Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions Titled Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer's Neutrosophic Recognition Modeled in The Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/366866983
Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled neutrosophic

Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer's Neutrosophic Recognition modeled in the
Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyper...
Preprint · January 2023

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17385.36968
CITATIONS
1 author:
Henry Garrett
205 PUBLICATIONS 834 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
On Combinatorics View project
Number Graphs And Numbers View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Henry Garrett on 04 January 2023.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

1
Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 2
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s 3
Neutrosophic Recognition modeled in the Form of 4
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs 5
Henry Garrett 7
DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com 8
Twitter’s ID: @DrHenryGarrett | DrHenryGarrett.wordpress.com

c 9
1 Abstract 10
In this research, new setting is introduced for new SuperHyperNotion, namely, 11
Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. Two different types of SuperHyperDefinitions 12
are debut for them but the research goes further and the SuperHyperNotion, 13
SuperHyperUniform, and SuperHyperClass based on that are well-defined and 14
well-reviewed. The literature review is implemented in the whole of this research. For 15
shining the elegancy and the significancy of this research, the comparison between this 16
SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions and fundamental 17
SuperHyperNumbers are featured. The definitions are followed by the examples and the 18
instances thus the clarifications are driven with different tools. The applications are 19
figured out to make sense about the theoretical aspect of this ongoing research. The 20
“Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition” are the under research to figure out the challenges 21
make sense about ongoing and upcoming research. The special case is up. The cells are 22
viewed in the deemed ways. There are different types of them. Some of them are 23
individuals and some of them are well-modeled by the group of cells. These types are all 24
officially called “SuperHyperVertex” but the relations amid them all officially called 25
“SuperHyperEdge”. The frameworks “SuperHyperGraph” and “neutrosophic 26
SuperHyperGraph” are chosen and elected to research about “Cancer’s Neutrosophic 27
Recognition”. Thus these complex and dense SuperHyperModels open up some avenues 28
to research on theoretical segments and “Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition”. Some 29
avenues are posed to pursue this research. It’s also officially collected in the form of 30
some questions and some problems. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then a 31
“neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable” In (N SHG) for a neutrosophic 32
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a 33
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a 34
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to have a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge in common. 35
Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then an “δ−Failed SuperHyperStable” is a maximal 36
Failed SuperHyperStable of SuperHyperVertices with maximum cardinality such that 37
either of the following expressions hold for the (neutrosophic) cardinalities of 38
SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 39
|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ, |S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. The first 40
Expression, holds if S is an “δ−SuperHyperOffensive”. And the second Expression, 41
holds if S is an “δ−SuperHyperDefensive”; a“neutrosophic δ−Failed SuperHyperStable” 42
is a maximal neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable of SuperHyperVertices with 43
maximum neutrosophic cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for 44
1/109
the neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 45
|S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ, |S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic < 46
|S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ. The first Expression, holds if S is a “neutrosophic 47
δ−SuperHyperOffensive”. And the second Expression, holds if S is a “neutrosophic 48
δ−SuperHyperDefensive”. It’s useful to define “neutrosophic” version of Failed 49
SuperHyperStable. Since there’s more ways to get type-results to make Failed 50
SuperHyperStable more understandable. For the sake of having neutrosophic Failed 51
SuperHyperStable, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of “Failed SuperHyperStable”. 52
The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the 53
letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to 54
assign to the values. Assume a Failed SuperHyperStable. It’s redefined neutrosophic 55
Failed SuperHyperStable if the mentioned Table holds, concerning, “The Values of 56
Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyperEdges Belong to The 57
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” with the key points, “The Values of The Vertices & 58
The Number of Position in Alphabet”, “The Values of The SuperVertices&The 59
maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The Edges&The maximum Values of 60
Its Vertices”, “The Values of The HyperEdges&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, 61
“The Values of The SuperHyperEdges&The maximum Values of Its Endpoints”. To get 62
structural examples and instances, I’m going to introduce the next SuperHyperClass of 63
SuperHyperGraph based on Failed SuperHyperStable. It’s the main. It’ll be disciplinary 64
to have the foundation of previous definition in the kind of SuperHyperClass. If there’s 65
a need to have all SuperHyperConnectivities until the Failed SuperHyperStable, then 66
it’s officially called “Failed SuperHyperStable” but otherwise, it isn’t Failed 67
SuperHyperStable. There are some instances about the clarifications for the main 68
definition titled “Failed SuperHyperStable”. These two examples get more scrutiny and 69
discernment since there are characterized in the disciplinary ways of the 70
SuperHyperClass based on Failed SuperHyperStable. For the sake of having 71
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of 72
“neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable” and “neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable”. 73
The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the 74
letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to 75
assign to the values. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined 76
“neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” if the intended Table holds. And Failed 77
SuperHyperStable are redefined “neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable” if the intended 78
Table holds. It’s useful to define “neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since 79
there’s more ways to get neutrosophic type-results to make neutrosophic Failed 80
SuperHyperStable more understandable. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 81
There are some neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the intended Table holds. Thus 82
SuperHyperPath, SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, 83
SuperHyperMultiPartite, and SuperHyperWheel, are “neutrosophic SuperHyperPath”, 84
“neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle”, “neutrosophic SuperHyperStar”, “neutrosophic 85
SuperHyperBipartite”, “neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite”, and “neutrosophic 86
SuperHyperWheel” if the intended Table holds. A SuperHyperGraph has “neutrosophic 87
Failed SuperHyperStable” where it’s the strongest [the maximum neutrosophic value 88
from all Failed SuperHyperStable amid the maximum value amid all 89
SuperHyperVertices from a Failed SuperHyperStable.] Failed SuperHyperStable. A 90
graph is SuperHyperUniform if it’s SuperHyperGraph and the number of elements of 91
SuperHyperEdges are the same. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are 92
some SuperHyperClasses as follows. It’s SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as 93
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; it’s 94
SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 95
SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid 96
all SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection 97
2/109
amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, 98
has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one 99
SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, 100
forming multi separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s SuperHyperWheel 101
if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and one 102
SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any common SuperVertex. The 103
SuperHyperModel proposes the specific designs and the specific architectures. The 104
SuperHyperModel is officially called “SuperHyperGraph” and “Neutrosophic 105
SuperHyperGraph”. In this SuperHyperModel, The “specific” cells and “specific group” 106
of cells are SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperVertices” and the common and intended 107
properties between “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells are SuperHyperModeled 108
as “SuperHyperEdges”. Sometimes, it’s useful to have some degrees of determinacy, 109
indeterminacy, and neutrality to have more precise SuperHyperModel which in this case 110
the SuperHyperModel is called “neutrosophic”. In the future research, the foundation 111
will be based on the “Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition” and the results and the 112
definitions will be introduced in redeemed ways. The neutrosophic recognition of the 113
cancer in the long-term function. The specific region has been assigned by the model 114
[it’s called SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is 115
identified by this research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified 116
since there are some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and 117
the effects of the cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s 118
said to be neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s 119
happened and what’s done. There are some specific models, which are well-known and 120
they’ve got the names, and some SuperHyperGeneral SuperHyperModels. The moves 121
and the traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and between complicated groups of 122
cells could be fantasized by a neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperCycle, 123
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). 124
The aim is to find either the longest Failed SuperHyperStable or the strongest Failed 125
SuperHyperStable in those neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. For the longest Failed 126
SuperHyperStable, called Failed SuperHyperStable, and the strongest SuperHyperCycle, 127
called neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, some general results are introduced. 128
Beyond that in SuperHyperStar, all possible SuperHyperPaths have only two 129
SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough since it’s essential to have at least three 130
SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a SuperHyperCycle. There isn’t any formation of 131
any SuperHyperCycle but literarily, it’s the deformation of any SuperHyperCycle. It, 132
literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. A basic familiarity with SuperHyperGraph 133
theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory are proposed. 134
Keywords: Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, Neutrosophic Failed 135
SuperHyperStable, Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 136
AMS Subject Classification: 05C17, 05C22, 05E45 137
2 Background 138
There are some researches covering the topic of this research. In what follows, there are 139
some discussion and literature reviews about them. 140
First article is titled “properties of SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic 141
SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [1] by Henry Garrett (2022). It’s first step toward the 142
research on neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs. This research article is published on the 143
journal “Neutrosophic Sets and Systems” in issue 49 and the pages 531-561. In this 144
research article, different types of notions like dominating, resolving, coloring, 145
Eulerian(Hamiltonian) neutrosophic path, n-Eulerian(Hamiltonian) neutrosophic path, 146
3/109
zero forcing number, zero forcing neutrosophic- number, independent number, 147
independent neutrosophic-number, clique number, clique neutrosophic-number, 148
matching number, matching neutrosophic-number, girth, neutrosophic girth, 149
1-zero-forcing number, 1-zero- forcing neutrosophic-number, failed 1-zero-forcing 150
number, failed 1-zero-forcing neutrosophic-number, global- offensive alliance, t-offensive 151
alliance, t-defensive alliance, t-powerful alliance, and global-powerful alliance are defined 152
in SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Some Classes of 153
SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are cases of research. Some 154
results are applied in family of SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 155
Thus this research article has concentrated on the vast notions and introducing the 156
majority of notions. 157
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “neutrosophic co-degree and 158
neutrosophic degree alongside chromatic numbers in the setting of some classes related 159
to neutrosophic hypergraphs” in Ref. [2] by Henry Garrett (2022). In this research 160
article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic 161
SuperHyperGraph based on general forms without using neutrosophic classes of 162
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is 163
entitled “Journal of Current Trends in Computer Science Research (JCTCSR)” with 164
abbreviation “J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res” in volume 1 and issue 1 with pages 06-14. 165
The research article studies deeply with choosing neutrosophic hypergraphs instead of 166
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results 167
based on initial background. 168
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Super Hyper Dominating 169
and Super Hyper Resolving on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions 170
in Game Theory and Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes” in Ref. [3] by Henry Garrett 171
(2022). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 172
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental SuperHyperNumber and 173
using neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s 174
published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Journal of Mathematical 175
Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with abbreviation “J Math 176
Techniques Comput Math” in volume 1 and issue 3 with pages 242-263. The research 177
article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and 178
SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results based on initial 179
background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. 180
In some articles are titled “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 181
Recognitions Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances” in 182
Ref. [4] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With 183
SuperHyperDefensive and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On 184
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of 185
Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [5] by 186
Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 187
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions” in Ref. [6] by 188
Henry Garrett (2022), “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 189
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in 190
Cancer’s Treatments” in Ref. [7] by Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperDominating 191
and SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in 192
Game Theory and Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [8] by Henry Garrett 193
(2022), “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To 194
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in 195
Ref. [9] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To 196
Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 197
Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [10] by Henry Garrett (2023), “(Neutrosophic) 198
SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by Well-SuperHyperModelled 199
4/109
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [11] by Henry Garrett (2023), 200
“Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction To Use 201
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond” 202
in Ref. [12] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in 203
Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [13] by Henry 204
Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 205
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) 206
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [14] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Neutrosophic Notions 207
Concerning SuperHyperDominating and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in 208
SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [15] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Initial Material of 209
Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some Neutrosophic Notions Based on 210
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)” in 211
Ref. [16] by Henry Garrett (2022), there are some endeavors to formalize the basic 212
SuperHyperNotions about neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. 213
Some studies and researches about neutrosophic graphs, are proposed as book in 214
Ref. [17] by Henry Garrett (2022) which is indexed by Google Scholar and has more 215
than 2347 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs” and published 216
by Ohio: E-publishing: Educational Publisher 1091 West 1st Ave Grandview Heights, 217
Ohio 43212 United State. This research book covers different types of notions and 218
settings in neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. 219
Also, some studies and researches about neutrosophic graphs, are proposed as book 220
in Ref. [18] by Henry Garrett (2022) which is indexed by Google Scholar and has more 221
than 3048 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Neutrosophic Duality” and published by 222
Florida: GLOBAL KNOWLEDGE - Publishing House 848 Brickell Ave Ste 950 Miami, 223
Florida 33131 United States. This research book presents different types of notions 224
SuperHyperResolving and SuperHyperDominating in the setting of duality in 225
neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. This research 226
book has scrutiny on the complement of the intended set and the intended set, 227
simultaneously. It’s smart to consider a set but acting on its complement that what’s 228
done in this research book which is popular in the terms of high readers in Scribd. 229
3 Motivation and Contributions 230
In this research, there are some ideas in the featured frameworks of motivations. I try 231
to bring the motivations in the narrative ways. Some cells have been faced with some 232
attacks from the situation which is caused by the cancer’s attacks. In this case, there 233
are some embedded analysis on the ongoing situations which in that, the cells could be 234
labelled as some groups and some groups or individuals have excessive labels which all 235
are raised from the behaviors to overcome the cancer’s attacks. In the embedded 236
situations, the individuals of cells and the groups of cells could be considered as “new 237
groups”. Thus it motivates us to find the proper neutrosophic SuperHyperModels for 238
getting more proper analysis on this messy story. I’ve found the neutrosophic 239
SuperHyperModels which are officially called “neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph s” and 240
“neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph s”. In this neutrosophic SuperHyperModel, the cells 241
and the groups of cells are defined as “neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices ” and the 242
relations between the individuals of cells and the groups of cells are defined as 243
“neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges ”. Thus it’s another motivation for us to do research on 244
this neutrosophic SuperHyperModel based on the “Cancer’s neutrosophic recognition s”. 245
Sometimes, the situations get worst. The situation is passed from the certainty and 246
precise style. Thus it’s the beyond them. There are three descriptions, namely, the 247
degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality, for any object based on vague 248
forms, namely, incomplete data, imprecise data, and uncertain analysis. The latter 249
5/109
model could be considered on the previous neutrosophic SuperHyperModel . It’s 250
neutrosophic SuperHyperModel . It’s neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph but it’s officially 251
called “neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph s”. The cancer is the disease but the model is 252
going to figure out what’s going on this phenomenon. The special case of this disease is 253
considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells 254
are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the 255
matter of mind. The neutrosophic recognition of the cancer could help to find some 256
treatments for this disease. The neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic 257
SuperHyperGraph are the neutrosophic SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s 258
neutrosophic recognition s” and both bases are the background of this research. 259
Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, groups of cells and 260
embedded styles. In this segment, the neutrosophic SuperHyperModel proposes some 261
neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion s based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer 262
in the forms of alliances’ styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are 263
formally called “ neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable” in the themes of jargons and 264
buzzwords. The prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to 265
figure out the background for the neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion s. The neutrosophic 266
recognition of the cancer in the long-term function. The specific region has been 267
assigned by the model [it’s called neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ] and the long cycle of 268
the move from the cancer is identified by this research. Sometimes the move of the 269
cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some determinacy, indeterminacy and 270
neutrality about the moves and the effects of the cancer on that region; this event leads 271
us to choose another model [it’s said to be neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ] to have 272
convenient perception on what’s happened and what’s done. There are some specific 273
models, which are well-known and they’ve got the names, and some general models. 274
The moves and the traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and between complicated 275
groups of cells could be fantasized by a neutrosophic SuperHyperPath (-/neutrosophic 276
SuperHyperCycle, neutrosophic SuperHyperStar, neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite, 277
neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite, neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel ). The aim is to 278
find either the optimal neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable or the neutrosophic 279
Failed SuperHyperStable in those neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. Some general 280
results are introduced. Beyond that in neutrosophic SuperHyperStar, all possible 281
neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths have only two neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges but it’s 282
not enough since it’s essential to have at least three neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges to 283
form any style of a neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. There isn’t any formation of any 284
neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle but literarily, it’s the deformation of any neutrosophic 285
SuperHyperCycle. It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. 286
Question 3.1. How to define the neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion s and to do research 287
on them to find the “ amount of neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable” of either 288
individual of cells or the groups of cells based on the fixed cell or the fixed group of cells, 289
extensively, the “amount of neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable” based on the fixed 290
groups of cells or the fixed groups of group of cells? 291
Question 3.2. What are the best descriptions for the “Cancer’s neutrosophic 292
recognition s” in terms of these messy and dense neutrosophic SuperHyperModels where 293
embedded notions are illustrated? 294
It’s motivation to find notions to use in this dense model is titled “neutrosophic 295
SuperHyperGraph s”. Thus it motivates us to define different types of “ neutrosophic 296
Failed SuperHyperStable” and “neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable” on 297
“neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ” and “neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ”. Then the 298
research has taken more motivations to define SuperHyperClasses and to find some 299
connections amid this neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion with other neutrosophic 300
6/109
SuperHyperNotion s. It motivates us to get some instances and examples to make 301
clarifications about the framework of this research. The general results and some results 302
about some connections are some avenues to make key point of this research, “Cancer’s 303
neutrosophic recognition s”, more understandable and more clear. 304
The framework of this research is as follows. In the beginning, I introduce basic 305
definitions to clarify about preliminaries. In the subsection “Preliminaries”, initial 306
definitions about neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph s and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 307
are deeply-introduced and in-depth-discussed. The elementary concepts are clarified and 308
illustrated completely and sometimes review literature are applied to make sense about 309
what’s going to figure out about the upcoming sections. The main definitions and their 310
clarifications alongside some results about new notions, neutrosophic Failed 311
SuperHyperStable and neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, are figured out in 312
sections “ neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable” and “neutrosophic Failed 313
SuperHyperStable”. In the sense of tackling on getting results and in order to make 314
sense about continuing the research, the ideas of SuperHyperUniform and Neutrosophic 315
SuperHyperUniform are introduced and as their consequences, corresponded 316
SuperHyperClasses are figured out to debut what’s done in this section, titled “Results 317
on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. As going 318
back to origin of the notions, there are some smart steps toward the common notions to 319
extend the new notions in new frameworks, neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and 320
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, in the sections “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and 321
“Results on Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. The starter research about the general 322
SuperHyperRelations and as concluding and closing section of theoretical research are 323
contained in the section “General Results”. Some general SuperHyperRelations are 324
fundamental and they are well-known as fundamental neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion s 325
as elicited and discussed in the sections, “General Results”, “ neutrosophic Failed 326
SuperHyperStable”, “neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable”, “Results on 327
SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. There are 328
curious questions about what’s done about the neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion s to 329
make sense about excellency of this research and going to figure out the word “best” as 330
the description and adjective for this research as presented in section, “ neutrosophic 331
Failed SuperHyperStable”. The keyword of this research debut in the section 332
“Applications in Cancer’s neutrosophic recognition s” with two cases and subsections 333
“Case 1: The Initial Steps Toward neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite as neutrosophic 334
SuperHyperModel ” and “Case 2: The Increasing Steps Toward neutrosophic 335
SuperHyperMultipartite as neutrosophic SuperHyperModel ”. In the section, “Open 336
Problems”, there are some scrutiny and discernment on what’s done and what’s 337
happened in this research in the terms of “questions” and “problems” to make sense to 338
figure out this research in featured style. The advantages and the limitations of this 339
research alongside about what’s done in this research to make sense and to get sense 340
about what’s figured out are included in the section, “Conclusion and Closing Remarks”. 341
4 Preliminaries 342
In this subsection, the basic material which is used in this research, is presented. Also, 343
the new ideas and their clarifications are elicited. 344
Definition 4.1 (Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [20],Definition 2.1,p.87). 345
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}
7/109
+
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 346
+
]− 0, 1 [. 347
Definition 4.2 (Single Valued Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [23],Definition 6,p.2). 348
Let X be a space of points (objects) with generic elements in X denoted by x. A

single valued neutrosophic set A (SVNS A) is characterized by truth-membership
function TA (x), an indeterminacy-membership function IA (x), and a falsity-membership
function FA (x). For each point x in X, TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) ∈ [0, 1]. A SVNS A can be
written as
A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}.
Definition 4.3. 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 4.4. 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 4.5 (Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). (Ref. [22],Definition 349
3,p.291). 350
Assume V 0 is a given set. A neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an 351
ordered pair S = (V, E), where 352
0
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued neutrosophic subsets of V ; 353
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 354
1, 2, . . . , n); 355
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued neutrosophic subsets of V ; 356
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 357
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 358
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 359
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 360
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 361
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n );
0 362
(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 . 363
8/109
Here the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the neutrosophic 364
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 365
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 366
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the neutrosophic 367
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 368
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 369
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the neutrosophic 370
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 371
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 372
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 373
Definition 4.6 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 374
(Ref. [22],Section 4,pp.291-292). 375
Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered pair S = (V, E). 376
The neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the neutrosophic 377
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vi of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) 378
could be characterized as follow-up items. 379
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 380
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 381
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 382
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 383
HyperEdge; 384
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 385
SuperEdge; 386
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 387
SuperHyperEdge. 388
If we choose different types of binary operations, then we could get hugely diverse 389
types of general forms of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG). 390
Definition 4.7 (t-norm). (Ref. [21], Definition 5.1.1, pp.82-83). 391
A binary operation ⊗ : [0, 1] × [0, 1] → [0, 1] is a t-norm if it satisfies the following 392
for x, y, z, w ∈ [0, 1]: 393
(i) 1 ⊗ x = x; 394
(ii) x ⊗ y = y ⊗ x; 395
(iii) x ⊗ (y ⊗ z) = (x ⊗ y) ⊗ z; 396
(iv) If w ≤ x and y ≤ z then w ⊗ y ≤ x ⊗ z. 397
Definition 4.8. 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 .
9/109
Definition 4.9. 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 4.10. (General Forms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 398
Assume V 0 is a given set. A neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an 399
ordered pair S = (V, E), where 400
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 401
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 402
1, 2, . . . , n); 403
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued neutrosophic subsets of V ; 404
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 405
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 406
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 407
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 408
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 409
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n ).
0 410
Here the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the neutrosophic 411
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 412
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 413
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the neutrosophic 414
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 415
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 416
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the neutrosophic 417
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 418
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 419
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 420
Definition 4.11 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 421
(Ref. [22],Section 4,pp.291-292). 422
Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered pair S = (V, E). 423
The neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the neutrosophic 424
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vi of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) 425
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 427
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 428
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 429
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 430
HyperEdge; 431
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 432
SuperEdge; 433
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 434
SuperHyperEdge. 435
10/109
This SuperHyperModel is too messy and too dense. Thus there’s a need to have 436
some restrictions and conditions on SuperHyperGraph. The special case of this 437
SuperHyperGraph makes the patterns and regularities. 438
Definition 4.12. A graph is SuperHyperUniform if it’s SuperHyperGraph and the 439
number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. 440
To get more visions on , the some SuperHyperClasses are introduced. It makes to 441
have more understandable. 442
Definition 4.13. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 443
SuperHyperClasses as follows. 444
(i). It’s neutrosophic SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as 445
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; 446
(ii). it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 447
given SuperHyperEdges; 448
(iii). it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all 449
SuperHyperEdges; 450
(iv). it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 451
given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has 452
no SuperHyperEdge in common; 453
(v). it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid 454
two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi separate sets, 455
has no SuperHyperEdge in common; 456
(vi). it’s SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 457
given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any 458
common SuperVertex. 459
Definition 4.14. 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 neutrosophic SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from 460
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V1 to neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) 461
Vs if either of following conditions hold: 462
(i) Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 463
(ii) there’s a vertex vi ∈ Vi such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 464
(iii) there’s a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi such that Vi0 , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 465
(iv) there’s a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 466
0 0
(v) there’s a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 467
(vi) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 468
0 0
(vii) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 469
(viii) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi0 , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 470
11/109
(ix) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1
0
∈ Vi+1 such that 471
0 0
Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 . 472
Definition 4.15. (Characterization of the Neutrosophic neutrosophic SuperHyperPath 473
s). 474
Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered pair S = (V, E).

A neutrosophic neutrosophic SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V1 to neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vs is
sequence of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) and neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)
V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , . . . , Vs−1 , Es−1 , Vs ,
(i) If for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | = 2, then NSHP is called path; 476
(ii) if for all Ej 0 , |Ej 0 | = 2, and there’s Vi , |Vi | ≥ 1, then NSHP is called SuperPath; 477
(iii) if for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called HyperPath; 478
(iv) if there are Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | ≥ 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called neutrosophic 479
SuperHyperPath . 480
Definition 4.16. ((neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable). 481
Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 482
(i) a Failed SuperHyperStable I(N SHG) for a SuperHyperGraph 483
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of 484
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a SuperHyperVertex to have a 485
SuperHyperEdge in common; 486
(ii) a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable In (N SHG) for a neutrosophic 487
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a 488
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that 489
there’s a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to have a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 490
in common. 491
Definition 4.17. ((neutrosophic)δ−Failed SuperHyperStable). 492
Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 493
(i) an δ−Failed SuperHyperStable is a maximal of SuperHyperVertices with a 494
maximum cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the 495
(neutrosophic) cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 496
|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ; (4.1)

|S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. (4.2)
The Expression (4.1), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the 497
Expression (4.2), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; 498
(ii) a neutrosophic δ−Failed SuperHyperStable is a maximal neutrosophic of 499
SuperHyperVertices with maximum neutrosophic cardinality such that either of 500
the following expressions hold for the neutrosophic cardinalities of 501
SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 502
|S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ; (4.3)

|S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ. (4.4)
12/109
Table 1. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHy-
perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition
(4.20)
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
(4.19)
The Expression (4.3), holds if S is a neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive. 503
And the Expression (4.4), holds if S is a neutrosophic 504
δ−SuperHyperDefensive. 505
For the sake of having a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, there’s a need to 506
“redefine” the notion of “neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. The SuperHyperVertices 507
and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. 508
In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. 509
Definition 4.18. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined 510
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph if the Table (1) holds. 511
It’s useful to define a “neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s 512
more ways to get neutrosophic type-results to make a neutrosophic more 513
understandable. 514
Definition 4.19. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 515
neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the Table (2) holds. Thus neutrosophic 516
SuperHyperPath , SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, 517
SuperHyperMultiPartite, and SuperHyperWheel, are neutrosophic neutrosophic 518
SuperHyperPath , neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle, neutrosophic 519
SuperHyperStar, neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite, neutrosophic 520
SuperHyperMultiPartite, and neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel if the Table (2) 521
holds. 522
It’s useful to define a “neutrosophic” version of a Failed SuperHyperStable. Since 523
there’s more ways to get type-results to make a Failed SuperHyperStable more 524
understandable. 525
For the sake of having a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, there’s a need to 526
“redefine” the notion of “ ”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are 527
assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the 528
usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. 529
Definition 4.20. Assume a Failed SuperHyperStable. It’s redefined a neutrosophic 530
Failed SuperHyperStable if the Table (3) holds. 531
13/109
perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition
(4.20)
5 Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable 532
Example 5.1. Assume the neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph s in the Figures (1), (2), 533
(3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12), (13), (14), (15), (16), (17), (18), (19), 534
and (20). 535
• On the Figure (1), the neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion, namely, neutrosophic 536
Failed SuperHyperStable, is up. E1 and E3 neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable 537
are some empty neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop neutrosophic 538
SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of 539
neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one neutrosophic 540
SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 is isolated 541
means that there’s no neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has it as an endpoint. Thus 542
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is contained in every given neutrosophic 543
Failed SuperHyperStable. All the following SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic 544
SuperHyperVertices is the simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed 545
SuperHyperStable. {V3 , V1 , V2 }. The SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic 546
SuperHyperVertices, {V3 , V1 , V2 }, is the simple type-SuperHyperSet of the 547
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. The SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 548
SuperHyperVertices, {V3 , V1 , V2 }, is corresponded to a neutrosophic Failed 549
SuperHyperStable I(N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 550
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a 551
SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a 552
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to have a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge in 553
common. There’re only three neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the 554
intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic Failed 555
SuperHyperStable is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the 556
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet includes only one 557
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex. But the SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic 558
SuperHyperVertices, {V3 , V1 , V2 }, doesn’t have less than two neutrosophic 559
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious 560
simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable is up. 561
To sum them up, the SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, 562
{V3 , V1 , V2 }, is the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 563
Failed SuperHyperStable. Since the SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 564
N SHG : (V, E) is the SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such 567
that there’s a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to have a neutrosophic 568
SuperHyperEdge in common and they are corresponded to a 569
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. Since it’s 570
the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of 571
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a neutrosophic 572
14/109
SuperHyperVertex to have a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge in common. There 573
aren’t only less than two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended 574
SuperHyperSet, {V3 , V1 , V2 }. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic Failed 575
SuperHyperStable, {V3 , V1 , V2 }, is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of 576
the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, {V3 , V1 , V2 }, is the SuperHyperSet, 577
{V3 , V1 , V2 }, doesn’t include only less than two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 578
in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to 579
mention that the only obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 580
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable amid those obvious simple 581
type-SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, is only 582
{V3 , V4 , V2 }. 583
Failed SuperHyperStable, is up. E1 and E3 neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable 585
are some empty neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop neutrosophic 586
SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of 587
neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one neutrosophic 588
SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 is isolated 589
means that there’s no neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has it as an endpoint. Thus 590
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is contained in every given neutrosophic 591
Failed SuperHyperStable. All the following SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic 592
SuperHyperVertices is the simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed 593
SuperHyperStable. {V3 , V1 , V2 }. The SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic 594
SuperHyperVertices, {V3 , V1 , V2 }, is the simple type-SuperHyperSet of the 595
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a 599
common. There’re only three neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the 602
intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic Failed 603
SuperHyperStable is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the 604
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet includes only one 605
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex. But the SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic 606
N SHG : (V, E) is the SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such 615
that there’s a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to have a neutrosophic 616
SuperHyperEdge in common and they are corresponded to a 617
15/109
the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, {V3 , V1 , V2 }, is the SuperHyperSet, 625
in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to 627
mention that the only obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 628
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable amid those obvious simple 629
type-SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, is only 630
{V3 , V4 , V1 }. 631
Failed SuperHyperStable, is up. E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty neutrosophic 633
SuperHyperEdges but E4 is a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms 634
of neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one neutrosophic 635
SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic 636
SuperHyperVertices, {V3 , V2 }, is the simple type-SuperHyperSet of the 637
SuperHyperVertices, {V3 , V2 }, is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of 639
a SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a 640
common. There’re only two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex inside the intended 642
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable is 643
up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed 644
SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet includes only one neutrosophic 645
SuperHyperVertex in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 646
N SHG : (V, E). But the SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, 647
{V3 , V2 }, doesn’t have less than two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex inside the 648
intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the 649
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable is up. To sum them up, the SuperHyperSet 650
of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V3 , V2 },is the non-obvious simple 651
type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. Since the 652
SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V3 , V2 }, is corresponded 653
to a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable I(N SHG) for a neutrosophic 654
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic 655
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to have a 656
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge in common and they are 657
SuperHyperSets, {V3 , V2 }, Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic Failed 663
SuperHyperStable, {V3 , V2 }, is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the 664
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, {V3 , V2 }, is the SuperHyperSet, {V3 , V2 }, 665
don’t include only more than one neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in a connected 666
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that 667
the only obvious simple type-SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic neutrosophic 668
Failed SuperHyperStable amid those obvious simple type-SuperHyperSets of the 669
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, is only {V3 , V2 }. 670
• On the Figure (4), the neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion, namely, a neutrosophic 671
Failed SuperHyperStable, is up. There’s no empty neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 672
but E3 are a loop neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge on {F }, and there are some 673
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges , namely, E1 on {H, V1 , V3 }, alongside E2 on 674
{O, H, V4 , V3 } and E4 , E5 on {N, V1 , V2 , V3 , F }. The SuperHyperSet of 675
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V4 , V1 }, is the simple type-SuperHyperSet 676
16/109
of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. The SuperHyperSet of the 677
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V4 , V1 }, is 678
SuperHyperVertex to have a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge in common. There’re 681
only three neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended SuperHyperSet. 682
Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable is up. The obvious 683
simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable is a 684
SuperHyperSet includes only one neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex since it 685
doesn’t form any kind of pairs titled to neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in 686
a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). But the 687
SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V4 , V1 }, doesn’t have less 688
than two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended SuperHyperSet. 689
Thus the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed 690
SuperHyperStable is up. To sum them up, the SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic 691
SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V4 , V1 }, is the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet 692
of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. Since the SuperHyperSet of the 693
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V4 , V1 }, is the SuperHyperSet Ss of a 694
common and it’s neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. Since it’s 697
the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, {V2 , V4 , V1 }, is a SuperHyperSet, 704
in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). 706
Failed SuperHyperStable, is up. There’s neither empty neutrosophic 708
SuperHyperEdge nor loop neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. The SuperHyperSet of 709
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V6 , V9 , V15 , V10 }, is the simple 710
type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. The 711
SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V6 , V9 , V15 , V10 }, is 712
not only one neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex inside the intended SuperHyperSet. 716
SuperHyperSet includes only one neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex thus it 719
doesn’t form any kind of pairs titled to neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in a 720
connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). But the 721
SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V6 , V9 , V15 , V10 }, doesn’t 722
have less than two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended 723
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the 724
of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V6 , V9 , V15 , V10 }, is the non-obvious 726
simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. Since 727
the SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V6 , V9 , V15 , V10 }, 728
17/109
is the SuperHyperSet Ss of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a 729
common. and it’s neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. Since it’s 731
the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of neutrosophic 732
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge in common. There aren’t only less than two 734
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended SuperHyperSet, 735
{V2 , V6 , V9 , V15 , V10 }. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic Failed 736
SuperHyperStable, {V2 , V6 , V9 , V15 , V10 }, is up. The obvious simple 737
type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, 738
{V2 , V6 , V9 , V15 , V10 }, is a SuperHyperSet, {V2 , V6 , V9 , V15 , V10 }, doesn’t include 739
only less than two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic 740
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is mentioned as the neutrosophic 741
SuperHyperModel N SHG : (V, E) in the Figure (5). 742
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, 746
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 },
is the simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 747
The SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, 748
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 },
is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of neutrosophic 749
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge in common. There’re not only one neutrosophic 751
SuperHyperVertex inside the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious 752
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable is up. The obvious simple 753
type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable is a 754
SuperHyperSet includes only one neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex doesn’t form 755
any kind of pairs titled to neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected 756
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). But the SuperHyperSet of 757
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 },
doesn’t have less than two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended 759
of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, 762
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 },
is the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed 763
SuperHyperStable. Since the SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 764
SuperHyperVertices, 765
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 },
18/109
common and it’s a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. Since it’s 768
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 },
Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, 773
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 },
is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed 774
SuperHyperStable, 775
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 },
is a SuperHyperSet, 776
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 },
doesn’t include only less than two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in a 777
connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) with a illustrated 778
neutrosophic SuperHyperModel ing of the Figure (6). 779
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V5 , V9 , V7 }, is the simple 783
SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V5 , V9 , V7 }, is 785
SuperHyperVertex to have a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge in common. There’s 788
only one neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex inside the intended SuperHyperSet. 789
any kind of pairs are titled to neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected 793
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V5 , V9 , V7 }, doesn’t have less than two 795
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the 796
non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed 797
SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V5 , V9 , V7 }, is the non-obvious simple 799
SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V5 , V9 , V7 }, is the 801
SuperHyperSet Ss of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a 802
19/109
SuperHyperSet, {V2 , V5 , V9 , V7 }. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic Failed 809
SuperHyperStable, {V2 , V5 , V9 , V7 }, is up. The obvious simple 810
type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable,{V2 , V5 , V9 , V7 }, 811
is a SuperHyperSet, {V2 , V5 , V9 , V7 }, doesn’t include only less than two 812
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 813
N SHG : (V, E) of depicted neutrosophic SuperHyperModel as the Figure (7). 814
SuperHyperVertex to have a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge in common. There’s 823
only one neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex inside the intended SuperHyperSet. 824
any kind of pairs are titled to neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected 828
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V5 , V9 , V7 }, doesn’t have less than two 830
SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V5 , V9 , V7 }, is the non-obvious simple 834
SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V5 , V9 , V7 }, is the 836
SuperHyperSet Ss of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a 837
type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable,{V2 , V5 , V9 , V7 }, 846
is a SuperHyperSet, {V2 , V5 , V9 , V7 }, doesn’t include only less than two 847
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 848
N SHG : (V, E) of dense neutrosophic SuperHyperModel as the Figure (8). 849
20/109
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 },
is the simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 854
The SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, 855
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 },
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge in common. There’re only only neutrosophic 858
SuperHyperVertex inside the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious 859
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable is up. The obvious simple 860
any kind of pairs titled to neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected 863
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 },
of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, 869
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 },
is the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed 870
SuperHyperStable. Since the SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 871
SuperHyperVertices, 872
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 },
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 }.
Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, 880
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 },
21/109
is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed 881
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 },
is a SuperHyperSet, 883
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 },
doesn’t include only less than two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in a 884
connected neutrosophic neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) with a 885
messy neutrosophic SuperHyperModel ing of the Figure (9). 886
not only two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended 896
SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet includes only two neutrosophic 899
SuperHyperVertices doesn’t form any kind of pairs are titled to 900
neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected neutrosophic 901
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). But the SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic 902
{V2 , V5 , V8 , V7 },is the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 907
SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V5 , V8 , V7 }, is the SuperHyperSet Ss of neutrosophic 909
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge in common and it’s a 911
SuperHyperStable, {V2 , V5 , V8 , V7 }, is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet 918
of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, {V2 , V5 , V8 , V7 }, is a SuperHyperSet, 919
{V2 , V5 , V8 , V7 }, doesn’t include only more than one neutrosophic 920
SuperHyperVertex in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) 921
of highly-embedding-connected neutrosophic SuperHyperModel as the Figure (10). 922
22/109
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V5 }, is the simple type-SuperHyperSet of 926
the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. The SuperHyperSet of the 927
not only less than one neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended 932
SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet includes only less than two neutrosophic 935
SuperHyperVertices don’t form any kind of pairs are titled to 936
SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V5 , V6 }, is the SuperHyperSet Ss of neutrosophic 945
in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). 957
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V4 , V5 , V6 , V9 , V10 , V2 }, is the simple 961
SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V4 , V5 , V6 , V9 , V10 , V2 }, 963
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge in common. There’re not only less than two 966
non-obvious neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable is up. The obvious simple 968
SuperHyperSet includes only less than two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 970
doesn’t form any kind of pairs are titled to neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors 971
in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). But the 972
SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V4 , V5 , V6 , V9 , V10 , V2 }, 973
23/109
of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V4 , V5 , V6 , V9 , V10 , V2 }, is the non-obvious 977
simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. Since 978
the SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, 979
{V4 , V5 , V6 , V9 , V10 , V2 }, is the SuperHyperSet Ss of neutrosophic 980
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge in common and they are 982
{V4 , V5 , V6 , V9 , V10 , V2 }. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic Failed 988
SuperHyperStable, {V4 , V5 , V6 , V9 , V10 , V2 }, is up. The obvious simple 989
type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed 990
SuperHyperStable,{V4 , V5 , V6 , V9 , V10 , V2 }, is a SuperHyperSet, 991
{V4 , V5 , V6 , V9 , V10 , V2 }, doesn’t include only more than one neutrosophic 992
SuperHyperVertex in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) 993
in highly-multiple-connected-style neutrosophic SuperHyperModel On the Figure 994
(12). 995
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V5 , V6 }, is the simple type-SuperHyperSet 999
of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. The SuperHyperSet of the 1000
not only less than two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended 1005
SuperHyperVertices don’t form any kind of pairs are titled to 1009
SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V5 , V6 }, is the SuperHyperSet Ss of neutrosophic 1018
24/109
{V2 , V5 , V6 }, does includes only less than two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in 1029
a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). 1030
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V3 , V1 }, is the simple type-SuperHyperSet of 1034
the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. The SuperHyperSet of the 1035
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V3 , V1 }, is 1036
only less than two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended 1040
SuperHyperVertices, {V3 , V1 }, doesn’t have less than two neutrosophic 1047
{V3 , V1 }, is the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 1051
SuperHyperVertices, {V3 , V1 }, is the SuperHyperSet Ss of neutrosophic 1053
SuperHyperSet, {V3 , V1 }. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic Failed 1061
SuperHyperStable, {V3 , V1 }, is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the 1062
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, {V3 , V1 }, is a SuperHyperSet, {V3 , V1 }, 1063
does includes only less than two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in a connected 1064
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). 1065
25/109
SuperHyperVertices ,{V5 , V2 , V6 , V4 }, doesn’t have less than two neutrosophic 1082
{V5 , V2 , V6 , V4 }, is the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the 1086
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. Since the SuperHyperSet of the 1087
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V5 , V2 , V6 , V4 }, is the SuperHyperSet Ss of 1088
SuperHyperVertex to have a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge in common and it’s a 1090
{V5 , V2 , V6 , V4 }, is a SuperHyperSet, {V5 , V2 , V6 , V4 }, doesn’t include only less 1099
than two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic 1100
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) as Linearly-Connected neutrosophic 1101
SuperHyperModel On the Figure (15). 1102
is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of 1109
SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V3 , V7 , V13 , V22 , V18 }, doesn’t have less than two 1119
SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V3 , V7 , V13 , V22 , V18 }, is the non-obvious simple 1123
26/109
SuperHyperSet, {V1 , V3 , V7 , V13 , V22 , V18 }. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic 1133
Failed SuperHyperStable, {V1 , V3 , V7 , V13 , V22 , V18 }, is up. The obvious simple 1134
{V1 , V3 , V7 , V13 , V22 , V18 }, is a SuperHyperSet, {V1 , V3 , V7 , V13 , V22 , V18 }, does 1136
includes only less than two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in a connected 1137
SuperHyperSet,{V1 , V3 , V7 , V13 , V22 , V18 }. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic 1169
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) as Linearly-over-packed 1174
neutrosophic SuperHyperModel is featured On the Figure (17). 1175
27/109
SuperHyperSet, {V1 , V3 , V7 , V13 , V22 , V18 }. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic 1206
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) 1211
• On the Figure (19), the neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion, namely, neutrosophic

Failed SuperHyperStable, is up. There’s neither empty neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge nor loop neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. The SuperHyperSet of
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
{interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices }the number of neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges ,
is the simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable.
The SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex to have a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge in common. There’re
only less than two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable is
up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed
SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet includes only less than two neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices doesn’t form any kind of pairs are titled to
neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). But the SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices,
doesn’t have less than two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the
28/109
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable is up. To sum them up, the SuperHyperSet
of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
is the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed

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

neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to have a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge in
common and it’s a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. Since it’s
the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of
SuperHyperVertex to have a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge in common. There
aren’t only less than two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended
SuperHyperSet,
{interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices }the number of neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges .
Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable,
is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed

SuperHyperStable,
is a SuperHyperSet,
does includes only less than two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in a connected 1212
• On the Figure (20), the neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion, namely, neutrosophic

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

The SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of

SuperHyperVertex to have a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge in common. There’re
only less than two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable is
up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed
SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet includes only less than two neutrosophic
29/109
SuperHyperVertices doesn’t form any kind of pairs are titled to
neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). But the SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices,
doesn’t have less than two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable is up. To sum them up, the SuperHyperSet
of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
is the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed

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

neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to have a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge in
common and it’s a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. Since it’s
the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of
SuperHyperVertex to have a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge in common. There
aren’t only less than two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended
SuperHyperSet,
{interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices }the number of neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges .
Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable,
is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed

SuperHyperStable,
is a SuperHyperSet, does includes only less than two neutrosophic 1214
SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1215
N SHG : (V, E). 1216
Proposition 5.2. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1217
N SHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally, V \ V \ {x, z}, is a neutrosophic 1218
Failed SuperHyperStable. In other words, the least neutrosophic cardinality, the lower 1219
sharp bound for the neutrosophic cardinality, of a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable 1220
is the neutrosophic cardinality of V \ V \ {x, z}. 1221
Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). The 1222
SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {z} is a SuperHyperSet 1223
S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a neutrosophic 1224
SuperHyperVertex to have a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge in common but it isn’t a 1225
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable . Since it doesn’t have 1226
the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic 1227
30/109
Figure 1. The neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph s Associated to the Notions of neutro-
sophic Failed SuperHyperStable in the Example (5.1)

31/109

32/109

33/109

34/109

35/109

36/109

37/109

38/109

39/109

40/109
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge in common. The SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 1229
SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {x, y, z} is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a 1230
SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices but it isn’t a neutrosophic Failed 1231
SuperHyperStable . Since it doesn’t do the procedure such that such that there’s a 1232
[there’er at least three neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside implying there’s, 1234
sometimes in the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E), a 1235
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, titled its neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, to that 1236
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in the SuperHyperSet S so as S doesn’t do “the 1237
procedure”.]. There’re only two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended 1238
SuperHyperSet, V \ V \ {x, z}. Thus the obvious neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, 1239
V \ V \ {x, z}, is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed 1240
SuperHyperStable, V \ V \ {x, z}, is a SuperHyperSet, V \ V \ {x, z}, includes only 1241
two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices doesn’t form any kind of pairs are titled 1242
neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1243
N SHG : (V, E). Since the SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 1244
V \ V \ {x, z}, is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of 1245
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that V (G) there’s a neutrosophic 1246
SuperHyperVertex to have a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge in common. 1247
N SHG : (V, E). Then the neutrosophic number of neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable 1249
has, the least neutrosophic cardinality, the lower sharp bound for neutrosophic 1250
cardinality, is the neutrosophic neutrosophic cardinality of V \ V \ {x, z} if there’s a 1251
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable with the least neutrosophic cardinality, the lower 1252
sharp bound for neutrosophic cardinality . 1253
Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). Consider 1254
there’s a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable with the least neutrosophic cardinality, 1255
the lower sharp bound for neutrosophic cardinality. The SuperHyperSet of the 1256
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {z} is a SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic 1257
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge in common but it isn’t a neutrosophic Failed 1259
SuperHyperStable . Since it doesn’t have the maximum neutrosophic cardinality 1260
of a SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a 1261
The SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {x, y, z} is the 1263
maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic 1264
SuperHyperVertices but it isn’t a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable . Since it 1265
doesn’t do the procedure such that such that there’s a neutrosophic 1266
SuperHyperVertex to have a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge in common. [there’er at 1267
least three neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside implying there’s, sometimes in the 1268
connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E), a neutrosophic 1269
SuperHyperVertex, titled its neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, to that neutrosophic 1270
SuperHyperVertex in the SuperHyperSet S so as S doesn’t do “the procedure”.]. 1271
There’re only two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended 1272
41/109
SuperHyperVertex to have a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge in common. Thus, in a 1281
connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E), the neutrosophic number of 1282
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable has, the least neutrosophic cardinality, the lower 1283
sharp bound for neutrosophic cardinality, is the neutrosophic neutrosophic cardinality of 1284
V \ V \ {x, z} if there’s a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable with the least 1285
neutrosophic cardinality, the lower sharp bound for neutrosophic cardinality . 1286
Proposition 5.4. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). 1287
If a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has z neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, then z − 2 1288
number of those interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from that neutrosophic 1289
SuperHyperEdge exclude to any neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 1290
Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). Let a 1291
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has z neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Consider z − 2 1292
number of those neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from that neutrosophic 1293
SuperHyperEdge exclude to any given SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 1294
SuperHyperVertices. Consider there’s a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable with the 1295
least neutrosophic cardinality, the lower sharp bound for neutrosophic cardinality. 1296
Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). The 1297
SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {z} is a SuperHyperSet 1298
S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a neutrosophic 1299
SuperHyperVertex to have a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge in common but it isn’t a 1300
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable . Since it doesn’t have 1301
the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic 1302
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge in common. The SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 1304
SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {x, y, z} is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a 1305
SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices but it isn’t a neutrosophic Failed 1306
SuperHyperStable . Since it doesn’t do the procedure such that such that there’s a 1307
[there’er at least three neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside implying there’s, 1309
sometimes in the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E), a 1310
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, titled its neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, to that 1311
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in the SuperHyperSet S so as S doesn’t do “the 1312
procedure”.]. There’re only two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended 1313
SuperHyperEdge has z neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, then z − 2 number of those 1324
interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from that neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 1325
exclude to any neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 1326
N SHG : (V, E). There’s only one neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has only less than three 1328
distinct interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside of any given neutrosophic 1329
Failed SuperHyperStable. In other words, there’s only an unique neutrosophic 1330
42/109
SuperHyperEdge has only two distinct neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in a 1331
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable . 1332
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has some neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Consider 1334
some numbers of those neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from that neutrosophic 1335
SuperHyperEdge excluding more than two distinct neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, 1336
exclude to any given SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices . Consider 1337
there’s neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable with the least neutrosophic cardinality, 1338
the lower sharp bound for neutrosophic cardinality. Assume a connected neutrosophic 1339
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). The SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 1340
SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {z} is a SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic 1341
connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E), there’s only one 1366
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has only less than three distinct interior neutrosophic 1367
SuperHyperVertices inside of any given neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. In other 1368
words, there’s only an unique neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has only two distinct 1369
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable . 1370
The all interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong to any neutrosophic Failed 1372
SuperHyperStable if for any of them, there’s no other corresponded neutrosophic 1373
SuperHyperVertex such that the two interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are 1374
mutually neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors with an exception once. 1375
Proof. Let a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has some neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. 1376
Consider all numbers of those neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from that neutrosophic 1377
exclude to any given SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Consider 1379
43/109
connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E), the all interior neutrosophic 1408
SuperHyperVertices belong to any neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable if for any of 1409
them, there’s no other corresponded neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex such that the two 1410
interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are mutually neutrosophic 1411
SuperHyperNeighbors with an exception once. 1412
The any neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable only contains all interior neutrosophic 1414
SuperHyperVertices and all exterior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices where there’s any 1415
of them has no neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s no neutrosophic 1416
SuperHyperNeighborhoods in with an exception once but everything is possible about 1417
neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhoods and neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors out. 1418
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has some neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Consider all 1420
numbers of those neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from that neutrosophic 1421
44/109
connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E), the any neutrosophic Failed 1452
SuperHyperStable only contains all interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and all 1453
exterior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices where there’s any of them has no 1454
neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s no neutrosophic 1455
SuperHyperNeighborhoods in with an exception once but everything is possible about 1456
neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhoods and neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors 1457
out. 1458
Remark 5.8. The words “ neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable” and 1459
“SuperHyperDominating” both refer to the maximum type-style. In other words, they 1460
both refer to the maximum number and the SuperHyperSet with the maximum 1461
neutrosophic cardinality. 1462
N SHG : (V, E). Consider a SuperHyperDominating. Then a neutrosophic Failed 1464
SuperHyperStable is either out with one additional member. 1465
Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). Consider 1466
a SuperHyperDominating. By applying the Proposition (5.7), the results are up. Thus 1467
on a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E), and in a 1468
SuperHyperDominating, a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable is either out with one 1469
additional member. 1470
6 Results on Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses 1471
Proposition 6.1. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperPath N SHP : (V, E). 1472
Then a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable-style with the maximum neutrosophic 1473
SuperHyperCardinality is a SuperHyperSet of the interior neutrosophic 1474
SuperHyperVertices . 1475
Proposition 6.2. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperPath N SHP : (V, E). 1476
Then a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet of the interior 1477
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with only all exceptions in the form of interior 1478
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from the common neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges 1479
excluding only two interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from the common 1480
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges . A neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable has the 1481
45/109
number of all the interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices minus their neutrosophic 1482
SuperHyperNeighborhoods plus one. Thus, 1483
N eutrosophic neutrosophicF ailedSuperHyperStable = {The number-of-all

-the-SuperHyperVertices
-minus-SuperHyperNeighborhoods-plus-one
SuperHyperSets of the
SuperHyperVertices | min |the
SuperHyperSets of the SuperHyperVertices with only
two exceptions
in the form of
interior
SuperHyperVertices
excluding one from common
SuperHyperEdge.|neutrosophic cardinality amid those SuperHyperSets. }
Where σi is the unary operation on the SuperHyperVertices of the SuperHyperGraph to 1484
assign the determinacy, the indeterminacy and the neutrality, for i = 1, 2, 3, respectively. 1485
Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperPath N SHP : (V, E). Let a 1486
46/109
perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath Mentioned in the Example
(6.3)
connected neutrosophic SuperHyperPath N SHP : (V, E), a neutrosophic Failed 1519
SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet of the interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 1520
with only all exceptions in the form of interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from 1521
the common neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges excluding only two interior neutrosophic 1522
SuperHyperVertices from the common neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges . A neutrosophic 1523
Failed SuperHyperStable has the number of all the interior neutrosophic 1524
SuperHyperVertices minus their neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhoods plus one. 1525
Thus, 1526

-minus-SuperHyperNeighborhoods-plus-one
SuperHyperVertices | min |the
SuperHyperSets of the SuperHyperVertices with only
two exceptions
in the form of
interior
SuperHyperVertices
excluding one from common
assign the determinacy, the indeterminacy and the neutrality, for i = 1, 2, 3, 1528
respectively. 1529
Example 6.3. In the Figure (21), the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperPath 1530
N SHP : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. 1531
By using the Figure (21) and the Table (4), the neutrosophic SuperHyperPath is 1532
obtained. 1533
The SuperHyperSet, {V27 , V2 , V7 , V12 , V22 , V25 }, of the neutrosophic 1534
SuperHyperVertices of the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperPath N SHP : (V, E), in 1535
the neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (21), is the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 1536
Proposition 6.4. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle N SHC : (V, E). 1537
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with only all exceptions in the form of interior 1539
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from the same neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhoods 1540
excluding one neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex. A neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable 1541
has the number of all the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges plus one and the lower bound is 1542
47/109
Figure 21. A neutrosophic SuperHyperPath Associated to the Notions of neutrosophic
Failed SuperHyperStable in the Example (6.3)
the half number of all the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges plus one. Thus, 1543

-the-SuperHyperEdges
-plus-one
SuperHyperVertices | min |the SuperHyperSets of the
SuperHyperVertices with only
all exceptions in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices
excluding one
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex
from same
neutrosophic
Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle N SHC : (V, E). Let a 1546
48/109
connected neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle N SHC : (V, E), a neutrosophic Failed 1579
with only all exceptions in the form of interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from 1581
the same neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhoods excluding one neutrosophic 1582
SuperHyperVertex. A neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable has the number of all the 1583
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges plus one and the lower bound is the half number of all 1584
the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges plus one. Thus, 1585

-the-SuperHyperEdges
-plus-one
all exceptions in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices
excluding one
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex
from same
neutrosophic
respectively. 1588
Example 6.5. In the Figure (22), the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle 1589
N SHC : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. 1590
49/109
perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle Mentioned in the Example
(6.5)
Figure 22. A neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle Associated to the Notions of neutrosophic

By using the Figure (22) and the Table (5), the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle is 1591
obtained. 1592
The obtained SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the 1593
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle 1594
N SHC : (V, E), in the neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (22), 1595
{{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 neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 1596
Proposition 6.6. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperStar N SHS : (V, E). 1597
50/109
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, excluding the SuperHyperCenter, with only all 1599
exceptions in the form of interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from common 1600
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, excluding only one neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex. A 1601
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable has the number of the neutrosophic cardinality of 1602
the second SuperHyperPart plus one. Thus, 1603

-the-neutrosophic-
cardinality-of-second-SuperHyperPart-plus-one
two exceptions in
the form of
interior
SuperHyperVertices,
excluding one
SuperHyperVertex
and the SuperHyperCenter,
from any
given SuperHyperEdge.|neutrosophic cardinality amid those SuperHyperSets. }
Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperStar N SHS : (V, E). Let a 1606
51/109
connected neutrosophic SuperHyperStar N SHS : (V, E), a neutrosophic Failed 1639
SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet of the interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, 1640
excluding the SuperHyperCenter, with only all exceptions in the form of interior 1641
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from common neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, 1642
excluding only one neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex. A neutrosophic Failed 1643
SuperHyperStable has the number of the neutrosophic cardinality of the second 1644
SuperHyperPart plus one. Thus, 1645

-the-neutrosophic-
cardinality-of-second-SuperHyperPart-plus-one
two exceptions in
the form of
interior
SuperHyperVertices,
excluding one
SuperHyperVertex
and the SuperHyperCenter,
from any
given SuperHyperEdge.|neutrosophic cardinality amid those SuperHyperSets. }
respectively. 1648
Example 6.7. In the Figure (23), the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperStar 1649
N SHS : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. 1650
By using the Figure (23) and the Table (6), the neutrosophic SuperHyperStar is 1651
obtained. 1652
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperStar 1654
52/109
perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar Mentioned in the Example
(6.7)
Figure 23. A neutrosophic SuperHyperStar Associated to the Notions of neutrosophic

N SHS : (V, E), in the neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), 1655
{{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 6.8. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite 1657
N SHB : (V, E). Then a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet of 1658
the interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with only all exceptions in the form of 1659
interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices titled neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors with 1660
only one exception. A neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable has the number of the 1661
neutrosophic cardinality of the first SuperHyperPart multiplies with the neutrosophic 1662
53/109
cardinality of the second SuperHyperPart plus one. Thus, 1663

-of-neutrosophic-cardinality-of-first-SuperHyperPart-multiplies-
second-one-plus-plus
SuperHyperSets of the SuperHyperVertices | min |
the SuperHyperSets of the
interior neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices,
with only all
exceptions in the form
of SuperHyperNeighbors
excluding one,
from same
SuperHyperEdge.
|neutrosophic cardinality amid those SuperHyperSets. }
Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite N SHB : (V, E). Let a 1666
54/109
connected neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite N SHB : (V, E), a neutrosophic Failed 1699
with only all exceptions in the form of interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices titled 1701
neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors with only one exception. a neutrosophic Failed 1702
SuperHyperStable has the number of the neutrosophic cardinality of the first 1703
SuperHyperPart multiplies with the neutrosophic cardinality of the second 1704
SuperHyperPart plus one. Thus, 1705

-of-neutrosophic-cardinality-of-first-SuperHyperPart-multiplies-
second-one-plus-plus
SuperHyperSets of the SuperHyperVertices | min |
the SuperHyperSets of the
interior neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices,
with only all
exceptions in the form
of SuperHyperNeighbors
excluding one,
from same
SuperHyperEdge.
respectively. 1708
Example 6.9. In the Figure (24), the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite 1709
N SHB : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. 1710
By using the Figure (24) and the Table (7), the neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite 1711
N SHB : (V, E), is obtained. 1712
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite 1714
N SHB : (V, E), in the neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (24), 1715
{V1 , {C4 , D4 , E4 , H4 },
{K4 , J4 , L4 , O4 }, {W2 , Z2 , C3 }, {C13 , Z12 , V12 , W12 },
Proposition 6.10. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite 1717
N SHM : (V, E). Then a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet of 1718
the interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with only one exception in the form of 1719
interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from a SuperHyperPart and only one 1720
exception in the form of interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from another 1721
SuperHyperPart titled “neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors ” with neglecting and 1722
55/109
Table 7. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyper-
Edges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite Mentioned in the Example
(6.9)
Figure 24. A neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of neutro-

56/109
ignoring one of them. A neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable has the number of all the 1723
summation on the neutrosophic cardinality of the all SuperHyperParts form distinct 1724
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges plus one. Thus, 1725
N eutrosophic neutrosophicF ailedSuperHyperStable = {the-number-of-all-the-

summation-on-the-
neutrosophic-
cardinality-of-the-all-
SuperHyperParts-form-
distinct-neutrosophic-
SuperHyperEdges-
plus-one
SuperHyperSets of the SuperHyperVertices | min | of the interior
neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices
with only one
exception in the
form of interior
neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices
from a SuperHyperPart
and only one
exception in the form
of interior
neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices
from another
SuperHyperPart titled
“neutrosophic
SuperHyperNeighbors ” with
neglecting and
ignoring one of them.
Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite N SHM : (V, E). Let 1728
a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has some neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Consider 1729
all numbers of those neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from that neutrosophic 1730
57/109
connected neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite N SHM : (V, E), a neutrosophic Failed 1761
with only one exception in the form of interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from a 1763
SuperHyperPart and only one exception in the form of interior neutrosophic 1764
SuperHyperVertices from another SuperHyperPart titled “neutrosophic 1765
SuperHyperNeighbors ” with neglecting and ignoring one of them. a neutrosophic Failed 1766
SuperHyperStable has the number of all the summation on the neutrosophic cardinality 1767
58/109
of the all SuperHyperParts form distinct neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges plus one. Thus, 1768
N eutrosophic neutrosophicF ailedSuperHyperStable = {the-number-of-all-the-

summation-on-the-
neutrosophic-
cardinality-of-the-all-
SuperHyperParts-form-
distinct-neutrosophic-
SuperHyperEdges-
plus-one
SuperHyperSets of the SuperHyperVertices | min | of the interior
neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices
with only one
exception in the
form of interior
neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices
from a SuperHyperPart
and only one
exception in the form
of interior
neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices
from another
SuperHyperPart titled
“neutrosophic
SuperHyperNeighbors ” with
neglecting and
ignoring one of them.
respectively. 1771
Example 6.11. In the Figure (25), the connected neutrosophic 1772
SuperHyperMultipartite N SHM : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. By using the 1773
Figure (25) and the Table (8), the neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite 1774
N SHM : (V, E), is obtained. 1775
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected neutrosophic 1777
SuperHyperMultipartite N SHM : (V, E), 1778
{{{L4 , E4 , O4 , D4 , J4 , K4 , H4 },
{S10 , R10 , P10 },
{Z7 , W7 }, {U7 , V7 }},
59/109
Edges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite N SHM : (V, E), Mentioned
in the Example (6.11)
Figure 25. A neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of

neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in the Example (6.11)
in the neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the neutrosophic Failed 1779
SuperHyperStable. 1780
Proposition 6.12. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 1781
N SHW : (V, E). Then a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet of 1782
the interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, excluding the SuperHyperCenter, with 1783
only one exception in the form of interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from same 1784
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge with the exclusion once. A neutrosophic Failed 1785
SuperHyperStable has the number of all the number of all the neutrosophic 1786
SuperHyperEdges have no common neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors for a 1787
60/109
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex with the exclusion once. Thus, 1788
N eutrosophic F ailed SuperHyperStable =

{ The-number-
of-all-the-number-of-all-the-neutrosophic-SuperHyperEdges-
have-no-common-neutrosophic-SuperHyperNeighbors-for-a-
neutrosophic-SuperHyperVertex-with-the-exclusion-once
SuperHyperSets of the SuperHyperVertices | min | SuperHyperSet
of the interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, excluding the
SuperHyperCenter, with only one exception in
the form of interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from
same neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge with
the exclusion once.|neutrosophic cardinality amid those SuperHyperSets. }
Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E). Let a 1791
connected neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E), a neutrosophic Failed 1824
61/109
Edges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E), Mentioned in
the Example (6.13)
SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet of the interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, 1825
excluding the SuperHyperCenter, with only one exception in the form of interior 1826
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from same neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge with the 1827
exclusion once. a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable has the number of all the 1828
number of all the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges have no common neutrosophic 1829
SuperHyperNeighbors for a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex with the exclusion once. 1830
Thus, 1831
N eutrosophic F ailed SuperHyperStable =

{ The-number-
of-all-the-number-of-all-the-neutrosophic-SuperHyperEdges-
have-no-common-neutrosophic-SuperHyperNeighbors-for-a-
neutrosophic-SuperHyperVertex-with-the-exclusion-once
SuperHyperSets of the SuperHyperVertices | min | SuperHyperSet
of the interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, excluding the
SuperHyperCenter, with only one exception in
the form of interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from
same neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge with
the exclusion once.|neutrosophic cardinality amid those SuperHyperSets. }
respectively. 1834
Example 6.13. In the Figure (26), the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 1835
N SHW : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. 1836
By using the Figure (26) and the Table (9), the neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 1837
N SHW : (V, E), is obtained. 1838
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 1840
N SHW : (V, E), 1841
{V5 ,
{Z13 , W13 , U13 , V13 , O14 },
{T10 , K10 , J10 },
{E7 , C7 , Z6 }, {K7 , J7 , L7 },
{T14 , U14 , R15 , S15 }},
62/109
Figure 26. A neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel Associated to the Notions of neutrosophic
7 General Neutrosophic Results 1844
For the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, and the neutrosophic Failed 1845
SuperHyperStable, some general results are introduced. 1846
Remark 7.1. Let remind that the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable is “redefined” 1847
on the positions of the alphabets. 1848
Corollary 7.2. Assume neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. Then 1849
N eutrosophic neutrosophicF ailedSuperHyperStable =

{theneutrosophicF ailedSuperHyperStableof theneutrosophicSuperHyperV ertices |
max |SuperHyperDef ensiveSuperHyper
Stable|neutrosophiccardinalityamidthoseneutrosophicF ailedSuperHyperStable. }
Where σi is the unary operation on the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the 1850
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph to assign the determinacy, the indeterminacy and the 1851
neutrality, for i = 1, 2, 3, respectively. 1852
Corollary 7.3. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the same identical letter 1853
of the alphabet. Then the notion of neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable and 1854
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable coincide. 1855
of the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is 1857
a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable if and only if it’s a neutrosophic Failed 1858
SuperHyperStable . 1859
of the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is 1861
a strongest neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle if and only if it’s a longest neutrosophic 1862
SuperHyperCycle . 1863
Corollary 7.6. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the 1864
same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable is 1865
its neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable and reversely. 1866
63/109
Corollary 7.7. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperPath (-/neutrosophic 1867
neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite, neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel ) on the same 1869
identical letter of the alphabet. Then its neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable is its 1870
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable and reversely. 1871
Corollary 7.8. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its neutrosophic 1872
Failed SuperHyperStable isn’t well-defined if and only if its neutrosophic Failed 1873
SuperHyperStable isn’t well-defined. 1874
Corollary 7.9. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then 1875
its neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable isn’t well-defined if and only if its neutrosophic 1876
Failed SuperHyperStable isn’t well-defined. 1877
neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite, neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel ). Then its 1880
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable isn’t well-defined if and only if its neutrosophic 1881
Failed SuperHyperStable isn’t well-defined. 1882
Corollary 7.11. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its neutrosophic 1883
Failed SuperHyperStable is well-defined if and only if its neutrosophic Failed 1884
SuperHyperStable is well-defined. 1885
Corollary 7.12. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 1886
Then its neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable is well-defined if and only if its 1887
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable is well-defined. 1888
neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite, neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel ). Then its 1891
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable is well-defined if and only if its neutrosophic 1892
Failed SuperHyperStable is well-defined. 1893
Proposition 7.14. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then V 1894
is 1895
(i) : the dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 1896
(ii) : the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 1897
(iii) : the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 1898
(iv) : the δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 1899
(v) : the strong δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 1900
(vi) : the connected δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 1901
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider V. All 1902
SuperHyperMembers of V have at least one neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor inside 1903
the SuperHyperSet more than neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor out of SuperHyperSet. 1904
Thus, 1905
64/109
(i). V is the dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable since 1906
the following statements are equivalent. 1907
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > |N (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > |N (a) ∩ ∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(ii). V is the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable 1908
since the following statements are equivalent. 1909
∀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 neutrosophic Failed 1910
SuperHyperStable since the following statements are equivalent. 1911
∀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 neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable since 1912
∀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 neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable 1914
∀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.
65/109
(vi). V is connected δ-dual neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable since the following 1916
statements are equivalent. 1917
∀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.
1918
Proposition 7.15. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then 1919
∅ is 1920
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 1921
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 1922
(iii) : the connected defensive SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed 1923
SuperHyperStable; 1924
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 1925
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 1926
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 1927
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider ∅. All 1928
SuperHyperMembers of ∅ have no neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor inside the 1929
SuperHyperSet less than neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor out of SuperHyperSet. 1930
Thus, 1931
(i). ∅ is the SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable since the 1932
following statements are equivalent. 1933
∀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 neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable since 1934
∀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.
66/109
(iii). ∅ is the connected SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable 1936
∀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 neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable since the 1938
∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |(N (a) ∩ ∅) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ ∅))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |(N (a) ∩ ∅) − (N (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
(v). ∅ is the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable since 1940
∀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 neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable 1942
∀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.
1944
Proposition 7.16. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then an 1945
independent SuperHyperSet is 1946
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 1947
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 1948
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 1949
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 1950
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 1951
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 1952
67/109
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider S. All 1953
SuperHyperMembers of S have no neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor inside the 1954
Thus, 1956
(i). An independent SuperHyperSet is the SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed 1957
∀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 neutrosophic 1959
Failed SuperHyperStable since the following statements are equivalent. 1960
∀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 1961
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable since the following statements are equivalent. 1962
∀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 neutrosophic Failed 1963
∀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 neutrosophic 1965
Failed SuperHyperStable since the following statements are equivalent. 1966
∀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.
68/109
(vi). An independent SuperHyperSet is the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive 1967
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable since the following statements are equivalent. 1968
∀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.
1969
Proposition 7.17. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform 1970
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle /neutrosophic 1971
SuperHyperPath . Then V is a maximal 1972
(i) : SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 1973
(ii) : strong SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 1974
(iii) : connected SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 1975
(iv) : O(N SHG)-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 1976
(v) : strong O(N SHG)-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 1977
(vi) : connected O(N SHG)-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 1978
Where the exterior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and the interior neutrosophic 1979
SuperHyperVertices coincide. 1980
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 1981
SuperHyperUniform neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle /neutrosophic SuperHyperPath . 1982
(i). Consider one segment is out of S which is SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic 1983
Failed SuperHyperStable. This segment has 2t neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in S, 1984
i.e, Suppose xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S such that yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By it’s 1985
the exterior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and the interior neutrosophic 1986
SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s SuperHyperUniform neutrosophic 1987
SuperHyperCycle, |N (xii=1,2,...,t )| = |N (yii=1,2,...,t )| = |N (zii=1,2,...,t )| = 2t. Thus 1988
∀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 1989
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in a given SuperHyperUniform neutrosophic 1990
Consider one segment, with two segments related to the SuperHyperLeaves as 1992
exceptions, is out of S which is SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed 1993
69/109
SuperHyperStable. This segment has 2t neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in S, i.e, 1994
Suppose xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S such that yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By it’s the 1995
exterior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and the interior neutrosophic 1996
SuperHyperPath, |N (xii=1,2,...,t )| = |N (yii=1,2,...,t )| = |N (zii=1,2,...,t )| = 2t. Thus 1998
∀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.
(ii), (iii) are obvious by (i). 2002
(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal and it’s a SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed 2003
SuperHyperStable. Thus it’s |V |-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed 2004
(v), (vi) are obvious by (iv). 2006
Proposition 7.18. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 2007
SuperHyperUniform neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel . Then V is a maximal 2008
(i) : dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 2009
(ii) : strong dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 2010
(iii) : connected dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 2011
(iv) : O(N SHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 2012
(v) : strong O(N SHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed 2013
(vi) : connected O(N SHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed 2015
Where the exterior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and the interior neutrosophic 2017
SuperHyperVertices coincide. 2018
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform neutrosophic 2019
SuperHyperGraph which is a neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel . 2020
i.e, Suppose 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 ). 2023
By it’s the exterior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and the interior neutrosophic 2024
70/109
SuperHyperWheel, |N (xii=1,2,...,t )| = |N (yii=1,2,...,t )| = |N (zii=1,2,...,t )| = 3t. Thus 2026
∀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 2027
SuperHyperWheel . 2029
(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal and it is a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic 2031
Failed SuperHyperStable. Thus it’s a dual |V |-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic 2032
Failed SuperHyperStable. 2033
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle /neutrosophic 2036
SuperHyperPath . Then the number of 2037
(i) : the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 2038
(ii) : the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 2039
(iii) : the connected neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 2040
(iv) : the O(N SHG)-neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 2041
(v) : the strong O(N SHG)-neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 2042
(vi) : the connected O(N SHG)-neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 2043
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and the 2044
interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices coincide. 2045
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 2046
SuperHyperUniform neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle /neutrosophic SuperHyperPath . 2047
i.e, Suppose xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S such that yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By it’s 2050
the exterior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and the interior neutrosophic 2051
71/109
SuperHyperCycle, |N (xii=1,2,...,t )| = |N (yii=1,2,...,t )| = |N (zii=1,2,...,t )| = 2t. Thus 2053
∀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.
Consider one segment, with two segments related to the SuperHyperLeaves as 2057
exceptions, is out of S which is SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed 2058
SuperHyperStable. This segment has 2t neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in S, i.e, 2059
Suppose xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S such that yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By it’s the 2060
exterior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and the interior neutrosophic 2061
SuperHyperPath, |N (xii=1,2,...,t )| = |N (yii=1,2,...,t )| = |N (zii=1,2,...,t )| = 2t. Thus 2063
∀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.
(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal and it’s a SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed 2068
SuperHyperStable. Thus it’s |V |-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed 2069
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel . Then the 2073
number of 2074
(i) : the dual neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 2075
(ii) : the dual neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 2076
(iii) : the dual connected neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 2077
(iv) : the dual O(N SHG)-neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 2078
72/109
(v) : the strong dual O(N SHG)-neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 2079
(vi) : the connected dual O(N SHG)-neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 2080
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and the 2081
interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices coincide. 2082
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform neutrosophic 2083
SuperHyperGraph which is a neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel . 2084
i.e, Suppose 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 ). 2087
By it’s the exterior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and the interior neutrosophic 2088
SuperHyperWheel, |N (xii=1,2,...,t )| = |N (yii=1,2,...,t )| = |N (zii=1,2,...,t )| = 3t. Thus 2090
∀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 2091
SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in a given 2092
SuperHyperUniform neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel . 2093
(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal and it’s a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed 2095
SuperHyperStable. Thus it isn’t an |V |-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed 2096
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a neutrosophic SuperHyperStar 2100
/SuperHyperComplete neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite /SuperHyperComplete 2101
neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite . Then a SuperHyperSet contains [the 2102
SuperHyperCenter and] the half of multiplying r with the number of all the neutrosophic 2103
SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is a 2104
O(N SHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 2108
(v) : strong O(N SHG)

2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed 2109
73/109
(vi) : connected O(N SHG)
Proof. (i). Consider n half +1 neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are in S which is 2113
SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. A neutrosophic 2114
SuperHyperVertex has either n2 or one neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in S. If the 2115
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is non-SuperHyperCenter, then 2116
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
If the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is SuperHyperCenter, then 2117
∀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 neutrosophic Failed 2118
SuperHyperStable in a given neutrosophic SuperHyperStar . 2119
Consider n half +1 neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are in S which is 2120
SuperHyperVertex has at most n2 neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in S. 2122
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 neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite 2124
which isn’t a neutrosophic SuperHyperStar . 2125
SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable and they’re chosen from 2127
different SuperHyperParts, equally or almost equally as possible. A neutrosophic 2128
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 neutrosophic 2131
SuperHyperMultipartite which is neither a neutrosophic SuperHyperStar nor 2132
SuperHyperComplete neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite . 2133

O(N SHG)
+1
(iv). By (i), {xi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed 2135
SuperHyperStable. Thus it’s O(N SHG) 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic 2136
neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite . Then a SuperHyperSet contains the half of 2142
multiplying r with the number of all the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges plus one of all 2143
the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart is a 2144
74/109
(iv) : δ-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 2148
(v) : strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 2149
(vi) : connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 2150
Proof. (i). Consider the half of multiplying r with the number of all the neutrosophic 2151
SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in the biggest 2152
SuperHyperPart are in S which is SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed 2153
SuperHyperStable. A neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex has either n − 1, 1 or zero 2154
neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in S. If the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is in S, 2155
then 2156
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 0 < 1.
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed 2157
Consider the half of multiplying r with the number of all the neutrosophic 2159
SuperHyperStable. A neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex has no neutrosophic 2162
SuperHyperNeighbor in S. 2163
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 0 < δ.
Consider the half of multiplying r with the number of all the neutrosophic 2167
SuperHyperStable. A neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex has no neutrosophic 2170
SuperHyperNeighbor in S. 2171
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 0 < δ.
(iv). By (i), S is a SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 2177
Thus it’s an δ-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 2178
neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite . Then Then the number of 2183
75/109
O(N SHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 2187
(v) : strong O(N SHG)

(vi) : connected O(N SHG)

is one and it’s only S, a SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of 2192
multiplying r with the number of all the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges plus one of all 2193
the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Where the exterior neutrosophic 2194
SuperHyperVertices and the interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices coincide. 2195
SuperHyperVertex has either n2 or one neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in S. If the 2198
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is non-SuperHyperCenter, then 2199
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
If the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is SuperHyperCenter, then 2200
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
n n
∀a ∈ S, > |N (a) ∩ S| > − 1 > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
2 2
n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable and they’re chosen from 2210
n n
∀a ∈ S, > |N (a) ∩ S| > − 1 > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
2 2
n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
76/109

O(N SHG)
+1
(iv). By (i), {xi }i=1
2
O(N SHG)
SuperHyperStable. Thus it’s 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic 2219
Proposition 7.24. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. The 2222
number of connected component is |V − S| if there’s a SuperHyperSet which is a dual 2223
(iv) : neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 2227
(v) : strong 1-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 2228
(vi) : connected 1-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 2229
Proof. (i). Consider some neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 2230
SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. These neutrosophic 2231
SuperHyperVertex -type have some neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in S but no 2232
neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor out of S. Thus 2233
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
SuperHyperStable and number of connected component is |V − S|. 2235
(iv). By (i), S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 2237
Thus it’s a dual 1-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 2238
Proposition 7.25. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then the 2240
number is at most O(N SHG) and the neutrosophic number is at most On (N SHG). 2241
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider V. All 2242
SuperHyperMembers of V have at least one neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor inside 2243
the SuperHyperSet more than neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor out of SuperHyperSet. 2244
Thus, 2245
V is a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable since the 2246
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > |N (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > |N (a) ∩ ∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
77/109
V is a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable since the 2248
∀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 neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable 2250
∀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 neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable since the 2252
∀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 neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable since 2254
∀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 neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable 2256
∀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 neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable and V is 2258
the biggest SuperHyperSet in N SHG : (V, E). Then the number is at most 2259
O(N SHG : (V, E)) and the neutrosophic number is at most On (N SHG : (V, E)). 2260
78/109
Proposition 7.26. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 2261
SuperHyperComplete. The number is O(N SHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and the neutrosophic number is 2262
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of dual 2263
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(N SHG:(V,E))

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 2267
(v) : strong ( O(N SHG:(V,E))

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed 2268
(vi) : connected ( O(N SHG:(V,E))

Proof. (i). Consider n half −1 neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a 2272
dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. A neutrosophic 2273
SuperHyperVertex has n half neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in S. 2274
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
SuperHyperStable in a given SuperHyperComplete neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 2276
Thus the number is O(N SHG:(V,E))

2 + 1 and the neutrosophic number is 2277
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual SuperHyperDefensive 2278
t>
2
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 2279
(ii). Consider n half −1 neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a 2280
∀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 neutrosophic 2283
Failed SuperHyperStable in a given SuperHyperComplete neutrosophic 2284
SuperHyperGraph. Thus the number is O(N SHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and the neutrosophic 2285
number is min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual strong 2286
t>
2
SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 2287
(iii). Consider n half −1 neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a 2288
∀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 2291
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in a given SuperHyperComplete neutrosophic 2292
SuperHyperGraph. Thus the number is O(N SHG:(V,E))

2 + 1 and the neutrosophic 2293
79/109
number is min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual connected 2294
t>
2
(iv). Consider n half −1 neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a 2296
∀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 2299
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in a given SuperHyperComplete neutrosophic 2300
SuperHyperGraph. Thus the number is O(N SHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and the neutrosophic 2301
number is min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual 2302
t>
2
( O(N SHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 2303
(v). Consider n half −1 neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a 2304
∀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 2307
( O(N SHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in a 2308
given SuperHyperComplete neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Thus the number is 2309

O(N SHG:(V,E))
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual strong 2311
t>
2
( O(N SHG:(V,E))
(vi). Consider n half −1 neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a 2313
∀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 2316
( O(N SHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in a 2317
given SuperHyperComplete neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Thus the number is 2318

O(N SHG:(V,E))
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual connected 2320
t>
2
( O(N SHG:(V,E))
∅. The number is 0 and the neutrosophic number is 0, for an independent SuperHyperSet 2323
in the setting of dual 2324
80/109
(iv) : 0-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 2328
(v) : strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 2329
(vi) : connected 0-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 2330
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider ∅. All 2331
SuperHyperMembers of ∅ have no neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor inside the 2332
Thus, 2334
(i). ∅ is a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable since the 2335
∀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 2337
in the setting of a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 2338
(ii). ∅ is a dual strong SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable 2339
∀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 neutrosophic Failed 2342
(iii). ∅ is a dual connected SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed 2344
∀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 neutrosophic Failed 2347
(iv). ∅ is a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable since 2349
81/109
∀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 neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 2352
(v). ∅ is a dual strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable 2353
∀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 neutrosophic Failed 2356
(vi). ∅ is a dual connected SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed 2358
∀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 neutrosophic Failed 2361
SuperHyperComplete. Then there’s no independent SuperHyperSet. 2364
neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle /neutrosophic SuperHyperPath /neutrosophic 2366
SuperHyperWheel . The number is O(N SHG : (V, E)) and the neutrosophic number is 2367
On (N SHG : (V, E)), in the setting of a dual 2368
(iv) : O(N SHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 2372
(v) : strong O(N SHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed 2373
82/109
(vi) : connected O(N SHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed 2375
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 2377
neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle /neutrosophic SuperHyperPath /neutrosophic 2378
SuperHyperWheel . 2379
(i). Consider one neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is out of S which is a dual 2380
SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. This neutrosophic 2381
SuperHyperVertex has one neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor in S, i.e, suppose 2382
x ∈ V \ S such that y, z ∈ N (x). By it’s neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle, 2383
|N (x)| = |N (y)| = |N (z)| = 2. Thus 2384
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |N (y) ∩ S| < |N (y) ∩ (V \ (V \ {x}))| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |N (y) ∩ S| < |N (y) ∩ {x})| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |{z}| < |{x})| ≡
∃y ∈ S, 1 < 1.
Thus it’s contradiction. It implies every V \ {x} isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive 2385
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in a given neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle . 2386
Consider one neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is out of S which is a dual 2387
SuperHyperVertex has one neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor in S, i.e, Suppose 2389
x ∈ V \ S such that y, z ∈ N (x). By it’s neutrosophic SuperHyperPath, 2390
|N (x)| = |N (y)| = |N (z)| = 2. Thus 2391
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |N (y) ∩ S| < |N (y) ∩ (V \ (V \ {x}))| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |N (y) ∩ S| < |N (y) ∩ {x})| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |{z}| < |{x})| ≡
∃y ∈ S, 1 < 1.
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in a given neutrosophic SuperHyperPath . 2393
Consider one neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is out of S which is a dual 2394
SuperHyperVertex has one neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor in S, i.e, Suppose 2396
x ∈ V \ S such that y, z ∈ N (x). By it’s neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel, 2397
|N (x)| = |N (y)| = |N (z)| = 2. Thus 2398
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |N (y) ∩ S| < |N (y) ∩ (V \ (V \ {x}))| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |N (y) ∩ S| < |N (y) ∩ {x})| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |{z}| < |{x})| ≡
∃y ∈ S, 1 < 1.
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in a given neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel . 2400
83/109
(iv). By (i), V is maximal and it’s a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed 2402
SuperHyperStable. Thus it’s a dual O(N SHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive 2403
Thus the number is O(N SHG : (V, E)) and the neutrosophic number is 2406
On (N SHG : (V, E)), in the setting of all types of a dual SuperHyperDefensive 2407
neutrosophic SuperHyperStar /complete neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite /complete 2410
neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite . The number is O(N SHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and the 2411
neutrosophic number is min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a 2412
t>
2
dual 2413
(iv) : ( O(N SHG:(V,E))

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 2417
(v) : strong ( O(N SHG:(V,E))

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

SuperHyperVertex has at most n half neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in S. If the 2424
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is the non-SuperHyperCenter, then 2425
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
If the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is the SuperHyperCenter, then 2426
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
Consider n half +1 neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are in S which is a dual 2429
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

δ δ
∀a ∈ S, >n− .
2 2
SuperHyperStable in a given complete neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite which isn’t a 2432
neutrosophic SuperHyperStar . 2433
84/109
Consider n half +1 neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are in S which is a dual 2434
SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable and they are chosen from 2435
SuperHyperVertex in S has δ half neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in S. 2437
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

δ δ
∀a ∈ S, >n− .
2 2
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic 2438
Failed SuperHyperStable in a given complete neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite 2439
which is neither a neutrosophic SuperHyperStar nor complete neutrosophic 2440
SuperHyperBipartite . 2441

O(N SHG:(V,E))
+1
(iv). By (i), {xi }i=1 2
is maximal and it’s a dual SuperHyperDefensive 2443
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. Thus it’s a dual 2444

O(N SHG:(V,E))
2 + 1-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 2445
Thus the number is O(N SHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and the neutrosophic number is 2447
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of all dual neutrosophic Failed 2448
t>
2
Proposition 7.31. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a SuperHyperFamily of the N SHGs : (V, E) 2450
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph s which are from one-type SuperHyperClass which the 2451
result is obtained for the individuals. Then the results also hold for the 2452
SuperHyperFamily N SHF : (V, E) of these specific SuperHyperClasses of the 2453
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph s. 2454
Proof. There are neither SuperHyperConditions nor SuperHyperRestrictions on the 2455
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Thus the SuperHyperResults on individuals, 2456
N SHGs : (V, E), are extended to the SuperHyperResults on SuperHyperFamily, 2457
N SHF : (V, E). 2458
Proposition 7.32. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If 2459
S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, then 2460
∀v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S such that 2461
(i) v ∈ Ns (x); 2462
(ii) vx ∈ E. 2463
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 2464
Consider v ∈ V \ S. Since S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed 2465
∀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 2467
v ∈ V \ S. Since S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed 2468
85/109
∀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.
2470
Proposition 7.33. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If 2471
S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, then 2472
(i) S is SuperHyperDominating set; 2473
(ii) there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic number. 2474
Consider v ∈ V \ S. Since S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed 2476
SuperHyperStable, either 2477
∀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 2478
∀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. 2479
v ∈ V \ S. Since S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed 2481
SuperHyperStable, either 2482
∀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 2483
∀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 neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex v ∈ V \ S, has at least one neutrosophic 2484
SuperHyperNeighbor in S. The only case is about the relation amid neutrosophic 2485
SuperHyperVertices in S in the terms of neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors . It implies 2486
there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic number. 2487
86/109
Proposition 7.34. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 2488
Then 2489
(i) Γ ≤ O; 2490
(ii) Γs ≤ On . 2491
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Let 2492
S = V. 2493
∀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 neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. For 2494
all SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S, S ⊆ V. Thus for all 2495
SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S, |S| ≤ |V |. It implies for all 2496
SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S, |S| ≤ O. So for all 2497
SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S, Γ ≤ O. 2498
(ii). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Let S = V. 2499
∀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 neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. For 2500
all SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S, S ⊆ V. Thus for all 2501
SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 2502
S, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ Σv∈V Σ3i=1 σi (v). It implies for all SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic 2503
SuperHyperVertices S, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ On . So for all SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic 2504
SuperHyperVertices S, Γs ≤ On . 2505
Proposition 7.35. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 2506
which is connected. Then 2507
(i) Γ ≤ O − 1; 2508
(ii) Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 2509
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Let 2510
S = V − {x} where x is arbitrary and x ∈ V. 2511
∀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 neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 2512
For all SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, S ⊆ V − {x}. Thus 2513
87/109
for all SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, |S| ≤ |V − {x}|. It 2514
implies for all SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, |S| ≤ O − 1. 2515
So for all SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S, Γ ≤ O − 1. 2516
(ii). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Let 2517
S = V − {x} where x is arbitrary and x ∈ V. 2518
∀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 neutrosophic Failed 2519
SuperHyperStable. For all SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 2520
S= 6 V, S ⊆ V − {x}. Thus for all SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 2521
S 6= V, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ Σv∈V −{x} Σ3i=1 σi (v). It implies for all SuperHyperSets of 2522
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). So for all 2523
SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S, Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 2524
Proposition 7.36. Let N SHG : (V, E) be an odd neutrosophic SuperHyperPath . Then 2525
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 2526
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 2527
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 2528
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 2529
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 2530
a dual neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 2531
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an odd neutrosophic SuperHyperPath . Let 2532
S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all vi , vj ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 2533
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 neutrosophic Failed 2534
SuperHyperStable. If S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } − {vi } where vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }, then 2535
∃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 2536
SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. It induces 2537
S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed 2538
(ii) and (iii) are trivial. 2540
88/109
(iv). By (i), S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic 2541
Failed SuperHyperStable. Thus it’s enough to show that S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } is a 2542
dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. Suppose 2543
N SHG : (V, E) is an odd neutrosophic SuperHyperPath . Let S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } 2544
where for all vi , vj ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 2545
v ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }| = 2 >

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

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
Proposition 7.37. Let N SHG : (V, E) be an even neutrosophic SuperHyperPath . 2552
Then 2553
(i) the set S = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed 2554
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and 2556
{v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }; 2557
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 2558
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 2559
dual neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 2560
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an even neutrosophic SuperHyperPath . Let 2561
S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } where for all vi , vj ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 2562
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 neutrosophic Failed 2563
SuperHyperStable. If S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } − {vi } where vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, then 2564
∃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)|.
89/109
So {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } − {vi } where vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive 2565
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. It induces S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual 2566
(iv). By (i), S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic 2569
N SHG : (V, E) is an even neutrosophic SuperHyperPath . Let S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } 2572
v ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }| = 2 >

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

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
Proposition 7.38. Let N SHG : (V, E) be an even neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. 2580
Then 2581
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 2582
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and 2584
{v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }; 2585
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } σ(s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } σ(s)}; 2586
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 2587
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an even neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. Let 2589
S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } where for all vi , vj ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 2590
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 })|
90/109
It implies S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed 2591
SuperHyperStable. If S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } − {vi } where vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, then 2592
∃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 2593
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. It induces S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual 2594
(iv). By (i), S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic 2597
N SHG : (V, E) is an even neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. Let S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } 2600
v ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }| = 2 >

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

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
Proposition 7.39. Let N SHG : (V, E) be an odd neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. Then 2608
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 2609
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 2611
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 2612
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 2613
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an odd neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. Let 2615
S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all vi , vj ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 2616
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 })|
91/109
∃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 neutrosophic 2624
N SHG : (V, E) is an odd neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. Let S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } 2627
v ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }| = 2 >

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

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
Proposition 7.40. Let N SHG : (V, E) be neutrosophic SuperHyperStar . Then 2635
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c} is a dual maximal neutrosophic Failed 2636
(ii) Γ = 1; 2638
(iii) Γs = Σ3i=1 σi (c); 2639
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c} and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual neutrosophic Failed 2640
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperStar . 2642
∀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})|
92/109
It implies S = {c} is a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed 2643
SuperHyperStable. If S = {c} − {c} = ∅, then 2644
∃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 neutrosophic Failed 2645
SuperHyperStable. It induces S = {c} is a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic 2646
(iv). By (i), S = {c} is a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed 2649
SuperHyperStable. Thus it’s enough to show that S ⊆ S 0 is a dual 2650
SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) 2651
is a neutrosophic SuperHyperStar . Let S ⊆ S 0 . 2652
∀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 neutrosophic Failed 2653
Proposition 7.41. Let N SHG : (V, E) be neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel . Then 2655
6+3(i−1)≤n
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1
is a dual 2656
maximal SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 2657
6+3(i−1)≤n
(ii) Γ = |{v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 |; 2658
(iii) Γs = Σ{v1 ,v3 }∪{v6 ,v9 ··· ,vi+6 ,··· ,vn }6+3(i−1)≤n Σ3i=1 σi (s); 2659
i=1
6+3(i−1)≤n
(iv) the SuperHyperSet {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is only a dual 2660
maximal SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 2661
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel . Let 2662

6+3(i−1)≤n
S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 . There are either 2663
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 2 > 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
or 2664
∀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 2665
SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. If 2666

6+3(i−1)≤n
S 0 = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 − {z} where 2667
6+3(i−1)≤n
z ∈ S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 , then There are either 2668
∀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 )|
93/109
or 2669
∀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 2670
6+3(i−1)≤n
z ∈ S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive 2671
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. It induces 2672

6+3(i−1)≤n
S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual maximal 2673
(ii), (iii) and (iv) are obvious. 2675
Proposition 7.42. Let N SHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperComplete. Then 2676
bn
2 c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic 2677
Failed SuperHyperStable; 2678
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1; 2679
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} b n c+1

2
; 2680
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual SuperHyperDefensive 2681
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an odd SuperHyperComplete. Let 2683

bn
2 c+1
S = {vi }i=1 . Thus 2684
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
0 bn2 c+1 bn
2 c+1
SuperHyperStable. If S = {vi }i=1 − {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1 , then 2686
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 2687
bn
2 c+1
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. It induces S = {vi }i=1 is a dual 2688
Proposition 7.43. Let N SHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperComplete. Then 2691
bn
2c
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed 2692
(ii) Γ = b n2 c; 2694
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} bnc

2
; 2695
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 2696
94/109
bnc
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an even SuperHyperComplete. Let S = {vi }i=1
2
. 2698
Thus 2699
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
bn
2c bn
2c
SuperHyperStable. If S 0 = {vi }i=1 − {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1 , then 2701
n n
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = b c − 1 
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
bnc bnc
So S 0 = {vi }i=1
2
− {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1
2
bn
2c
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. It induces S = {vi }i=1 is a dual maximal 2703
Proposition 7.44. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of neutrosophic 2706
SuperHyperStars with common neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet. Then 2707
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 2708
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable for N SHF; 2709
(ii) Γ = m for N SHF : (V, E); 2710
(iii) Γs = Σm 3
i=1 Σj=1 σj (ci ) for N SHF : (V, E); 2711
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual neutrosophic 2712
Failed SuperHyperStable for N SHF : (V, E). 2713
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperStar . 2714
∀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 neutrosophic Failed 2715
SuperHyperStable for N SHF : (V, E). If S = {c} − {c} = ∅, then 2716
∃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 neutrosophic Failed 2717
SuperHyperStable for N SHF : (V, E). It induces S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual 2718
maximal SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable for 2719
N SHF : (V, E). 2720
(iv). By (i), S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed 2722
SuperHyperStable for N SHF : (V, E). Thus it’s enough to show that S ⊆ S 0 is a dual 2723
95/109
SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable for N SHF : (V, E). 2724
Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperStar . Let S ⊆ S 0 . 2725
∀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 neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable 2726
for N SHF : (V, E). 2727
Proposition 7.45. Let N SHF : (V, E) be an m-SuperHyperFamily of odd 2728
SuperHyperComplete neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph s with common neutrosophic 2729
SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet. Then 2730
b n c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 2731
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable for N SHF; 2732
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 for N SHF : (V, E); 2733
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} b n c+1

2
for N SHF : (V, E); 2734
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only a dual maximal neutrosophic Failed 2735
SuperHyperStable for N SHF : (V, E). 2736
bn
2 c+1
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is odd SuperHyperComplete. Let S = {vi }i=1 . 2737
Thus 2738
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
bn
2 c+1
SuperHyperStable for N SHF : (V, E). If S 0 = {vi }i=1 − {z} where 2740
n
b 2 c+1
z ∈ S = {vi }i=1 , then 2741
n n
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = b c = b c = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
b n c+1 b n c+1
So S 0 = {vi }i=1
2
− {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1
2
bn
2 c+1
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable for N SHF : (V, E). It induces S = {vi }i=1 is 2743
a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable for 2744
N SHF : (V, E). 2745
Proposition 7.46. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of even 2747
SuperHyperComplete neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph s with common neutrosophic 2748
SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet. Then 2749
bn
2c
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed 2750
SuperHyperStable for N SHF : (V, E); 2751
(ii) Γ = b n2 c for N SHF : (V, E); 2752
96/109
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} 2
bnc for N SHF : (V, E); 2753
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only dual maximal neutrosophic Failed 2754
SuperHyperStable for N SHF : (V, E). 2755
bnc
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is even SuperHyperComplete. Let S = {vi }i=1
2
. 2756
Thus 2757
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
bn
2c bn
2c
SuperHyperStable for N SHF : (V, E). If S 0 = {vi }i=1 − {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1 , 2759
then 2760
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
bn2c
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable for N SHF : (V, E). It induces S = {vi }i=1 is a 2762
dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable for 2763
N SHF : (V, E). 2764
Then following statements hold; 2767
(i) if s ≥ t and a SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is an 2768
t-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, then S is an 2769
s-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 2770
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is a dual 2771
t-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, then S is a dual 2772
s-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 2773
Consider a SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is an 2775
t-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. Then 2776
∀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 neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 2777
a SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is a dual 2779
∀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 neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 2781
97/109
Then following statements hold; 2783
(i) if s ≥ t + 2 and a SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is an 2784
t-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, then S is an 2785
s-SuperHyperPowerful neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 2786
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is a dual 2787
t-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, then S is a dual 2788
s-SuperHyperPowerful neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 2789
Consider a SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is an 2791
∀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 neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. By 2793
S is an s−SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable and S is a dual 2794
(s + 2)−SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, S is an 2795
s-SuperHyperPowerful neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 2796
a SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is a dual 2798
∀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 neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. By 2800
S is an (s − 2)−SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable and S is a 2801
dual s−SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, S is an 2802
s−SuperHyperPowerful neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 2803
Proposition 7.49. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a[an] 2804
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following 2805
statements hold; 2806
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b 2r c + 1, then N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 2809
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then N SHG : (V, E) is an r-SuperHyperDefensive 2811
(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 2813
r-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 2814
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic 2815
SuperHyperGraph. Then 2816
r r
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < b c + 1 − (b c − 1);
2 2
r r
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < b c + 1 − (b c − 1) < 2;
2 2
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2.
98/109
Thus S is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 2817
(ii). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic 2818
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 neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 2820
(iii). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic 2821
∀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 neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 2823
(iv). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic 2824
∀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 neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 2826
Proposition 7.50. Let N SHG : (V, E) is a[an] 2827
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following 2828
statements hold; 2829
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b 2r c + 1 if N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 2832
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if N SHG : (V, E) is an r-SuperHyperDefensive 2834
(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 2836
r-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 2837
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2;

r r
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2 = b c + 1 − (b c − 1);
2 2
r r
2 2
r r
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| = b c + 1, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| = b c − 1.
2 2
99/109
SuperHyperGraph and a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed 2841
SuperHyperStable. Then 2842
∀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 neutrosophic Failed 2844
∀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 neutrosophic Failed 2847
∀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.
2849
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 2851
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 2852
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b O−1

2 c + 1 if N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 2855
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if N SHG : (V, E) is an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 2857
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 2860
SuperHyperGraph and an 2- SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed 2862
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2;

O−1 O−1
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2 = b c + 1 − (b c − 1);
2 2
O−1 O−1
2 2
O−1 O−1
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| = b c + 1, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| = b c − 1.
2 2
100/109
SuperHyperGraph and a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed 2865
∀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 neutrosophic Failed 2868
∀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 neutrosophic Failed 2871
∀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.
2873
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 2875
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 2876
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b O−1

2 c + 1, then N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 2879
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then N SHG : (V, E) is 2881
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 2882
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 2884
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperComplete. Then 2886
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 neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 2893
∀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 neutrosophic Failed 2896
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is neutrosophic 2899
SuperHyperCycle. Then following statements hold; 2900
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2 if N SHG : (V, E)) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 2901
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2 if N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 2903
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if N SHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 2905
2-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 2908
SuperHyperGraph and S is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed 2910
∀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.
102/109
SuperHyperGraph and S is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed 2913
∀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 neutrosophic Failed 2916
∀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 neutrosophic Failed 2919
∀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.
2921
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is neutrosophic 2923
SuperHyperCycle. Then following statements hold; 2924
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2, then N SHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 2925
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2, then N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 2927
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then N SHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 2929
2-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 2932
SuperHyperGraph which is neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. Then 2934
∀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.
103/109
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2 − 0;

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

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

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2 − 0 = 2;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2.
8 Applications in Cancer’s Neutrosophic recognition 2945
The cancer is the disease but the model is going to figure out what’s going on this 2946
phenomenon. The special case of this disease is considered and as the consequences of 2947
the model, some parameters are used. The cells are under attack of this disease but the 2948
moves of the cancer in the special region are the matter of mind. The neutrosophic 2949
recognition of the cancer could help to find some treatments for this disease. 2950
In the following, some steps are devised on this disease. 2951
Step 1. (Definition) The neutrosophic recognition of the cancer in the long-term 2952
function. 2953
Step 2. (Issue) The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called 2954
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer 2955
is identified by this research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily 2956
identified since there are some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about 2957
the moves and the effects of the cancer on that region; this event leads us to 2958
choose another model [it’s said to be neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ] to have 2959
convenient perception on what’s happened and what’s done. 2960
Step 3. (Model) There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve 2961
got the names, and some general models. The moves and the traces of the cancer 2962
on the complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized 2963
by a neutrosophic SuperHyperPath (-/neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle, 2964
neutrosophic SuperHyperStar, neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite, neutrosophic 2965
SuperHyperMultipartite, neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel ). The aim is to find 2966
either the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable or the neutrosophic Failed 2967
SuperHyperStable in those neutrosophic SuperHyperModel s. 2968
104/109
Figure 27. A neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of neutro-
sophic Failed SuperHyperStable
Table 10. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdges Belong to The neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite
9 Case 1: The Initial Steps Toward neutrosophic 2969
SuperHyperBipartite as neutrosophic 2970
SuperHyperModel 2971
Step 4. (Solution) In the Figure (27), the neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite is 2972
highlighted and featured. 2973
By using the Figure (27) and the Table (10), the neutrosophic 2974
SuperHyperBipartite is obtained. 2975
SuperHyperBipartite N SHB : (V, E), in the neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (27), 2978
{V1 , {C4 , D4 , E4 , H4 },
{K4 , J4 , L4 , O4 }, {W2 , Z2 , C3 }, {C13 , Z12 , V12 , W12 },
105/109
Figure 28. A neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable
Table 11. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdges Belong to The neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite
10 Case 2: The Increasing Steps Toward 2980
neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite as 2981
neutrosophic SuperHyperModel 2982
Step 4. (Solution) In the Figure (28), the neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite is 2983
highlighted and featured. 2984
By using the Figure (28) and the Table (11), the neutrosophic 2985
SuperHyperMultipartite is obtained. 2986
he obtained SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the 2987
SuperHyperMultipartite N SHM : (V, E), 2989
{{{L4 , E4 , O4 , D4 , J4 , K4 , H4 },
{S10 , R10 , P10 },
{Z7 , W7 }, {U7 , V7 }},
11 Open Problems 2992
In what follows, some “problems” and some “questions” are proposed. 2993
106/109
The Failed SuperHyperStable and the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable are 2994
defined on a real-world application, titled “Cancer’s neutrosophic recognition s”. 2995
Question 11.1. Which the else neutrosophic SuperHyperModels could be defined based 2996
on Cancer’s neutrosophic recognition s? 2997
Question 11.2. Are there some neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion s related to Failed 2998
SuperHyperStable and the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable? 2999
Question 11.3. Are there some Algorithms to be defined on the neutrosophic 3000
SuperHyperModels to compute them? 3001
Question 11.4. Which the neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion s are related to beyond the 3002
Failed SuperHyperStable and the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable? 3003
Problem 11.5. The Failed SuperHyperStable and the neutrosophic Failed 3004
SuperHyperStable do a neutrosophic SuperHyperModel for the Cancer’s neutrosophic 3005
recognition s and they’re based on neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, are there else? 3006
Problem 11.6. Which the fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are related to these 3007
SuperHyperNumbers types-results? 3008
Problem 11.7. What’s the independent research based on Cancer’s neutrosophic 3009
recognition s concerning the multiple types of neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion s? 3010
12 Conclusion and Closing Remarks 3011
In this section, concluding remarks and closing remarks are represented. The drawbacks 3012
of this research are illustrated. Some benefits and some advantages of this research are 3013
highlighted. 3014
This research uses some approaches to make neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph s more 3015
understandable. In this endeavor, two neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion s are defined on 3016
the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. For that sake in the second definition, the 3017
main definition of the neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph is redefined on the position of the 3018
alphabets. Based on the new definition for the neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, the new 3019
neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion, neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, finds the 3020
convenient background to implement some results based on that. Some 3021
SuperHyperClasses and some neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses are the cases of this 3022
research on the modeling of the regions where are under the attacks of the cancer to 3023
recognize this disease as it’s mentioned on the title “Cancer’s neutrosophic recognition 3024
s”. To formalize the instances on the neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion, neutrosophic 3025
Failed SuperHyperStable, the new SuperHyperClasses and SuperHyperClasses, are 3026
introduced. Some general results are gathered in the section on the neutrosophic Failed 3027
SuperHyperStable and the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. The clarifications, 3028
instances and literature reviews have taken the whole way through. In this research, the 3029
literature reviews have fulfilled the lines containing the notions and the results. The 3030
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are the 3031
neutrosophic SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s neutrosophic recognition s” and both 3032
bases are the background of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on 3033
the region, full of cells, groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the 3034
neutrosophic SuperHyperModel proposes some neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion s based 3035
on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the longest and strongest styles with 3036
the formation of the design and the architecture are formally called “ neutrosophic 3037
Failed SuperHyperStable” in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. The prefix 3038
“SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to figure out the background 3039
for the neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion s. In the Table (12), some limitations and 3040
advantages of this research are pointed out. 3041
107/109
Table 12. A Brief Overview about Advantages and Limitations of this Research
Advantages Limitations
1. Redefining Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1. General Results
2. neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable
3. neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable 2. Other SuperHyperNumbers
4. Modeling of Cancer’s Recognitions
5. SuperHyperClasses 3. SuperHyperFamilies
References 3042
1. Henry Garrett, “Properties of SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 3043
SuperHyperGraph”, Neutrosophic Sets and Systems 49 (2022) 531-561 (doi: 3044
10.5281/zenodo.6456413). 3045
(http://fs.unm.edu/NSS/NeutrosophicSuperHyperGraph34.pdf). 3046
(https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nss journal/vol49/iss1/34). 3047
2. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Co-degree and Neutrosophic Degree alongside 3048
Chromatic Numbers in the Setting of Some Classes Related to Neutrosophic 3049
Hypergraphs”, J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res 1(1) (2022) 06-14. 3050
3. Henry Garrett, “Super Hyper Dominating and Super Hyper Resolving on 3051
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions in Game Theory and 3052
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 1(3) 3053
(2022) 242-263. 3054
4. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 3055
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 3056
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 3057
5. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive 3058
and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) 3059
SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 3060
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 3061
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 3062
6. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 3063
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions”, 3064
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 3065
7. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 3066
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 3067
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 3068
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 3069
8. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on 3070
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in Game Theory and 3071
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 3072
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 3073
9. Henry Garrett, “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To 3074
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 3075
SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28945.92007). 3076
108/109
10. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form 3077
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 3078
Special ViewPoints”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11447.80803). 3079
11. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by 3080
Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 3081
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35774.77123). 3082
12. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 3083
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s 3084
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3085
10.13140/RG.2.2.36141.77287). 3086
13. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 3087
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3088
10.13140/RG.2.2.29430.88642). 3089
14. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 3090
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And 3091
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 3092
10.13140/RG.2.2.11369.16487). 3093
15. Henry Garrett, “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating 3094
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 3095
2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29173.86244). 3096
16. Henry Garrett, “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 3097
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in 3098
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 3099
10.13140/RG.2.2.25385.88160). 3100
17. Henry Garrett, (2022). “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs”, Ohio: E-publishing: 3101
Educational Publisher 1091 West 1st Ave Grandview Heights, Ohio 43212 3102
United States. ISBN: 979-1-59973-725-6 3103
(http://fs.unm.edu/BeyondNeutrosophicGraphs.pdf). 3104
18. Henry Garrett, (2022). “Neutrosophic Duality”, Florida: GLOBAL 3105
KNOWLEDGE - Publishing House 848 Brickell Ave Ste 950 Miami, Florida 3106
33131 United States. ISBN: 978-1-59973-743-0 3107
(http://fs.unm.edu/NeutrosophicDuality.pdf). 3108
19. F. Smarandache, “Extension of HyperGraph to n-SuperHyperGraph and to 3109
Plithogenic n-SuperHyperGraph, and Extension of HyperAlgebra to n-ary 3110
(Classical-/Neutro-/Anti-) HyperAlgebra”, Neutrosophic Sets and Systems 33 3111
(2020) 290-296. (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3783103). 3112
20. M. Akram et al., “Single-valued neutrosophic Hypergraphs”, TWMS J. App. 3113
Eng. Math. 8 (1) (2018) 122-135. 3114
21. S. Broumi et al., “Single-valued neutrosophic graphs”, Journal of New Theory 10 3115
(2016) 86-101. 3116
22. H. Wang et al., “Single-valued neutrosophic sets”, Multispace and 3117
Multistructure 4 (2010) 410-413. 3118
23. H.T. Nguyen and E.A. Walker, “A First course in fuzzy logic”, CRC Press, 2006. 3119
109/109
View publication stats

Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions Titled Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer's Neutrosophic Recognition Modeled in The Form of 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

Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions Titled Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer's Neutrosophic Recognition Modeled in The Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled neutrosophic

Preprint · January 2023

205 PUBLICATIONS 834 CITATIONS

On Combinatorics View project

Number Graphs And Numbers View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 2

neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s 3

Neutrosophic Recognition modeled in the Form of 4

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

In this research, new setting is introduced for new SuperHyperNotion, namely, 11

Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. Two different types of SuperHyperDefinitions 12

SuperHyperUniform, and SuperHyperClass based on that are well-defined and 14

SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions and fundamental 17

“SuperHyperEdge”. The frameworks “SuperHyperGraph” and “neutrosophic 26

SuperHyperGraph” are chosen and elected to research about “Cancer’s Neutrosophic 27

to research on theoretical segments and “Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition”. Some 29

some questions and some problems. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then a 31

“neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable” In (N SHG) for a neutrosophic 32

SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a 33

neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a 34

neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to have a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge in common. 35

Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then an “δ−Failed SuperHyperStable” is a maximal 36

Failed SuperHyperStable of SuperHyperVertices with maximum cardinality such that 37

either of the following expressions hold for the (neutrosophic) cardinalities of 38

|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ, |S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. The first 40

Expression, holds if S is an “δ−SuperHyperOffensive”. And the second Expression, 41

holds if S is an “δ−SuperHyperDefensive”; a“neutrosophic δ−Failed SuperHyperStable” 42

is a maximal neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable of SuperHyperVertices with 43

|S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ, |S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic < 46

|S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ. The first Expression, holds if S is a “neutrosophic 47

δ−SuperHyperOffensive”. And the second Expression, holds if S is a “neutrosophic 48

δ−SuperHyperDefensive”. It’s useful to define “neutrosophic” version of Failed 49

SuperHyperStable. Since there’s more ways to get type-results to make Failed 50

SuperHyperStable more understandable. For the sake of having neutrosophic Failed 51

SuperHyperStable, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of “Failed SuperHyperStable”. 52

assign to the values. Assume a Failed SuperHyperStable. It’s redefined neutrosophic 55

Failed SuperHyperStable if the mentioned Table holds, concerning, “The Values of 56

Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyperEdges Belong to The 57

The Number of Position in Alphabet”, “The Values of The SuperVertices&The 59

“The Values of The SuperHyperEdges&The maximum Values of Its Endpoints”. To get 62

SuperHyperGraph based on Failed SuperHyperStable. It’s the main. It’ll be disciplinary 64

to have the foundation of previous definition in the kind of SuperHyperClass. If there’s 65

a need to have all SuperHyperConnectivities until the Failed SuperHyperStable, then 66

it’s officially called “Failed SuperHyperStable” but otherwise, it isn’t Failed 67

discernment since there are characterized in the disciplinary ways of the 70

SuperHyperClass based on Failed SuperHyperStable. For the sake of having 71

neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of 72

“neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable” and “neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable”. 73

assign to the values. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined 76

“neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” if the intended Table holds. And Failed 77

SuperHyperStable are redefined “neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable” if the intended 78

Table holds. It’s useful to define “neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since 79

there’s more ways to get neutrosophic type-results to make neutrosophic Failed 80

SuperHyperStable more understandable. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 81

SuperHyperPath, SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, 83

SuperHyperMultiPartite, and SuperHyperWheel, are “neutrosophic SuperHyperPath”, 84

“neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle”, “neutrosophic SuperHyperStar”, “neutrosophic 85

SuperHyperBipartite”, “neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite”, and “neutrosophic 86

SuperHyperWheel” if the intended Table holds. A SuperHyperGraph has “neutrosophic 87

SuperHyperVertices from a Failed SuperHyperStable.] Failed SuperHyperStable. A 90

graph is SuperHyperUniform if it’s SuperHyperGraph and the number of elements of 91