Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells in Front of Cancer's Attacks in The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique On Cancer's Recognition Called Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/366991142
Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In Front of Cancer's

Attacks In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique on Cancer's
Recognition called Neutrosophic...
Preprint · January 2023

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.15897.70243
CITATIONS
1 author:
Henry Garrett
215 PUBLICATIONS 1,087 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Number Graphs And Numbers View project
Metric Dimension in fuzzy(neutrosophic) Graphs View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Henry Garrett on 10 January 2023.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

1
Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In 2
Front of Cancer’s Attacks In The Terms of Neutrosophic 3
Failed SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called 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 SuperHyperNotions, namely, a Failed 11
SuperHyperClique and Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique . Two different types of 12
SuperHyperDefinitions are debut for them but the research goes further and the 13
SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperUniform, and SuperHyperClass based on that are 14
well-defined and well-reviewed. The literature review is implemented in the whole of 15
this research. For shining the elegancy and the significancy of this research, the 16
comparison between this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions and 17
fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are featured. The definitions are followed by the 18
examples and the instances thus the clarifications are driven with different tools. The 19
applications are figured out to make sense about the theoretical aspect of this ongoing 20
research. The “Cancer’s Recognition” are the under research to figure out the 21
challenges make sense about ongoing and upcoming research. The special case is up. 22
The cells are viewed in the deemed ways. There are different types of them. Some of 23
them are individuals and some of them are well-modeled by the group of cells. These 24
types are all officially called “SuperHyperVertex” but the relations amid them all 25
officially called “SuperHyperEdge”. The frameworks “SuperHyperGraph” and 26
“neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” are chosen and elected to research about “Cancer’s 27
Recognition”. Thus these complex and dense SuperHyperModels open up some avenues 28
to research on theoretical segments and “Cancer’s Recognition”. Some avenues are 29
posed to pursue this research. It’s also officially collected in the form of some questions 30
and some problems. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then a “Failed SuperHyperClique” 31
C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 32
cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a 33
SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. 34
Then an “δ−Failed SuperHyperClique” is a maximal Failed SuperHyperClique of 35
SuperHyperVertices with maximum cardinality such that either of the following 36
expressions hold for the (neutrosophic) cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 37
|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ, |S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. The first Expression, 38
holds if S is an “δ−SuperHyperOffensive”. And the second Expression, holds if S is an 39
“δ−SuperHyperDefensive”; a“neutrosophic δ−Failed SuperHyperClique” is a maximal 40
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique of SuperHyperVertices with maximum 41
neutrosophic cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the 42
neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : |S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic > 43
|S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ, |S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ. 44
1/178
The first Expression, holds if S is a “neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive”. And the 45
second Expression, holds if S is a “neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperDefensive”. The 46
SuperHyperNotion, namely, Failed SuperHyperClique, is up. There’s neither empty 47
SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following neutrosophic SuperHyperSet 48
of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is the simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of 49
the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. S The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of 50
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, S is the simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of 51
the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 52
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, S is a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique 53
C(ESHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic 54
type-SuperHyperSet with the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a 55
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no 56
a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge amid some neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given by 57
neutrosophic SuperHyperClique is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 58
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, S{z}. There’s not only three neutrosophic 59
SuperHyperVertex inside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the 60
non-obvious neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique is up. The obvious simple 61
neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique is a 62
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet includes only three neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. 63
But the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, S doesn’t 64
have less than four SuperHyperVertices inside the intended neutrosophic 65
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the 66
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique is up. To sum them up, the neutrosophic 67
SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, S is the non-obvious simple 68
neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. Since 69
the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, S is a 70
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 71
ESHG : (V, E) is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic 72
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for some 73
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given by that neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called 74
the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique and it’s a neutrosophic 75
Failed SuperHyperClique. Since it’s the maximum neutrosophic cardinality 76
of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that 77
there’s no a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for some amount neutrosophic 78
SuperHyperVertices given by that neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 79
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. There isn’t only less than four neutrosophic 80
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, S Thus the 81
non-obvious neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, S is up. The obvious simple 82
neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, not: S 83
is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, not: S does includes only less than four 84
SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s 85
interesting to mention that the only non-obvious simple neutrosophic 86
type-SuperHyperSet called the 87
“neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique” 88
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets called the 89
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, 90
is only and only S in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) with 91
a illustrated SuperHyperModeling. It’s also, a neutrosophic free-triangle 92
SuperHyperModel. But all only obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of 93
the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique amid those obvious simple neutrosophic 94
2/178
type-SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, are S. In a 95
connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) as Linearly-over-packed 96
SuperHyperModel is featured On the Figures. It’s useful to define a “neutrosophic” 97
version of a Failed SuperHyperClique . Since there’s more ways to get type-results to 98
make a Failed SuperHyperClique more understandable. For the sake of having 99
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of a 100
“Failed SuperHyperClique ”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are 101
assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the 102
usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. Assume a Failed 103
SuperHyperClique . It’s redefined a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique if the 104
mentioned Table holds, concerning, “The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, 105
HyperEdges, and SuperHyperEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” 106
with the key points, “The Values of The Vertices & The Number of Position in 107
Alphabet”, “The Values of The SuperVertices&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, 108
“The Values of The Edges&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The 109
HyperEdges&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The 110
SuperHyperEdges&The maximum Values of Its Endpoints”. To get structural examples 111
and instances, I’m going to introduce the next SuperHyperClass of SuperHyperGraph 112
based on a Failed SuperHyperClique . It’s the main. It’ll be disciplinary to have the 113
foundation of previous definition in the kind of SuperHyperClass. If there’s a need to 114
have all SuperHyperConnectivities until the Failed SuperHyperClique, then it’s officially 115
called a “Failed SuperHyperClique” but otherwise, it isn’t a Failed SuperHyperClique . 116
There are some instances about the clarifications for the main definition titled a “Failed 117
SuperHyperClique ”. These two examples get more scrutiny and discernment since 118
there are characterized in the disciplinary ways of the SuperHyperClass based on a 119
Failed SuperHyperClique . For the sake of having a neutrosophic Failed 120
SuperHyperClique, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of a “neutrosophic Failed 121
SuperHyperClique” and a “neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique ”. The 122
SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the 123
letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to 124
assign to the values. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined 125
“neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” if the intended Table holds. And a Failed 126
SuperHyperClique are redefined to a “neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique” if the 127
intended Table holds. It’s useful to define “neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. 128
Since there’s more ways to get neutrosophic type-results to make a neutrosophic Failed 129
SuperHyperClique more understandable. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 130
There are some neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the intended Table holds. Thus 131
SuperHyperPath, SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, 132
SuperHyperMultiPartite, and SuperHyperWheel, are “neutrosophic SuperHyperPath”, 133
“neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle”, “neutrosophic SuperHyperStar”, “neutrosophic 134
SuperHyperBipartite”, “neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite”, and “neutrosophic 135
SuperHyperWheel” if the intended Table holds. A SuperHyperGraph has a 136
“neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique” where it’s the strongest [the maximum 137
neutrosophic value from all the Failed SuperHyperClique amid the maximum value 138
amid all SuperHyperVertices from a Failed SuperHyperClique .] Failed 139
SuperHyperClique . A graph is a SuperHyperUniform if it’s a SuperHyperGraph and 140
the number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. Assume a neutrosophic 141
SuperHyperGraph. There are some SuperHyperClasses as follows. It’s SuperHyperPath 142
if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two 143
exceptions; it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 144
given SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection 145
amid all SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as 146
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two 147
3/178
separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only 148
one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these 149
SuperVertices, forming multi separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s a 150
SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 151
SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any common 152
SuperVertex. The SuperHyperModel proposes the specific designs and the specific 153
architectures. The SuperHyperModel is officially called “SuperHyperGraph” and 154
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. In this SuperHyperModel, The “specific” cells and 155
“specific group” of cells are SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperVertices” and the 156
common and intended properties between “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells 157
are SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperEdges”. Sometimes, it’s useful to have some 158
degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy, and neutrality to have more precise 159
SuperHyperModel which in this case the SuperHyperModel is called “neutrosophic”. In 160
the future research, the foundation will be based on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and the 161
results and the definitions will be introduced in redeemed ways. The recognition of the 162
cancer in the long-term function. The specific region has been assigned by the model 163
[it’s called SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is 164
identified by this research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified 165
since there are some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and 166
the effects of the cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s 167
said to be neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s 168
happened and what’s done. There are some specific models, which are well-known and 169
they’ve got the names, and some SuperHyperGeneral SuperHyperModels. The moves 170
and the traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and between complicated groups of 171
cells could be fantasized by a neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperCycle, 172
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). 173
The aim is to find either the longest Failed SuperHyperClique or the strongest Failed 174
SuperHyperClique in those neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. For the longest Failed 175
SuperHyperClique, called Failed SuperHyperClique, and the strongest Failed 176
SuperHyperClique, called neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, some general results 177
are introduced. Beyond that in SuperHyperStar, all possible SuperHyperPaths have 178
only two SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough since it’s essential to have at least three 179
SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a SuperHyperCycle. There isn’t any formation of 180
any SuperHyperCycle but literarily, it’s the deformation of any SuperHyperCycle. It, 181
literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. A basic familiarity with SuperHyperGraph 182
theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory are proposed. 183
Keywords: SuperHyperGraph, (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperClique, Cancer’s 184
Recognition 185
AMS Subject Classification: 05C17, 05C22, 05E45 186
2 Background 187
There are some researches covering the topic of this research. In what follows, there are 188
some discussion and literature reviews about them. 189
First article is titled “properties of SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic 190
SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [1] by Henry Garrett (2022). It’s first step toward the 191
research on neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs. This research article is published on the 192
journal “Neutrosophic Sets and Systems” in issue 49 and the pages 531-561. In this 193
research article, different types of notions like dominating, resolving, coloring, 194
Eulerian(Hamiltonian) neutrosophic path, n-Eulerian(Hamiltonian) neutrosophic path, 195
zero forcing number, zero forcing neutrosophic- number, independent number, 196
4/178
independent neutrosophic-number, clique number, clique neutrosophic-number, 197
matching number, matching neutrosophic-number, girth, neutrosophic girth, 198
1-zero-forcing number, 1-zero- forcing neutrosophic-number, failed 1-zero-forcing 199
number, failed 1-zero-forcing neutrosophic-number, global- offensive alliance, t-offensive 200
alliance, t-defensive alliance, t-powerful alliance, and global-powerful alliance are defined 201
in SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Some Classes of 202
SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are cases of research. Some 203
results are applied in family of SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 204
Thus this research article has concentrated on the vast notions and introducing the 205
majority of notions. 206
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “neutrosophic co-degree and 207
neutrosophic degree alongside chromatic numbers in the setting of some classes related 208
to neutrosophic hypergraphs” in Ref. [2] by Henry Garrett (2022). In this research 209
article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic 210
SuperHyperGraph based on general forms without using neutrosophic classes of 211
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is 212
entitled “Journal of Current Trends in Computer Science Research (JCTCSR)” with 213
abbreviation “J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res” in volume 1 and issue 1 with pages 06-14. 214
The research article studies deeply with choosing neutrosophic hypergraphs instead of 215
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results 216
based on initial background. 217
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Super Hyper Dominating 218
and Super Hyper Resolving on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions 219
in Game Theory and Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes” in Ref. [3] by Henry Garrett 220
(2022). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 221
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental SuperHyperNumber and 222
using neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s 223
published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Journal of Mathematical 224
Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with abbreviation “J Math 225
Techniques Comput Math” in volume 1 and issue 3 with pages 242-263. The research 226
article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and 227
SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results based on initial 228
background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. 229
In some articles are titled “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 230
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 231
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [4] by Henry Garrett (2022), “0049 — 232
(Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs” in Ref. [5] by Henry Garrett 233
(2022), “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And 234
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [6] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic 235
Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on 236
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [7] by Henry 237
Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction 238
To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition And 239
Beyond” in Ref. [8] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on 240
Cancer’s Recognition by Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs 241
” in Ref. [9] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs 242
To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic 243
Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [10] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic 244
Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) 245
SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 246
in Ref. [11] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 247
Recognitions Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances” in 248
Ref. [12] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With 249
5/178
SuperHyperDefensive and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On 250
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of 251
Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [13] by 252
Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 253
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions” in Ref. [14] by 254
Henry Garrett (2022), “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 255
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in 256
Cancer’s Treatments” in Ref. [15] by Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperDominating 257
and SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in 258
Game Theory and Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [16] by Henry Garrett 259
(2022), “Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 260
Forwarding Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” 261
in Ref. [17] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every 262
Embedded Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and 263
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperClique” in 264
Ref. [18] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 265
Regions titled neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic 266
Recognition modeled in the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [19] by 267
Henry Garrett (2023), “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To 268
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in 269
Ref. [20] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To 270
Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 271
Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [21] by Henry Garrett (2023), “(Neutrosophic) 272
SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by Well-SuperHyperModelled 273
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [22] by Henry Garrett (2023), 274
“Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction To Use 275
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond” 276
in Ref. [23] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in 277
Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [24] by Henry 278
Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 279
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) 280
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [25] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Neutrosophic Notions 281
Concerning SuperHyperDominating and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in 282
SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [26] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Initial Material of 283
Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some Neutrosophic Notions Based on 284
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)” in 285
Ref. [27] by Henry Garrett (2022), there are some endeavors to formalize the basic 286
SuperHyperNotions about neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. 287
Some studies and researches about neutrosophic graphs, are proposed as book in 288
Ref. [28] by Henry Garrett (2022) which is indexed by Google Scholar and has more 289
than 2347 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs” and published 290
by Ohio: E-publishing: Educational Publisher 1091 West 1st Ave Grandview Heights, 291
Ohio 43212 United State. This research book covers different types of notions and 292
settings in neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. 293
Also, some studies and researches about neutrosophic graphs, are proposed as book 294
in Ref. [29] by Henry Garrett (2022) which is indexed by Google Scholar and has more 295
than 3048 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Neutrosophic Duality” and published by 296
Florida: GLOBAL KNOWLEDGE - Publishing House 848 Brickell Ave Ste 950 Miami, 297
Florida 33131 United States. This research book presents different types of notions 298
SuperHyperResolving and SuperHyperDominating in the setting of duality in 299
neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. This research 300
book has scrutiny on the complement of the intended set and the intended set, 301
simultaneously. It’s smart to consider a set but acting on its complement that what’s 302
6/178
done in this research book which is popular in the terms of high readers in Scribd. 303
3 Motivation and Contributions 304
In this research, there are some ideas in the featured frameworks of motivations. I try 305
to bring the motivations in the narrative ways. Some cells have been faced with some 306
attacks from the situation which is caused by the cancer’s attacks. In this case, there 307
are some embedded analysis on the ongoing situations which in that, the cells could be 308
labelled as some groups and some groups or individuals have excessive labels which all 309
are raised from the behaviors to overcome the cancer’s attacks. In the embedded 310
situations, the individuals of cells and the groups of cells could be considered as “new 311
groups”. Thus it motivates us to find the proper SuperHyperModels for getting more 312
proper analysis on this messy story. I’ve found the SuperHyperModels which are 313
officially called “SuperHyperGraphs” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”. In this 314
SuperHyperModel, the cells and the groups of cells are defined as “SuperHyperVertices” 315
and the relations between the individuals of cells and the groups of cells are defined as 316
“SuperHyperEdges”. Thus it’s another motivation for us to do research on this 317
SuperHyperModel based on the “Cancer’s Recognition”. Sometimes, the situations get 318
worst. The situation is passed from the certainty and precise style. Thus it’s the beyond 319
them. There are three descriptions, namely, the degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy 320
and neutrality, for any object based on vague forms, namely, incomplete data, imprecise 321
data, and uncertain analysis. The latter model could be considered on the previous 322
SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperGraph but it’s officially 323
called “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”. The cancer is the disease but the model is 324
going to figure out what’s going on this phenomenon. The special case of this disease is 325
considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells 326
are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the 327
matter of mind. The recognition of the cancer could help to find some treatments for 328
this disease. The SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are the 329
SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognition” and both bases are the background 330
of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, 331
groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes 332
some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the 333
forms of alliances’ styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are 334
formally called “ Failed SuperHyperClique” in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. 335
The prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to figure out the 336
background for the SuperHyperNotions. The recognition of the cancer in the long-term 337
function. The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called 338
SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this 339
research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are 340
some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the 341
cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be 342
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and 343
what’s done. There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the 344
names, and some general models. The moves and the traces of the cancer on the 345
complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a 346
neutrosophic neutrosophic SuperHyperPath (-/SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, 347
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find 348
either the optimal Failed SuperHyperClique or the neutrosophic Failed 349
SuperHyperClique in those neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. Some general results are 350
introduced. Beyond that in SuperHyperStar, all possible neutrosophic SuperHyperPath 351
s have only two SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough since it’s essential to have at least 352
7/178
three SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a SuperHyperCycle. There isn’t any 353
formation of any SuperHyperCycle but literarily, it’s the deformation of any 354
SuperHyperCycle. It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. 355
Question 3.1. How to define the SuperHyperNotions and to do research on them to 356
find the “ amount of Failed SuperHyperClique” of either individual of cells or the groups 357
of cells based on the fixed cell or the fixed group of cells, extensively, the “amount of 358
Failed SuperHyperClique” based on the fixed groups of cells or the fixed groups of group 359
of cells? 360
Question 3.2. What are the best descriptions for the “Cancer’s Recognition” in terms 361
of these messy and dense SuperHyperModels where embedded notions are illustrated? 362
It’s motivation to find notions to use in this dense model is titled 363
“SuperHyperGraphs”. Thus it motivates us to define different types of “ Failed 364
SuperHyperClique” and “neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique” on 365
“SuperHyperGraph” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. Then the research has 366
taken more motivations to define SuperHyperClasses and to find some connections amid 367
this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions. It motivates us to get some 368
instances and examples to make clarifications about the framework of this research. The 369
general results and some results about some connections are some avenues to make key 370
point of this research, “Cancer’s Recognition”, more understandable and more clear. 371
The framework of this research is as follows. In the beginning, I introduce basic 372
definitions to clarify about preliminaries. In the subsection “Preliminaries”, initial 373
definitions about SuperHyperGraphs and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are 374
deeply-introduced and in-depth-discussed. The elementary concepts are clarified and 375
illustrated completely and sometimes review literature are applied to make sense about 376
what’s going to figure out about the upcoming sections. The main definitions and their 377
clarifications alongside some results about new notions, Failed SuperHyperClique and 378
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, are figured out in sections “ Failed 379
SuperHyperClique” and “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique”. In the sense of 380
tackling on getting results and in order to make sense about continuing the research, the 381
ideas of SuperHyperUniform and Neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform are introduced and 382
as their consequences, corresponded SuperHyperClasses are figured out to debut what’s 383
done in this section, titled “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on 384
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. As going back to origin of the notions, there are 385
some smart steps toward the common notions to extend the new notions in new 386
frameworks, SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, in the sections 387
“Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. The 388
starter research about the general SuperHyperRelations and as concluding and closing 389
section of theoretical research are contained in the section “General Results”. Some 390
general SuperHyperRelations are fundamental and they are well-known as fundamental 391
SuperHyperNotions as elicited and discussed in the sections, “General Results”, “ Failed 392
SuperHyperClique”, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique”, “Results on 393
SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. There are 394
curious questions about what’s done about the SuperHyperNotions to make sense about 395
excellency of this research and going to figure out the word “best” as the description 396
and adjective for this research as presented in section, “ Failed SuperHyperClique”. The 397
keyword of this research debut in the section “Applications in Cancer’s Recognition” 398
with two cases and subsections “Case 1: The Initial Steps Toward SuperHyperBipartite 399
as SuperHyperModel” and “Case 2: The Increasing Steps Toward 400
SuperHyperMultipartite as SuperHyperModel”. In the section, “Open Problems”, there 401
are some scrutiny and discernment on what’s done and what’s happened in this research 402
in the terms of “questions” and “problems” to make sense to figure out this research in 403
8/178
featured style. The advantages and the limitations of this research alongside about 404
what’s done in this research to make sense and to get sense about what’s figured out are 405
included in the section, “Conclusion and Closing Remarks”. 406
4 Preliminaries 407
In this subsection, the basic material which is used in this research, is presented. Also, 408
the new ideas and their clarifications are elicited. 409
Definition 4.1 (Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [31],Definition 2.1,p.87). 410
Let X be a space of points (objects) with generic elements in X denoted by x; then

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

+
where the functions T, I, F : X →]− 0, 1 [ define respectively the a
truth-membership function, an indeterminacy-membership function, and a
falsity-membership function of the element x ∈ X to the set A with the condition
−
0 ≤ TA (x) + IA (x) + FA (x) ≤ 3+ .
The functions TA (x), IA (x) and FA (x) are real standard or nonstandard subsets of 411
+
]− 0, 1 [. 412
Definition 4.2 (Single Valued Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [34],Definition 6,p.2). 413
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. [33],Definition 414
3,p.291). 415
Assume V 0 is a given set. A neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an 416
ordered pair S = (V, E), where 417
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 418
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 419
1, 2, . . . , n); 420
9/178
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued neutrosophic subsets of V ; 421
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 422
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 423
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 424
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 425
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 426
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei0 ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n ); 427
(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 . 428
Here the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the neutrosophic 429
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 430
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 431
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the neutrosophic 432
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 433
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 434
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the neutrosophic 435
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 436
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 437
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 438
Definition 4.6 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 439
(Ref. [33],Section 4,pp.291-292). 440
Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered pair S = (V, E). 441
The neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the neutrosophic 442
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vi of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) 443
could be characterized as follow-up items. 444
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 445
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 446
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 447
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 448
HyperEdge; 449
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 450
SuperEdge; 451
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 452
SuperHyperEdge. 453
If we choose different types of binary operations, then we could get hugely diverse 454
types of general forms of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG). 455
10/178
Definition 4.7 (t-norm). (Ref. [32], Definition 5.1.1, pp.82-83). 456
A binary operation ⊗ : [0, 1] × [0, 1] → [0, 1] is a t-norm if it satisfies the following 457
for x, y, z, w ∈ [0, 1]: 458
(i) 1 ⊗ x = x; 459
(ii) x ⊗ y = y ⊗ x; 460
(iii) x ⊗ (y ⊗ z) = (x ⊗ y) ⊗ z; 461
(iv) If w ≤ x and y ≤ z then w ⊗ y ≤ x ⊗ z. 462
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 .
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)). 463
Assume V 0 is a given set. A neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an 464
ordered pair S = (V, E), where 465
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 466
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 467
1, 2, . . . , n); 468
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued neutrosophic subsets of V ; 469
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 470
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 471
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 472
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 473
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 474
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n ).
0 475
Here the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the neutrosophic 476
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 477
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 478
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the neutrosophic 479
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 480
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 481
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the neutrosophic 482
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 483
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 484
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 485
11/178
Definition 4.11 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 486
(Ref. [33],Section 4,pp.291-292). 487
Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered pair S = (V, E). 488
The neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the neutrosophic 489
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vi of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) 490
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 492
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 493
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 494
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 495
HyperEdge; 496
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 497
SuperEdge; 498
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 499
SuperHyperEdge. 500
This SuperHyperModel is too messy and too dense. Thus there’s a need to have 501
some restrictions and conditions on SuperHyperGraph. The special case of this 502
SuperHyperGraph makes the patterns and regularities. 503
Definition 4.12. A graph is SuperHyperUniform if it’s SuperHyperGraph and the 504
number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. 505
To get more visions on , the some SuperHyperClasses are introduced. It makes to 506
have more understandable. 507
Definition 4.13. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 508
SuperHyperClasses as follows. 509
(i). It’s neutrosophic SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as 510
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; 511
(ii). it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 512
given SuperHyperEdges; 513
(iii). it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all 514
SuperHyperEdges; 515
(iv). it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 516
given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has 517
no SuperHyperEdge in common; 518
(v). it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid 519
two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi separate sets, 520
has no SuperHyperEdge in common; 521
(vi). it’s SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 522
given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any 523
common SuperVertex. 524
12/178
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 525
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V1 to neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) 526
Vs if either of following conditions hold: 527
(i) Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 528
(ii) there’s a vertex vi ∈ Vi such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 529
(iii) there’s a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi such that Vi0 , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 530
(iv) there’s a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 531
0 0
(v) there’s a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 532
(vi) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 533
0 0
(vii) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 534
(viii) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi0 , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 535
(ix) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1

0
∈ Vi+1 such that 536
0 0
Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 . 537
Definition 4.15. (Characterization of the Neutrosophic neutrosophic SuperHyperPath 538
s). 539
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; 541
(ii) if for all Ej 0 , |Ej 0 | = 2, and there’s Vi , |Vi | ≥ 1, then NSHP is called SuperPath; 542
(iii) if for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called HyperPath; 543
(iv) if there are Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | ≥ 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called neutrosophic 544
SuperHyperPath . 545
Definition 4.16. ((neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperClique). 546
Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 547
(i) an neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique C(N SHG) for an neutrosophic 548
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the 549
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with 550
the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S 551
of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an amount of 552
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges amid an amount of neutrosophic 553
13/178
SuperHyperVertices given by that neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 554
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices; it’s also called a neutrosophic (z, −)−Failed 555
SuperHyperClique neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique C(N SHG) for 556
an neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) if it’s a neutrosophic 557
type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with 558
of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s z neutrosophic 560
SuperHyperEdge amid an amount of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given by 561
that neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices; it’s 562
also called a neutrosophic (−, x)−Failed SuperHyperClique neutrosophic 563
Failed SuperHyperClique C(N SHG) for an neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 564
N SHG : (V, E) if it’s a neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 565
SuperHyperVertices with the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a 566
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that 567
there’s an amount of neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges amid x neutrosophic 568
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices; it’s also called a neutrosophic (z, x)−Failed 570
SuperHyperEdges amid x neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given by that 576
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices; it’s also the 577
neutrosophic extension of the neutrosophic notion of the neutrosophic clique in 578
the neutrosophic graphs to the neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion of the 579
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique in the neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs 580
where in the neutrosophic setting of the graphs, there’s a neutrosophic 581
(1, 2)−Failed SuperHyperClique since a neutrosophic graph is a neutrosophic 582
SuperHyperGraph; 583
(ii) an neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique C(N SHG) for an neutrosophic 584
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the 585
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with 586
of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s an amount of 588
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges amid an amount of neutrosophic 589
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices; it’s also called a neutrosophic (z, −)−Failed 591
SuperHyperEdge amid an amount of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given by 597
that neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices; it’s 598
also called a neutrosophic (−, x)−Failed SuperHyperClique neutrosophic 599
Failed SuperHyperClique C(N SHG) for an neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 600
N SHG : (V, E) if it’s a neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 601
SuperHyperVertices with the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a 602
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that 603
there’s an amount of neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges amid x neutrosophic 604
14/178
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices; it’s also called a neutrosophic (z, x)−Failed 606
SuperHyperEdges amid x neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given by that 612
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices; it’s also the 613
neutrosophic extension of the neutrosophic notion of the neutrosophic clique in 614
the neutrosophic graphs to the neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion of the 615
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique in the neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs 616
where in the neutrosophic setting of the graphs, there’s a neutrosophic 617
(1, 2)−Failed SuperHyperClique since a neutrosophic graph is a neutrosophic 618
SuperHyperGraph; 619
Proposition 4.17. a neutrosophic clique in a neutrosophic graph is a neutrosophic 620
(1, 2)−Failed SuperHyperClique in that neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. And reverse of 621
that statement doesn’t hold. 622
Proposition 4.18. A neutrosophic clique in a neutrosophic graph is a neutrosophic 623
(1, 2)−Failed SuperHyperClique in that neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. And reverse of 624
that statement doesn’t hold. 625
Proposition 4.19. Assume a neutrosophic (x, z)−Failed SuperHyperClique in a 626
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. For all zi ≤ z, xi ≤ x, it’s a neutrosophic 627
(xi , zi )−Failed SuperHyperClique in that neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 628
Proposition 4.20. Assume a neutrosophic (x, z)−Failed SuperHyperClique in a 629
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. For all zi ≤ z, xi ≤ x, it’s a neutrosophic 630
(xi , zi )−Failed SuperHyperClique in that neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 631
Definition 4.21. ((neutrosophic)δ−Failed SuperHyperClique). 632
Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 633
(i) an δ−Failed SuperHyperClique is a maximal of SuperHyperVertices with a 634
maximum cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the 635
(neutrosophic) cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 636
|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 637
Expression (4.2), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; 638
(ii) a neutrosophic δ−Failed SuperHyperClique is a maximal neutrosophic of 639
SuperHyperVertices with maximum neutrosophic cardinality such that either of 640
the following expressions hold for the neutrosophic cardinalities of 641
SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 642
|S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ; (4.3)

|S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ. (4.4)
The Expression (4.3), holds if S is a neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive. 643
And the Expression (4.4), holds if S is a neutrosophic 644
δ−SuperHyperDefensive. 645
15/178
Table 1. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHy-
perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition
(4.24)
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
(4.23)
For the sake of having a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, there’s a need to 646
“redefine” the notion of “neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. The SuperHyperVertices 647
and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. 648
In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. 649
Definition 4.22. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined 650
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph if the Table (1) holds. 651
It’s useful to define a “neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s 652
more ways to get neutrosophic type-results to make a neutrosophic more 653
understandable. 654
Definition 4.23. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 655
neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the Table (2) holds. Thus neutrosophic 656
SuperHyperPath , SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, 657
SuperHyperMultiPartite, and SuperHyperWheel, are neutrosophic neutrosophic 658
SuperHyperPath , neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle, neutrosophic 659
SuperHyperStar, neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite, neutrosophic 660
SuperHyperMultiPartite, and neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel if the Table (2) 661
holds. 662
It’s useful to define a “neutrosophic” version of a Failed SuperHyperClique. Since 663
there’s more ways to get type-results to make a Failed SuperHyperClique more 664
understandable. 665
For the sake of having a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, there’s a need to 666
“redefine” the notion of “ ”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are 667
assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the 668
usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. 669
Definition 4.24. Assume a Failed SuperHyperClique. It’s redefined a neutrosophic 670
Failed SuperHyperClique if the Table (3) holds. 671
5 neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique 672
The SuperHyperNotion, namely, Failed SuperHyperClique, is up. There’s neither empty 673
SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following neutrosophic SuperHyperSet 674
16/178
perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition
(4.24)
of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is the simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of 675
the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. S The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of 676
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, S is the simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of 677
the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 678
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, S is a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique 679
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no 682
a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge amid some neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given by 683
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, S{z}. There’s not only three neutrosophic 685
neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique is a 688
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet includes only three neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. 689
But the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, S doesn’t 690
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the 692
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique is up. To sum them up, the neutrosophic 693
SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, S is the non-obvious simple 694
neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. Since 695
the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, S is a 696
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 697
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given by that neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called 700
the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique and it’s a neutrosophic 701
Failed SuperHyperClique. Since it’s the maximum neutrosophic cardinality 702
there’s no a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for some amount neutrosophic 704
SuperHyperVertices given by that neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 705
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. There isn’t only less than four neutrosophic 706
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, S Thus the 707
non-obvious neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, S is up. The obvious simple 708
neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, not: S 709
is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, not: S does includes only less than four 710
SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s 711
interesting to mention that the only non-obvious simple neutrosophic 712
type-SuperHyperSet called the 713
17/178
is only and only S in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) with 717
a illustrated SuperHyperModeling. It’s also, a neutrosophic free-triangle 718
SuperHyperModel. But all only obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of 719
the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique amid those obvious simple neutrosophic 720
type-SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, are S. In a 721
connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) as Linearly-over-packed 722
SuperHyperModel is featured On the Figures. 723
Example 5.1. Assume the SuperHyperGraphs in the Figures (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), 724
(7), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12), (13), (14), (15), (16), (17), (18), (19), and (20). 725
• On the Figure (1), the neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion, namely, neutrosophic 726
Failed SuperHyperClique, is up. E1 and E3 are some empty neutrosophic 727
SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a 728
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of neutrosophic 729
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . 730
The neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 is neutrosophic isolated means that 731
there’s no neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has it as a neutrosophic endpoint. Thus 732
the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is contained in every given neutrosophic 733
Failed SuperHyperClique. The following neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of 734
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is the simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet 735
of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. V = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }. The 736
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, 737
V = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }, is the simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the 738
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 739
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, V = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }, is a 740
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for a neutrosophic 741
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet with 742
of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a neutrosophic 744
SuperHyperEdge amid some neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given by 745
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V4 }. There’s not only three 747
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex inside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. 748
Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique is up. The obvious 749
simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the neutrosophic Failed 750
SuperHyperClique is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet includes only three 751
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. But the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of 752
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, V = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }, doesn’t have less than four 753
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the 754
non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed 755
SuperHyperClique is up. To sum them up, the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of 756
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, V = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }, is the non-obvious simple 757
neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. 758
Since the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, 759
V = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }, is a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for a 760
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is the neutrosophic 761
SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a 762
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for some neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given by 763
that neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the neutrosophic Failed 764
SuperHyperClique and it’s a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. Since 765
it’s the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic 766
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for some amount neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 768
18/178
given by that neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the neutrosophic Failed 769
SuperHyperClique. There isn’t only less than four neutrosophic 770
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, 771
V = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, 772
V = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }, is up. The obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet 773
of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, not: V = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }, is the 774
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, not: V = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }, does includes only less 775
than four SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 776
ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious simple 777
neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 778
amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets called 780
the 781
is only and only

V = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }.
• On the Figure (2), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, Failed SuperHyperClique, is 783
up. E1 and E3 Failed SuperHyperClique are some empty SuperHyperEdges but 784
E2 is a loop SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of 785
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The 786
SuperHyperVertex, V3 is isolated means that there’s no SuperHyperEdge has it as 787
an endpoint. Thus the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is contained in every 788
given neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. The following neutrosophic 789
SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is the simple neutrosophic 790
type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. 791
V = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic 792
SuperHyperVertices, V = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }, is the simple neutrosophic 793
type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. The 794
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, 795
V = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }, is a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) 796
for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic 797
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that 799
there’s no a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge amid some neutrosophic 800
SuperHyperVertices given by neutrosophic SuperHyperClique is the 801
{V1 , V2 , V4 }. There’s not only three neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex inside the 803
intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic Failed 804
SuperHyperClique is up. The obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet 805
called the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet 806
includes only three neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. But the neutrosophic 807
SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, V = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }, doesn’t 808
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of 810
the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique is up. To sum them up, the 811
V = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }, is the non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet 813
of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. Since the neutrosophic 814
19/178
SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, V = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }, is a 815
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of 817
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a neutrosophic 818
SuperHyperEdge for some neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given by that 819
neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the neutrosophic Failed 820
V = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, 828
V = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }, is up. The obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet 829
of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, not: V = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }, is the 830
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, not: V = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }, does includes only less 831
than four SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 832
the 837
is only and only

V = {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }.
up. E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty SuperHyperEdges but E4 is a 840
SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one 841
SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The following neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of 842
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is the simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet 843
of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. {}. The neutrosophic 844
SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {}, is the simple 845
The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {}, is a 847
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 }. There’s not only three 854
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex inside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. 855
Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique is up. The obvious 856
simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the neutrosophic Failed 857
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {}, doesn’t have less than four 860
20/178
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {}, is the non-obvious simple neutrosophic 864
type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. Since the 865
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {}, is a 866
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of 868
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a neutrosophic 869
SuperHyperEdge for some neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given by that 870
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, {}. Thus 878
the non-obvious neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, {}, is up. The obvious 879
simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed 880
SuperHyperClique, not: {}, is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, not: {}, does 881
includes only less than four SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic 882
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only 883
non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 884
the 887
is only and only

{}.
• On the Figure (4), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, a Failed SuperHyperClique, is 889
up. There’s no empty SuperHyperEdge but E3 are a loop SuperHyperEdge on 890
{F }, and there are some SuperHyperEdges, namely, E1 on {H, V1 , V3 }, alongside 891
E2 on {O, H, V4 , V3 } and E4 , E5 on {N, V1 , V2 , V3 , F }. The following neutrosophic 892
{V1 , V2 , V3 , N, F, V4 }. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic 895
SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , N, F, V4 }, is the simple neutrosophic 896
{V1 , V2 , V3 , N, F, V4 }, is a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique 899
{V1 , V2 , V3 , N, F }. There’s not only three neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex inside 906
21/178
the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic 907
Failed SuperHyperClique is up. The obvious simple neutrosophic 908
type-SuperHyperSet called the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique is a 909
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet includes only three neutrosophic 910
SuperHyperVertices. But the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic 911
SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , N, F, V4 }, doesn’t have less than four 912
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , N, F, V4 }, is the non-obvious simple 916
{V1 , V2 , V3 , N, F, V4 }, is a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for a 919
{V1 , V2 , V3 , N, F, V4 }. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic Failed 931
SuperHyperClique, {V1 , V2 , V3 , N, F, V4 }, is up. The obvious simple neutrosophic 932
type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, not: 933
{V1 , V2 , V3 , N, F, V4 }, is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, not: 934
{V1 , V2 , V3 , N, F, V4 }, does includes only less than four SuperHyperVertices in a 935
connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to 936
mention that the only non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called 937
the 938
the 941
is only and only

{V1 , V2 , V3 , N, F, V4 }.
up. There’s neither empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The 944
following neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is the 945
SuperHyperClique. {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V13 }. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of 947
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V13 }, is the simple 948
The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, 950
{V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V13 }, is a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique 951
22/178
{V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 }. There’s not only three neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 958
inside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious 959
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique is up. The obvious simple neutrosophic 960
SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V13 }, doesn’t have less than four 964
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V13 }, is the non-obvious 968
SuperHyperClique. Since the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 970
SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V13 }, is a neutrosophic Failed 971
SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 972
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given by that neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet 975
called the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique and it’s a neutrosophic 976
Failed SuperHyperClique. Since it’s 977
SuperHyperEdge for some amount neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given by that 980
{V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V13 }. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic Failed 984
SuperHyperClique, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V13 }, is up. The obvious simple 985
neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, 986
not: {V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V13 }, is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, not: 987
{V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V13 }, does includes only less than four SuperHyperVertices in a 988
the 991
the 994
is only and only

{V1 , V2 , V3 , V4 , V5 , V13 }
in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is mentioned as 996
the SuperHyperModel ESHG : (V, E) in the Figure (5). 997
• On the Figure (6), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, Failed SuperHyperClique, is up. 998
There’s neither empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following 999
23/178
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is the simple 1000
{V5 , V6 , V15 }. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic 1002
SuperHyperVertices, {V5 , V6 , V15 }, is the simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet 1003
of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of 1004
the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V5 , V6 , V15 }, is a 1005
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V5 , V6 }. There’s not only three neutrosophic 1012
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V5 , V6 , V15 }, doesn’t have less than four 1018
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V5 , V6 , V15 }, is the non-obvious simple 1022
{V5 , V6 , V15 }, is a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for a 1025
{V5 , V6 , V15 }. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, 1037
{V5 , V6 , V15 }, is up. The obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the 1038
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, not: {V5 , V6 , V15 }, is the neutrosophic 1039
SuperHyperSet, not: {V5 , V6 , V15 }, does includes only less than four 1040
SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1041
the 1046
is only and only {V5 , V6 , V15 } in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1048
ESHG : (V, E) with an illustrated SuperHyperModeling of the Figure (6). It’s 1049
24/178
also, a neutrosophic free-triangle SuperHyperModel. But all only 1050
obvious[non-obvious] simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of the 1051
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple 1052
neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, 1053
are {V5 , V6 , V15 }. 1054
• On the Figure (7), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, neutrosophic Failed 1055
SuperHyperClique {V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 , V6 } is up. There’s neither empty 1056
SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following neutrosophic 1057
{V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 , V6 }. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic 1060
SuperHyperVertices, {V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 , V6 }, is the simple neutrosophic 1061
{V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 , V6 }, does includes only less than four SuperHyperVertices in 1101
25/178
a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to 1102
the 1104
the 1107
is only and only

{V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 , V6 }
in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) of depicted
SuperHyperModel as the Figure (7). But
{V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 , V6 }
are the only obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic 1109
Failed SuperHyperClique amid those obvious simple neutrosophic 1110
type-SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. 1111
26/178
the 1160
the 1163
is only and only

{V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 , V6 }
{V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 , V6 }
type-SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. In a connected 1167
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) of dense SuperHyperModel as the 1168
Figure (8). 1169
• On the Figure (9), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, Failed SuperHyperClique, is up. 1170
There’s neither empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following 1171
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is the simple 1172
{V5 , V6 , V15 }. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic 1174
SuperHyperVertices, {V5 , V6 , V15 }, is the simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet 1175
the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V5 , V6 , V15 }, is a 1177
27/178
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V5 , V6 }. There’s not only three neutrosophic 1184
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V5 , V6 , V15 }, doesn’t have less than four 1190
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V5 , V6 , V15 }, is the non-obvious simple 1194
{V5 , V6 , V15 }, is a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for a 1197
{V5 , V6 , V15 }. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, 1209
{V5 , V6 , V15 }, is up. The obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the 1210
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, not: {V5 , V6 , V15 }, is the neutrosophic 1211
SuperHyperSet, not: {V5 , V6 , V15 }, does includes only less than four 1212
SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1213
the 1218
is only and only {V5 , V6 , V15 } in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1220
ESHG : (V, E) with a illustrated SuperHyperModeling of the Figure (9). It’s also, 1221
a neutrosophic free-triangle SuperHyperModel. But all only obvious simple 1222
neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique 1223
amid those obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic 1224
Failed SuperHyperClique, are {V5 , V6 , V15 }. In a connected neutrosophic 1225
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) of highly-embedding-connected 1226
SuperHyperModel as the Figure (9). 1227
28/178
the 1276
the 1279
29/178
is only and only
{V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 , V6 }
{V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V14 , V6 }
type-SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. In a connected 1283
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) of dense SuperHyperModel as the 1284
Figure (10). 1285
SuperHyperClique. {V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of 1290
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, is the simple neutrosophic 1291
{V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, is a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for 1294
a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic 1295
SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, doesn’t have 1306
less than four SuperHyperVertices inside the intended neutrosophic 1307
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, 1310
is the non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 1311
Failed SuperHyperClique. Since the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 1312
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, is a neutrosophic Failed 1313
30/178
{V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, 1326
{V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, is up. The obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of 1327
the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, not: {V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, is the 1328
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, not: {V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, does includes only less than 1329
four SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1330
the 1335
is only and only {V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 } in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1337
ESHG : (V, E) with a illustrated SuperHyperModeling of the Figure (11). It’s 1338
also, a neutrosophic free-triangle SuperHyperModel. But all only obvious simple 1339
Failed SuperHyperClique, are {V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }. In a connected neutrosophic 1342
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1343
31/178
SuperHyperClique, {V1 , V2 , V3 , V7 , V8 , V9 }, is up. The obvious simple neutrosophic 1386
type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, not: 1387
{V1 , V2 , V3 , V7 , V8 , V9 }, is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, not: 1388
{V1 , V2 , V3 , V7 , V8 , V9 }, does includes only less than four SuperHyperVertices in a 1389
the 1392
the 1395
is only and only {V1 , V2 , V3 , V7 , V8 , V9 } in a connected neutrosophic 1397
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) with a illustrated SuperHyperModeling of the 1398
Figure (11). It’s also, a neutrosophic free-triangle SuperHyperModel. But all only 1399
obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic Failed 1400
SuperHyperClique amid those obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets 1401
of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, are {V1 , V2 , V3 , V7 , V8 , V9 }. In a 1402
connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1403
SuperHyperClique. {V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of 1408
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, is the simple neutrosophic 1409
{V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, is a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for 1412
32/178
SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, doesn’t have 1424
less than four SuperHyperVertices inside the intended neutrosophic 1425
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, 1428
is the non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 1429
Failed SuperHyperClique. Since the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 1430
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, is a neutrosophic Failed 1431
{V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, 1444
{V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, is up. The obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of 1445
the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, not: {V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, is the 1446
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, not: {V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }, does includes only less than 1447
the 1453
is only and only {V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 } in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1455
Failed SuperHyperClique, are {V1 , V4 , V5 , V6 }. In a connected neutrosophic 1460
SuperHyperClique. V = {V1 , V2 , V3 }. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of 1466
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, V = {V1 , V2 , V3 }, is the simple neutrosophic 1467
33/178
V = {V1 , V2 , V3 }, is a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for 1470
V = {V1 , V2 }. There’s not only three neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex inside the 1477
SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, V = {V1 , V2 , V3 }, doesn’t 1482
V = {V1 , V2 , V3 }, is the non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of 1487
the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. Since the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet 1488
of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, V = {V1 , V2 , V3 }, is a neutrosophic 1489
Failed SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1490
V = {V1 , V2 , V3 }. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, 1502
V = {V1 , V2 , V3 }, is up. The obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of 1503
the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, not: V = {V1 , V2 , V3 }, is the 1504
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, not: V = {V1 , V2 , V3 }, does includes only less than 1505
the 1511
is only and only V = {V1 , V2 , V3 } in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1513
Failed SuperHyperClique, are V = {V1 , V2 , V3 }. In a connected neutrosophic 1518
34/178
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s noted that this neutrosophic 1519
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic graph G : (V, E) thus the 1520
notions in both settings are coincided. 1521
SuperHyperClique. V = {V1 , V2 , V3 }. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of 1526
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, V = {V1 , V2 , V3 }, is the simple neutrosophic 1527
V = {V1 , V2 , V3 }, is a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for 1530
V = {V1 , V2 }. There’s not only three neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex inside the 1537
SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, V = {V1 , V2 , V3 }, doesn’t 1542
V = {V1 , V2 , V3 }, is the non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of 1547
the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. Since the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet 1548
of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, V = {V1 , V2 , V3 }, is a neutrosophic 1549
Failed SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1550
V = {V1 , V2 , V3 }. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, 1562
V = {V1 , V2 , V3 }, is up. The obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of 1563
the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, not: V = {V1 , V2 , V3 }, is the 1564
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, not: V = {V1 , V2 , V3 }, does includes only less than 1565
35/178
the 1571
is only and only V = {V1 , V2 , V3 } in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1573
Failed SuperHyperClique, are V = {V1 , V2 , V3 }. In a connected neutrosophic 1578
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s noted that this neutrosophic 1579
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic graph G : (V, E) thus the 1580
notions in both settings are coincided. In a connected neutrosophic 1581
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) as Linearly-Connected SuperHyperModel On 1582
the Figure (15). 1583
SuperHyperClique. E4 ∪ {V21 }. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic 1588
SuperHyperVertices, E4 ∪ {V21 }, is the simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet 1589
the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, E4 ∪ {V21 }, is a 1591
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, E4 . There’s not only three neutrosophic 1598
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, E4 ∪ {V21 }, doesn’t have less than four 1604
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, E4 ∪ {V21 }, is the non-obvious simple 1608
E4 ∪ {V21 }, is a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for a 1611
36/178
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, E4 ∪ {V21 }. 1622
Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, E4 ∪ {V21 }, is up. 1623
The obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed 1624
SuperHyperClique, not: E4 ∪ {V21 }, is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, not: 1625
E4 ∪ {V21 }, does includes only less than four SuperHyperVertices in a connected 1626
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that 1627
the only non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 1628
the 1631
is only and only E4 ∪ {V21 } in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1633
Failed SuperHyperClique, are E4 ∪ {V21 }. In a connected neutrosophic 1638
37/178
the 1687
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) as Linearly-over-packed SuperHyperModel is 1695
featured On the Figure (17). 1696
38/178
the 1744
• On the Figure (19), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, Failed SuperHyperClique, is

up. There’s neither empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The
following neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is the
simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed
SuperHyperClique.
E8 ∪ {O7 , L7 , P7 , K7 , J7 , H7 , U7 },
The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
E8 ∪ {O7 , L7 , P7 , K7 , J7 , H7 , U7 },
is the simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed

SuperHyperClique. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic
39/178
SuperHyperVertices,
E8 ∪ {O7 , L7 , P7 , K7 , J7 , H7 , U7 },
is a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for a neutrosophic

SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet with
the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S
of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge amid some neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given by
neutrosophic SuperHyperClique is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, E8 . There’s not only three neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex inside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the
non-obvious neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique is up. The obvious simple
neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the neutrosophic Failed
SuperHyperClique is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet includes only three
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. But the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
E8 ∪ {O7 , L7 , P7 , K7 , J7 , H7 , U7 },
doesn’t have less than four SuperHyperVertices inside the intended neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of
the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique is up. To sum them up, the
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
E8 ∪ {O7 , L7 , P7 , K7 , J7 , H7 , U7 },
is the non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic

Failed SuperHyperClique. Since the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the
E8 ∪ {O7 , L7 , P7 , K7 , J7 , H7 , U7 },

SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge for some neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given by that
SuperHyperClique and it’s a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. Since
it’s the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for some amount neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
given by that neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the neutrosophic Failed
SuperHyperClique. There isn’t only less than four neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet,
E8 ∪ {O7 , L7 , P7 , K7 , J7 , H7 , U7 }.
Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique,
E8 ∪ {O7 , L7 , P7 , K7 , J7 , H7 , U7 },
is up. The obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic

Failed SuperHyperClique, not:
E8 ∪ {O7 , L7 , P7 , K7 , J7 , H7 , U7 },
40/178
is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, not:
E8 ∪ {O7 , L7 , P7 , K7 , J7 , H7 , U7 },
does includes only less than four SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic 1753
the 1758
is only and only

E8 ∪ {O7 , L7 , P7 , K7 , J7 , H7 , U7 },
in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) with a illustrated
SuperHyperModeling of the Figure (16). It’s also, a neutrosophic free-triangle
SuperHyperModel. But all only obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets
of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique amid those obvious simple
neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique,
are
E8 ∪ {O7 , L7 , P7 , K7 , J7 , H7 , U7 }.
In a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1760
• On the Figure (20), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, Failed SuperHyperClique, is

up. The following neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices is the simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique.
E6 ∪ {W6 , Z6 , C7 , D7 , P6 , H7 , E7 , W7 },
E6 ∪ {W6 , Z6 , C7 , D7 , P6 , H7 , E7 , W7 },

SuperHyperVertices,
E6 ∪ {W6 , Z6 , C7 , D7 , P6 , H7 , E7 , W7 },

the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S
of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge amid some neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given by
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, E6 . There’s not only three neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex inside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the
non-obvious neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique is up. The obvious simple
SuperHyperClique is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet includes only three
41/178
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. But the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of
E6 ∪ {W6 , Z6 , C7 , D7 , P6 , H7 , E7 , W7 },
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of
the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique is up. To sum them up, the
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
E6 ∪ {W6 , Z6 , C7 , D7 , P6 , H7 , E7 , W7 },
is the non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic

Failed SuperHyperClique. Since the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the
E6 ∪ {W6 , Z6 , C7 , D7 , P6 , H7 , E7 , W7 },

SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge for some neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given by that
SuperHyperClique and it’s a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. Since
it’s the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for some amount neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
given by that neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the neutrosophic Failed
SuperHyperClique. There isn’t only less than four neutrosophic
E6 ∪ {W6 , Z6 , C7 , D7 , P6 , H7 , E7 , W7 },
E6 ∪ {W6 , Z6 , C7 , D7 , P6 , H7 , E7 , W7 },
is up. The obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic

Failed SuperHyperClique, not:
E6 ∪ {W6 , Z6 , C7 , D7 , P6 , H7 , E7 , W7 },
E6 ∪ {W6 , Z6 , C7 , D7 , P6 , H7 , E7 , W7 },
the 1766
42/178
Figure 1. The SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Notions of Failed SuperHyperClique
in the Example (5.1)
is only and only

E6 ∪ {W6 , Z6 , C7 , D7 , P6 , H7 , E7 , W7 },
SuperHyperModeling of the Figure (16). It’s also, a neutrosophic free-triangle
SuperHyperModel. But all only obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets
of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique amid those obvious simple
neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique,
are
E6 ∪ {W6 , Z6 , C7 , D7 , P6 , H7 , E7 , W7 }.
Proposition 5.2. Assume a connected loopless neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph

ESHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
is a Failed SuperHyperClique. In other words, the least cardinality, the lower sharp 1769
bound for the cardinality, of a Failed SuperHyperClique is the cardinality of 1770
V \ V \ {x, z}. 1771
Proof. Assume a connected loopless neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 1772
The SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {z} isn’t a Failed 1773
SuperHyperClique since neither amount of neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges nor amount 1774
of SuperHyperVertices where amount refers to the neutrosophic number of 1775
SuperHyperVertices(-/SuperHyperEdges) more than one. Let us consider the 1776
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet V \ V \ {x, y, z}. This neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 1777
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices has the eligibilities to propose some amount of 1778
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges for some amount of the neutrosophic 1779
SuperHyperVertices taken from the mentioned neutrosophic SuperHyperSet and it has 1780
the maximum neutrosophic cardinality amid those neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets 1781
43/178

44/178

45/178

46/178

47/178
Figure 10. The SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Notions of Failed SuperHyper-
Clique in the Example (5.1)

48/178

49/178

50/178

51/178

52/178
but the minimum case of the maximum neutrosophic cardinality indicates that these 1782
neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets couldn’t give us the neutrosophic lower bound in the 1783
term of neutrosophic sharpness. In other words, the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet 1784
V \ V \ {x, y, z} of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices implies at least on-triangle 1785
style is up but sometimes the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet V \ V \ {x, y, z} of the 1786
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is free-triangle and it doesn’t make a contradiction to 1787
the supposition on the connected loopless neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1788
ESHG : (V, E). Thus the minimum case never happens in the generality of the 1789
connected loopless neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs. Thus if we assume in the worst 1790
case, literally, V \ V \ {x, y, z}, is a Failed SuperHyperClique. In other words, the least 1791
cardinality, the lower sharp bound for the cardinality, of a Failed SuperHyperClique is 1792
the cardinality of V \ V \ {x, y, z}. Then we’ve lost some connected loopless 1793
neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of the connected loopless neutrosophic 1794
SuperHyperGraphs titled free-triangle. It’s the contradiction to that fact on the 1795
generality. There are some counterexamples to deny this statement. One of them comes 1796
from the setting of the graph titled path and cycle are well-known classes in that setting 1797
and they could be considered as the examples for the tight bound of V \ V \ {x, z}. Let 1798
V \ V \ {z} in mind. There’s no necessity on the SuperHyperEdge since we need at least 1799
two SuperHyperVertices to form a SuperHyperEdge. It doesn’t withdraw the principles 1800
of the main definition since there’s no condition to be satisfied but the condition is on 1801
the existence of the SuperHyperEdge instead of acting on the SuperHyperVertices. In 1802
other words, if there’s a SuperHyperEdge, then the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet has the 1803
necessary condition for the intended definition to be applied. Thus the V \ V \ {z} is 1804
withdrawn not by the conditions of the main definition but by the necessity of the 1805
pre-condition on the usage of the main definition. 1806
To make sense with precise words in the terms of “Failed”, the follow-up illustrations 1807
are coming up. 1808
The following neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is
53/178
the simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed
SuperHyperClique.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge
amid some neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given by
(V \ V \ {x, z}).
There’s not only three neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex inside the intended

neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic Failed
SuperHyperClique is up. The obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called
the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet includes
only three neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. But the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique is up. To sum them up, the neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
is the non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed
SuperHyperClique. Since the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
54/178
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for some
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given by that neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called
the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique and it’s a neutrosophic
Failed SuperHyperClique. Since it’s the maximum neutrosophic cardinality
of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that
there’s no a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for some amount neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices given by that neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. There isn’t only less than four neutrosophic
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
is up. The obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed
SuperHyperClique, not:
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only non-obvious 1810
simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the 1811
is only and only

(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
SuperHyperModeling. It’s also, a neutrosophic free-triangle SuperHyperModel. But all
only obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic Failed
55/178
SuperHyperClique amid those obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of the
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, are
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
To sum them up, assume a connected loopless neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph

ESHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
is a Failed SuperHyperClique. In other words, the least cardinality, the lower sharp 1816
bound for the cardinality, of a Failed SuperHyperClique is the cardinality of 1817
V \ V \ {x, z}. 1818
Proposition 5.3. Assume a simple neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E).

Then the neutrosophic number of Failed SuperHyperClique has, the least cardinality, the
lower sharp bound for cardinality, is the neutrosophic cardinality of
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
if there’s a Failed SuperHyperClique with the least cardinality, the lower sharp bound for 1819
cardinality. 1820
Proof. The neutrosophic structure of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique 1821
decorates the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices have received complete neutrosophic 1822
connections so as this neutrosophic style implies different versions of neutrosophic 1823
SuperHyperEdges with the maximum neutrosophic cardinality in the terms of 1824
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are spotlight. The lower neutrosophic bound is to 1825
have the minimum neutrosophic groups of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices have 1826
perfect neutrosophic connections inside and the outside of this neutrosophic 1827
SuperHyperSet doesn’t matter but regarding the connectedness of the used neutrosophic 1828
SuperHyperGraph arising from its neutrosophic properties taken from the fact that it’s 1829
simple. If there’s no neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in the targeted neutrosophic 1830
SuperHyperSet, then there’s no neutrosophic connection. Furthermore, the neutrosophic 1831
existence of one neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex has no neutrosophic effect to talk 1832
about the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. Since at least two neutrosophic 1833
SuperHyperVertices involve to make a title in the neutrosophic background of the 1834
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. The neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph is obvious if it 1835
has no neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge but at least two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 1836
make the neutrosophic version of neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the 1837
neutrosophic setting of non-obvious neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, there are at least 1838
one neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. It’s necessary to mention that the word “Simple” is 1839
used as neutrosophic adjective for the initial neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, induces 1840
there’s no neutrosophic appearance of the loop neutrosophic version of the neutrosophic 1841
SuperHyperEdge and this neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph is said to be loopless. The 1842
neutrosophic adjective “loop” on the basic neutrosophic framework engages one 1843
56/178
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex but it never happens in this neutrosophic setting. With 1844
these neutrosophic bases, on a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, there’s at least one 1845
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge thus there’s at least a neutrosophic Failed 1846
SuperHyperClique has the neutrosophic cardinality two. Thus, a neutrosophic Failed 1847
SuperHyperClique has the neutrosophic cardinality at least two. Assume a neutrosophic 1848
SuperHyperSet V \ V \ {z}. This neutrosophic SuperHyperSet isn’t a neutrosophic 1849
Failed SuperHyperClique since either the neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph is an obvious 1850
neutrosophic SuperHyperModel thus it never happens since there’s no neutrosophic 1851
usage of this neutrosophic framework and even more there’s no neutrosophic connection 1852
inside or the neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph isn’t obvious and as its consequences, 1853
there’s a neutrosophic contradiction with the term “neutrosophic Failed 1854
SuperHyperClique” since the maximum neutrosophic cardinality never happens for this 1855
neutrosophic style of the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet and beyond that there’s no 1856
neutrosophic connection inside as mentioned in first neutrosophic case in the forms of 1857
drawback for this selected neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Let V \ V \ {x, y, z} comes up. 1858
This neutrosophic case implies having the neutrosophic style of on-triangle neutrosophic 1859
style on the every neutrosophic elements of this neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Precisely, 1860
the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 1861
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that any neutrosophic amount of the 1862
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are on-triangle neutrosophic style. The neutrosophic 1863
cardinality of the v SuperHypeSet V \ V \ {x, y, z} is the maximum in comparison to 1864
the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet V \ V \ {z, x} but the lower neutrosophic bound is up. 1865
Thus the minimum neutrosophic cardinality of the maximum neutrosophic cardinality 1866
ends up the neutrosophic discussion. The first neutrosophic term refers to the 1867
neutrosophic setting of the neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph but this key point is enough 1868
since there’s a neutrosophic SuperHyperClass of a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph has 1869
no on-triangle neutrosophic style amid any amount of its neutrosophic 1870
SuperHyperVertices. This neutrosophic setting of the neutrosophic SuperHyperModel 1871
proposes a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet has only two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 1872
such that there’s neutrosophic amount of neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges involving 1873
these two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. The neutrosophic cardinality of this 1874
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet is the maximum and the neutrosophic case is occurred in 1875
the minimum neutrosophic situation. To sum them up, the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet 1876
V \ V \ {z, x} has the maximum neutrosophic cardinality such that V \ V \ {z, x} 1877
contains some neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s amount neutrosophic 1878
SuperHyperEdges for amount of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices taken from the 1879
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet V \ V \ {z, x}. It means that the neutrosophic 1880
SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {z, x}. is a neutrosophic 1881
Failed SuperHyperClique for the neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph as used neutrosophic 1882
background in the neutrosophic terms of worst neutrosophic case and the lower 1883
neutrosophic bound occurred in the specific neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of the 1884
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs which are neutrosophic free-triangle. 1885
are coming up. 1887

SuperHyperClique.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
57/178
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}).

(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
58/178
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
is only and only

(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
59/178
To sum them up, assume a simple neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E).
Then the neutrosophic number of Failed SuperHyperClique has, the least cardinality,
the lower sharp bound for cardinality, is the neutrosophic cardinality of
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
if there’s a Failed SuperHyperClique with the least cardinality, the lower sharp bound 1895
for cardinality. 1896
Proposition 5.4. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E).

If a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has z neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, then the
neutrosophic cardinality of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique is at least
z ∪ {zx}
It’s straightforward that the neutrosophic cardinality of the neutrosophic Failed 1897
SuperHyperClique is at least the maximum neutrosophic number of neutrosophic 1898
SuperHyperVertices of the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges. In other words, the 1899
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge with the maximum neutrosophic number of neutrosophic 1900
SuperHyperVertices are renamed to neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique in some cases 1901
but the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge with the maximum neutrosophic number of 1902
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, has the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are 1903
contained in a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. 1904
Proof. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has z neutrosophic number of the

neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Then every neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex has at
least one neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge with others in common. Thus those
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices have the eligibles to be contained in a neutrosophic
Failed SuperHyperClique. Those neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are potentially
included in a neutrosophic style-Failed SuperHyperClique. Formally, consider
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz }
are the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
where the ∼ isn’t an equivalence relation but only the symmetric relation on the
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. The formal
definition is as follows.
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z
if and only if Zi and Zj are the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and there’s a
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge between the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices Zi and
Zj . The other definition for the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge in the terms of
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique is
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
This definition coincides with the definition of the neutrosophic Failed

SuperHyperClique but with slightly differences in the maximum neutrosophic cardinality
amid those neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices.
Thus the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
max |{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}|neutrosophic cardinality ,

z
60/178
is formalized with mathematical literatures on the neutrosophic Failed
E
SuperHyperClique. Let Zi ∼ Zj , be defined as Zi and Zj are the neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices belong to the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge E. Thus,
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
But with the slightly differences, 1905
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique =

E
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | ∀i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z, ∃Ex , Zi ∼x Zj , }.
Thus E is a neutrosophic quasi-Failed SuperHyperClique where E is fixed that means 1906
Ex = E. for all neutrosophic intended SuperHyperVertices but in a neutrosophic Failed 1907
SuperHyperClique, Ex could be different and it’s not unique. To sum them up, in a 1908
connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). If a neutrosophic 1909
SuperHyperEdge has z neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, then the neutrosophic 1910
cardinality of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique is at least z. It’s 1911
straightforward that the neutrosophic cardinality of the neutrosophic Failed 1912
SuperHyperVertices are renamed to neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique in some 1916
cases but the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge with the maximum neutrosophic number of 1917
are coming up. 1921

SuperHyperClique.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
61/178
(V \ V \ {x, z}).

(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
62/178
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
is only and only

(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
To sum them up, assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph

ESHG : (V, E). If a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has z neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices, then the neutrosophic cardinality of the neutrosophic Failed
SuperHyperClique is at least
z ∪ {zx}
It’s straightforward that the neutrosophic cardinality of the neutrosophic Failed 1929
63/178
Proposition 5.5. Assume a connected non-obvious neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1937
ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has only less than three 1938
distinct interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside of any given neutrosophic 1939
quasi-Failed SuperHyperClique plus one neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to one of them. 1940
In other words, there’s only an unique neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has only two 1941
distinct neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in a neutrosophic quasi-Failed 1942
SuperHyperClique, plus one neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to one of them. 1943
Proof. The obvious SuperHyperGraph has no SuperHyperEdges. But the non-obvious 1944
neutrosophic SuperHyperModel is up. The quasi-SuperHyperModel addresses some 1945
issues about the neutrosophic optimal SuperHyperObject. It specially delivers some 1946
remarks on the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 1947
such that there’s amount of neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges for amount of neutrosophic 1948
SuperHyperVertices taken from that neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 1949
SuperHyperVertices but this neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 1950
SuperHyperVertices is either has the maximum neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality or 1951
it doesn’t have maximum neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality. In a non-obvious 1952
SuperHyperModel, there’s at least one neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge containing at 1953
least two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Thus it forms a neutrosophic quasi-Failed 1954
SuperHyperClique where the neutrosophic completion of the neutrosophic incidence is 1955
up in that. Thus it’s, literarily, a neutrosophic embedded Failed SuperHyperClique. 1956
The SuperHyperNotions of embedded SuperHyperSet and quasi-SuperHyperSet 1957
coincide. In the original setting, these types of SuperHyperSets only don’t satisfy on the 1958
maximum SuperHyperCardinality. Thus the embedded setting is elected such that those 1959
SuperHyperSets have the maximum neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality and they’re 1960
neutrosophic SuperHyperOptimal. The less than three neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 1961
are included in the minimum neutrosophic style of the embedded neutrosophic Failed 1962
SuperHyperClique. The interior types of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are 1963
deciders. Since the neutrosophic number of SuperHyperNeighbors are only affected by 1964
the interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. The common connections, more precise 1965
and more formal, the perfect connections inside the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet pose 1966
the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. Thus neutrosophic exterior 1967
SuperHyperVertices could be used only in one neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and in 1968
neutrosophic SuperHyperRelation with the interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in 1969
that neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. In the embedded neutrosophic Failed 1970
SuperHyperClique, there’s the usage of exterior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices since 1971
they’ve more connections inside more than outside. Thus the title “exterior” is more 1972
relevant than the title “interior”. One neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex has no 1973
connection, inside. Thus, the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 1974
SuperHyperVertices with one SuperHyperElement has been ignored in the exploring to 1975
lead on the optimal case implying the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. The 1976
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique with the exclusion of the exclusion of two 1977
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and with other terms, the neutrosophic Failed 1978
SuperHyperClique with the inclusion of two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is a 1979
neutrosophic quasi-Failed SuperHyperClique. To sum them up, in a connected 1980
non-obvious neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E), there’s only one 1981
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has only less than three distinct interior neutrosophic 1982
SuperHyperVertices inside of any given neutrosophic quasi-Failed SuperHyperClique. In 1983
other words, there’s only an unique neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has only two distinct 1984
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in a neutrosophic quasi-Failed SuperHyperClique. 1985
are coming up. 1987
64/178
SuperHyperClique.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}).

(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
65/178
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
is only and only

(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
66/178
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
To sum them up, assume a connected non-obvious neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1995
ESHG : (V, E). There’s only one neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has only less than 1996
three distinct interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside of any given neutrosophic 1997
quasi-Failed SuperHyperClique plus one neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to one of 1998
them. In other words, there’s only an unique neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has only 1999
two distinct neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in a neutrosophic quasi-Failed 2000
SuperHyperClique, plus one neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to one of them. 2001
Proposition 5.6. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). 2002
The all interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong to any neutrosophic 2003
quasi-Failed SuperHyperClique if for any of them, and any of other corresponded 2004
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, the two interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are 2005
mutually neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors with no neutrosophic exception at all plus 2006
one neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to one of them. 2007
Proof. The main definition of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique has two titles. 2008
a neutrosophic quasi-Failed SuperHyperClique and its corresponded quasi-maximum 2009
neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality are two titles in the terms of quasi-styles. For any 2010
neutrosophic number, there’s a neutrosophic quasi-Failed SuperHyperClique with that 2011
quasi-maximum neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality in the terms of the embedded 2012
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If there’s an embedded neutrosophic 2013
SuperHyperGraph, then the neutrosophic quasi-SuperHyperNotions lead us to take the 2014
collection of all the neutrosophic quasi-Failed SuperHyperCliques for all neutrosophic 2015
numbers less than its neutrosophic corresponded maximum number. The essence of the 2016
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique ends up but this essence starts up in the terms 2017
of the neutrosophic quasi-Failed SuperHyperClique, again and more in the operations of 2018
collecting all the neutrosophic quasi-Failed SuperHyperCliques acted on the all possible 2019
used formations of the neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph to achieve one neutrosophic 2020
number. This neutrosophic number is considered as the equivalence class for all 2021
corresponded quasi-Failed SuperHyperCliques. Let 2022
zneutrosophic Number , Sneutrosophic SuperHyperSet and Gneutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique be a 2023
neutrosophic number, a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet and a neutrosophic Failed 2024
SuperHyperClique. Then 2025
[zneutrosophic Number ]neutrosophic Class = {Sneutrosophic SuperHyperSet |

Sneutrosophic SuperHyperSet = Gneutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique ,
|Sneutrosophic SuperHyperSet |neutrosophic Cardinality
= zneutrosophic Number }.
As its consequences, the formal definition of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique 2026
67/178
is re-formalized and redefined as follows. 2027
Gneutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique ∈ ∪zneutrosophic Number

[zneutrosophic Number ]neutrosophic Class =
∪zneutrosophic Number {Sneutrosophic SuperHyperSet |
To get more precise perceptions, the follow-up expressions propose another formal 2028
technical definition for the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. 2029
Gneutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique =

{S ∈ ∪zneutrosophic Number
= zneutrosophic Number |
=
max zneutrosophic Number }.
[zneutrosophic Number ]neutrosophic Class
In more concise and more convenient ways, the modified definition for the neutrosophic 2030
Failed SuperHyperClique poses the upcoming expressions. 2031

[zneutrosophic Number ]neutrosophic Class |
=
To translate the statement to this mathematical literature, the formulae will be revised. 2032

=
max zneutrosophic Number = 2}.
And then, 2033

|Sneutrosophic SuperHyperSet |neutrosophic Cardinality = 2}.
68/178
To get more visions in the closer look-up, there’s an overall overlook. 2034

= 2}.
2035

= 2}.
2036

=
2037

Now, the extension of these types of approaches is up. Since the new term, 2038
“neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood”, could be redefined as the collection of the 2039
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that any amount of its neutrosophic 2040
SuperHyperVertices are incident to a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. It’s, literarily, 2041
another name for “neutrosophic Quasi-Failed SuperHyperClique” but, precisely, it’s the 2042
generalization of “neutrosophic Quasi-Failed SuperHyperClique” since “neutrosophic 2043
Quasi-Failed SuperHyperClique” happens “neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique” in a 2044
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph as initial framework and background but “neutrosophic 2045
SuperHyperNeighborhood” may not happens “neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique” 2046
in a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph as initial framework and preliminarily background 2047
since there are some ambiguities about the neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality arise 2048
from it. To get orderly keywords, the terms, “neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood”, 2049
“neutrosophic Quasi-Failed SuperHyperClique”, and “neutrosophic Failed 2050
SuperHyperClique” are up. 2051
Thus, let zneutrosophic Number , Nneutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood and 2052
Gneutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique be a neutrosophic number, a neutrosophic 2053
69/178
SuperHyperNeighborhood and a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique and the new 2054
terms are up. 2055

∪zneutrosophic Number {Nneutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood |
|Nneutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood |neutrosophic Cardinality
=
2056

{Nneutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood ∈ ∪zneutrosophic Number
|Nneutrosophic SuperHyperSet |neutrosophic Cardinality
=
2057

=
2058

|Nneutrosophic SuperHyperSet |neutrosophic Cardinality =
And with go back to initial structure, 2059

= 2}.
70/178
2060

= 2}.
2061

=
2062

|Nneutrosophic SuperHyperSet |neutrosophic Cardinality = 2}.
Thus, in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E), the all interior 2063
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong to any neutrosophic quasi-Failed 2064
SuperHyperClique if for any of them, and any of other corresponded neutrosophic 2065
SuperHyperVertex, the two interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are mutually 2066
neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors with no neutrosophic exception at all. 2067
are coming up. 2069

SuperHyperClique.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
71/178
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}).

(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
72/178
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
is only and only

(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
To sum them up, aAssume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 2077
ESHG : (V, E). The all interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong to any 2078
neutrosophic quasi-Failed SuperHyperClique if for any of them, and any of other 2079
corresponded neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, the two interior neutrosophic 2080
SuperHyperVertices are mutually neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors with no 2081
neutrosophic exception at all plus one neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to one of 2082
them. 2083
73/178
The any neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique only contains all interior neutrosophic 2085
SuperHyperVertices and all exterior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from the unique 2086
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge where there’s any of them has all possible neutrosophic 2087
SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s all neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhoods in with 2088
no exception plus one neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to one of them but everything is 2089
possible about neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhoods and neutrosophic 2090
SuperHyperNeighbors out plus one neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to one of them. 2091
Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Let a 2092
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge ESHE has some neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices r. 2093
Consider all neutrosophic numbers of those neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from that 2094
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge excluding excluding more than r distinct neutrosophic 2095
SuperHyperVertices, exclude to any given neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 2096
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Consider there’s a neutrosophic Failed 2097
SuperHyperClique with the least cardinality, the lower sharp neutrosophic bound for 2098
neutrosophic cardinality. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 2099
ESHG : (V, E). The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 2100
SuperHyperVertices VESHE \ {z} is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of the neutrosophic 2101
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have some 2102
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in common but it isn’t a neutrosophic Failed 2103
SuperHyperClique. Since it doesn’t have the maximum neutrosophic cardinality 2104
there’s a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have a some SuperHyperVertices in common. 2106
The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices VESHE ∪ {z} 2107
is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of 2108
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices but it isn’t a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. 2109
Since it doesn’t do the neutrosophic procedure such that such that there’s a 2110
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have some neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in 2111
common [there are at least one neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex outside implying 2112
there’s, sometimes in the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E), a 2113
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, titled its neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, to that 2114
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S so as S doesn’t 2115
do “the neutrosophic procedure”.]. There’s only one neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 2116
outside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, VESHE ∪ {z}, in the terms of 2117
neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhood. Thus the obvious neutrosophic Failed 2118
SuperHyperClique, VESHE is up. The obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet 2119
of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, VESHE , is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, 2120
VESHE , includes only all neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices does forms any kind of 2121
neutrosophic pairs are titled neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected 2122
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Since the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet 2123
of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices VESHE , is the 2124
maximum neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality of a neutrosophic 2125
SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a neutrosophic 2126
SuperHyperEdge to have a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in common. Thus, a 2127
connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). The any neutrosophic Failed 2128
SuperHyperClique only contains all interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and all 2129
exterior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from the unique neutrosophic 2130
SuperHyperEdge where there’s any of them has all possible neutrosophic 2131
no exception but everything is possible about neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhoods 2133
and neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors out. 2134
74/178
are coming up. 2136

SuperHyperClique.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}).
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
75/178
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
is only and only

(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
76/178
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
To sum them up, assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 2144
ESHG : (V, E). The any neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique only contains all 2145
interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and all exterior neutrosophic 2146
SuperHyperVertices from the unique neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge where there’s any of 2147
them has all possible neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s all neutrosophic 2148
SuperHyperNeighborhoods in with no exception plus one neutrosophic 2149
SuperHypeNeighbor to one of them but everything is possible about neutrosophic 2150
SuperHyperNeighborhoods and neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors out plus one 2151
neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to one of them. 2152
2153
Remark 5.8. The words “ neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique” and “neutrosophic 2154
SuperHyperDominating” both refer to the maximum neutrosophic type-style. In other 2155
words, they either refer to the maximum neutrosophic SuperHyperNumber or to the 2156
minimum neutrosophic SuperHyperNumber and the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet either 2157
with the maximum neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality or with the minimum 2158
neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality. 2159
Consider a neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating. Then a neutrosophic Failed 2161
SuperHyperClique has only one neutrosophic representative minus one neutrosophic 2162
SuperHypeNeighbor to one of them in. 2163
Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Consider a 2164
neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating. By applying the Proposition (5.7), the 2165
neutrosophic results are up. Thus on a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 2166
ESHG : (V, E), and in a neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating, a neutrosophic Failed 2167
SuperHyperClique has only one neutrosophic representative minus one neutrosophic 2168
SuperHypeNeighbor to one of them in. 2169
6 Results on neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses 2170
The previous neutrosophic approaches apply on the upcoming neutrosophic results on 2171
neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses. 2172
Proposition 6.1. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). 2173
Then a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique-style with the maximum neutrosophic 2174
SuperHyperCardinality is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the interior neutrosophic 2175
SuperHyperVertices plus one neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to one. 2176
Proposition 6.2. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). 2177
Then a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 2178
interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with only no neutrosophic exceptions in the 2179
form of interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from the unique neutrosophic 2180
SuperHyperEdges not excluding only any interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from 2181
the neutrosophic unique SuperHyperEdges plus one neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to 2182
77/178
one. a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique has the neutrosophic number of all the 2183
interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices without any minus on 2184
SuperHyperNeighborhoods plus one neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to one. 2185
Proof. Assume a connected SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). Assume a neutrosophic

SuperHyperEdge has z neutrosophic number of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices.
Then every neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex has at least one neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge with others in common. Thus those neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
have the eligibles to be contained in a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. Those
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are potentially included in a neutrosophic style-Failed
SuperHyperClique. Formally, consider
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz }
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.


z

E
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.

E
78/178
contained in a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. The main definition of the 2200
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique has two titles. a neutrosophic quasi-Failed 2201
SuperHyperClique and its corresponded quasi-maximum neutrosophic 2202
SuperHyperCardinality are two titles in the terms of quasi-styles. For any neutrosophic 2203
number, there’s a neutrosophic quasi-Failed SuperHyperClique with that 2204


79/178

=

=

=
And then, 2226


= 2}.
80/178
2228

= 2}.
2229

=
2230

terms are up. 2248

=
81/178
=
2249

=
2250


= 2}.
2252

= 2}.
82/178
2253

=
2254

neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors with no neutrosophic exception at all. Assume a 2259
connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E). Let a neutrosophic 2260
SuperHyperEdge ESHE has some neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices r. Consider all 2261
neutrosophic numbers of those neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from that neutrosophic 2262
SuperHyperEdge excluding excluding more than r distinct neutrosophic 2263
83/178
are coming up. 2304

SuperHyperClique.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}).

(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
84/178
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
85/178
is only and only

(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
To sum them up, assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E). 2312
interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with only no neutrosophic exceptions in the 2314
form of interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from the unique neutrosophic 2315
SuperHyperEdges not excluding only any interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from 2316
the neutrosophic unique SuperHyperEdges plus one neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor 2317
to one. a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique has the neutrosophic number of all the 2318
interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices without any minus on 2319
SuperHyperNeighborhoods plus one neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to one. 2320
Example 6.3. In the Figure (21), the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperPath 2321
ESHP : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, 2322
corresponded to E5 , VE5 ∪ {V25 , of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the 2323
connected neutrosophic SuperHyperPath ESHP : (V, E), in the neutrosophic 2324
SuperHyperModel (21), is the Failed SuperHyperClique. 2325
Proposition 6.4. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). 2326
interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with only no neutrosophic exceptions on the 2328
form of interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from the same neutrosophic 2329
SuperHyperNeighborhoods not excluding any neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex plus one 2330
neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to one. a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique has 2331
the neutrosophic number of all the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges in the terms of the 2332
maximum neutrosophic cardinality plus one neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to one. 2333
Proof. Assume a connected SuperHyperCycle ESHC : (V, E). Assume a neutrosophic

{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz }
86/178
Figure 21. a neutrosophic SuperHyperPath Associated to the Notions of neutrosophic
Failed SuperHyperClique in the Example (6.3)

Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
z

E
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.

E
87/178


88/178

=

=

=
And then, 2374


= 2}.
89/178
2376

= 2}.
2377

=
2378

terms are up. 2396

=
90/178
=
2397

=
2398


= 2}.
2400

= 2}.
91/178
2401

=
2402

92/178
are coming up. 2452

SuperHyperClique.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}).

(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
93/178
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
94/178
is only and only

(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
To sum them up, assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle 2460
ESHC : (V, E). Then a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique is a neutrosophic 2461
SuperHyperSet of the interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with only no 2462
neutrosophic exceptions on the form of interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from 2463
the same neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhoods not excluding any neutrosophic 2464
SuperHyperVertex plus one neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to one. a neutrosophic 2465
Failed SuperHyperClique has the neutrosophic number of all the neutrosophic 2466
SuperHyperEdges in the terms of the maximum neutrosophic cardinality plus one 2467
neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to one. 2468
Example 6.5. In the Figure (22), the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle

N SHC : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained neutrosophic SuperHyperSet,
, corresponded to E8 , VE8 , by the Algorithm in previous result, of the neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices of the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle N SHC : (V, E), in
the neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (22), corresponded to E8 ,
VE8 ∪ {H7 , J7 , K7 , P7 , L7 , U6 , O7 },
is the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. 2469
Proposition 6.6. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). 2470
interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, not neutrosophic excluding the neutrosophic 2472
SuperHyperCenter, with only all neutrosophic exceptions in the neutrosophic form of 2473
interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from common neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, 2474
neutrosophic including only one neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge plus one neutrosophic 2475
SuperHypeNeighbor to one. a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique has the 2476
neutrosophic number of the neutrosophic cardinality of the one neutrosophic 2477
SuperHyperEdge plus one neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to one. 2478
Proof. Assume a connected SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). Assume a neutrosophic

95/178
Figure 22. a neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle Associated to the neutrosophic Notions of
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique in the neutrosophic Example (6.5)

{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz }
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
z

E
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.
96/178

E


97/178

=

=

=
And then, 2519


= 2}.
98/178
2521

= 2}.
2522

=
2523

terms are up. 2541

=
99/178
=
2542

=
2543


= 2}.
2545

= 2}.
100/178
2546

=
2547

101/178
are coming up. 2597

SuperHyperClique.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}).

(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
102/178
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
103/178
is only and only

(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
To sum them up, assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E). 2605
interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, not neutrosophic excluding the neutrosophic 2607
SuperHyperCenter, with only all neutrosophic exceptions in the neutrosophic form of 2608
interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from common neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, 2609
neutrosophic including only one neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge plus one neutrosophic 2610
neutrosophic number of the neutrosophic cardinality of the one neutrosophic 2612
SuperHyperEdge plus one neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to one. 2613
2614
Example 6.7. In the Figure (23), the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperStar

ESHS : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. The obtained neutrosophic SuperHyperSet,
by the Algorithm in previous neutrosophic result, of the neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices of the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperStar ESHS : (V, E), in
the neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), , corresponded to E6 ,
VE6 ∪ {W6 Z6 C7 D7 P6 E7 W7 },
Proposition 6.8. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite 2616
ESHB : (V, E). Then a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique is a neutrosophic 2617
SuperHyperSet of the interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with no any neutrosophic 2618
exceptions in the form of interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices titled neutrosophic 2619
SuperHyperNeighbors with only no exception plus one neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor 2620
to one. a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique has the neutrosophic maximum number 2621
of on neutrosophic cardinality of the first SuperHyperPart plus neutrosophic 2622
SuperHyperNeighbors plus one neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to one. 2623
Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E). Assume

a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has z neutrosophic number of the neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices. Then every neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex has at least one
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge with others in common. Thus those neutrosophic
104/178
Figure 23. a neutrosophic SuperHyperStar Associated to the neutrosophic Notions of
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique in the neutrosophic Example (6.7)
SuperHyperVertices have the eligibles to be contained in a neutrosophic Failed

SuperHyperClique. Those neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are potentially included in
a neutrosophic style-Failed SuperHyperClique. Formally, consider
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz }
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.


z

E
105/178
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.

E

106/178


=

=

=
And then, 2664

107/178

= 2}.
2666

= 2}.
2667

=
2668

108/178
terms are up. 2686

=
2687

=
2688

=
2689


= 2}.
109/178
2691

= 2}.
2692

=
2693

110/178
are coming up. 2743

SuperHyperClique.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}).
111/178
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
112/178
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
is only and only

(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
To sum them up, assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite 2751
ESHB : (V, E). Then a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique is a neutrosophic 2752
SuperHyperSet of the interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with no any 2753
neutrosophic exceptions in the form of interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices titled 2754
neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors with only no exception plus one neutrosophic 2755
neutrosophic maximum number of on neutrosophic cardinality of the first 2757
SuperHyperPart plus neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors plus one neutrosophic 2758
SuperHypeNeighbor to one. 2759
2760
Example 6.9. In the neutrosophic Figure (24), the connected neutrosophic

SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), is neutrosophic highlighted and neutrosophic
featured. The obtained neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the neutrosophic Algorithm in
previous neutrosophic result, of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected
neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the neutrosophic
SuperHyperModel (24), , corresponded to E6 ,
VE6 ∪ {P2 O2 T2 R2 U2 S2 V2 },
113/178
Figure 24. a neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite neutrosophic Associated to the neutro-
sophic Notions of neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique in the Example (6.9)
Proposition 6.10. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite 2762
ESHM : (V, E). Then a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique is a neutrosophic 2763
neutrosophic exception in the neutrosophic form of interior neutrosophic 2765
SuperHyperVertices from a neutrosophic SuperHyperPart and only no exception in the 2766
form of interior SuperHyperVertices from another SuperHyperPart titled 2767
“SuperHyperNeighbors” with neglecting and ignoring more than one of them plus one 2768
the neutrosophic maximum number on all the neutrosophic summation on the 2770
neutrosophic cardinality of the all neutrosophic SuperHyperParts form one 2771
SuperHyperEdges not plus any plus one neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to one. 2772
Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite N SHM : (V, E).

Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has z neutrosophic number of the neutrosophic
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz }
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z
114/178
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.


z

E
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.

E
115/178



=

=

=
116/178
And then, 2813


= 2}.
2815

= 2}.
2816

=
2817

117/178
terms are up. 2835

=
2836

=
2837

=
2838

118/178

= 2}.
2840

= 2}.
2841

=
2842

119/178
are coming up. 2892

SuperHyperClique.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
120/178
(V \ V \ {x, z}).

(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}.
121/178
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
is only and only

(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
To sum them up, assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite 2900
ESHM : (V, E). Then a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique is a neutrosophic 2901
neutrosophic exception in the neutrosophic form of interior neutrosophic 2903
SuperHyperVertices from a neutrosophic SuperHyperPart and only no exception in the 2904
form of interior SuperHyperVertices from another SuperHyperPart titled 2905
“SuperHyperNeighbors” with neglecting and ignoring more than one of them plus one 2906
the neutrosophic maximum number on all the neutrosophic summation on the 2908
neutrosophic cardinality of the all neutrosophic SuperHyperParts form one 2909
SuperHyperEdges not plus any plus one neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to one. 2910
122/178
Figure 25. a neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique in the Example (6.11)
Example 6.11. In the Figure (25), the connected neutrosophic 2911
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), is highlighted and neutrosophic featured. The 2912
obtained neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous neutrosophic result, 2913
of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected neutrosophic 2914
SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), , corresponded to E3 , VE3 ∪ V4 , in the 2915
neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. 2916
Proposition 6.12. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 2917
ESHW : (V, E). Then a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique is a neutrosophic 2918
SuperHyperSet of the interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, not excluding the 2919
neutrosophic SuperHyperCenter, with only no exception in the form of interior 2920
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from same neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge with not the 2921
exclusion plus any plus one neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to one. a neutrosophic 2922
Failed SuperHyperClique has the neutrosophic maximum number on all the neutrosophic 2923
number of all the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges have common neutrosophic 2924
SuperHyperNeighbors inside for a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex with the not exclusion 2925
plus any plus one neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to one. 2926
Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel ESHW : (V, E). Assume a

neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has z neutrosophic number of the neutrosophic
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz }
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z.
123/178
Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z
{Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.


z

E
E
E = {Z1 , Z2 , . . . , Zz | Zi ∼ Zj , i 6= j, i, j = 1, 2, . . . , z}.

E
124/178



=

=
125/178

=
And then, 2967


= 2}.
2969

= 2}.
2970

=
2971

126/178
terms are up. 2989

=
2990

=
2991

=
127/178
2992


= 2}.
2994

= 2}.
2995

=
2996

128/178
are coming up. 3046

SuperHyperClique.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
129/178
SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}).

(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
SuperHyperVertices,
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
130/178
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}.
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
is only and only

(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {xy}
or
(V \ V \ {x, z}) ∪ {zy}
To sum them up, assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 3054
ESHW : (V, E). Then a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique is a neutrosophic 3055
SuperHyperSet of the interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, not excluding the 3056
neutrosophic SuperHyperCenter, with only no exception in the form of interior 3057
131/178
Figure 26. a neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel neutrosophic Associated to the neutro-
sophic Notions of neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique in the neutrosophic Example
(6.13)
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from same neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge with not 3058
the exclusion plus any plus one neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to one. a 3059
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique has the neutrosophic maximum number on all 3060
the neutrosophic number of all the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges have common 3061
neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors inside for a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex with 3062
the not exclusion plus any plus one neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to one. 3063
3064
Example 6.13. In the neutrosophic Figure (26), the connected neutrosophic 3065
SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E), is neutrosophic highlighted and featured. The 3066
obtained neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the 3067
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 3068
ESHW : (V, E), , corresponded to E5 , VE6 , in the neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (26), 3069
7 General neutrosophic Results 3071
For the Failed SuperHyperClique, neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, and the 3072
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, some general results are introduced. 3073
Remark 7.1. Let remind that the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique is “redefined” 3074
on the positions of the alphabets. 3075
Corollary 7.2. Assume neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. Then 3076
N eutrosophic F ailedSuperHyperClique =
{theF ailedSuperHyperCliqueof theSuperHyperV ertices |
max |SuperHyperOf f ensiveSuperHyper
Clique|neutrosophiccardinalityamidthoseF ailedSuperHyperClique. }
plus one neutrosophic SuperHypeNeighbor to one. Where σi is the unary operation on 3077
the SuperHyperVertices of the SuperHyperGraph to assign the determinacy, the 3078
indeterminacy and the neutrality, for i = 1, 2, 3, respectively. 3079
132/178
Corollary 7.3. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the same identical letter 3080
of the alphabet. Then the notion of neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique and Failed 3081
SuperHyperClique coincide. 3082
of the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a 3084
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique if and only if it’s a Failed SuperHyperClique. 3085
of the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a strongest 3087
SuperHyperCycle if and only if it’s a longest SuperHyperCycle. 3088
Corollary 7.6. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the 3089
same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique is 3090
its Failed SuperHyperClique and reversely. 3091
Corollary 7.7. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperCycle, 3092
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel) on 3093
the same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique 3094
is its Failed SuperHyperClique and reversely. 3095
Corollary 7.8. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its neutrosophic 3096
Failed SuperHyperClique isn’t well-defined if and only if its Failed SuperHyperClique 3097
isn’t well-defined. 3098
Corollary 7.9. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then 3099
its neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique isn’t well-defined if and only if its Failed 3100
SuperHyperClique isn’t well-defined. 3101
Then its neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique isn’t well-defined if and only if its Failed 3104
SuperHyperClique isn’t well-defined. 3105
Corollary 7.11. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its neutrosophic 3106
Failed SuperHyperClique is well-defined if and only if its Failed SuperHyperClique is 3107
well-defined. 3108
Corollary 7.12. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 3109
Then its neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique is well-defined if and only if its Failed 3110
SuperHyperClique is well-defined. 3111
Then its neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique is well-defined if and only if its Failed 3114
SuperHyperClique is well-defined. 3115
Proposition 7.14. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then V 3116
is 3117
(i) : the dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 3118
(ii) : the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 3119
(iii) : the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 3120
(iv) : the δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 3121
(v) : the strong δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 3122
133/178
(vi) : the connected δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3123
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider V. All 3124
SuperHyperMembers of V have at least one SuperHyperNeighbor inside the 3125
SuperHyperSet more than SuperHyperNeighbor out of SuperHyperSet. Thus, 3126
(i). V is the dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique since the following 3127
statements are equivalent. 3128
∀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 Failed SuperHyperClique since the 3129
following statements are equivalent. 3130
∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |Ns (a) ∩ ∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(iii). V is the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique since the 3131
∀a ∈ S, |Nc (a) ∩ S| > |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > |Nc (a) ∩ ∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(iv). V is the δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique since the following 3133
∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ S))| > δ ≡

∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V ) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ V ))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V ) − (N (a) ∩ (∅))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V ) − (∅)| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V )| > δ.
(v). V is the strong δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique since the 3135
∀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.
134/178
(vi). V is connected δ-dual Failed SuperHyperClique since the following statements are 3137
equivalent. 3138
∀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.
3139
Proposition 7.15. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then 3140
∅ is 3141
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 3142
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 3143
(iii) : the connected defensive SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 3144
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 3145
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 3146
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3147
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider ∅. All 3148
SuperHyperMembers of ∅ have no SuperHyperNeighbor inside the SuperHyperSet less 3149
than SuperHyperNeighbor out of SuperHyperSet. Thus, 3150
(i). ∅ is the SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique since the following 3151
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |N (a) ∩ ∅| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |N (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |N (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(ii). ∅ is the strong SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique since the following 3153
∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |Ns (a) ∩ ∅| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Ns (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Ns (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(iii). ∅ is the connected SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique since the 3155
135/178
∀a ∈ S, |Nc (a) ∩ S| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |Nc (a) ∩ ∅| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Nc (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Nc (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(iv). ∅ is the δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique since the following 3157
∀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 Failed SuperHyperClique since the following 3159
∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |(Ns (a) ∩ ∅) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ ∅))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |(Ns (a) ∩ ∅) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
(vi). ∅ is the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique since the 3161
∀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.
3163
Proposition 7.16. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then an 3164
independent SuperHyperSet is 3165
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 3166
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 3167
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 3168
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 3169
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 3170
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3171
136/178
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider S. All 3172
SuperHyperMembers of S have no SuperHyperNeighbor inside the SuperHyperSet less 3173
(i). An independent SuperHyperSet is the SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3175
SuperHyperClique since the following statements are equivalent. 3176
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, |∅| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, 0 < |N (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ S, 0 < |N (a)| ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(ii). An independent SuperHyperSet is the strong SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3177
∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, |∅| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, 0 < |Ns (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ S, 0 < |Ns (a)| ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(iii). An independent SuperHyperSet is the connected SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3179
∀a ∈ S, |Nc (a) ∩ S| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |Nc (a) ∩ S| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, |∅| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, 0 < |Nc (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ S, 0 < |Nc (a)| ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(iv). An independent SuperHyperSet is the δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3181
∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ S, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
(v). An independent SuperHyperSet is the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3183
∀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.
137/178
(vi). An independent SuperHyperSet is the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3185
∀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.
3187
Proposition 7.17. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform 3188
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath. Then V is a maximal 3189
(i) : SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 3190
(ii) : strong SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 3191
(iii) : connected SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 3192
(iv) : O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 3193
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 3194
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 3195
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 3196
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 3197
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath. 3198
(i). Consider one segment is out of S which is SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3199
SuperHyperClique. This segment has 2t SuperHyperNeighbors in S, i.e, Suppose 3200
xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S such that yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By it’s the exterior 3201
SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s 3202
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperCycle, 3203
|N (xii=1,2,...,t )| = |N (yii=1,2,...,t )| = |N (zii=1,2,...,t )| = 2t. Thus 3204
∀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 3205
Failed SuperHyperClique in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperCycle. 3206
Consider one segment, with two segments related to the SuperHyperLeaves as 3207
exceptions, is out of S which is SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. This 3208
segment has 2t SuperHyperNeighbors in S, i.e, Suppose xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S such that 3209
yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By it’s the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the 3210
138/178
interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperPath, 3211
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ (V \ (V \ {xii=1,2,...,t }))| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ {xii=1,2,...,t })| ≡
∃yii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ {xi }ti=1 , |{z1 , z2 , . . . , zt−1 }| <
|{x1 , x2 , . . . , xt−1 })| ≡
∃y ∈ S, t − 1 < t − 1.
Failed SuperHyperClique in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperPath. 3214
(ii), (iii) are obvious by (i). 3215
(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal and it’s a SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3216
SuperHyperClique. Thus it’s |V |-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3217
(v), (vi) are obvious by (iv). 3218
Proposition 7.18. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 3219
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel. Then V is a maximal 3220
(i) : dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 3221
(ii) : strong dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 3222
(iii) : connected dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 3223
(iv) : O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 3224
(v) : strong O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 3225
(vi) : connected O(ESHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 3226
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 3227
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform 3228
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. 3229
xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S such that yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By it’s the 3232
exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s 3233
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel, 3234
139/178
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∃yii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ) ∈ V \ {xi }ti=1 ,
|N (yii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t )) ∩ S| <
|N (yii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t )) ∩ (V \ (V \ {xii=1,2,...,t }))| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t )) ∩ {xii=1,2,...,t })| ≡
|{z1 , z2 , . . . , zt−1 , z10 , z20 , . . . , zt0 }| < |{x1 , x2 , . . . , xt−1 })| ≡
∃y ∈ S, 2t − 1 < t − 1.
Thus it’s contradiction. It implies every V \ {xii=1,2,...,t } is SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3236
SuperHyperClique in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel. 3237
(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal and it is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3239
SuperHyperClique. Thus it’s a dual |V |-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3240
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath. Then the number of 3243
(i) : the Failed SuperHyperClique; 3244
(ii) : the Failed SuperHyperClique; 3245
(iii) : the connected Failed SuperHyperClique; 3246
(iv) : the O(ESHG)-Failed SuperHyperClique; 3247
(v) : the strong O(ESHG)-Failed SuperHyperClique; 3248
(vi) : the connected O(ESHG)-Failed SuperHyperClique. 3249
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 3250
SuperHyperVertices coincide. 3251
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 3252
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath. 3253
xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S such that yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By it’s the exterior 3256
SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s 3257
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperCycle, 3258
140/178
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ (V \ (V \ {xii=1,2,...,t }))| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ {xii=1,2,...,t })| ≡
∃yii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ {xi }ti=1 , |{z1 , z2 , . . . , zt−1 }| < |{x1 , x2 , . . . , xt−1 })| ≡
∃y ∈ S, t − 1 < t − 1.
Failed SuperHyperClique in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperCycle. 3261
Consider one segment, with two segments related to the SuperHyperLeaves as 3262
exceptions, is out of S which is SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. This 3263
segment has 2t SuperHyperNeighbors in S, i.e, Suppose xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S such that 3264
yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By it’s the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the 3265
interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperPath, 3266
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ (V \ (V \ {xii=1,2,...,t }))| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ {xii=1,2,...,t })| ≡
∃yii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ {xi }ti=1 , |{z1 , z2 , . . . , zt−1 }| <
|{x1 , x2 , . . . , xt−1 })| ≡
∃y ∈ S, t − 1 < t − 1.
Failed SuperHyperClique in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperPath. 3269
(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal and it’s a SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3271
SuperHyperClique. Thus it’s |V |-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3272
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. Then the number of 3275
(i) : the dual Failed SuperHyperClique; 3276
(ii) : the dual Failed SuperHyperClique; 3277
(iii) : the dual connected Failed SuperHyperClique; 3278
(iv) : the dual O(ESHG)-Failed SuperHyperClique; 3279
(v) : the strong dual O(ESHG)-Failed SuperHyperClique; 3280
(vi) : the connected dual O(ESHG)-Failed SuperHyperClique. 3281
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 3282
141/178
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform 3284
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. 3285
xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S such that yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By it’s the 3288
exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s 3289
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel, 3290
∀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 3292
SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique in a given SuperHyperUniform 3293
SuperHyperWheel. 3294
(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal and it’s a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3296
SuperHyperClique. Thus it isn’t an |V |-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3297
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperStar/SuperHyperComplete 3300
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 3301
SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of multiplying r with the 3302
number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices is a 3303
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 3307
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 3308
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3309
Proof. (i). Consider n half +1 SuperHyperVertices are in S which is 3310
SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. A SuperHyperVertex has either n2 or 3311
one SuperHyperNeighbors in S. If the SuperHyperVertex is non-SuperHyperCenter, then 3312
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
142/178
If the SuperHyperVertex is SuperHyperCenter, then 3313
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3314
SuperHyperClique in a given SuperHyperStar. 3315
Consider n half +1 SuperHyperVertices are in S which is SuperHyperDefensive 3316
Failed SuperHyperClique. A SuperHyperVertex has at most n2 SuperHyperNeighbors in 3317
S. 3318
n n
∀a ∈ S, > |N (a) ∩ S| > − 1 > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
2 2
n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
SuperHyperClique in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite which isn’t a 3320
SuperHyperStar. 3321
Failed SuperHyperClique and they’re chosen from different SuperHyperParts, equally or 3323
almost equally as possible. A SuperHyperVertex has at most n2 SuperHyperNeighbors 3324
in S. 3325
n n
∀a ∈ S, > |N (a) ∩ S| > − 1 > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
2 2
n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
SuperHyperClique in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite which is 3327
neither a SuperHyperStar nor SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite. 3328

O(ESHG)
+1
(iv). By (i), {xi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3330
Thus it’s O(ESHG)

2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3331
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 3335
SuperHyperSet contains the half of multiplying r with the number of all the 3336
SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart 3337
is a 3338
(iv) : δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 3342
(v) : strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 3343
(vi) : connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3344
143/178
Proof. (i). Consider the half of multiplying r with the number of all the 3345
SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart 3346
are in S which is SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. A SuperHyperVertex 3347
has either n − 1, 1 or zero SuperHyperNeighbors in S. If the SuperHyperVertex is in S, 3348
then 3349
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 0 < 1.
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique 3350
in a given SuperHyperStar. 3351
Consider the half of multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus 3352
one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart are in S which is 3353
SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. A SuperHyperVertex has no 3354
SuperHyperNeighbor in S. 3355
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 0 < δ.
in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite which isn’t a SuperHyperStar. 3357
Consider the half of multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus 3358
one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart are in S which is 3359
SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. A SuperHyperVertex has no 3360
SuperHyperNeighbor in S. 3361
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 0 < δ.
in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite which is neither a 3363
SuperHyperStar nor SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite. 3364
(iv). By (i), S is a SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. Thus it’s an 3366
δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3367
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then Then the 3371
number of 3372
O(ESHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 3376
O(ESHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 3377
O(ESHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3378
144/178
is one and it’s only S, a SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of 3379
multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the 3380
SuperHyperVertices. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 3381
SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. A SuperHyperVertex has either n2 or 3384
one SuperHyperNeighbors in S. If the SuperHyperVertex is non-SuperHyperCenter, then 3385
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
If the SuperHyperVertex is SuperHyperCenter, then 3386
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
Failed SuperHyperClique. A SuperHyperVertex has at most n2 SuperHyperNeighbors in 3390
S. 3391
n n
∀a ∈ S, > |N (a) ∩ S| > − 1 > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
2 2
n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
SuperHyperClique in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite which isn’t a 3393
Failed SuperHyperClique and they’re chosen from different SuperHyperParts, equally or 3396
almost equally as possible. A SuperHyperVertex has at most n2 SuperHyperNeighbors 3397
in S. 3398
n n
∀a ∈ S, > |N (a) ∩ S| > − 1 > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
2 2
n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
SuperHyperClique in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite which is 3400
neither a SuperHyperStar nor SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite. 3401

O(ESHG)
+1
(iv). By (i), {xi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3403
Thus it’s O(ESHG)

2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3404
Proposition 7.24. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. The 3406
number of connected component is |V − S| if there’s a SuperHyperSet which is a dual 3407
145/178
(iv) : Failed SuperHyperClique; 3411
(v) : strong 1-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 3412
(vi) : connected 1-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3413
Proof. (i). Consider some SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 3414
SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. These SuperHyperVertex-type have 3415
some SuperHyperNeighbors in S but no SuperHyperNeighbor out of S. Thus 3416
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
SuperHyperClique and number of connected component is |V − S|. 3418
(iv). By (i), S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. Thus it’s a 3420
dual 1-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3421
Proposition 7.25. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then the 3423
number is at most O(ESHG) and the neutrosophic number is at most On (ESHG). 3424
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider V. All 3425
SuperHyperMembers of V have at least one SuperHyperNeighbor inside the 3426
SuperHyperSet more than SuperHyperNeighbor out of SuperHyperSet. Thus, 3427
V is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique since the following 3428
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > |N (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > |N (a) ∩ ∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
V is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique since the following 3430
∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |Ns (a) ∩ ∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
V is connected a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique since the 3432
∀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.
146/178
V is a dual δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique since the following 3434
∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ S))| > δ ≡

∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V ) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ V ))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V ) − (N (a) ∩ (∅))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V ) − (∅)| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V )| > δ.
V is a dual strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique since the following 3436
∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S))| > δ ≡

∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V ) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ V ))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V ) − (Ns (a) ∩ (∅))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V ) − (∅)| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V )| > δ.
V is a dual connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique since the 3438
∀a ∈ S, |(Nc (a) ∩ S) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S))| > δ ≡

∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V ) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ V ))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V ) − (Nc (a) ∩ (∅))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V ) − (∅)| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V )| > δ.
Thus V is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique and V is the biggest 3440
SuperHyperSet in ESHG : (V, E). Then the number is at most O(ESHG : (V, E)) and 3441
the neutrosophic number is at most On (ESHG : (V, E)). 3442
Proposition 7.26. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 3443
SuperHyperComplete. The number is O(ESHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and the neutrosophic number is 3444
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of dual 3445
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 3449
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

(vi) : connected ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3451
Proof. (i). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 3452
SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. A SuperHyperVertex has n half 3453
SuperHyperNeighbors in S. 3454
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
147/178
SuperHyperClique in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraph. Thus the 3456
number is O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1 and the neutrosophic number is 3457
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual SuperHyperDefensive 3458
t>
2
Failed SuperHyperClique. 3459
(ii). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 3460
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual strong SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3463
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual strong 3466
t>
2
SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3467
(iii). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 3468
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual connected SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3471
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual connected 3474
t>
2
(iv). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 3476
∀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(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 3479
Failed SuperHyperClique in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraph. Thus the 3480
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual 3482
t>
2
( O(ESHG:(V,E))
(v). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 3484
∀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 3487
( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique in a given 3488
148/178
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraph. Thus the number is O(ESHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and 3489
the neutrosophic number is min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a 3490
t>
2
dual strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

(vi). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 3492
∀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 3495
( O(ESHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique in a given 3496
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraph. Thus the number is O(ESHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and 3497
the neutrosophic number is min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a 3498
t>
2
dual connected ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

Proposition 7.27. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is ∅. 3500
The number is 0 and the neutrosophic number is 0, for an independent SuperHyperSet in 3501
the setting of dual 3502
(iv) : 0-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 3506
(v) : strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 3507
(vi) : connected 0-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3508
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider ∅. All 3509
SuperHyperMembers of ∅ have no SuperHyperNeighbor inside the SuperHyperSet less 3510
(i). ∅ is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique since the following 3512
∀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 3514
in the setting of a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3515
(ii). ∅ is a dual strong SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique since the 3516
149/178
∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |Ns (a) ∩ ∅| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Ns (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Ns (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
in the setting of a dual strong SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3519
(iii). ∅ is a dual connected SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique since the 3520
∀a ∈ S, |Nc (a) ∩ S| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |Nc (a) ∩ ∅| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Nc (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Nc (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
in the setting of a dual connected SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3523
(iv). ∅ is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique since the following 3524
∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |(N (a) ∩ ∅) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ ∅))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |(N (a) ∩ ∅) − (N (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
in the setting of a dual 0-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3527
(v). ∅ is a dual strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique since the 3528
∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |(Ns (a) ∩ ∅) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ ∅))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |(Ns (a) ∩ ∅) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
in the setting of a dual strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3531
(vi). ∅ is a dual connected SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique since the 3532
150/178
∀a ∈ S, |(Nc (a) ∩ S) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |(Nc (a) ∩ ∅) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ ∅))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |(Nc (a) ∩ ∅) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
in the setting of a dual connected 0-offensive SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3535
SuperHyperClique. 3536
SuperHyperComplete. Then there’s no independent SuperHyperSet. 3538
SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel. The number is O(ESHG : (V, E)) 3540
and the neutrosophic number is On (ESHG : (V, E)), in the setting of a dual 3541
(iv) : O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 3545
(v) : strong O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 3546
(vi) : connected O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3547
Proof. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 3548
SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel. 3549
(i). Consider one SuperHyperVertex is out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 3550
Failed SuperHyperClique. This SuperHyperVertex has one SuperHyperNeighbor in S, 3551
i.e, suppose x ∈ V \ S such that y, z ∈ N (x). By it’s SuperHyperCycle, 3552
|N (x)| = |N (y)| = |N (z)| = 2. Thus 3553
∀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 3554
Failed SuperHyperClique in a given SuperHyperCycle. 3555
Consider one SuperHyperVertex is out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 3556
i.e, Suppose x ∈ V \ S such that y, z ∈ N (x). By it’s SuperHyperPath, 3558
151/178
|N (x)| = |N (y)| = |N (z)| = 2. Thus 3559
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |N (y) ∩ S| < |N (y) ∩ (V \ (V \ {x}))| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |N (y) ∩ S| < |N (y) ∩ {x})| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |{z}| < |{x})| ≡
∃y ∈ S, 1 < 1.
Failed SuperHyperClique in a given SuperHyperPath. 3561
Consider one SuperHyperVertex is out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 3562
i.e, Suppose x ∈ V \ S such that y, z ∈ N (x). By it’s SuperHyperWheel, 3564
|N (x)| = |N (y)| = |N (z)| = 2. Thus 3565
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |N (y) ∩ S| < |N (y) ∩ (V \ (V \ {x}))| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |N (y) ∩ S| < |N (y) ∩ {x})| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |{z}| < |{x})| ≡
∃y ∈ S, 1 < 1.
Failed SuperHyperClique in a given SuperHyperWheel. 3567
(iv). By (i), V is maximal and it’s a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3569
SuperHyperClique. Thus it’s a dual O(ESHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3570
Thus the number is O(ESHG : (V, E)) and the neutrosophic number is 3573
On (ESHG : (V, E)), in the setting of all types of a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3574
SuperHyperStar/complete SuperHyperBipartite/complete SuperHyperMultiPartite. The 3577
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual 3579
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(ESHG:(V,E))
(v) : strong ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

(vi) : connected ( O(ESHG:(V,E))

152/178
SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. A SuperHyperVertex has at most n half 3587
SuperHyperNeighbors in S. If the SuperHyperVertex is the non-SuperHyperCenter, then 3588
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
If the SuperHyperVertex is the SuperHyperCenter, then 3589
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
Consider n half +1 SuperHyperVertices are in S which is a dual 3592
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

δ δ
∀a ∈ S, >n− .
2 2
SuperHyperClique in a given complete SuperHyperBipartite which isn’t a 3595
Consider n half +1 SuperHyperVertices are in S which is a dual 3597
SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique and they are chosen from different 3598
SuperHyperParts, equally or almost equally as possible. A SuperHyperVertex in S has 3599
δ half SuperHyperNeighbors in S. 3600
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

δ δ
∀a ∈ S, >n− .
2 2
SuperHyperClique in a given complete SuperHyperMultipartite which is neither a 3602
SuperHyperStar nor complete SuperHyperBipartite. 3603

O(ESHG:(V,E))
+1
(iv). By (i), {xi }i=1 2
is maximal and it’s a dual SuperHyperDefensive 3605
Failed SuperHyperClique. Thus it’s a dual O(ESHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1-SuperHyperDefensive 3606
Thus the number is O(ESHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and the neutrosophic number is 3609
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(ESHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of all dual Failed 3610
t>
2
Proposition 7.31. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a SuperHyperFamily of the ESHGs : (V, E) 3612
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs which are from one-type SuperHyperClass which the 3613
result is obtained for the individuals. Then the results also hold for the 3614
SuperHyperFamily N SHF : (V, E) of these specific SuperHyperClasses of the 3615
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs. 3616
Proof. There are neither SuperHyperConditions nor SuperHyperRestrictions on the 3617
SuperHyperVertices. Thus the SuperHyperResults on individuals, ESHGs : (V, E), are 3618
extended to the SuperHyperResults on SuperHyperFamily, N SHF : (V, E). 3619
153/178
Proposition 7.32. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If 3620
S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique, then ∀v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S 3621
such that 3622
(i) v ∈ Ns (x); 3623
(ii) vx ∈ E. 3624
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 3625
Consider v ∈ V \ S. Since S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique, 3626
∀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 ESHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider 3627
v ∈ V \ S. Since S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique, 3628
∀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.
3629
Proposition 7.33. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If 3630
S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique, then 3631
(i) S is SuperHyperDominating set; 3632
(ii) there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic number. 3633
Consider v ∈ V \ S. Since S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique, 3635
either 3636
∀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 3637
∀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. 3638
(ii). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider 3639
v ∈ V \ S. Since S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique, either 3640
∀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)
154/178
or 3641
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (v) ∩ S| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S : v ∈ Ns (x)
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S : vx ∈ E, µ(vx) = σ(v) ∧ σ(x)
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S : vx ∈ E.
Thus every SuperHyperVertex v ∈ V \ S, has at least one SuperHyperNeighbor in S. 3642
The only case is about the relation amid SuperHyperVertices in S in the terms of 3643
SuperHyperNeighbors. It implies there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic 3644
number. 3645
Proposition 7.34. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 3646
Then 3647
(i) Γ ≤ O; 3648
(ii) Γs ≤ On . 3649
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Let 3650
S = V. 3651
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ V, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ V )|
v ∈ ∅, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > |Ns (v) ∩ ∅|
v ∈ ∅, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > |∅|
v ∈ ∅, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > 0
It implies V is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. For all 3652
SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S, S ⊆ V. Thus for all SuperHyperSets of 3653
SuperHyperVertices S, |S| ≤ |V |. It implies for all SuperHyperSets of 3654
SuperHyperVertices S, |S| ≤ O. So for all SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices 3655
S, Γ ≤ O. 3656
(ii). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Let S = V. 3657
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ V, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ V )|
v ∈ ∅, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > |Ns (v) ∩ ∅|
v ∈ ∅, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > |∅|
v ∈ ∅, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > 0
It implies V is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. For all 3658
SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S, S ⊆ V. Thus for all 3659
SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 3660
S, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ Σv∈V Σ3i=1 σi (v). It implies for all SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic 3661
SuperHyperVertices S, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ On . So for all SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic 3662
SuperHyperVertices S, Γs ≤ On . 3663
Proposition 7.35. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 3664
which is connected. Then 3665
(i) Γ ≤ O − 1; 3666
155/178
(ii) Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 3667
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Let 3668
S = V − {x} where x is arbitrary and x ∈ V. 3669
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ V − {x}, |Ns (v) ∩ (V − {x})| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ (V − {x}))|
|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > |Ns (x) ∩ {x}|
|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > |∅|
|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > 0
It implies V − {x} is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. For all 3670
SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, S ⊆ V − {x}. Thus for all 3671
SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, |S| ≤ |V − {x}|. It implies for all 3672
SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, |S| ≤ O − 1. So for all SuperHyperSets 3673
of SuperHyperVertices S, Γ ≤ O − 1. 3674
(ii). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Let 3675
S = V − {x} where x is arbitrary and x ∈ V. 3676
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ V − {x}, |Ns (v) ∩ (V − {x})| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ (V − {x}))|
|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > |Ns (x) ∩ {x}|
|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > |∅|
|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > 0
It implies V − {x} is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. For all 3677
SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, S ⊆ V − {x}. Thus for all 3678
SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 3679
S 6= V, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ Σv∈V −{x} Σ3i=1 σi (v). It implies for all SuperHyperSets of 3680
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). So for all 3681
SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S, Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 3682
Proposition 7.36. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperPath. Then 3683
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3684
SuperHyperClique; 3685
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 3686
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 3687
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 3688
a dual Failed SuperHyperClique. 3689
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an odd SuperHyperPath. Let 3690
S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all vi , vj ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 3691
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 })|
156/178
It implies S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3692
SuperHyperClique. If S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } − {vi } where vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }, then 3693
∃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 3694
SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. It induces S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a 3695
dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3696
(ii) and (iii) are trivial. 3697
(iv). By (i), S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3698
SuperHyperClique. Thus it’s enough to show that S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual 3699
SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an odd 3700
SuperHyperPath. Let S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all 3701
vi , vj ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 3702
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 ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperPath. Then 3708
(i) the set S = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3709
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and 3711
{v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }; 3712
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 3713
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 3714
dual Failed SuperHyperClique. 3715
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an even SuperHyperPath. Let 3716
S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } where for all vi , vj ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 3717
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 })|
157/178
It implies S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3718
If S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } − {vi } where vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, then 3719
∃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 3720
Failed SuperHyperClique. It induces S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual 3721
(iv). By (i), S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3724
SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an even 3726
SuperHyperPath. Let S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all 3727
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 ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperCycle. Then 3734
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3735
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and 3737
{v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }; 3738
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } σ(s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } σ(s)}; 3739
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 3740
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an even SuperHyperCycle. Let 3742
S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } where for all vi , vj ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 3743
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 })|
158/178
It implies S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3744
If S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } − {vi } where vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, then 3745
∃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 3746
Failed SuperHyperClique. It induces S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual 3747
(iv). By (i), S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3750
SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an even 3752
SuperHyperCycle. Let S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all 3753
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 ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperCycle. Then 3760
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3761
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 3763
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 3764
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 3765
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an odd SuperHyperCycle. Let 3767
S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all vi , vj ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 3768
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 })|
159/178
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 = 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
(iv). By (i), S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3775
SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an odd 3777
SuperHyperCycle. Let S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all 3778
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 ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperStar. Then 3785
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c} is a dual maximal Failed SuperHyperClique; 3786
(ii) Γ = 1; 3787
(iii) Γs = Σ3i=1 σi (c); 3788
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c} and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual Failed SuperHyperClique. 3789
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a SuperHyperStar. 3790
∀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})|
160/178
It implies S = {c} is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. If 3791
S = {c} − {c} = ∅, then 3792
∃v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 0 = 0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 0 6> 0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
So S = {c} − {c} = ∅ isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. It 3793
induces S = {c} is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3794
(iv). By (i), S = {c} is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. Thus 3796
it’s enough to show that S ⊆ S 0 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3797
SuperHyperClique. Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a SuperHyperStar. Let S ⊆ S 0 . 3798
∀v ∈ V \ {c}, |Ns (v) ∩ {c}| = 1 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {c})|∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | = 1 >
0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
It implies S 0 ⊆ S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3799
Proposition 7.41. Let ESHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperWheel. Then 3800
6+3(i−1)≤n
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual 3801
maximal SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 3802
6+3(i−1)≤n
(ii) Γ = |{v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 |; 3803
(iii) Γs = Σ{v1 ,v3 }∪{v6 ,v9 ··· ,vi+6 ,··· ,vn }6+3(i−1)≤n Σ3i=1 σi (s); 3804
i=1
6+3(i−1)≤n
(iv) the SuperHyperSet {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is only a dual 3805
maximal SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3806
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a SuperHyperWheel. Let 3807

6+3(i−1)≤n
S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 . There are either 3808
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 2 > 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
or 3809
∀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 3810
SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. If 3811

6+3(i−1)≤n
S 0 = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 − {z} where 3812
6+3(i−1)≤n
z ∈ S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 , then There are either 3813
∀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 )|
161/178
or 3814
∀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 3815
6+3(i−1)≤n
z ∈ S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive 3816
6+3(i−1)≤n
Failed SuperHyperClique. It induces S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 3817
is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3818
(ii), (iii) and (iv) are obvious. 3819
Proposition 7.42. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperComplete. Then 3820
b n c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3821
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1; 3823
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} b n c+1

2
; 3824
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3825
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an odd SuperHyperComplete. Let 3827

bn
2 c+1
S = {vi }i=1 . Thus 3828
n n
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = b c + 1 > b c − 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
b n c+1
It implies S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. If 3829
n
0 b 2 c+1 bn
2 c+1
S = {vi }i=1 − {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1 , then 3830
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 3831
bn
2 c+1
Failed SuperHyperClique. It induces S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 3832
Proposition 7.43. Let ESHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperComplete. Then 3835
bn
2c
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3836
(ii) Γ = b n2 c; 3838
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} bnc

2
; 3839
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 3840
162/178
bnc
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is an even SuperHyperComplete. Let S = {vi }i=1
2
. 3842
Thus 3843
n n
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = b c > b c − 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
bnc
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. If 3844
n
b c bn
2c
S 0 = {vi }i=1
2
− {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1 , then 3845
n n
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = b c − 1 
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
bnc bnc
So S 0 = {vi }i=1
2
− {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1
2
isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3846
n
b2c
SuperHyperClique. It induces S = {vi }i=1 is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 3847
Proposition 7.44. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of neutrosophic 3850
SuperHyperStars with common neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet. Then 3851
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3852
SuperHyperClique for N SHF; 3853
(ii) Γ = m for N SHF : (V, E); 3854
(iii) Γs = Σm 3
i=1 Σj=1 σj (ci ) for N SHF : (V, E); 3855
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual Failed 3856
SuperHyperClique for N SHF : (V, E). 3857
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a SuperHyperStar. 3858
∀v ∈ V \ {c}, |Ns (v) ∩ {c}| = 1 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {c})|∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 >
0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {c}, |Ns (v) ∩ {c}| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {c})|
It implies S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique 3859
for N SHF : (V, E). If S = {c} − {c} = ∅, then 3860
∃v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 0 = 0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 0 6> 0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
So S = {c} − {c} = ∅ isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique for 3861
N SHF : (V, E). It induces S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual maximal 3862
SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique for N SHF : (V, E). 3863
(iv). By (i), S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3865
SuperHyperClique for N SHF : (V, E). Thus it’s enough to show that S ⊆ S 0 is a dual 3866
163/178
SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique for N SHF : (V, E). Suppose 3867
ESHG : (V, E) is a SuperHyperStar. Let S ⊆ S 0 . 3868
∀v ∈ V \ {c}, |Ns (v) ∩ {c}| = 1 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {c})|∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | = 1 >
0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
It implies S 0 ⊆ S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique for 3869
N SHF : (V, E). 3870
Proposition 7.45. Let N SHF : (V, E) be an m-SuperHyperFamily of odd 3871
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 3872
SuperHyperSet. Then 3873
b n c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3874
SuperHyperClique for N SHF; 3875
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 for N SHF : (V, E); 3876
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} b n c+1

2
for N SHF : (V, E); 3877
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only a dual maximal Failed 3878
SuperHyperClique for N SHF : (V, E). 3879
b n c+1
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is odd SuperHyperComplete. Let S = {vi }i=1
2
. 3880
Thus 3881
n n
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = b c + 1 > b c − 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
b n c+1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique for 3882
bn
2 c+1 bn
2 c+1
N SHF : (V, E). If S 0 = {vi }i=1 − {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1 , then 3883
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 3884
bn
2 c+1
Failed SuperHyperClique for N SHF : (V, E). It induces S = {vi }i=1 is a dual 3885
maximal SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique for N SHF : (V, E). 3886
Proposition 7.46. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of even 3888
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 3889
SuperHyperSet. Then 3890
bn
2c
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3891
SuperHyperClique for N SHF : (V, E); 3892
(ii) Γ = b n2 c for N SHF : (V, E); 3893
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} bnc

2
for N SHF : (V, E); 3894
S={vi }i=1
164/178
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only dual maximal Failed SuperHyperClique 3895
for N SHF : (V, E). 3896
bn
2c
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is even SuperHyperComplete. Let S = {vi }i=1 . 3897
Thus 3898
n n
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = b c > b c − 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
bnc
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique for 3899
0 bn
2c bn
2c
N SHF : (V, E). If S = {vi }i=1 − {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1 , then 3900
n n
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = b c − 1 
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
bnc bnc
So S 0 = {vi }i=1
2
− {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1
2
isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3901
bn
2c
SuperHyperClique for N SHF : (V, E). It induces S = {vi }i=1 is a dual maximal 3902
SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique for N SHF : (V, E). 3903
Then following statements hold; 3906
(i) if s ≥ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 3907
t-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique, then S is an 3908
s-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 3909
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 3910
t-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique, then S is a dual 3911
s-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3912
Consider a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an t-SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3914
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < t;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < t ≤ s;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < s.
Thus S is an s-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3916
(ii). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider a 3917
SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual t-SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3918
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > t;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > t ≥ s;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > s.
Thus S is a dual s-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3920
165/178
(i) if s ≥ t + 2 and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 3923
t-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique, then S is an 3924
s-SuperHyperPowerful Failed SuperHyperClique; 3925
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 3926
t-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique, then S is a dual 3927
s-SuperHyperPowerful Failed SuperHyperClique. 3928
Consider a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an t-SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3930
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < t;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < t ≤ t + 2 ≤ s;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < s.
Thus S is an (t + 2)−SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. By S is an 3932
s−SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique and S is a dual 3933
(s + 2)−SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique, S is an s-SuperHyperPowerful 3934
(ii). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider a 3936
SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual t-SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3937
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > t;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > t ≥ s > s − 2;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > s − 2.
Thus S is an (s − 2)−SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. By S is an 3939
(s − 2)−SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique and S is a dual 3940
s−SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique, S is an s−SuperHyperPowerful 3941
Proposition 7.49. Let ESHG : (V, E) be a[an] 3943
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following 3944
statements hold; 3945
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b 2r c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 3948
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an r-SuperHyperDefensive 3950
Failed SuperHyperClique; 3951
(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 3952
r-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3953
Proof. (i). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic 3954
SuperHyperGraph. Then 3955
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.
166/178
Thus S is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3956
(ii). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic 3957
r r
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > b c + 1 − (b c − 1);
2 2
r r
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > b c + 1 − (b c − 1) > 2;
2 2
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2.
Thus S is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3959
(iii). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic 3960
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < r − 0;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < r − 0 = r;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < r.
Thus S is an r-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3962
(iv). Suppose ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic 3963
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > r − 0;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > r − 0 = r;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > r.
Thus S is a dual r-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3965
Proposition 7.50. Let ESHG : (V, E) is a[an] 3966
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following 3967
statements hold; 3968
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b 2r c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 3971
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an r-SuperHyperDefensive Failed 3973
(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 3975
r-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3976
∀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
167/178
SuperHyperGraph and a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. Then 3980
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2;

r r
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2 = b c + 1 − (b c − 1);
2 2
r r
2 2
r r
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| = b c + 1, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S) = b c − 1.
2 2
SuperHyperGraph and an r-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3982
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < r;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < r = r − 0;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < r − 0;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| = r, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| = 0.
SuperHyperGraph and a dual r-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. Then 3984
∀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.
3985
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 3987
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 3988
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b O−1

2 c + 1 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 3991
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 3993
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 3996
SuperHyperGraph and an 2- SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. Then 3998
∀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
168/178
SuperHyperGraph and a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. Then 4000
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2;

O−1 O−1
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2 = b c + 1 − (b c − 1);
2 2
O−1 O−1
2 2
O−1 O−1
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| = b c + 1, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S) = b c − 1.
2 2
SuperHyperGraph and an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 4002
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < O − 1;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < O − 1 = O − 1 − 0;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < O − 1 − 0;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| = O − 1, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| = 0.
SuperHyperGraph and a dual r-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. Then 4004
∀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.
4005
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 4007
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 4008
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b O−1

2 c + 1, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 4011
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is 4013
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique; 4014
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 4016
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperComplete. Then 4018
O−1 O−1
2 2
O−1 O−1
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| b c + 1 − (b c − 1) > 2;
2 2
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2.
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < O − 1 − 0;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < O − 1 − 0 = O − 1;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < O − 1.
Thus S is an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 4025
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > O − 1 − 0;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > O − 1 − 0 = O − 1;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > O − 1.
Thus S is a dual (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 4028
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperCycle. 4030
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2 if ESHG : (V, E)) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive Failed 4032
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2 if ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 4034
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive Failed 4036
2-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 4039
SuperHyperGraph and S is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. Then 4041
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2 = 2 − 0;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| < 2, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| = 0.
SuperHyperGraph and S is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 4043
170/178
Then 4044
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2 = 2 − 0;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| > 2, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S) = 0.
SuperHyperGraph and S is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 4046
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2 = 2 − 0;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2 − 0;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| < 2, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| = 0.
SuperHyperGraph and S is a dual r-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 4048
Then 4049
∀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.
4050
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperCycle. 4052
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 4054
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2, then ESHG : (V, E) is a dual 4056
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then ESHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 4058
2-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperClique. 4061
SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperCycle. Then 4063
∀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.
171/178
∀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 neutrosophic Applications in Cancer’s 4074
neutrosophic Recognition 4075
The cancer is the neutrosophic disease but the neutrosophic model is going to figure out 4076
what’s going on this neutrosophic phenomenon. The special neutrosophic case of this 4077
neutrosophic disease is considered and as the consequences of the model, some 4078
parameters are used. The cells are under attack of this disease but the moves of the 4079
cancer in the special region are the matter of mind. The neutrosophic recognition of the 4080
cancer could help to find some neutrosophic treatments for this neutrosophic disease. 4081
In the following, some neutrosophic steps are neutrosophic devised on this disease. 4082
Step 1. (neutrosophic Definition) The neutrosophic recognition of the cancer in 4083
the long-term neutrosophic function. 4084
Step 2. (neutrosophic Issue) The specific region has been assigned by the 4085
neutrosophic model [it’s called neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] and the long 4086
neutrosophic cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this research. 4087
Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some 4088
determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the 4089
cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be 4090
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s 4091
happened and what’s done. 4092
Step 3. (neutrosophic Model) There are some specific neutrosophic models, which 4093
are well-known and they’ve got the names, and some general neutrosophic models. 4094
The moves and the neutrosophic traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and 4095
between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a neutrosophic 4096
SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, 4097
SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find either the 4098
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique or the neutrosophic Failed 4099
SuperHyperClique in those neutrosophic neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. 4100
172/178
Figure 27. a neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of neutro-
sophic Failed SuperHyperClique
Table 4. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyper-

Edges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite
9 Case 1: The Initial neutrosophic Steps Toward 4101
neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite as 4102
neutrosophic SuperHyperModel 4103
Step 4. (neutrosophic Solution) In the neutrosophic Figure (27), the neutrosophic 4104
SuperHyperBipartite is neutrosophic highlighted and neutrosophic featured. 4105
By using the neutrosophic Figure (27) and the Table (4), the neutrosophic 4106
SuperHyperBipartite is obtained. 4107
The obtained neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the neutrosophic Algorithm in 4108
previous neutrosophic result, of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the 4109
connected neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite ESHB : (V, E), in the neutrosophic 4110
SuperHyperModel (27), is the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. 4111
10 Case 2: The Increasing neutrosophic Steps 4112
Toward neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite as 4113
neutrosophic SuperHyperModel 4114
Step 4. (neutrosophic Solution) In the neutrosophic Figure (28), the neutrosophic 4115
SuperHyperMultipartite is neutrosophic highlighted and neutrosophic featured. 4116
173/178
Figure 28. a neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique
Table 5. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyper-

Edges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite
By using the neutrosophic Figure (28) and the Table (5), the neutrosophic 4117
SuperHyperMultipartite is obtained. 4118
The obtained neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the neutrosophic Algorithm in 4119
previous result, of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected 4120
neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite ESHM : (V, E), in the neutrosophic 4121
SuperHyperModel (28), is the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. 4122
11 Open Problems 4123
In what follows, some “problems” and some “questions” are proposed. 4124
The Failed SuperHyperClique and the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique are 4125
defined on a real-world application, titled “Cancer’s Recognitions”. 4126
Question 11.1. Which the else SuperHyperModels could be defined based on Cancer’s 4127
recognitions? 4128
Question 11.2. Are there some SuperHyperNotions related to Failed SuperHyperClique 4129
and the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique? 4130
Question 11.3. Are there some Algorithms to be defined on the SuperHyperModels to 4131
compute them? 4132
Question 11.4. Which the SuperHyperNotions are related to beyond the Failed 4133
SuperHyperClique and the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique? 4134
174/178
Problem 11.5. The Failed SuperHyperClique and the neutrosophic Failed 4135
SuperHyperClique do a SuperHyperModel for the Cancer’s recognitions and they’re based 4136
on Failed SuperHyperClique, are there else? 4137
Problem 11.6. Which the fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are related to these 4138
SuperHyperNumbers types-results? 4139
Problem 11.7. What’s the independent research based on Cancer’s recognitions 4140
concerning the multiple types of SuperHyperNotions? 4141
12 Conclusion and Closing Remarks 4142
In this section, concluding remarks and closing remarks are represented. The drawbacks 4143
of this research are illustrated. Some benefits and some advantages of this research are 4144
highlighted. 4145
This research uses some approaches to make neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs more 4146
understandable. In this endeavor, two SuperHyperNotions are defined on the Failed 4147
SuperHyperClique. For that sake in the second definition, the main definition of the 4148
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph is redefined on the position of the alphabets. Based on 4149
the new definition for the neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, the new SuperHyperNotion, 4150
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique, finds the convenient background to implement 4151
some results based on that. Some SuperHyperClasses and some neutrosophic 4152
SuperHyperClasses are the cases of this research on the modeling of the regions where 4153
are under the attacks of the cancer to recognize this disease as it’s mentioned on the 4154
title “Cancer’s Recognitions”. To formalize the instances on the SuperHyperNotion, 4155
Failed SuperHyperClique, the new SuperHyperClasses and SuperHyperClasses, are 4156
introduced. Some general results are gathered in the section on the Failed 4157
SuperHyperClique and the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. The clarifications, 4158
instances and literature reviews have taken the whole way through. In this research, the 4159
literature reviews have fulfilled the lines containing the notions and the results. The 4160
SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are the SuperHyperModels on 4161
the “Cancer’s Recognitions” and both bases are the background of this research. 4162
Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, groups of cells and 4163
embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes some 4164
SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the longest 4165
and strongest styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are formally 4166
called “ Failed SuperHyperClique” in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. The prefix 4167
“SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to figure out the background 4168
for the SuperHyperNotions. In the Table (6), some limitations and advantages of this
Table 6. A Brief Overview about Advantages and Limitations of this Research

Advantages Limitations
1. Redefining Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1. General Results
2. Failed SuperHyperClique
3. Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique 2. Other SuperHyperNumbers
4. Modeling of Cancer’s Recognitions
5. SuperHyperClasses 3. SuperHyperFamilies
4169
research are pointed out. 4170
175/178
References 4171
1. Henry Garrett, “Properties of SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 4172
SuperHyperGraph”, Neutrosophic Sets and Systems 49 (2022) 531-561 (doi: 4173
10.5281/zenodo.6456413). 4174
(http://fs.unm.edu/NSS/NeutrosophicSuperHyperGraph34.pdf). 4175
(https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nss journal/vol49/iss1/34). 4176
2. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Co-degree and Neutrosophic Degree alongside 4177
Chromatic Numbers in the Setting of Some Classes Related to Neutrosophic 4178
Hypergraphs”, J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res 1(1) (2022) 06-14. 4179
3. Henry Garrett, “Super Hyper Dominating and Super Hyper Resolving on 4180
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions in Game Theory and 4181
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 1(3) 4182
(2022) 242-263. 4183
4. Garrett, Henry. “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 4184
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 4185
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear 4186
Research - Zenodo, Nov. 2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear 4187
Research, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6319942. 4188
https://oa.mg/work/10.5281/zenodo.6319942 4189
5. Garrett, Henry. “0049 — (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic 4190
Graphs.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research - Zenodo, Feb. 4191
2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research, 4192
https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724. 4193
https://oa.mg/work/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724 4194
6. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 4195
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 4196
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 4197
7. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form 4198
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions 4199
In Special ViewPoints”, Preprints 2023, 2023010088 (doi: 4200
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 4201
8. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 4202
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s 4203
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 4204
9. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by 4205
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 4206
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 4207
10. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 4208
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And 4209
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010105 (doi: 4210
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 4211
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions 4213
In Special ViewPoints”, Preprints 2023, 2023010088 (doi: 4214
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 4215
176/178
12. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 4216
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 4217
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 4218
13. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive 4219
and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) 4220
SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 4221
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 4222
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 4223
14. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 4224
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions”, 4225
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 4226
15. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 4227
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 4228
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 4229
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 4230
16. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on 4231
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in Game Theory and 4232
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 4233
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 4234
17. Henry Garrett,“Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic 4235
Recognition Forwarding Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic 4236
SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30092.80004). 4237
18. Henry Garrett,“Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 4238
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and 4239
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) Failed 4240
SuperHyperClique”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23172.19849). 4241
19. Henry Garrett,“Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 4242
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 4243
modeled in the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, 4244
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17385.36968). 4245
20. Henry Garrett, “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To 4246
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 4247
SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28945.92007). 4248
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 4250
Special ViewPoints”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11447.80803). 4251
22. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by 4252
Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 4253
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35774.77123). 4254
23. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 4255
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s 4256
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 4257
10.13140/RG.2.2.36141.77287). 4258
24. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 4259
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 4260
10.13140/RG.2.2.29430.88642). 4261
177/178
25. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 4262
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And 4263
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 4264
10.13140/RG.2.2.11669.16487). 4265
26. Henry Garrett, “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating 4266
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 4267
2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29173.86244). 4268
27. Henry Garrett, “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 4269
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in 4270
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 4271
10.13140/RG.2.2.25385.88160). 4272
28. Henry Garrett, (2022). “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs”, Ohio: E-publishing: 4273
Educational Publisher 1091 West 1st Ave Grandview Heights, Ohio 43212 4274
United States. ISBN: 979-1-59973-725-6 4275
(http://fs.unm.edu/BeyondNeutrosophicGraphs.pdf). 4276
29. Henry Garrett, (2022). “Neutrosophic Duality”, Florida: GLOBAL 4277
KNOWLEDGE - Publishing House 848 Brickell Ave Ste 950 Miami, Florida 4278
33131 United States. ISBN: 978-1-59973-743-0 4279
(http://fs.unm.edu/NeutrosophicDuality.pdf). 4280
30. F. Smarandache, “Extension of HyperGraph to n-SuperHyperGraph and to 4281
Plithogenic n-SuperHyperGraph, and Extension of HyperAlgebra to n-ary 4282
(Classical-/Neutro-/Anti-) HyperAlgebra”, Neutrosophic Sets and Systems 33 4283
(2020) 290-296. (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3783103). 4284
31. M. Akram et al., “Single-valued neutrosophic Hypergraphs”, TWMS J. App. 4285
Eng. Math. 8 (1) (2018) 122-135. 4286
32. S. Broumi et al., “Single-valued neutrosophic graphs”, Journal of New Theory 10 4287
(2016) 86-101. 4288
33. H. Wang et al., “Single-valued neutrosophic sets”, Multispace and 4289
Multistructure 4 (2010) 410-413. 4290
34. H.T. Nguyen and E.A. Walker, “A First course in fuzzy logic”, CRC Press, 2006. 4291
178/178
View publication stats

Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells in Front of Cancer's Attacks in The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique On Cancer's Recognition Called 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

Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells in Front of Cancer's Attacks in The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique On Cancer's Recognition Called Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In Front of Cancer's

Preprint · January 2023

215 PUBLICATIONS 1,087 CITATIONS

Number Graphs And Numbers View project

Metric Dimension in fuzzy(neutrosophic) Graphs View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In 2

Front of Cancer’s Attacks In The Terms of Neutrosophic 3

Failed SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called 4

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

SuperHyperClique and Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique . Two different types of 12

SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperUniform, and SuperHyperClass based on that are 14

well-defined and well-reviewed. The literature review is implemented in the whole of 15

comparison between this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions and 17

fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are featured. The definitions are followed by the 18

officially called “SuperHyperEdge”. The frameworks “SuperHyperGraph” and 26

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

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

and some problems. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then a “Failed SuperHyperClique” 31

C(N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum 32

cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a 33

SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. 34

Then an “δ−Failed SuperHyperClique” is a maximal Failed SuperHyperClique of 35

SuperHyperVertices with maximum cardinality such that either of the following 36

expressions hold for the (neutrosophic) cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 37

|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ, |S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. The first Expression, 38

holds if S is an “δ−SuperHyperOffensive”. And the second Expression, holds if S is an 39

“δ−SuperHyperDefensive”; a“neutrosophic δ−Failed SuperHyperClique” is a maximal 40

neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique of SuperHyperVertices with maximum 41

neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : |S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic > 43

|S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ, |S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ. 44

second Expression, holds if S is a “neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperDefensive”. The 46

SuperHyperNotion, namely, Failed SuperHyperClique, is up. There’s neither empty 47

SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The following neutrosophic SuperHyperSet 48

of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is the simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of 49

the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. S The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of 50

neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, S is the simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of 51

the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 52

neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, S is a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique 53

C(ESHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ESHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic 54

type-SuperHyperSet with the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a 55

neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no 56

a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge amid some neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given by 57

neutrosophic SuperHyperClique is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 58

neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, S{z}. There’s not only three neutrosophic 59

SuperHyperVertex inside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the 60

non-obvious neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique is up. The obvious simple 61

neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique is a 62

neutrosophic SuperHyperSet includes only three neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. 63

But the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, S doesn’t 64

have less than four SuperHyperVertices inside the intended neutrosophic 65

SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the 66

neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique is up. To sum them up, the neutrosophic 67

SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, S is the non-obvious simple 68

neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique. Since 69

the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, S is a 70

neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique C(ESHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 71

ESHG : (V, E) is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic 72

SuperHyperVertices such that there’s no a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge for some 73

neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given by that neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called 74

the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique and it’s a neutrosophic 75

Failed SuperHyperClique. Since it’s the maximum neutrosophic cardinality 76