraphs”. Thus it motivates us to define different types of “ Failed 287
SuperHyperStable” and “neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable” on 288
“SuperHyperGraph” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. Then the research has 289
taken more motivations to define SuperHyperClasses and to find some connections amid 290
this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions. It motivates us to get some 291
instances and examples to make clarifications about the framework of this research. The 292
general results and some results about some connections are some avenues to make key 293
point of this research, “Cancer’s Recognitions”, more understandable and more clear. 294
The framework of this research is as follows. In the beginning, I introduce basic 295
definitions to clarify about preliminaries. In the subsection “Preliminaries”, initial 296
definitions about SuperHyperGraphs and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are 297
deeply-introduced and in-depth-discussed. The elementary concepts are clarified and 298
illustrated completely and sometimes review literature are applied to make sense about 299
what’s going to figure out about the upcoming sections. The main definitions and their 300
6/94
clarifications alongside some results about new notions, Failed SuperHyperStable and 301
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, are figured out in sections “ Failed 302
SuperHyperStable” and “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable”. In the sense of 303
tackling on getting results and in order to make sense about continuing the research, the 304
ideas of SuperHyperUniform and Neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform are introduced and 305
as their consequences, corresponded SuperHyperClasses are figured out to debut what’s 306
done in this section, titled “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on 307
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. As going back to origin of the notions, there are 308
some smart steps toward the common notions to extend the new notions in new 309
frameworks, SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, in the sections 310
“Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. The 311
starter research about the general SuperHyperRelations and as concluding and closing 312
section of theoretical research are contained in the section “General Results”. Some 313
general SuperHyperRelations are fundamental and they are well-known as fundamental 314
SuperHyperNotions as elicited and discussed in the sections, “General Results”, “ Failed 315
SuperHyperStable”, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable”, “Results on 316
SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. There are 317
curious questions about what’s done about the SuperHyperNotions to make sense about 318
excellency of this research and going to figure out the word “best” as the description 319
and adjective for this research as presented in section, “ Failed SuperHyperStable”. The 320
keyword of this research debut in the section “Applications in Cancer’s Recognitions” 321
with two cases and subsections “Case 1: The Initial Steps Toward SuperHyperBipartite 322
as SuperHyperModel” and “Case 2: The Increasing Steps Toward 323
SuperHyperMultipartite as SuperHyperModel”. In the section, “Open Problems”, there 324
are some scrutiny and discernment on what’s done and what’s happened in this research 325
in the terms of “questions” and “problems” to make sense to figure out this research in 326
featured style. The advantages and the limitations of this research alongside about 327
what’s done in this research to make sense and to get sense about what’s figured out are 328
included in the section, “Conclusion and Closing Remarks”. 329
3 Preliminaries 330
In this subsection, the basic material which is used in this research, is presented. Also, 331
the new ideas and their clarifications are elicited. 332
Definition 3.1 (Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [20],Definition 2.1,p.87). 333
Let X be a space of points (objects) with generic elements in X denoted by x; then

the neutrosophic set A (NS A) is an object having the form
A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}

+
where the functions T, I, F : X →]− 0, 1 [ define respectively the a
truth-membership function, an indeterminacy-membership function, and a
falsity-membership function of the element x ∈ X to the set A with the condition
−
0 ≤ TA (x) + IA (x) + FA (x) ≤ 3+ .
The functions TA (x), IA (x) and FA (x) are real standard or nonstandard subsets of 334
+
]− 0, 1 [. 335
Definition 3.2 (Single Valued Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [23],Definition 6,p.2). 336
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
7/94
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 3.3. 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 3.4. 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 3.5 (Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). (Ref. [22],Definition 337
3,p.291). 338
Assume V 0 is a given set. A neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an 339
ordered pair S = (V, E), where 340
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 341
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 342
1, 2, . . . , n); 343
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued neutrosophic subsets of V ; 344
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 0
(Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i = 345
0
1, 2, . . . , n ); 346
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 347
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 348
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 349
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n );
0 350
(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 . 351
Here the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the neutrosophic 352
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 353
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 354
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the neutrosophic 355
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 356
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 357
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the neutrosophic 358
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 359
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 360
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 361
8/94
Definition 3.6 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 362
(Ref. [22],Section 4,pp.291-292). 363
Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered pair S = (V, E). 364
The neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the neutrosophic 365
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vi of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) 366
could be characterized as follow-up items. 367
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 368
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 369
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 370
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 371
HyperEdge; 372
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 373
SuperEdge; 374
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 375
SuperHyperEdge. 376
If we choose different types of binary operations, then we could get hugely diverse 377
types of general forms of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG). 378
Definition 3.7 (t-norm). (Ref. [21], Definition 5.1.1, pp.82-83). 379
A binary operation ⊗ : [0, 1] × [0, 1] → [0, 1] is a t-norm if it satisfies the following 380
for x, y, z, w ∈ [0, 1]: 381
(i) 1 ⊗ x = x; 382
(ii) x ⊗ y = y ⊗ x; 383
(iii) x ⊗ (y ⊗ z) = (x ⊗ y) ⊗ z; 384
(iv) If w ≤ x and y ≤ z then w ⊗ y ≤ x ⊗ z. 385
Definition 3.8. The degree of truth-membership, indeterminacy-membership

and falsity-membership of the subset X ⊂ A of the single valued neutrosophic set
A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X} (with respect to t-norm Tnorm ):
TA (X) = Tnorm [TA (vi ), TA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X ,
IA (X) = Tnorm [IA (vi ), IA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X ,

and FA (X) = Tnorm [FA (vi ), FA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X .
Definition 3.9. 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 3.10. (General Forms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 386
Assume V 0 is a given set. A neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an 387
ordered pair S = (V, E), where 388
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 389
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 390
1, 2, . . . , n); 391
9/94
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued neutrosophic subsets of V ; 392
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 393
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 394
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 395
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 396
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 397
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei0 ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n ). 398
Here the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the neutrosophic 399
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 400
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 401
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the neutrosophic 402
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 403
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 404
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the neutrosophic 405
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 406
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 407
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 408
Definition 3.11 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 409
(Ref. [22],Section 4,pp.291-292). 410
Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered pair S = (V, E). 411
The neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the neutrosophic 412
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vi of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) 413
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 415
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 416
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 417
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 418
HyperEdge; 419
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 420
SuperEdge; 421
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 422
SuperHyperEdge. 423
This SuperHyperModel is too messy and too dense. Thus there’s a need to have 424
some restrictions and conditions on SuperHyperGraph. The special case of this 425
SuperHyperGraph makes the patterns and regularities. 426
Definition 3.12. A graph is SuperHyperUniform if it’s SuperHyperGraph and the 427
number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. 428
To get more visions on , the some SuperHyperClasses are introduced. It makes to 429
have more understandable. 430
Definition 3.13. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 431
SuperHyperClasses as follows. 432
10/94
(i). It’s SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 433
given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; 434
(ii). it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 435
given SuperHyperEdges; 436
(iii). it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all 437
SuperHyperEdges; 438
(iv). it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 439
given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has 440
no SuperHyperEdge in common; 441
(v). it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid 442
two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi separate sets, 443
has no SuperHyperEdge in common; 444
(vi). it’s SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 445
given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any 446
common SuperVertex. 447
Definition 3.14. Let an ordered pair S = (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph

(NSHG) S. Then a sequence of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) and
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)
V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , . . . , Vs−1 , Es−1 , Vs
is called a neutrosophic SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from neutrosophic 448
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V1 to neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vs if either 449
of following conditions hold: 450
(i) Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 451
(ii) there’s a vertex vi ∈ Vi such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 452
(iii) there’s a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi such that Vi0 , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 453
(iv) there’s a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 454
0 0
(v) there’s a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 455
(vi) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 456
0 0
(vii) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 457
(viii) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi0 , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 458
(ix) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1

0
∈ Vi+1 such that 459
0 0
Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 . 460
Definition 3.15. (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). 461
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 ,
11/94
(i) If for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | = 2, then NSHP is called path; 463
(ii) if for all Ej 0 , |Ej 0 | = 2, and there’s Vi , |Vi | ≥ 1, then NSHP is called SuperPath; 464
(iii) if for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called HyperPath; 465
(iv) if there are Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | ≥ 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called SuperHyperPath. 466
Definition 3.16. ((neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable). 467
Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 468
(i) a Failed SuperHyperStable I(N SHG) for a SuperHyperGraph 469
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of 470
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a SuperHyperVertex to have a 471
SuperHyperEdge in common; 472
(ii) a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable In (N SHG) for a neutrosophic 473
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a 474
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that 475
there’s a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to have a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 476
in common. 477
Definition 3.17. ((neutrosophic)δ−Failed SuperHyperStable). 478
Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 479
(i) an δ−Failed SuperHyperStable is a maximal of SuperHyperVertices with a 480
maximum cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the 481
(neutrosophic) cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 482
|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ; (3.1)

|S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. (3.2)
The Expression (3.1), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the 483
Expression (3.2), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; 484
(ii) a neutrosophic δ−Failed SuperHyperStable is a maximal neutrosophic of 485
SuperHyperVertices with maximum neutrosophic cardinality such that either of 486
the following expressions hold for the neutrosophic cardinalities of 487
SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 488
|S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ; (3.3)

|S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ. (3.4)
The Expression (3.3), holds if S is a neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive. 489
And the Expression (3.4), holds if S is a neutrosophic 490
δ−SuperHyperDefensive. 491
For the sake of having a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, there’s a need to 492
“redefine” the notion of “neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. The SuperHyperVertices 493
and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. 494
In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. 495
Definition 3.18. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined 496
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph if the Table (1) holds. 497
It’s useful to define a “neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s 498
more ways to get neutrosophic type-results to make a neutrosophic more 499
understandable. 500
12/94
Table 1. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHy-
perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition
(3.20)
The Values of The Vertices The Number of Position in Alphabet
The Values of The SuperVertices The maximum Values of Its Vertices
The Values of The Edges The maximum Values of Its Vertices
The Values of The HyperEdges The maximum Values of Its Vertices
The Values of The SuperHyperEdges The maximum Values of Its Endpoints

perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, Mentioned in the Definition
(3.19)
Definition 3.19. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 501
neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the Table (2) holds. Thus SuperHyperPath, 502
SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 503
SuperHyperWheel, are neutrosophic SuperHyperPath, neutrosophic 504
SuperHyperCycle, neutrosophic SuperHyperStar, neutrosophic 505
SuperHyperBipartite, neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 506
neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel if the Table (2) holds. 507
It’s useful to define a “neutrosophic” version of a Failed SuperHyperStable. Since 508
there’s more ways to get type-results to make a Failed SuperHyperStable more 509
understandable. 510
For the sake of having a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, there’s a need to 511
“redefine” the notion of “ ”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are 512
assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the 513
usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. 514
Definition 3.20. Assume a Failed SuperHyperStable. It’s redefined a neutrosophic 515
Failed SuperHyperStable if the Table (3) holds. 516
4 Extreme Failed SuperHyperStable 517
Example 4.1. Assume the SuperHyperGraphs in the Figures (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), 518
(7), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12), (13), (14), (15), (16), (17), (18), (19), and (20). 519

perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition
(3.20)
13/94
• On the Figure (1), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, Failed SuperHyperStable, is 520
up. E1 and E3 Failed SuperHyperStable are some empty SuperHyperEdges but 521
E2 is a loop SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of 522
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The 523
SuperHyperVertex, V3 is isolated means that there’s no SuperHyperEdge has it as 524
an endpoint. Thus SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is contained in every given Failed 525
SuperHyperStable. All the following SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices is the 526
simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable. {V3 , V1 , V2 }. The 527
SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V3 , V1 , V2 }, is the simple 528
type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable. The SuperHyperSet of the 529
SuperHyperVertices, {V3 , V1 , V2 }, is corresponded to a Failed SuperHyperStable 530
I(N SHG) for a SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is 531
the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices such 532
that there’s a SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. There’re 533
only three SuperHyperVertices inside the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the 534
non-obvious Failed SuperHyperStable is up. The obvious simple 535
type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet includes 536
only one SuperHyperVertex. But the SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, 537
{V3 , V1 , V2 }, doesn’t have less than two SuperHyperVertices inside the intended 538
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed 539
SuperHyperStable is up. To sum them up, the SuperHyperSet of 540
SuperHyperVertices, {V3 , V1 , V2 }, is the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet 541
of the Failed SuperHyperStable. Since the SuperHyperSet of the 542
I(N SHG) for a SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the SuperHyperSet S of 544
SuperHyperEdge in common and they are corresponded to a 546
Failed SuperHyperStable. Since it’s the maximum cardinality of a 547
SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a SuperHyperVertex to 548
have a SuperHyperEdge in common. There aren’t only less than two 549
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended SuperHyperSet, {V3 , V1 , V2 }. Thus the 550
non-obvious Failed SuperHyperStable, {V3 , V1 , V2 }, is up. The obvious simple 551
type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable, {V3 , V1 , V2 }, is the 552
SuperHyperSet, {V3 , V1 , V2 }, doesn’t include only less than two 553
SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 554
N SHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only obvious simple 555
type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable amid those 556
obvious simple type-SuperHyperSets of the Failed SuperHyperStable, is only 557
{V3 , V4 , V2 }. 558
up. E1 and E3 Failed SuperHyperStable are some empty SuperHyperEdges but 560
E2 is a loop SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of 561
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The 562
SuperHyperVertex, V3 is isolated means that there’s no SuperHyperEdge has it as 563
an endpoint. Thus SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is contained in every given Failed 564
SuperHyperStable. All the following SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices is the 565
simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable. {V3 , V1 , V2 }. The 566
I(N SHG) for a SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is 570
14/94
only one SuperHyperVertex. But the SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, 576
{V3 , V1 , V2 }, doesn’t have less than two SuperHyperVertices inside the intended 577
I(N SHG) for a SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the SuperHyperSet S of 583
SuperHyperEdge in common and they are corresponded to a 585
type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable, {V3 , V1 , V2 }, is the 591
N SHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only obvious simple 594
type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable amid those 595
obvious simple type-SuperHyperSets of the Failed SuperHyperStable, is only 596
{V3 , V4 , V1 }. 597
up. E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty SuperHyperEdges but E4 is a 599
SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one 600
SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, 601
{V3 , V2 }, is the simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable. The 602
SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices, {V3 , V2 }, is 603
only two SuperHyperVertex inside the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the 606
only one SuperHyperVertex in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 609
N SHG : (V, E). But the SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V3 , V2 }, doesn’t 610
have less than two SuperHyperVertex inside the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus 611
the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable is up. 612
To sum them up, the SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V3 , V2 },is the 613
non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable. Since 614
the SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices, {V3 , V2 }, is corresponded to a 615
Failed SuperHyperStable I(N SHG) for a SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is 616
the SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a 617
SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common and they are 618
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended SuperHyperSets, {V3 , V2 }, Thus the 622
non-obvious Failed SuperHyperStable, {V3 , V2 }, is up. The obvious simple 623
15/94
type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable, {V3 , V2 }, is the 624
SuperHyperSet, {V3 , V2 }, don’t include only more than one SuperHyperVertex in 625
a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to 626
mention that the only obvious simple type-SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic 627
Failed SuperHyperStable amid those obvious simple type-SuperHyperSets of the 628
Failed SuperHyperStable, is only {V3 , V2 }. 629
• On the Figure (4), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, a Failed SuperHyperStable, is 630
up. There’s no empty SuperHyperEdge but E3 are a loop SuperHyperEdge on 631
{F }, and there are some SuperHyperEdges, namely, E1 on {H, V1 , V3 }, alongside 632
E2 on {O, H, V4 , V3 } and E4 , E5 on {N, V1 , V2 , V3 , F }. The SuperHyperSet of 633
SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V4 , V1 }, is the simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed 634
SuperHyperStable. The SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V4 , V1 }, is 635
only one SuperHyperVertex since it doesn’t form any kind of pairs titled to 641
SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 642
N SHG : (V, E). But the SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V4 , V1 }, 643
doesn’t have less than two SuperHyperVertices inside the intended 644
SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V4 , V1 }, is the SuperHyperSet Ss of a SuperHyperSet S 649
of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a SuperHyperVertex to have a 650
SuperHyperEdge in common and it’s Failed SuperHyperStable. Since it’s 651
that there’s a SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. There 653
aren’t only less than two SuperHyperVertices inside the intended SuperHyperSet, 654
{V2 , V4 , V1 }. Thus the non-obvious Failed SuperHyperStable, {V2 , V4 , V1 }, is up. 655
The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable, 656
{V2 , V4 , V1 }, is a SuperHyperSet, {V2 , V4 , V1 }, doesn’t include only less than two 657
N SHG : (V, E). 659
up. There’s neither empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The 661
SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V6 , V9 , V15 , V10 }, is the simple 662
SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V6 , V9 , V15 , V10 }, is the maximum cardinality of a 664
have a SuperHyperEdge in common. There’re not only one SuperHyperVertex 666
inside the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious Failed 667
SuperHyperStable is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed 668
SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet includes only one SuperHyperVertex thus 669
it doesn’t form any kind of pairs titled to SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected 670
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). But the SuperHyperSet of 671
SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V6 , V9 , V15 , V10 }, doesn’t have less than two 672
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious 673
simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable is up. To sum them 674
up, the SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V6 , V9 , V15 , V10 }, is the 675
16/94
the SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V6 , V9 , V15 , V10 }, is the 677
SuperHyperSet Ss of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a SuperHyperVertex 678
to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. and it’s Failed SuperHyperStable. 679
Since it’s the maximum cardinality of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a 680
SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. There aren’t only less 681
than two SuperHyperVertices inside the intended SuperHyperSet, 682
{V2 , V6 , V9 , V15 , V10 }. Thus the non-obvious Failed SuperHyperStable, 683
{V2 , V6 , V9 , V15 , V10 }, is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed 684
SuperHyperStable, {V2 , V6 , V9 , V15 , V10 }, is a SuperHyperSet, 685
{V2 , V6 , V9 , V15 , V10 }, doesn’t include only less than two SuperHyperVertices in a 686
connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is mentioned as the 687
SuperHyperModel N SHG : (V, E) in the Figure (5). 688
SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, 691
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 },
is the simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable. The 692
SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices, 693
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 },
is the maximum cardinality of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a 694
SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. There’re not only one 695
SuperHyperVertex inside the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious 696
Failed SuperHyperStable is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the 697
Failed SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet includes only one 698
SuperHyperVertex doesn’t form any kind of pairs titled to SuperHyperNeighbors 699
in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). But the 700
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 },
SuperHyperVertices, 705
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 },
is the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable. 706
Since the SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices, 707
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 },
is the SuperHyperSet Ss of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a 708
SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common and it’s a 709
17/94
Failed SuperHyperStable. Since it’s the maximum cardinality of 710
SuperHyperEdge in common. There aren’t only less than two SuperHyperVertices 712
inside the intended SuperHyperSet, 713
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 },
Thus the non-obvious Failed SuperHyperStable, 714
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 },
is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable, 715
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 },
is a SuperHyperSet, 716
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 },
doesn’t include only less than two SuperHyperVertices in a connected 717
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) with a illustrated 718
SuperHyperModeling of the Figure (6). 719
SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V5 , V9 , V7 }, is the simple 722
SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V5 , V9 , V7 }, is the maximum cardinality of a 724
have a SuperHyperEdge in common. There’s only one SuperHyperVertex inside 726
the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious Failed SuperHyperStable is 727
up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable is a 728
SuperHyperSet includes only one SuperHyperVertex doesn’t form any kind of 729
pairs are titled to SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected neutrosophic 730
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). But the SuperHyperSet of 731
SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V5 , V9 , V7 }, doesn’t have less than two 732
up, the SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V5 , V9 , V7 }, is the non-obvious 735
simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable. Since the 736
SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V5 , V9 , V7 }, is the SuperHyperSet 737
Ss of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a SuperHyperVertex to have a 738
SuperHyperEdge in common and it’s a Failed SuperHyperStable. Since it’s 739
{V2 , V5 , V9 , V7 }. Thus the non-obvious Failed SuperHyperStable, {V2 , V5 , V9 , V7 }, 743
is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed 744
SuperHyperStable,{V2 , V5 , V9 , V7 }, is a SuperHyperSet, {V2 , V5 , V9 , V7 }, doesn’t 745
include only less than two SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic 746
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) of depicted SuperHyperModel as the Figure 747
(7). 748
18/94
have a SuperHyperEdge in common. There’s only one SuperHyperVertex inside 755
the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious Failed SuperHyperStable is 756
up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable is a 757
SuperHyperSet includes only one SuperHyperVertex doesn’t form any kind of 758
pairs are titled to SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected neutrosophic 759
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). But the SuperHyperSet of 760
SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V5 , V9 , V7 }, doesn’t have less than two 761
up, the SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V5 , V9 , V7 }, is the non-obvious 764
simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable. Since the 765
SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V5 , V9 , V7 }, is the SuperHyperSet 766
Ss of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a SuperHyperVertex to have a 767
is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed 773
SuperHyperStable,{V2 , V5 , V9 , V7 }, is a SuperHyperSet, {V2 , V5 , V9 , V7 }, doesn’t 774
include only less than two SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic 775
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) of dense SuperHyperModel as the Figure (8). 776
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 },
is the simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable. The 780
SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices, 781
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 },
is the maximum cardinality of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a 782
SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. There’re only only 783
SuperHyperVertex inside the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious 784
Failed SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet includes only one 786
SuperHyperVertex doesn’t form any kind of pairs titled to SuperHyperNeighbors 787
in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). But the 788
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 },
19/94
SuperHyperVertices, 793
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 },
is the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable. 794
Since the SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices, 795
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 },
is the SuperHyperSet Ss of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a 796
SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common and it’s a 797
Failed SuperHyperStable. Since it’s the maximum cardinality of 798
SuperHyperEdge in common. There aren’t only less than two SuperHyperVertices 800
inside the intended SuperHyperSet, 801
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 }.
Thus the non-obvious Failed SuperHyperStable, 802
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 },
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 },
is a SuperHyperSet, 804
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 },
doesn’t include only less than two SuperHyperVertices in a connected 805
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) with a messy 806
SuperHyperModeling of the Figure (9). 807
have a SuperHyperEdge in common. There’re not only two SuperHyperVertices 814
inside the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious Failed 815
SuperHyperStable is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed 816
SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet includes only two SuperHyperVertices 817
doesn’t form any kind of pairs are titled to SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected 818
20/94
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). But the SuperHyperSet of 819
SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V5 , V8 }, doesn’t have less than two SuperHyperVertices 820
inside the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple 821
type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable is up. To sum them up, the 822
SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V5 , V8 , V7 },is the non-obvious simple 823
type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable. Since the SuperHyperSet of 824
the SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V5 , V8 , V7 }, is the SuperHyperSet Ss of 825
{V2 , V5 , V8 , V7 }, is a SuperHyperSet, {V2 , V5 , V8 , V7 }, doesn’t include only more 833
than one SuperHyperVertex in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 834
N SHG : (V, E) of highly-embedding-connected SuperHyperModel as the Figure 835
(10). 836
SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V5 }, is the simple 839
SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V5 , V6 }, is the maximum cardinality of a 841
have a SuperHyperEdge in common. There’re not only less than one 843
Failed SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet includes only less than two 846
SuperHyperVertices don’t form any kind of pairs are titled to 847
SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V5 , V6 }, is the SuperHyperSet Ss of SuperHyperVertices 855
such that there’s a SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common and 856
it’s a Failed SuperHyperStable. Since it’s the maximum cardinality of a 857
type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable, {V2 , V5 , V6 }, is a 862
N SHG : (V, E). 865
SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V4 , V5 , V6 , V9 , V10 , V2 }, is the simple 868
SuperHyperVertices, {V4 , V5 , V6 , V9 , V10 , V2 }, is the maximum cardinality of 870
21/94
SuperHyperEdge in common. There’re not only less than two 872
SuperHyperVertices doesn’t form any kind of pairs are titled to 876
N SHG : (V, E). But the SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, 878
{V4 , V5 , V6 , V9 , V10 , V2 }, doesn’t have less than two SuperHyperVertices inside the 879
intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the 880
Failed SuperHyperStable is up. To sum them up, the SuperHyperSet of 881
SuperHyperVertices, {V4 , V5 , V6 , V9 , V10 , V2 }, is the non-obvious simple 882
the SuperHyperVertices, {V4 , V5 , V6 , V9 , V10 , V2 }, is the SuperHyperSet Ss of 884
SuperHyperEdge in common and they are Failed SuperHyperStable. Since 886
it’s the maximum cardinality of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a 887
SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. There aren’t only less 888
than two SuperHyperVertices inside the intended SuperHyperSet, 889
{V4 , V5 , V6 , V9 , V10 , V2 }. Thus the non-obvious Failed SuperHyperStable, 890
{V4 , V5 , V6 , V9 , V10 , V2 }, is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the 891
Failed SuperHyperStable,{V4 , V5 , V6 , V9 , V10 , V2 }, is a SuperHyperSet, 892
{V4 , V5 , V6 , V9 , V10 , V2 }, doesn’t include only more than one SuperHyperVertex in 893
a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) in 894
highly-multiple-connected-style SuperHyperModel On the Figure (12). 895
SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V5 , V6 }, is the maximum cardinality of a 900
have a SuperHyperEdge in common. There’re not only less than two 902
SuperHyperVertices don’t form any kind of pairs are titled to 906
SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V5 , V6 }, is the SuperHyperSet Ss of SuperHyperVertices 914
such that there’s a SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common and 915
it’s a Failed SuperHyperStable. Since it’s the maximum cardinality of a 916
type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable, {V2 , V5 , V6 }, is a 921
SuperHyperSet, {V2 , V5 , V6 }, does includes only less than two SuperHyperVertices 922
22/94
in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). 923
SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V3 , V1 }, is the simple 926
SuperHyperVertices, {V3 , V1 }, is the maximum cardinality of a 928
have a SuperHyperEdge in common. There’re only less than two 930
N SHG : (V, E). But the SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V3 , V1 }, doesn’t 936
have less than two SuperHyperVertices inside the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus 937
the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable is up. 938
To sum them up, the SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V3 , V1 }, is the 939
the SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices, {V3 , V1 }, is the SuperHyperSet Ss 941
of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a SuperHyperVertex to have a 942
{V3 , V1 }. Thus the non-obvious Failed SuperHyperStable, {V3 , V1 }, is up. The 947
obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable, {V3 , V1 }, is a 948
SuperHyperSet, {V3 , V1 }, does includes only less than two SuperHyperVertices in 949
a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). 950
have a SuperHyperEdge in common. There’re only less than two 957
N SHG : (V, E). But the SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices,{V5 , V2 , V6 , V4 }, 963
SuperHyperVertices, {V5 , V2 , V6 , V4 }, is the non-obvious simple 967
the SuperHyperVertices, {V5 , V2 , V6 , V4 }, is the SuperHyperSet Ss of 969
23/94
{V5 , V2 , V6 , V4 }, is a SuperHyperSet, {V5 , V2 , V6 , V4 }, doesn’t include only less 977
than two SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 978
N SHG : (V, E) as Linearly-Connected SuperHyperModel On the Figure (15). 979
a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a SuperHyperVertex 985
to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. There’re only less than two 986
{V1 , V3 , V7 , V13 , V22 , V18 }, doesn’t have less than two SuperHyperVertices inside 993
the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of 994
the Failed SuperHyperStable is up. To sum them up, the SuperHyperSet of 995
Failed SuperHyperStable, {V1 , V3 , V7 , V13 , V22 , V18 }, is a SuperHyperSet, 1006
{V1 , V3 , V7 , V13 , V22 , V18 }, does includes only less than two SuperHyperVertices in 1007
a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). 1008
24/94
aren’t only less than two SuperHyperVertices inside the intended 1032
SuperHyperSet,{V1 , V3 , V7 , V13 , V22 , V18 }. Thus the non-obvious Failed 1033
SuperHyperStable, {V1 , V3 , V7 , V13 , V22 , V18 }, is up. The obvious simple 1034
type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable, {V1 , V3 , V7 , V13 , V22 , V18 }, is 1035
a SuperHyperSet, {V1 , V3 , V7 , V13 , V22 , V18 }, does includes only less than two 1036
N SHG : (V, E) as Linearly-over-packed SuperHyperModel is featured On the 1038
Figure (17). 1039
only less than two SuperHyperVertices inside the intended SuperHyperSet, 1063
Failed SuperHyperStable, {V1 , V3 , V7 , V13 , V22 , V18 }, is a SuperHyperSet, 1066
{V1 , V3 , V7 , V13 , V22 , V18 }, does includes only less than two SuperHyperVertices in 1067
a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) 1068
• On the Figure (19), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, Failed SuperHyperStable, is

up. There’s neither empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The
SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices,
{interior SuperHyperVertices}the number of SuperHyperEdges ,
is the simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable. The

SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices,
25/94
is the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices such
that there’s a SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. There’re
only less than two SuperHyperVertices inside the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus
the non-obvious Failed SuperHyperStable is up. The obvious simple
type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet includes
only less than two SuperHyperVertices doesn’t form any kind of pairs are titled
to SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph
N SHG : (V, E). But the SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices,
doesn’t have less than two SuperHyperVertices inside the intended

SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed
SuperHyperStable is up. To sum them up, the SuperHyperSet of
SuperHyperVertices,
is the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable.

Since the SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices,
is the SuperHyperSet Ss of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a

SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common and it’s a
Failed SuperHyperStable. Since it’s the maximum cardinality of a
SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a SuperHyperVertex to
have a SuperHyperEdge in common. There aren’t only less than two
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended SuperHyperSet,
{interior SuperHyperVertices}the number of SuperHyperEdges .
Thus the non-obvious Failed SuperHyperStable,
is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable,
is a SuperHyperSet,
does includes only less than two SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic 1069
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). 1070
• On the Figure (20), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, Failed SuperHyperStable, is

up. There’s neither empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The
SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices,
is the simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable. The

SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices,
26/94
is the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices such
that there’s a SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. There’re
only less than two SuperHyperVertices inside the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus
the non-obvious Failed SuperHyperStable is up. The obvious simple
type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet includes
only less than two SuperHyperVertices doesn’t form any kind of pairs are titled
to SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph
N SHG : (V, E). But the SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices,
doesn’t have less than two SuperHyperVertices inside the intended

SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed
SuperHyperStable is up. To sum them up, the SuperHyperSet of
SuperHyperVertices,
is the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable.

Since the SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices,
is the SuperHyperSet Ss of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a

SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common and it’s a
Failed SuperHyperStable. Since it’s the maximum cardinality of a
SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a SuperHyperVertex to
have a SuperHyperEdge in common. There aren’t only less than two
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended SuperHyperSet,
{interior SuperHyperVertices}the number of SuperHyperEdges .
Thus the non-obvious Failed SuperHyperStable,
is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable,
is a SuperHyperSet, does includes only less than two SuperHyperVertices in a 1071
connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). 1072
Proposition 4.2. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1073
N SHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally, V \ V \ {x, z}, is a Failed 1074
SuperHyperStable. In other words, the least cardinality, the lower sharp bound for the 1075
cardinality, of a Failed SuperHyperStable is the cardinality of V \ V \ {x, z}. 1076
Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). The 1077
SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {z} is a SuperHyperSet S of 1078
in common but it isn’t a Failed SuperHyperStable. Since it doesn’t have 1080
the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices such that 1081
there’s a SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. The SuperHyperSet 1082
of the SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {x, y, z} is the maximum cardinality of a 1083
SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices but it isn’t a Failed SuperHyperStable. Since 1084
27/94
Figure 1. The SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Notions of Failed SuperHyperStable
in the Example (4.1)

28/94

29/94

30/94

31/94
Figure 10. The SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Notions of Failed SuperHyper-

Stable in the Example (4.1)
32/94

33/94

34/94

35/94

36/94

37/94
it doesn’t do the procedure such that such that there’s a SuperHyperVertex to have a 1085
SuperHyperEdge in common. [there’er at least three SuperHyperVertices inside 1086
implying there’s, sometimes in the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1087
N SHG : (V, E), a SuperHyperVertex, titled its SuperHyperNeighbor, to that 1088
SuperHyperVertex in the SuperHyperSet S so as S doesn’t do “the procedure”.]. 1089
There’re only two SuperHyperVertices inside the intended SuperHyperSet, 1090
V \ V \ {x, z}. Thus the obvious Failed SuperHyperStable, V \ V \ {x, z}, is up. The 1091
obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable, V \ V \ {x, z}, is a 1092
SuperHyperSet, V \ V \ {x, z}, includes only two SuperHyperVertices doesn’t form 1093
any kind of pairs are titled SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected neutrosophic 1094
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). Since the SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices 1095
V \ V \ {x, z}, is the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of 1096
SuperHyperVertices such that V (G) there’s a SuperHyperVertex to have a 1097
SuperHyperEdge in common. 1098
Proposition 4.3. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). 1099
Then the extreme number of Failed SuperHyperStable has, the least cardinality, the lower 1100
sharp bound for cardinality, is the extreme cardinality of V \ V \ {x, z} if there’s a 1101
Failed SuperHyperStable with the least cardinality, the lower sharp bound for cardinality. 1102
Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). Consider 1103
there’s a Failed SuperHyperStable with the least cardinality, the lower sharp bound for 1104
cardinality. The SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {z} is a 1105
SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a SuperHyperVertex to have 1106
a SuperHyperEdge in common but it isn’t a Failed SuperHyperStable. Since it doesn’t 1107
have the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices such 1108
that there’s a SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. The 1109
SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {x, y, z} is the maximum cardinality 1110
of a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices but it isn’t a Failed SuperHyperStable. 1111
Since it doesn’t do the procedure such that such that there’s a SuperHyperVertex to 1112
have a SuperHyperEdge in common. [there’er at least three SuperHyperVertices inside 1113
SuperHyperEdge in common. Thus, in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1125
N SHG : (V, E), the extreme number of Failed SuperHyperStable has, the least 1126
cardinality, the lower sharp bound for cardinality, is the extreme cardinality of 1127
V \ V \ {x, z} if there’s a Failed SuperHyperStable with the least cardinality, the lower 1128
sharp bound for cardinality. 1129
If a SuperHyperEdge has z SuperHyperVertices, then z − 2 number of those interior 1131
SuperHyperVertices from that SuperHyperEdge exclude to any Failed SuperHyperStable. 1132
Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). Let a 1133
SuperHyperEdge has z SuperHyperVertices. Consider z − 2 number of those 1134
38/94
SuperHyperVertices from that SuperHyperEdge exclude to any given SuperHyperSet of 1135
the SuperHyperVertices. Consider there’s a Failed SuperHyperStable with the least 1136
cardinality, the lower sharp bound for cardinality. Assume a connected neutrosophic 1137
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). The SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices 1138
V \ V \ {z} is a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a 1139
SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common but it isn’t a Failed 1140
SuperHyperStable. Since it doesn’t have the maximum cardinality of a 1141
a SuperHyperEdge in common. The SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices 1143
V \ V \ {x, y, z} is the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of 1144
SuperHyperVertices but it isn’t a Failed SuperHyperStable. Since it doesn’t do the 1145
procedure such that such that there’s a SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in 1146
common. [there’er at least three SuperHyperVertices inside implying there’s, sometimes 1147
in the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E), a SuperHyperVertex, 1148
titled its SuperHyperNeighbor, to that SuperHyperVertex in the SuperHyperSet S so as 1149
S doesn’t do “the procedure”.]. There’re only two SuperHyperVertices inside the 1150
intended SuperHyperSet, V \ V \ {x, z}. Thus the obvious Failed SuperHyperStable, 1151
V \ V \ {x, z}, is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed 1152
SuperHyperStable, V \ V \ {x, z}, is a SuperHyperSet, V \ V \ {x, z}, includes only 1153
two SuperHyperVertices doesn’t form any kind of pairs are titled 1154
SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). 1155
Since the SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {x, z}, is the 1156
maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices such that V (G) 1157
there’s a SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. Thus, in a 1158
connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E), a SuperHyperEdge has z 1159
SuperHyperVertices, then z − 2 number of those interior SuperHyperVertices from that 1160
SuperHyperEdge exclude to any Failed SuperHyperStable. 1161
N SHG : (V, E). There’s only one SuperHyperEdge has only less than three distinct 1163
interior SuperHyperVertices inside of any given Failed SuperHyperStable. In other 1164
words, there’s only an unique SuperHyperEdge has only two distinct SuperHyperVertices 1165
in a Failed SuperHyperStable. 1166
SuperHyperEdge has some SuperHyperVertices. Consider some numbers of those 1168
SuperHyperVertices from that SuperHyperEdge excluding more than two distinct 1169
SuperHyperVertices, exclude to any given SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices. 1170
Consider there’s Failed SuperHyperStable with the least cardinality, the lower sharp 1171
bound for cardinality. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1172
N SHG : (V, E). The SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {z} is a 1173
39/94
N SHG : (V, E), there’s only one SuperHyperEdge has only less than three distinct 1194
interior SuperHyperVertices inside of any given Failed SuperHyperStable. In other 1195
words, there’s only an unique SuperHyperEdge has only two distinct 1196
SuperHyperVertices in a Failed SuperHyperStable. 1197
The all interior SuperHyperVertices belong to any Failed SuperHyperStable if for any of 1199
them, there’s no other corresponded SuperHyperVertex such that the two interior 1200
SuperHyperVertices are mutually SuperHyperNeighbors with an exception once. 1201
Proof. Let a SuperHyperEdge has some SuperHyperVertices. Consider all numbers of 1202
those SuperHyperVertices from that SuperHyperEdge excluding more than two distinct 1203
Consider there’s a Failed SuperHyperStable with the least cardinality, the lower sharp 1205
N SHG : (V, E), the all interior SuperHyperVertices belong to any Failed 1228
SuperHyperStable if for any of them, there’s no other corresponded SuperHyperVertex 1229
such that the two interior SuperHyperVertices are mutually SuperHyperNeighbors with 1230
an exception once. 1231
The any Failed SuperHyperStable only contains all interior SuperHyperVertices and all 1233
exterior SuperHyperVertices where there’s any of them has no SuperHyperNeighbors in 1234
and there’s no SuperHyperNeighborhoods in with an exception once but everything is 1235
possible about SuperHyperNeighborhoods and SuperHyperNeighbors out. 1236
40/94
SuperHyperEdge has some SuperHyperVertices. Consider all numbers of those 1238
N SHG : (V, E), the any Failed SuperHyperStable only contains all interior 1264
SuperHyperVertices and all exterior SuperHyperVertices where there’s any of them has 1265
no SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s no SuperHyperNeighborhoods in with an 1266
exception once but everything is possible about SuperHyperNeighborhoods and 1267
SuperHyperNeighbors out. 1268
Remark 4.8. The words “ Failed SuperHyperStable” and “SuperHyperDominating” 1269
both refer to the maximum type-style. In other words, they both refer to the maximum 1270
number and the SuperHyperSet with the maximum cardinality. 1271
N SHG : (V, E). Consider a SuperHyperDominating. Then a Failed SuperHyperStable is 1273
either out with one additional member. 1274
Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). Consider 1275
a SuperHyperDominating. By applying the Proposition (4.7), the results are up. Thus 1276
on a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E), and in a 1277
SuperHyperDominating, a Failed SuperHyperStable is either out with one additional 1278
member. 1279
5 Results on Extreme SuperHyperClasses 1280
Proposition 5.1. Assume a connected SuperHyperPath N SHP : (V, E). Then a Failed 1281
SuperHyperStable-style with the maximum SuperHyperCardinality is a SuperHyperSet of 1282
the interior SuperHyperVertices. 1283
41/94
Proposition 5.2. Assume a connected SuperHyperPath N SHP : (V, E). Then a Failed 1284
SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet of the interior SuperHyperVertices with only all 1285
exceptions in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices from the common 1286
SuperHyperEdges excluding only two interior SuperHyperVertices from the common 1287
SuperHyperEdges. a Failed SuperHyperStable has the number of all the interior 1288
SuperHyperVertices minus their SuperHyperNeighborhoods plus one. 1289
Proof. Assume a connected SuperHyperPath N SHP : (V, E). Let a SuperHyperEdge 1290
has some SuperHyperVertices. Consider all numbers of those SuperHyperVertices from 1291
that SuperHyperEdge excluding more than two distinct SuperHyperVertices, exclude to 1292
any given SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices. Consider there’s a Failed 1293
SuperHyperStable with the least cardinality, the lower sharp bound for cardinality. 1294
Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). The 1295
SuperHyperEdge in common. Thus, in a connected SuperHyperPath N SHP : (V, E), a 1316
Failed SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet of the interior SuperHyperVertices with 1317
only all exceptions in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices from the common 1318
SuperHyperEdges excluding only two interior SuperHyperVertices from the common 1319
SuperHyperEdges. a Failed SuperHyperStable has the number of all the interior 1320
SuperHyperVertices minus their SuperHyperNeighborhoods plus one. 1321
Example 5.3. In the Figure (21), the connected SuperHyperPath N SHP : (V, E), is 1322
highlighted and featured. The SuperHyperSet, {V27 , V2 , V7 , V12 , V22 , V25 }, of the 1323
SuperHyperVertices of the connected SuperHyperPath N SHP : (V, E), in the 1324
SuperHyperModel (21), is the Failed SuperHyperStable. 1325
Proposition 5.4. Assume a connected SuperHyperCycle N SHC : (V, E). Then a 1326
only all exceptions in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices from the same 1328
SuperHyperNeighborhoods excluding one SuperHyperVertex. a Failed SuperHyperStable 1329
has the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one and the lower bound is the half 1330
number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one. 1331
Proof. Assume a connected SuperHyperCycle N SHC : (V, E). Let a SuperHyperEdge 1332
42/94
Figure 21. A SuperHyperPath Associated to the Notions of Failed SuperHyperStable
SuperHyperEdge in common. Thus, in a connected SuperHyperCycle N SHC : (V, E), a 1358
only all exceptions in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices from the same 1360
SuperHyperNeighborhoods excluding one SuperHyperVertex. a Failed 1361
SuperHyperStable has the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one and the lower 1362
43/94
Figure 22. A SuperHyperCycle Associated to the Notions of Failed SuperHyperStable
bound is the half number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one. 1363
Example 5.5. In the Figure (22), the connected SuperHyperCycle N SHC : (V, E), is 1364
highlighted and featured. The obtained SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous 1365
result, of the SuperHyperVertices of the connected SuperHyperCycle N SHC : (V, E), in 1366
the SuperHyperModel (22), 1367
{{P13 , J13 , K13 , H13 },

{Z13 , W13 , V13 }, {U14 , T14 , R14 , S14 },
{P15 , J15 , K15 , R15 },
{J5 , O5 , K5 , L5 }, {J5 , O5 , K5 , L5 }, V3 ,
{U6 , H7 , J7 , K7 , O7 , L7 , P7 }, {T8 , U8 , V8 , S8 },
{T9 , K9 , J9 }, {H10 , J10 , E10 , R10 , W9 },
{S11 , R11 , O11 , L11 },
{U12 , V12 , W12 , Z12 , O12 },
{S7 , T7 , R7 , U7 }},
is the Failed SuperHyperStable. 1368
Proposition 5.6. Assume a connected SuperHyperStar N SHS : (V, E). Then a Failed 1369
SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet of the interior SuperHyperVertices, excluding the 1370
SuperHyperCenter, with only all exceptions in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices 1371
from common SuperHyperEdge, excluding only one SuperHyperVertex. a Failed 1372
SuperHyperStable has the number of the cardinality of the second SuperHyperPart plus 1373
one. 1374
Proof. Assume a connected SuperHyperStar N SHS : (V, E). Let a SuperHyperEdge 1375
44/94
SuperHyperEdge in common. Thus, in a connected SuperHyperStar N SHS : (V, E), a 1401
Failed SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet of the interior SuperHyperVertices, 1402
excluding the SuperHyperCenter, with only all exceptions in the form of interior 1403
SuperHyperVertices from common SuperHyperEdge, excluding only one 1404
SuperHyperVertex. a Failed SuperHyperStable has the number of the cardinality of the 1405
second SuperHyperPart plus one. 1406
Example 5.7. In the Figure (23), the connected SuperHyperStar N SHS : (V, E), is 1407
highlighted and featured. The obtained SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous 1408
result, of the SuperHyperVertices of the connected SuperHyperStar N SHS : (V, E), in 1409
the SuperHyperModel (23), 1410
{{V14 , O14 , U14 },

{W14 , D15 , Z14 , C15 , E15 },
{P3 , O3 , R3 , L3 , S3 }, {P2 , T2 , S2 , R2 , O2 },
{O6 , O7 , K7 , P6 , H7 , J7 , E7 , L7 },
{J8 , Z10 , W10 , V10 }, {W11 , V11 , Z11 , C12 },
{U13 , T13 , R13 , S13 }, {H13 },
{E13 , D13 , C13 , Z12 }, }
Proposition 5.8. Assume a connected SuperHyperBipartite N SHB : (V, E). Then a 1412
only all exceptions in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices titled 1414
SuperHyperNeighbors with only one exception. a Failed SuperHyperStable has the 1415
number of the cardinality of the first SuperHyperPart multiplies with the cardinality of 1416
the second SuperHyperPart plus one. 1417
Proof. Assume a connected SuperHyperBipartite N SHB : (V, E). Let a 1418
45/94
Figure 23. A SuperHyperStar Associated to the Notions of Failed SuperHyperStable
SuperHyperEdge in common. Thus, in a connected SuperHyperBipartite 1444
N SHB : (V, E), a Failed SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet of the interior 1445
SuperHyperVertices with only all exceptions in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices 1446
titled SuperHyperNeighbors with only one exception. a Failed SuperHyperStable has 1447
46/94
Figure 24. A SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of Failed SuperHyper-
the number of the cardinality of the first SuperHyperPart multiplies with the 1448
cardinality of the second SuperHyperPart plus one. 1449
Example 5.9. In the Figure (24), the connected SuperHyperBipartite N SHB : (V, E), 1450
is highlighted and featured. The obtained SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous 1451
result, of the SuperHyperVertices of the connected SuperHyperBipartite 1452
N SHB : (V, E), in the SuperHyperModel (24), 1453
{V1 , {C4 , D4 , E4 , H4 },
{K4 , J4 , L4 , O4 }, {W2 , Z2 , C3 }, {C13 , Z12 , V12 , W12 },
Proposition 5.10. Assume a connected SuperHyperMultipartite N SHM : (V, E). 1455
Then a Failed SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet of the interior SuperHyperVertices 1456
with only one exception in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices from a 1457
SuperHyperPart and only one exception in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices from 1458
another SuperHyperPart titled “SuperHyperNeighbors” with neglecting and ignoring one 1459
of them. a Failed SuperHyperStable has the number of all the summation on the 1460
cardinality of the all SuperHyperParts form distinct SuperHyperEdges plus one. 1461
Proof. Assume a connected SuperHyperMultipartite N SHM : (V, E). Let a 1462
47/94
SuperHyperEdge in common. Thus, in a connected SuperHyperMultipartite 1488
N SHM : (V, E), a Failed SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet of the interior 1489
SuperHyperVertices with only one exception in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices 1490
from a SuperHyperPart and only one exception in the form of interior 1491
SuperHyperVertices from another SuperHyperPart titled “SuperHyperNeighbors” with 1492
neglecting and ignoring one of them. a Failed SuperHyperStable has the number of all 1493
the summation on the cardinality of the all SuperHyperParts form distinct 1494
SuperHyperEdges plus one. 1495
Example 5.11. In the Figure (25), the connected SuperHyperMultipartite 1496
N SHM : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained SuperHyperSet, by the 1497
Algorithm in previous result, of the SuperHyperVertices of the connected 1498
SuperHyperMultipartite N SHM : (V, E), 1499
{{{L4 , E4 , O4 , D4 , J4 , K4 , H4 },
{S10 , R10 , P10 },
{Z7 , W7 }, {U7 , V7 }},
in the SuperHyperModel (25), is the Failed SuperHyperStable. 1500
Proposition 5.12. Assume a connected SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E). Then a 1501
Failed SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet of the interior SuperHyperVertices, 1502
excluding the SuperHyperCenter, with only one exception in the form of interior 1503
SuperHyperVertices from same SuperHyperEdge with the exclusion once. a Failed 1504
SuperHyperStable has the number of all the number of all the SuperHyperEdges have no 1505
common SuperHyperNeighbors for a SuperHyperVertex with the exclusion once. 1506
Proof. Assume a connected SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E). Let a SuperHyperEdge 1507
48/94
Figure 25. A SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of Failed SuperHy-
perStable in the Example (5.11)
SuperHyperEdge in common. Thus, in a connected SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E), 1533
a Failed SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet of the interior SuperHyperVertices, 1534
excluding the SuperHyperCenter, with only one exception in the form of interior 1535
SuperHyperVertices from same SuperHyperEdge with the exclusion once. a Failed 1536
SuperHyperStable has the number of all the number of all the SuperHyperEdges have 1537
no common SuperHyperNeighbors for a SuperHyperVertex with the exclusion once. 1538
Example 5.13. In the Figure (26), the connected SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E), 1539
is highlighted and featured. The obtained SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous 1540
result, of the SuperHyperVertices of the connected SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E), 1541
{V5 ,
{Z13 , W13 , U13 , V13 , O14 },
{T10 , K10 , J10 },
{E7 , C7 , Z6 }, {K7 , J7 , L7 },
{T14 , U14 , R15 , S15 }},
49/94
Figure 26. A SuperHyperWheel Associated to the Notions of Failed SuperHyperStable
6 General Extreme Results 1543
For the Failed SuperHyperStable, and the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, some 1544
general results are introduced. 1545
Remark 6.1. Let remind that the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable is “redefined” 1546
on the positions of the alphabets. 1547
Corollary 6.2. Assume Failed SuperHyperStable. Then 1548
N eutrosophic F ailedSuperHyperStable =
{theF ailedSuperHyperStableof theSuperHyperV ertices |
max |SuperHyperDef ensiveSuperHyper
Stable|neutrosophiccardinalityamidthoseF ailedSuperHyperStable. }
Where σi is the unary operation on the SuperHyperVertices of the SuperHyperGraph to 1549
assign the determinacy, the indeterminacy and the neutrality, for i = 1, 2, 3, respectively. 1550
Corollary 6.3. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the same identical letter 1551
of the alphabet. Then the notion of neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable and Failed 1552
SuperHyperStable coincide. 1553
of the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a 1555
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable if and only if it’s a Failed SuperHyperStable. 1556
of the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a strongest 1558
SuperHyperCycle if and only if it’s a longest SuperHyperCycle. 1559
Corollary 6.6. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the 1560
same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable is 1561
its Failed SuperHyperStable and reversely. 1562
Corollary 6.7. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperCycle, 1563
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel) on 1564
the same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable 1565
is its Failed SuperHyperStable and reversely. 1566
50/94
Corollary 6.8. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its neutrosophic 1567
Failed SuperHyperStable isn’t well-defined if and only if its Failed SuperHyperStable isn’t 1568
well-defined. 1569
Corollary 6.9. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then 1570
its neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable isn’t well-defined if and only if its Failed 1571
SuperHyperStable isn’t well-defined. 1572
Then its neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable isn’t well-defined if and only if its Failed 1575
SuperHyperStable isn’t well-defined. 1576
Corollary 6.11. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its neutrosophic 1577
Failed SuperHyperStable is well-defined if and only if its Failed SuperHyperStable is 1578
well-defined. 1579
Corollary 6.12. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 1580
Then its neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable is well-defined if and only if its Failed 1581
SuperHyperStable is well-defined. 1582
Then its neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable is well-defined if and only if its Failed 1585
SuperHyperStable is well-defined. 1586
Proposition 6.14. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then V 1587
is 1588
(i) : the dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 1589
(ii) : the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 1590
(iii) : the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 1591
(iv) : the δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 1592
(v) : the strong δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 1593
(vi) : the connected δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 1594
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider V. All 1595
SuperHyperMembers of V have at least one SuperHyperNeighbor inside the 1596
SuperHyperSet more than SuperHyperNeighbor out of SuperHyperSet. Thus, 1597
(i). V is the dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable since the following 1598
statements are equivalent. 1599
∀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.
51/94
(ii). V is the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable since the 1600
following statements are equivalent. 1601
∀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 Failed SuperHyperStable since the 1602
∀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 Failed SuperHyperStable since the following 1604
∀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 Failed SuperHyperStable since the 1606
∀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 Failed SuperHyperStable since the following statements are 1608
equivalent. 1609
∀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.
1610
Proposition 6.15. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then 1611
∅ is 1612
52/94
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 1613
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 1614
(iii) : the connected defensive SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 1615
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 1616
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 1617
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 1618
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider ∅. All 1619
SuperHyperMembers of ∅ have no SuperHyperNeighbor inside the SuperHyperSet less 1620
than SuperHyperNeighbor out of SuperHyperSet. Thus, 1621
(i). ∅ is the SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable since the following 1622
∀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 Failed SuperHyperStable since the following 1624
∀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 Failed SuperHyperStable since the 1626
∀a ∈ S, |Nc (a) ∩ S| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |Nc (a) ∩ ∅| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Nc (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Nc (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(iv). ∅ is the δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable since the following 1628
∀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.
53/94
(v). ∅ is the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable since the following 1630
∀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 Failed SuperHyperStable since the 1632
∀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.
1634
Proposition 6.16. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then an 1635
independent SuperHyperSet is 1636
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 1637
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 1638
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 1639
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 1640
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 1641
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 1642
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider S. All 1643
SuperHyperMembers of S have no SuperHyperNeighbor inside the SuperHyperSet less 1644
(i). An independent SuperHyperSet is the SuperHyperDefensive Failed 1646
SuperHyperStable since the following statements are equivalent. 1647
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, |∅| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, 0 < |N (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ S, 0 < |N (a)| ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(ii). An independent SuperHyperSet is the strong SuperHyperDefensive Failed 1648
54/94
∀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 Failed 1650
∀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 Failed 1652
∀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 Failed 1654
∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ S, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
(vi). An independent SuperHyperSet is the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed 1656
∀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.
1658
Proposition 6.17. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform 1659
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath. Then V is a maximal 1660
55/94
(i) : SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 1661
(ii) : strong SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 1662
(iii) : connected SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 1663
(iv) : O(N SHG)-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 1664
(v) : strong O(N SHG)-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 1665
(vi) : connected O(N SHG)-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 1666
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1667
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 1668
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath. 1669
(i). Consider one segment is out of S which is SuperHyperDefensive Failed 1670
SuperHyperStable. This segment has 2t SuperHyperNeighbors in S, i.e, Suppose 1671
xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S such that yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By it’s the exterior 1672
SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s 1673
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperCycle, 1674
|N (xii=1,2,...,t )| = |N (yii=1,2,...,t )| = |N (zii=1,2,...,t )| = 2t. Thus 1675
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∃yii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ {xi }ti=1 , |N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ S| <
|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ (V \ (V \ {xii=1,2,...,t }))| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ {xii=1,2,...,t })| ≡
∃yii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ {xi }ti=1 , |{z1 , z2 , . . . , zt−1 }| <
|{x1 , x2 , . . . , xt−1 })| ≡
∃y ∈ S, t − 1 < t − 1.
Thus it’s contradiction. It implies every V \ {xii=1,2,...,t } isn’t SuperHyperDefensive 1676
Failed SuperHyperStable in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperCycle. 1677
Consider one segment, with two segments related to the SuperHyperLeaves as 1678
exceptions, is out of S which is SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. This 1679
segment has 2t SuperHyperNeighbors in S, i.e, Suppose xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S such that 1680
yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By it’s the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the 1681
interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperPath, 1682
∀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.
56/94
Failed SuperHyperStable in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperPath. 1685
(ii), (iii) are obvious by (i). 1686
(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal and it’s a SuperHyperDefensive Failed 1687
SuperHyperStable. Thus it’s |V |-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 1688
(v), (vi) are obvious by (iv). 1689
Proposition 6.18. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 1690
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel. Then V is a maximal 1691
(i) : dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 1692
(ii) : strong dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 1693
(iii) : connected dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 1694
(iv) : O(N SHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 1695
(v) : strong O(N SHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 1696
(vi) : connected O(N SHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 1697
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1698
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform 1699
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. 1700
xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S such that yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By it’s the 1703
exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s 1704
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel, 1705
∀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 Failed 1707
SuperHyperStable in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel. 1708
(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal and it is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 1710
SuperHyperStable. Thus it’s a dual |V |-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 1711
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath. Then the number of 1714
57/94
(i) : the Failed SuperHyperStable; 1715
(ii) : the Failed SuperHyperStable; 1716
(iii) : the connected Failed SuperHyperStable; 1717
(iv) : the O(N SHG)-Failed SuperHyperStable; 1718
(v) : the strong O(N SHG)-Failed SuperHyperStable; 1719
(vi) : the connected O(N SHG)-Failed SuperHyperStable. 1720
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1721
SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1722
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 1723
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath. 1724
xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S such that yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By it’s the exterior 1727
SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s 1728
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperCycle, 1729
∀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.
Failed SuperHyperStable in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperCycle. 1732
Consider one segment, with two segments related to the SuperHyperLeaves as 1733
exceptions, is out of S which is SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. This 1734
segment has 2t SuperHyperNeighbors in S, i.e, Suppose xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S such that 1735
yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By it’s the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the 1736
interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperPath, 1737
∀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.
58/94
Failed SuperHyperStable in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperPath. 1740
(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal and it’s a SuperHyperDefensive Failed 1742
SuperHyperStable. Thus it’s |V |-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 1743
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. Then the number of 1746
(i) : the dual Failed SuperHyperStable; 1747
(ii) : the dual Failed SuperHyperStable; 1748
(iii) : the dual connected Failed SuperHyperStable; 1749
(iv) : the dual O(N SHG)-Failed SuperHyperStable; 1750
(v) : the strong dual O(N SHG)-Failed SuperHyperStable; 1751
(vi) : the connected dual O(N SHG)-Failed SuperHyperStable. 1752
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1753
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform 1755
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. 1756
xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S such that yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By it’s the 1759
exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s 1760
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel, 1761
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t )) ∩ (V \ (V \ {xii=1,2,...,t }))| ≡
∃yii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ) ∈ V \ {xi }ti=1
, |N (yii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t )) ∩ S| <
|N (yii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t )) ∩ {xii=1,2,...,t })| ≡
|{z1 , z2 , . . . , zt−1 , z10 , z20 , . . . , zt0 }| < |{x1 , x2 , . . . , xt−1 })| ≡
∃y ∈ S, 2t − 1 < t − 1.
Thus it’s contradiction. It implies every V \ {xii=1,2,...,t } isn’t a dual 1763
SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable in a given SuperHyperUniform 1764
SuperHyperWheel. 1765
(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal and it’s a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 1767
SuperHyperStable. Thus it isn’t an |V |-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 1768
59/94
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperStar/SuperHyperComplete 1771
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1772
SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of multiplying r with the 1773
number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices is a 1774
O(N SHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 1778
O(N SHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 1779
O(N SHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 1780
Proof. (i). Consider n half +1 SuperHyperVertices are in S which is 1781
SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. A SuperHyperVertex has either n2 or 1782
one SuperHyperNeighbors in S. If the SuperHyperVertex is non-SuperHyperCenter, then 1783
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
If the SuperHyperVertex is SuperHyperCenter, then 1784
∀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 Failed 1785
SuperHyperStable in a given SuperHyperStar. 1786
Consider n half +1 SuperHyperVertices are in S which is SuperHyperDefensive 1787
Failed SuperHyperStable. A SuperHyperVertex has at most n2 SuperHyperNeighbors in 1788
S. 1789
n n
∀a ∈ S, > |N (a) ∩ S| > − 1 > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
2 2
n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
SuperHyperStable in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite which isn’t a 1791
SuperHyperStar. 1792
Failed SuperHyperStable and they’re chosen from different SuperHyperParts, equally or 1794
almost equally as possible. A SuperHyperVertex has at most n2 SuperHyperNeighbors 1795
in S. 1796
n n
∀a ∈ S, > |N (a) ∩ S| > − 1 > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
2 2
n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
SuperHyperStable in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite which is 1798
neither a SuperHyperStar nor SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite. 1799
60/94
O(N SHG)
+1
(iv). By (i), {xi }i=1 2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 1801
O(N SHG)
Thus it’s 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 1802
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 1806
SuperHyperSet contains the half of multiplying r with the number of all the 1807
SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart 1808
is a 1809
(iv) : δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 1813
(v) : strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 1814
(vi) : connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 1815
Proof. (i). Consider the half of multiplying r with the number of all the 1816
SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart 1817
are in S which is SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. A SuperHyperVertex 1818
has either n − 1, 1 or zero SuperHyperNeighbors in S. If the SuperHyperVertex is in S, 1819
then 1820
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 0 < 1.
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable 1821
in a given SuperHyperStar. 1822
Consider the half of multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus 1823
one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart are in S which is 1824
SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. A SuperHyperVertex has no 1825
SuperHyperNeighbor in S. 1826
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 0 < δ.
in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite which isn’t a SuperHyperStar. 1828
Consider the half of multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus 1829
one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart are in S which is 1830
SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. A SuperHyperVertex has no 1831
SuperHyperNeighbor in S. 1832
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 0 < δ.
in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite which is neither a 1834
SuperHyperStar nor SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite. 1835
61/94
(iv). By (i), S is a SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. Thus it’s an 1837
δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 1838
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then Then the 1842
number of 1843
O(N SHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 1847
O(N SHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 1848
O(N SHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 1849
is one and it’s only S, a SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of 1850
multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the 1851
SuperHyperVertices. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 1852
SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. A SuperHyperVertex has either n2 or 1855
one SuperHyperNeighbors in S. If the SuperHyperVertex is non-SuperHyperCenter, then 1856
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
If the SuperHyperVertex is SuperHyperCenter, then 1857
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
Failed SuperHyperStable. A SuperHyperVertex has at most n2 SuperHyperNeighbors in 1861
S. 1862
n n
∀a ∈ S, > |N (a) ∩ S| > − 1 > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
2 2
n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
SuperHyperStable in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite which isn’t a 1864
Failed SuperHyperStable and they’re chosen from different SuperHyperParts, equally or 1867
62/94
almost equally as possible. A SuperHyperVertex has at most n2 SuperHyperNeighbors 1868
in S. 1869
n n
∀a ∈ S, > |N (a) ∩ S| > − 1 > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
2 2
n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
SuperHyperStable in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite which is 1871
neither a SuperHyperStar nor SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite. 1872

O(N SHG)
+1
(iv). By (i), {xi }i=12
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 1874
O(N SHG)
Thus it’s 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 1875
Proposition 6.24. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. The 1877
number of connected component is |V − S| if there’s a SuperHyperSet which is a dual 1878
(iv) : Failed SuperHyperStable; 1882
(v) : strong 1-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 1883
(vi) : connected 1-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 1884
Proof. (i). Consider some SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 1885
SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. These SuperHyperVertex-type have 1886
some SuperHyperNeighbors in S but no SuperHyperNeighbor out of S. Thus 1887
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
SuperHyperStable and number of connected component is |V − S|. 1889
(iv). By (i), S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. Thus it’s a 1891
dual 1-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 1892
Proposition 6.25. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then the 1894
number is at most O(N SHG) and the neutrosophic number is at most On (N SHG). 1895
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider V. All 1896
SuperHyperMembers of V have at least one SuperHyperNeighbor inside the 1897
SuperHyperSet more than SuperHyperNeighbor out of SuperHyperSet. Thus, 1898
V is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable since the following 1899
∀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.
63/94
V is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable since the following 1901
∀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 Failed SuperHyperStable since the 1903
∀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 Failed SuperHyperStable since the following 1905
∀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 Failed SuperHyperStable since the following 1907
∀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 Failed SuperHyperStable since the 1909
∀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 Failed SuperHyperStable and V is the biggest 1911
SuperHyperSet in N SHG : (V, E). Then the number is at most O(N SHG : (V, E)) and 1912
the neutrosophic number is at most On (N SHG : (V, E)). 1913
64/94
Proposition 6.26. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 1914
SuperHyperComplete. The number is O(N SHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and the neutrosophic number is 1915
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of dual 1916
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(N SHG:(V,E))

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 1920
(v) : strong ( O(N SHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 1922
Proof. (i). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 1923
SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. A SuperHyperVertex has n half 1924
SuperHyperNeighbors in S. 1925
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
SuperHyperStable in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraph. Thus the 1927
number is O(N SHG:(V,E))

2 + 1 and the neutrosophic number is 1928
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1929
t>
2
Failed SuperHyperStable. 1930
(ii). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 1931
∀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 Failed 1934

min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual strong 1937
t>
2
SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 1938
(iii). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 1939
∀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 Failed 1942

min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual connected 1945
t>
2
65/94
(iv). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 1947
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1950
Failed SuperHyperStable in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraph. Thus the 1951

min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual 1953
t>
2
( O(N SHG:(V,E))
(v). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 1955
∀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 1958
( O(N SHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable in a given 1959
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraph. Thus the number is O(N SHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and 1960
the neutrosophic number is min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a 1961
t>
2
dual strong ( O(N SHG:(V,E))

(vi). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 1963
∀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 1966
( O(N SHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable in a given 1967
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraph. Thus the number is O(N SHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and 1968
the neutrosophic number is min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a 1969
t>
2
dual connected ( O(N SHG:(V,E))

∅. The number is 0 and the neutrosophic number is 0, for an independent SuperHyperSet 1972
in the setting of dual 1973
(iv) : 0-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 1977
(v) : strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 1978
(vi) : connected 0-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 1979
66/94
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider ∅. All 1980
SuperHyperMembers of ∅ have no SuperHyperNeighbor inside the SuperHyperSet less 1981
(i). ∅ is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable since the following 1983
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |N (a) ∩ ∅| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |N (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |N (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
The number is 0 and the neutrosophic number is 0, for an independent SuperHyperSet 1985
in the setting of a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 1986
(ii). ∅ is a dual strong SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable since the 1987
∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |Ns (a) ∩ ∅| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Ns (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Ns (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
in the setting of a dual strong SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 1990
(iii). ∅ is a dual connected SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable since the 1991
∀a ∈ S, |Nc (a) ∩ S| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |Nc (a) ∩ ∅| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Nc (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Nc (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
in the setting of a dual connected SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 1994
(iv). ∅ is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable since the following 1995
∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |(N (a) ∩ ∅) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ ∅))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |(N (a) ∩ ∅) − (N (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
in the setting of a dual 0-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 1998
67/94
(v). ∅ is a dual strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable since the 1999
∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |(Ns (a) ∩ ∅) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ ∅))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |(Ns (a) ∩ ∅) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
in the setting of a dual strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 2002
(vi). ∅ is a dual connected SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable since the 2003
∀a ∈ S, |(Nc (a) ∩ S) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |(Nc (a) ∩ ∅) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ ∅))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |(Nc (a) ∩ ∅) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
in the setting of a dual connected 0-offensive SuperHyperDefensive Failed 2006
SuperHyperStable. 2007
SuperHyperComplete. Then there’s no independent SuperHyperSet. 2009
SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel. The number is 2011
O(N SHG : (V, E)) and the neutrosophic number is On (N SHG : (V, E)), in the setting 2012
of a dual 2013
(iv) : O(N SHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 2017
(v) : strong O(N SHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 2018
(vi) : connected O(N SHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 2019
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 2020
SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel. 2021
(i). Consider one SuperHyperVertex is out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 2022
Failed SuperHyperStable. This SuperHyperVertex has one SuperHyperNeighbor in S, 2023
i.e, suppose x ∈ V \ S such that y, z ∈ N (x). By it’s SuperHyperCycle, 2024
|N (x)| = |N (y)| = |N (z)| = 2. Thus 2025
∀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.
68/94
Thus it’s contradiction. It implies every V \ {x} isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive 2026
Failed SuperHyperStable in a given SuperHyperCycle. 2027
Consider one SuperHyperVertex is out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 2028
i.e, Suppose x ∈ V \ S such that y, z ∈ N (x). By it’s SuperHyperPath, 2030
|N (x)| = |N (y)| = |N (z)| = 2. Thus 2031
∀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.
Failed SuperHyperStable in a given SuperHyperPath. 2033
Consider one SuperHyperVertex is out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 2034
i.e, Suppose x ∈ V \ S such that y, z ∈ N (x). By it’s SuperHyperWheel, 2036
|N (x)| = |N (y)| = |N (z)| = 2. Thus 2037
∀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.
Failed SuperHyperStable in a given SuperHyperWheel. 2039
(iv). By (i), V is maximal and it’s a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 2041
SuperHyperStable. Thus it’s a dual O(N SHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive Failed 2042
Thus the number is O(N SHG : (V, E)) and the neutrosophic number is 2045
On (N SHG : (V, E)), in the setting of all types of a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 2046
SuperHyperStar/complete SuperHyperBipartite/complete SuperHyperMultiPartite. The 2049

min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual 2051
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(N SHG:(V,E))

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

69/94
(vi) : connected ( O(N SHG:(V,E))
SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. A SuperHyperVertex has at most n half 2059
SuperHyperNeighbors in S. If the SuperHyperVertex is the non-SuperHyperCenter, then 2060
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
If the SuperHyperVertex is the SuperHyperCenter, then 2061
∀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 2064
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

δ δ
∀a ∈ S, >n− .
2 2
SuperHyperStable in a given complete SuperHyperBipartite which isn’t a 2067
Consider n half +1 SuperHyperVertices are in S which is a dual 2069
SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable and they are chosen from different 2070
SuperHyperParts, equally or almost equally as possible. A SuperHyperVertex in S has 2071
δ half SuperHyperNeighbors in S. 2072
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

δ δ
∀a ∈ S, >n− .
2 2
SuperHyperStable in a given complete SuperHyperMultipartite which is neither a 2074
SuperHyperStar nor complete SuperHyperBipartite. 2075

O(N SHG:(V,E))
+1
(iv). By (i), {xi }i=1 2
is maximal and it’s a dual SuperHyperDefensive 2077
Failed SuperHyperStable. Thus it’s a dual O(N SHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1-SuperHyperDefensive 2078
Thus the number is O(N SHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and the neutrosophic number is 2081
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of all dual Failed 2082
t>
2
Proposition 6.31. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a SuperHyperFamily of the N SHGs : (V, E) 2084
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs which are from one-type SuperHyperClass which the 2085
result is obtained for the individuals. Then the results also hold for the 2086
SuperHyperFamily N SHF : (V, E) of these specific SuperHyperClasses of the 2087
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs. 2088
70/94
Proof. There are neither SuperHyperConditions nor SuperHyperRestrictions on the 2089
SuperHyperVertices. Thus the SuperHyperResults on individuals, N SHGs : (V, E), are 2090
extended to the SuperHyperResults on SuperHyperFamily, N SHF : (V, E). 2091
Proposition 6.32. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If 2092
S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable, then ∀v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S 2093
such that 2094
(i) v ∈ Ns (x); 2095
(ii) vx ∈ E. 2096
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 2097
Consider v ∈ V \ S. Since S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable, 2098
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (v) ∩ S| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S, v ∈ Ns (x).
(ii). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider 2099
v ∈ V \ S. Since S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable, 2100
∀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.
2101
Proposition 6.33. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If 2102
S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable, then 2103
(i) S is SuperHyperDominating set; 2104
(ii) there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic number. 2105
Consider v ∈ V \ S. Since S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable, 2107
either 2108
∀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 2109
∀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. 2110
71/94
v ∈ V \ S. Since S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable, either 2112
∀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 2113
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (v) ∩ S| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S : v ∈ Ns (x)
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S : vx ∈ E, µ(vx) = σ(v) ∧ σ(x)
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S : vx ∈ E.
Thus every SuperHyperVertex v ∈ V \ S, has at least one SuperHyperNeighbor in S. 2114
The only case is about the relation amid SuperHyperVertices in S in the terms of 2115
SuperHyperNeighbors. It implies there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic 2116
number. 2117
Proposition 6.34. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 2118
Then 2119
(i) Γ ≤ O; 2120
(ii) Γs ≤ On . 2121
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Let 2122
S = V. 2123
∀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 Failed SuperHyperStable. For all 2124
SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S, S ⊆ V. Thus for all SuperHyperSets of 2125
SuperHyperVertices S, |S| ≤ |V |. It implies for all SuperHyperSets of 2126
SuperHyperVertices S, |S| ≤ O. So for all SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices 2127
S, Γ ≤ O. 2128
(ii). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Let S = V. 2129
∀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 Failed SuperHyperStable. For all 2130
SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S, S ⊆ V. Thus for all 2131
SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 2132
S, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ Σv∈V Σ3i=1 σi (v). It implies for all SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic 2133
SuperHyperVertices S, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ On . So for all SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic 2134
SuperHyperVertices S, Γs ≤ On . 2135
72/94
Proposition 6.35. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 2136
which is connected. Then 2137
(i) Γ ≤ O − 1; 2138
(ii) Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 2139
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Let 2140
S = V − {x} where x is arbitrary and x ∈ V. 2141
∀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 Failed SuperHyperStable. For all 2142
SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, S ⊆ V − {x}. Thus for all 2143
SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, |S| ≤ |V − {x}|. It implies for all 2144
SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, |S| ≤ O − 1. So for all SuperHyperSets 2145
of SuperHyperVertices S, Γ ≤ O − 1. 2146
(ii). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Let 2147
S = V − {x} where x is arbitrary and x ∈ V. 2148
∀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 Failed SuperHyperStable. For all 2149
SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, S ⊆ V − {x}. Thus for all 2150
SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 2151
S 6= V, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ Σv∈V −{x} Σ3i=1 σi (v). It implies for all SuperHyperSets of 2152
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). So for all 2153
SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S, Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 2154
Proposition 6.36. Let N SHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperPath. Then 2155
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 2156
SuperHyperStable; 2157
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 2158
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 2159
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 2160
a dual Failed SuperHyperStable. 2161
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an odd SuperHyperPath. Let 2162
73/94
S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all vi , vj ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 2163
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 Failed 2164
SuperHyperStable. If S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } − {vi } where vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }, then 2165
∃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 2166
SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. It induces S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a 2167
dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 2168
(ii) and (iii) are trivial. 2169
(iv). By (i), S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 2170
SuperHyperStable. Thus it’s enough to show that S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual 2171
SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an odd 2172
SuperHyperPath. Let S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all 2173
vi , vj ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 2174
v ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }| = 2 >

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

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
Proposition 6.37. Let N SHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperPath. Then 2180
(i) the set S = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 2181
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and 2183
{v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }; 2184
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 2185
74/94
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 2186
dual Failed SuperHyperStable. 2187
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an even SuperHyperPath. Let 2188
S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } where for all vi , vj ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 2189
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 Failed SuperHyperStable. 2190
If S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } − {vi } where vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, then 2191
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 = 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
So {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } − {vi } where vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive 2192
Failed SuperHyperStable. It induces S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual 2193
(iv). By (i), S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 2196
SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an even 2198
SuperHyperPath. Let S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all 2199
v ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }| = 2 >

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

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
Proposition 6.38. Let N SHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperCycle. Then 2206
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 2207
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and 2209
{v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }; 2210
75/94
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } σ(s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } σ(s)}; 2211
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 2212
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an even SuperHyperCycle. Let 2214
S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } where for all vi , vj ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 2215
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 Failed SuperHyperStable. 2216
If S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } − {vi } where vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, then 2217
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 = 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
So {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } − {vi } where vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive 2218
Failed SuperHyperStable. It induces S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual 2219
(iv). By (i), S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 2222
SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an even 2224
SuperHyperCycle. Let S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all 2225
v ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }| = 2 >

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

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
Proposition 6.39. Let N SHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperCycle. Then 2232
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 2233
76/94
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 2235
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 2236
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 2237
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an odd SuperHyperCycle. Let 2239
S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all vi , vj ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 2240
v ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 }| = 2 >

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

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
(iv). By (i), S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 2247
SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an odd 2249
SuperHyperCycle. Let S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all 2250
v ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }| = 2 >

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

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
Proposition 6.40. Let N SHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperStar. Then 2257
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c} is a dual maximal Failed SuperHyperStable; 2258
77/94
(ii) Γ = 1; 2259
(iii) Γs = Σ3i=1 σi (c); 2260
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c} and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual Failed SuperHyperStable. 2261
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a SuperHyperStar. 2262
∀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 Failed SuperHyperStable. If 2263
S = {c} − {c} = ∅, then 2264
∃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 Failed SuperHyperStable. It 2265
induces S = {c} is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 2266
(iv). By (i), S = {c} is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. Thus 2268
it’s enough to show that S ⊆ S 0 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 2269
SuperHyperStable. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a SuperHyperStar. Let S ⊆ S 0 . 2270
∀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 Failed SuperHyperStable. 2271
Proposition 6.41. Let N SHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperWheel. Then 2272
6+3(i−1)≤n
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual 2273
maximal SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 2274
6+3(i−1)≤n
(ii) Γ = |{v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 |; 2275
(iii) Γs = Σ{v1 ,v3 }∪{v6 ,v9 ··· ,vi+6 ,··· ,vn }6+3(i−1)≤n Σ3i=1 σi (s); 2276
i=1
6+3(i−1)≤n
(iv) the SuperHyperSet {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is only a dual 2277
maximal SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 2278
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a SuperHyperWheel. Let 2279

6+3(i−1)≤n
S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 . There are either 2280
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 2 > 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
78/94
or 2281
∀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 2282
SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. If 2283

6+3(i−1)≤n
S 0 = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 − {z} where 2284
6+3(i−1)≤n
z ∈ S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 , then There are either 2285
∀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 2286
∀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 2287
6+3(i−1)≤n
z ∈ S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive 2288
6+3(i−1)≤n
Failed SuperHyperStable. It induces S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 2289
is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 2290
(ii), (iii) and (iv) are obvious. 2291
Proposition 6.42. Let N SHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperComplete. Then 2292
bn
2 c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 2293
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1; 2295
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} b n c+1

2
; 2296
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 2297
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an odd SuperHyperComplete. Let 2299

bn
2 c+1
S = {vi }i=1 . Thus 2300
n n
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = b c + 1 > b c − 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
b n c+1
It implies S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. If 2301
n
0 b c+1 bn
2 c+1
S = {vi }i=1 − {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1
2
, then 2302
n n
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = b c = b c = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
b n c+1 b n c+1
So S 0 = {vi }i=1
2
− {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1
2
isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive 2303
bn
2 c+1
Failed SuperHyperStable. It induces S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 2304
79/94
Proposition 6.43. Let N SHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperComplete. Then 2307
bn
2c
(ii) Γ = b n2 c; 2310
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} 2

bnc ; 2311
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 2312
bn
2c
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an even SuperHyperComplete. Let S = {vi }i=1 . 2314
Thus 2315
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 Failed SuperHyperStable. If 2316
n
0 b2c bn
2c
S = {vi }i=1 − {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1 , then 2317
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 Failed 2318
bn
2c
SuperHyperStable. It induces S = {vi }i=1 is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 2319
Proposition 6.44. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of neutrosophic 2322
SuperHyperStars with common neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet. Then 2323
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 2324
SuperHyperStable for N SHF; 2325
(ii) Γ = m for N SHF : (V, E); 2326
(iii) Γs = Σm 3
i=1 Σj=1 σj (ci ) for N SHF : (V, E); 2327
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual Failed 2328
SuperHyperStable for N SHF : (V, E). 2329
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a SuperHyperStar. 2330
∀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 Failed SuperHyperStable 2331
for N SHF : (V, E). If S = {c} − {c} = ∅, then 2332
∃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)|.
80/94
So S = {c} − {c} = ∅ isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable for 2333
N SHF : (V, E). It induces S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual maximal 2334
SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable for N SHF : (V, E). 2335
(iv). By (i), S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 2337
SuperHyperStable for N SHF : (V, E). Thus it’s enough to show that S ⊆ S 0 is a dual 2338
SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable for N SHF : (V, E). Suppose 2339
N SHG : (V, E) is a SuperHyperStar. Let S ⊆ S 0 . 2340
∀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 Failed SuperHyperStable for 2341
N SHF : (V, E). 2342
Proposition 6.45. Let N SHF : (V, E) be an m-SuperHyperFamily of odd 2343
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 2344
SuperHyperSet. Then 2345
bn
2 c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive Failed 2346
SuperHyperStable for N SHF; 2347
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 for N SHF : (V, E); 2348
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} b n c+1

2
for N SHF : (V, E); 2349
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only a dual maximal Failed 2350
SuperHyperStable for N SHF : (V, E). 2351
bn
2 c+1
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is odd SuperHyperComplete. Let S = {vi }i=1 . 2352
Thus 2353
n n
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = b c + 1 > b c − 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
b n c+1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable for 2354
bn
2 c+1 bn
2 c+1
N SHF : (V, E). If S 0 = {vi }i=1 − {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1 , then 2355
n n
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = b c = b c = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
b n c+1 b n c+1
So S 0 = {vi }i=1
2
− {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1
2
isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive 2356
bn
2 c+1
Failed SuperHyperStable for N SHF : (V, E). It induces S = {vi }i=1 is a dual 2357
maximal SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable for N SHF : (V, E). 2358
Proposition 6.46. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of even 2360
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 2361
SuperHyperSet. Then 2362
bn
2c
SuperHyperStable for N SHF : (V, E); 2364
81/94
(ii) Γ = b n2 c for N SHF : (V, E); 2365
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} 2

bnc for N SHF : (V, E); 2366
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only dual maximal Failed SuperHyperStable 2367
for N SHF : (V, E). 2368
bnc
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is even SuperHyperComplete. Let S = {vi }i=1
2
. 2369
Thus 2370
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 Failed SuperHyperStable for 2371
bn
2c bn
2c
N SHF : (V, E). If S 0 = {vi }i=1 − {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1 , then 2372
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 Failed 2373
bn
2c
SuperHyperStable for N SHF : (V, E). It induces S = {vi }i=1 is a dual maximal 2374
SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable for N SHF : (V, E). 2375
Then following statements hold; 2378
(i) if s ≥ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 2379
t-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable, then S is an 2380
s-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 2381
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 2382
t-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable, then S is a dual 2383
s-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 2384
Consider a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an t-SuperHyperDefensive Failed 2386
SuperHyperStable. Then 2387
∀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 Failed SuperHyperStable. 2388
a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual t-SuperHyperDefensive Failed 2390
∀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 Failed SuperHyperStable. 2392
82/94
(i) if s ≥ t + 2 and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 2395
t-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable, then S is an 2396
s-SuperHyperPowerful Failed SuperHyperStable; 2397
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 2398
t-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable, then S is a dual 2399
s-SuperHyperPowerful Failed SuperHyperStable. 2400
Consider a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an t-SuperHyperDefensive Failed 2402
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < t;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < t ≤ t + 2 ≤ s;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < s.
Thus S is an (t + 2)−SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. By S is an 2404
s−SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable and S is a dual 2405
(s + 2)−SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable, S is an s-SuperHyperPowerful 2406
a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual t-SuperHyperDefensive Failed 2409
∀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 Failed SuperHyperStable. By S is an 2411
(s − 2)−SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable and S is a dual 2412
s−SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable, S is an s−SuperHyperPowerful 2413
Proposition 6.49. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a[an] 2415
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following 2416
statements hold; 2417
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b 2r c + 1, then N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 2420
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then N SHG : (V, E) is an r-SuperHyperDefensive 2422
Failed SuperHyperStable; 2423
(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 2424
r-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 2425
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic 2426
SuperHyperGraph. Then 2427
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.
83/94
Thus S is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 2428
(ii). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic 2429
r r
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > b c + 1 − (b c − 1);
2 2
r r
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > b c + 1 − (b c − 1) > 2;
2 2
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2.
Thus S is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 2431
(iii). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic 2432
∀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 Failed SuperHyperStable. 2434
(iv). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic 2435
∀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 Failed SuperHyperStable. 2437
Proposition 6.50. Let N SHG : (V, E) is a[an] 2438
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following 2439
statements hold; 2440
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b 2r c + 1 if N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 2443
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if N SHG : (V, E) is an r-SuperHyperDefensive Failed 2445
(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 2447
r-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 2448
∀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
84/94
SuperHyperGraph and a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. Then 2452
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2;

r r
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2 = b c + 1 − (b c − 1);
2 2
r r
2 2
r r
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| = b c + 1, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S) = b c − 1.
2 2
SuperHyperGraph and an r-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 2454
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < r;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < r = r − 0;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < r − 0;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| = r, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| = 0.
SuperHyperGraph and a dual r-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. Then 2456
∀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.
2457
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 2459
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 2460
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b O−1

2 c + 1 if N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 2463
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if N SHG : (V, E) is an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 2465
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 2468
SuperHyperGraph and an 2- SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. Then 2470
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2;

O−1 O−1
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2 = b c + 1 − (b c − 1);
2 2
O−1 O−1
2 2
O−1 O−1
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| = b c + 1, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| = b c − 1.
2 2
85/94
SuperHyperGraph and a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. Then 2472
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2;

O−1 O−1
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2 = b c + 1 − (b c − 1);
2 2
O−1 O−1
2 2
O−1 O−1
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| = b c + 1, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S) = b c − 1.
2 2
SuperHyperGraph and an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 2474
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < O − 1;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < O − 1 = O − 1 − 0;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < O − 1 − 0;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| = O − 1, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| = 0.
SuperHyperGraph and a dual r-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. Then 2476
∀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.
2477
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 2479
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 2480
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b O−1

2 c + 1, then N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 2483
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then N SHG : (V, E) is 2485
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 2486
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 2488
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperComplete. Then 2490
O−1 O−1
2 2
O−1 O−1
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| b c + 1 − (b c − 1) > 2;
2 2
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2.
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < O − 1 − 0;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < O − 1 − 0 = O − 1;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < O − 1.
Thus S is an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 2497
∀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 Failed SuperHyperStable. 2500
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperCycle. 2502
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2 if N SHG : (V, E)) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive Failed 2504
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2 if N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 2506
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if N SHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 2508
2-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 2511
SuperHyperGraph and S is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. Then 2513
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2 = 2 − 0;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| < 2, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| = 0.
SuperHyperGraph and S is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 2515
87/94
Then 2516
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2 = 2 − 0;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| > 2, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S) = 0.
SuperHyperGraph and S is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 2518
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2 = 2 − 0;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2 − 0;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| < 2, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| = 0.
SuperHyperGraph and S is a dual r-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 2520
Then 2521
∀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.
2522
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperCycle. 2524
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2, then N SHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 2526
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2, then N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 2528
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then N SHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 2530
2-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 2533
SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperCycle. Then 2535
∀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.
88/94
∀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.
7 Applications in Cancer’s Extreme Recognition 2546
The cancer is the disease but the model is going to figure out what’s going on this 2547
phenomenon. The special case of this disease is considered and as the consequences of 2548
the model, some parameters are used. The cells are under attack of this disease but the 2549
moves of the cancer in the special region are the matter of mind. The recognition of the 2550
cancer could help to find some treatments for this disease. 2551
In the following, some steps are devised on this disease. 2552
Step 1. (Definition) The recognition of the cancer in the long-term function. 2553
Step 2. (Issue) The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called 2554
SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by 2555
this research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since 2556
there are some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and 2557
the effects of the cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another 2558
model [it’s said to be neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient 2559
perception on what’s happened and what’s done. 2560
Step 3. (Model) There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve 2561
got the names, and some general models. The moves and the traces of the cancer 2562
on the complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized 2563
by a neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, 2564
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to 2565
find either the Failed SuperHyperStable or the neutrosophic Failed 2566
SuperHyperStable in those neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. 2567
8 Case 1: The Initial Steps Toward 2568
SuperHyperBipartite as SuperHyperModel 2569
Step 4. (Solution) In the Figure (27), the SuperHyperBipartite is highlighted and 2570
featured. 2571
By using the Figure (27) and the Table (4), the neutrosophic 2572
SuperHyperBipartite is obtained. 2573
89/94
Figure 27. A SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of Failed SuperHyper-
Stable
Table 4. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyper-

Edges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite
The obtained SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the 2574
SuperHyperVertices of the connected SuperHyperBipartite N SHB : (V, E), in the 2575
SuperHyperModel (27), 2576
{V1 , {C4 , D4 , E4 , H4 },
{K4 , J4 , L4 , O4 }, {W2 , Z2 , C3 }, {C13 , Z12 , V12 , W12 },
9 Case 2: The Increasing Steps Toward 2578
SuperHyperMultipartite as SuperHyperModel 2579
Step 4. (Solution) In the Figure (28), the SuperHyperMultipartite is highlighted and 2580
featured. 2581
By using the Figure (28) and the Table (5), the neutrosophic 2582
SuperHyperMultipartite is obtained. 2583
The obtained SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the 2584
90/94
Figure 28. A SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of Failed SuperHy-
perStable
Table 5. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyper-

Edges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite
SuperHyperVertices of the connected SuperHyperMultipartite N SHM : (V, E), 2585
{{{L4 , E4 , O4 , D4 , J4 , K4 , H4 },
{S10 , R10 , P10 },
{Z7 , W7 }, {U7 , V7 }},
10 Open Problems 2587
In what follows, some “problems” and some “questions” are proposed. 2588
The Failed SuperHyperStable and the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable are 2589
defined on a real-world application, titled “Cancer’s Recognitions”. 2590
Question 10.1. Which the else SuperHyperModels could be defined based on Cancer’s 2591
recognitions? 2592
Question 10.2. Are there some SuperHyperNotions related to Failed SuperHyperStable 2593
and the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable? 2594
Question 10.3. Are there some Algorithms to be defined on the SuperHyperModels to 2595
compute them? 2596
Question 10.4. Which the SuperHyperNotions are related to beyond the Failed 2597
SuperHyperStable and the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable? 2598
91/94
Problem 10.5. The Failed SuperHyperStable and the neutrosophic Failed 2599
SuperHyperStable do a SuperHyperModel for the Cancer’s recognitions and they’re based 2600
on Failed SuperHyperStable, are there else? 2601
Problem 10.6. Which the fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are related to these 2602
SuperHyperNumbers types-results? 2603
Problem 10.7. What’s the independent research based on Cancer’s recognitions 2604
concerning the multiple types of SuperHyperNotions? 2605
11 Conclusion and Closing Remarks 2606
In this section, concluding remarks and closing remarks are represented. The drawbacks 2607
of this research are illustrated. Some benefits and some advantages of this research are 2608
highlighted. 2609
This research uses some approaches to make neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs more 2610
understandable. In this endeavor, two SuperHyperNotions are defined on the Failed 2611
SuperHyperStable. For that sake in the second definition, the main definition of the 2612
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph is redefined on the position of the alphabets. Based on 2613
the new definition for the neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, the new SuperHyperNotion, 2614
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, finds the convenient background to implement 2615
some results based on that. Some SuperHyperClasses and some neutrosophic 2616
SuperHyperClasses are the cases of this research on the modeling of the regions where 2617
are under the attacks of the cancer to recognize this disease as it’s mentioned on the 2618
title “Cancer’s Recognitions”. To formalize the instances on the SuperHyperNotion, 2619
Failed SuperHyperStable, the new SuperHyperClasses and SuperHyperClasses, are 2620
introduced. Some general results are gathered in the section on the Failed 2621
SuperHyperStable and the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. The clarifications, 2622
instances and literature reviews have taken the whole way through. In this research, the 2623
literature reviews have fulfilled the lines containing the notions and the results. The 2624
SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are the SuperHyperModels on 2625
the “Cancer’s Recognitions” and both bases are the background of this research. 2626
Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, groups of cells and 2627
embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes some 2628
SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the longest 2629
and strongest styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are formally 2630
called “ Failed SuperHyperStable” in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. The prefix 2631
“SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to figure out the background 2632
for the SuperHyperNotions. In the Table (6), some limitations and advantages of this
Table 6. A Brief Overview about Advantages and Limitations of this Research

Advantages Limitations
1. Redefining Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1. General Results
2. Failed SuperHyperStable
3. Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable 2. Other SuperHyperNumbers
4. Modeling of Cancer’s Recognitions
5. SuperHyperClasses 3. SuperHyperFamilies
2633
research are pointed out. 2634
92/94
References 2635
1. Henry Garrett, “Properties of SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 2636
SuperHyperGraph”, Neutrosophic Sets and Systems 49 (2022) 531-561 (doi: 2637
10.5281/zenodo.6456413). 2638
(http://fs.unm.edu/NSS/NeutrosophicSuperHyperGraph34.pdf). 2639
(https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nss journal/vol49/iss1/34). 2640
2. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Co-degree and Neutrosophic Degree alongside 2641
Chromatic Numbers in the Setting of Some Classes Related to Neutrosophic 2642
Hypergraphs”, J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res 1(1) (2022) 06-14. 2643
3. Henry Garrett, “Super Hyper Dominating and Super Hyper Resolving on 2644
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions in Game Theory and 2645
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 1(3) 2646
(2022) 242-263. 2647
4. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 2648
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 2649
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 2650
5. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive 2651
and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) 2652
SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 2653
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2654
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 2655
6. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 2656
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions”, 2657
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 2658
7. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 2659
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 2660
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 2661
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 2662
8. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on 2663
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in Game Theory and 2664
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 2665
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 2666
9. Henry Garrett, “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To 2667
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 2668
SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28945.92007). 2669
10. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form 2670
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 2671
Special ViewPoints”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11447.80803). 2672
11. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by 2673
Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2674
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35774.77123). 2675
12. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 2676
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s 2677
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 2678
10.13140/RG.2.2.36141.77287). 2679
93/94
13. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 2680
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 2681
10.13140/RG.2.2.29430.88642). 2682
14. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 2683
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And 2684
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 2685
10.13140/RG.2.2.11369.16487). 2686
15. Henry Garrett, “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating 2687
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2688
2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29173.86244). 2689
16. Henry Garrett, “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 2690
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in 2691
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 2692
10.13140/RG.2.2.25385.88160). 2693
17. Henry Garrett, (2022). “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs”, Ohio: E-publishing: 2694
Educational Publisher 1091 West 1st Ave Grandview Heights, Ohio 43212 2695
United States. ISBN: 979-1-59973-725-6 2696
(http://fs.unm.edu/BeyondNeutrosophicGraphs.pdf). 2697
18. Henry Garrett, (2022). “Neutrosophic Duality”, Florida: GLOBAL 2698
KNOWLEDGE - Publishing House 848 Brickell Ave Ste 950 Miami, Florida 2699
33131 United States. ISBN: 978-1-59973-743-0 2700
(http://fs.unm.edu/NeutrosophicDuality.pdf). 2701
19. F. Smarandache, “Extension of HyperGraph to n-SuperHyperGraph and to 2702
Plithogenic n-SuperHyperGraph, and Extension of HyperAlgebra to n-ary 2703
(Classical-/Neutro-/Anti-) HyperAlgebra”, Neutrosophic Sets and Systems 33 2704
(2020) 290-296. (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3783103). 2705
20. M. Akram et al., “Single-valued neutrosophic Hypergraphs”, TWMS J. App. 2706
Eng. Math. 8 (1) (2018) 122-135. 2707
21. S. Broumi et al., “Single-valued neutrosophic graphs”, Journal of New Theory 10 2708
(2016) 86-101. 2709
22. H. Wang et al., “Single-valued neutrosophic sets”, Multispace and 2710
Multistructure 4 (2010) 410-413. 2711
23. H.T. Nguyen and E.A. Walker, “A First course in fuzzy logic”, CRC Press, 2006. 2712
94/94

Using The Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To SuperHyperModel Cancer's Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Using The Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To SuperHyperModel Cancer's Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable 2

To SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled 3

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

SuperHyperStable and Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. Two different types of 11

SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperUniform, and SuperHyperClass based on that are 13

between this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions and fundamental 16

The frameworks “SuperHyperGraph” and “neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” are chosen 25

SuperHyperModels open up some avenues to research on theoretical segments and 27

SuperHyperGraph. Then a “Failed SuperHyperStable” I(N SHG) for a neutrosophic 30

SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of 31

SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge 32

in common. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then an “δ−Failed SuperHyperStable” is a 33

maximal Failed SuperHyperStable of SuperHyperVertices with maximum cardinality 34

|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ, |S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. The first Expression, 37

holds if S is an “δ−SuperHyperOffensive”. And the second Expression, holds if S is an 38

“δ−SuperHyperDefensive”; a“neutrosophic δ−Failed SuperHyperStable” is a maximal 39

neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable of SuperHyperVertices with maximum 40

neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : |S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic > 42

|S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ, |S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ. 43

The first Expression, holds if S is a “neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive”. And the 44

define a “neutrosophic” version of a Failed SuperHyperStable. Since there’s more ways 46

to get type-results to make a Failed SuperHyperStable more understandable. For the 47

sake of having neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, there’s a need to “redefine” the 48

notion of a “Failed SuperHyperStable”. The SuperHyperVertices and the 49

Failed SuperHyperStable. It’s redefined a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable if the 52

mentioned Table holds, concerning, “The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, 53

HyperEdges, and SuperHyperEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” 54

Alphabet”, “The Values of The SuperVertices&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, 56

HyperEdges&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The 58

SuperHyperEdges&The maximum Values of Its Endpoints”. To get structural examples 59

and instances, I’m going to introduce the next SuperHyperClass of SuperHyperGraph 60

foundation of previous definition in the kind of SuperHyperClass. If there’s a need to 62

called a “Failed SuperHyperStable” but otherwise, it isn’t a Failed SuperHyperStable. 64

are characterized in the disciplinary ways of the SuperHyperClass based on a Failed 67

SuperHyperStable. For the sake of having a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, 68

there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of a “neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable” 69

and a “neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable”. The SuperHyperVertices and the 70

neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined “neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” if the 73

intended Table holds. And a Failed SuperHyperStable are redefined to a “neutrosophic 74

Failed SuperHyperStable” if the intended Table holds. It’s useful to define 75

“neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s more ways to get 76

neutrosophic type-results to make a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable more 77

understandable. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 78

neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the intended Table holds. Thus SuperHyperPath, 79

SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 80

SuperHyperWheel, are “neutrosophic SuperHyperPath”, “neutrosophic 81

SuperHyperCycle”, “neutrosophic SuperHyperStar”, “neutrosophic 82

SuperHyperBipartite”, “neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite”, and “neutrosophic 83

SuperHyperWheel” if the intended Table holds. A SuperHyperGraph has a 84

“neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable” where it’s the strongest [the maximum 85

all SuperHyperVertices from a Failed SuperHyperStable.] Failed SuperHyperStable. A 87

graph is a SuperHyperUniform if it’s a SuperHyperGraph and the number of elements 88

of SuperHyperEdges are the same. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There 89

are some SuperHyperClasses as follows. It’s SuperHyperPath if it’s only one 90

SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 92

SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid 93

all SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection 94

has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one 96

SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, 97

SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 99

architectures. The SuperHyperModel is officially called “SuperHyperGraph” and 102

“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. In this SuperHyperModel, The “specific” cells and 103