The Constructions of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs on the Cancer's Recognition in The Confrontation With Super Attacks In Hyper Situations By Implementing (Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in The Technical Approaches to Neutralize SuperHyperViews

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/367298521
The Constructions of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs on the Cancer's

Recognition in The Confrontation With Super Attacks In Hyper Situations By
Implementing (Neutrosophic) 1-Failed...
Preprint · January 2023

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.26240.51204
CITATIONS
1 author:
Henry Garrett
240 PUBLICATIONS 1,366 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs View project
Number Graphs And Numbers View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Henry Garrett on 20 January 2023.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

1
The Constructions of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs on 2
the Cancer’s Recognition in The Confrontation With Super 3
Attacks In Hyper Situations By Implementing (Neutrosophic) 4
1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in The Technical Approaches to 5
Neutralize SuperHyperViews 6
Henry Garrett 8
DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com 9
Twitter’s ID: @DrHenryGarrett | DrHenryGarrett.wordpress.com

c 10
ABSTRACT 11
In this research, new setting is introduced for new SuperHyperNotions, namely, an 12
1-failed SuperHyperForcing and Neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Two 13
different types of SuperHyperDefinitions are debut for them but the research goes 14
further and the SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperUniform, and SuperHyperClass based 15
on that are well-defined and well-reviewed. The literature review is implemented in the 16
whole of this research. For shining the elegancy and the significancy of this research, the 17
comparison between this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions and 18
fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are featured. The definitions are followed by the 19
examples and the instances thus the clarifications are driven with different tools. The 20
applications are figured out to make sense about the theoretical aspect of this ongoing 21
research. The “Cancer’s Recognitions” are the under research to figure out the 22
challenges make sense about ongoing and upcoming research. The special case is up. 23
The cells are viewed in the deemed ways. There are different types of them. Some of 24
them are individuals and some of them are well-modeled by the group of cells. These 25
types are all officially called “SuperHyperVertex” but the relations amid them all 26
officially called “SuperHyperEdge”. The frameworks “SuperHyperGraph” and 27
“neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” are chosen and elected to research about “Cancer’s 28
Recognitions”. Thus these complex and dense SuperHyperModels open up some 29
avenues to research on theoretical segments and “Cancer’s Recognitions”. Some avenues 30
are posed to pursue this research. It’s also officially collected in the form of some 31
questions and some problems. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then an “1-failed 32
SuperHyperForcing” Z(N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) 33
is the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of black SuperHyperVertices 34
(whereas SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white) such that V (G) isn’t 35
turned black after finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: a white 36
SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white 37
SuperHyperNeighbor of a black SuperHyperVertex. The additional condition is referred 38
by “1-” about the usage of any black SuperHyperVertex only once to act on white 39
SuperHyperVertex to be black SuperHyperVertex; a “neutrosophic 1-failed 40
SuperHyperForcing” Zn (N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) 41
is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of black 42
SuperHyperVertices (whereas SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white) such 43
that V (G) isn’t turned black after finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: 44
1/62
a white SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black SuperHyperVertex if it is the only 45
white SuperHyperNeighbor of a black SuperHyperVertex. The additional condition is 46
referred by “1-” about the usage of any black SuperHyperVertex only once to act on 47
white SuperHyperVertex to be black SuperHyperVertex. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. 48
Then an “δ−1-failed SuperHyperForcing” is a maximal 1-failed SuperHyperForcing of 49
SuperHyperVertices with maximum cardinality such that either of the following 50
expressions hold for the (neutrosophic) cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 51
|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ, |S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. The first Expression, 52
holds if S is an “δ−SuperHyperOffensive”. And the second Expression, holds if S is an 53
“δ−SuperHyperDefensive”; a“neutrosophic δ−1-failed SuperHyperForcing” is a maximal 54
neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing of SuperHyperVertices with maximum 55
neutrosophic cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the 56
neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : |S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic > 57
|S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ, |S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ. 58
The first Expression, holds if S is a “neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive”. And the 59
second Expression, holds if S is a “neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperDefensive”. It’s useful to 60
define a “neutrosophic” version of an 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Since there’s more 61
ways to get type-results to make an 1-failed SuperHyperForcing more understandable. 62
For the sake of having neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, there’s a need to 63
“redefine” the notion of an “1-failed SuperHyperForcing”. The SuperHyperVertices and 64
the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In 65
this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. 66
Assume an 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. It’s redefined a neutrosophic 1-failed 67
SuperHyperForcing if the mentioned Table holds, concerning, “The Values of Vertices, 68
SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyperEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic 69
SuperHyperGraph” with the key points, “The Values of The Vertices & The Number of 70
Position in Alphabet”, “The Values of The SuperVertices&The maximum Values of Its 71
Vertices”, “The Values of The Edges&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The 72
Values of The HyperEdges&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The 73
SuperHyperEdges&The maximum Values of Its Endpoints”. To get structural examples 74
and instances, I’m going to introduce the next SuperHyperClass of SuperHyperGraph 75
based on an 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. It’s the main. It’ll be disciplinary to have the 76
foundation of previous definition in the kind of SuperHyperClass. If there’s a need to 77
have all SuperHyperConnectivities until the 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, then it’s 78
officially called an “1-failed SuperHyperForcing” but otherwise, it isn’t an 1-failed 79
SuperHyperForcing. There are some instances about the clarifications for the main 80
definition titled an “1-failed SuperHyperForcing”. These two examples get more 81
scrutiny and discernment since there are characterized in the disciplinary ways of the 82
SuperHyperClass based on an 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. For the sake of having a 83
neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of a 84
“neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing” and a “neutrosophic 1-failed 85
SuperHyperForcing”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned 86
by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of 87
the position of labels to assign to the values. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 88
It’s redefined “neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” if the intended Table holds. And an 89
1-failed SuperHyperForcing are redefined to an “neutrosophic 1-failed 90
SuperHyperForcing” if the intended Table holds. It’s useful to define “neutrosophic” 91
version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s more ways to get neutrosophic type-results 92
to make a neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing more understandable. Assume a 93
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the 94
intended Table holds. Thus SuperHyperPath, SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, 95
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and SuperHyperWheel, are 96
“neutrosophic SuperHyperPath”, “neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle”, “neutrosophic 97
2/62
SuperHyperStar”, “neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite”, “neutrosophic 98
SuperHyperMultiPartite”, and “neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel” if the intended Table 99
holds. A SuperHyperGraph has a “neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing” where it’s 100
the strongest [the maximum neutrosophic value from all the 1-failed SuperHyperForcing 101
amid the maximum value amid all SuperHyperVertices from an 1-failed 102
SuperHyperForcing.] 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. A graph is a SuperHyperUniform if 103
it’s a SuperHyperGraph and the number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. 104
Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some SuperHyperClasses as 105
follows. It’s SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 106
SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one 107
SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperStar it’s 108
only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all SuperHyperEdges; it’s 109
SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 110
SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has no 111
SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as 112
intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi 113
separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s a SuperHyperWheel if it’s only 114
one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex 115
has one SuperHyperEdge with any common SuperVertex. The SuperHyperModel 116
proposes the specific designs and the specific architectures. The SuperHyperModel is 117
officially called “SuperHyperGraph” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. In this 118
SuperHyperModel, The “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells are 119
SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperVertices” and the common and intended properties 120
between “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells are SuperHyperModeled as 121
“SuperHyperEdges”. Sometimes, it’s useful to have some degrees of determinacy, 122
indeterminacy, and neutrality to have more precise SuperHyperModel which in this case 123
the SuperHyperModel is called “neutrosophic”. In the future research, the foundation 124
will be based on the “Cancer’s Recognitions” and the results and the definitions will be 125
introduced in redeemed ways. The recognition of the cancer in the long-term function. 126
The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called SuperHyperGraph] and 127
the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this research. Sometimes the 128
move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some determinacy, 129
indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the cancer on that 130
region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be neutrosophic 131
SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and what’s done. 132
There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the names, and 133
some SuperHyperGeneral SuperHyperModels. The moves and the traces of the cancer 134
on the complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a 135
neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, 136
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find 137
either the longest 1-failed SuperHyperForcing or the strongest 1-failed 138
SuperHyperForcing in those neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. For the longest 1-failed 139
SuperHyperForcing, called 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, and the strongest 140
SuperHyperCycle, called neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, some general results 141
are introduced. Beyond that in SuperHyperStar, all possible SuperHyperPaths have 142
only two SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough since it’s essential to have at least three 143
SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a SuperHyperCycle. There isn’t any formation of 144
any SuperHyperCycle but literarily, it’s the deformation of any SuperHyperCycle. It, 145
literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. A basic familiarity with SuperHyperGraph 146
theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory are proposed. 147
Keywords: SuperHyperGraph, (Neutrosophic) 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, 148
Cancer’s Recognitions 149
3/62
AMS Subject Classification: 05C17, 05C22, 05E45 150
1 Background 151
There are some researches covering the topic of this research. In what follows, there are 152
some discussion and literature reviews about them. 153
First article is titled “properties of SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic 154
SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [1] by Henry Garrett (2022). It’s first step toward the 155
research on neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs. This research article is published on the 156
journal “Neutrosophic Sets and Systems” in issue 49 and the pages 531-561. In this 157
research article, different types of notions like dominating, resolving, coloring, 158
Eulerian(Hamiltonian) neutrosophic path, n-Eulerian(Hamiltonian) neutrosophic path, 159
zero forcing number, zero forcing neutrosophic- number, independent number, 160
independent neutrosophic-number, clique number, clique neutrosophic-number, 161
matching number, matching neutrosophic-number, girth, neutrosophic girth, 162
1-zero-forcing number, 1-zero- forcing neutrosophic-number, failed 1-zero-forcing 163
number, failed 1-zero-forcing neutrosophic-number, global- offensive alliance, t-offensive 164
alliance, t-defensive alliance, t-powerful alliance, and global-powerful alliance are defined 165
in SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Some Classes of 166
SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are cases of research. Some 167
results are applied in family of SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 168
Thus this research article has concentrated on the vast notions and introducing the 169
majority of notions. 170
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “neutrosophic co-degree and 171
neutrosophic degree alongside chromatic numbers in the setting of some classes related 172
to neutrosophic hypergraphs” in Ref. [2] by Henry Garrett (2022). In this research 173
article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic 174
SuperHyperGraph based on general forms without using neutrosophic classes of 175
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is 176
entitled “Journal of Current Trends in Computer Science Research (JCTCSR)” with 177
abbreviation “J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res” in volume 1 and issue 1 with pages 06-14. 178
The research article studies deeply with choosing neutrosophic hypergraphs instead of 179
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results 180
based on initial background. 181
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Super Hyper Dominating 182
and Super Hyper Resolving on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions 183
in Game Theory and Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes” in Ref. [3] by Henry Garrett 184
(2022). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph 185
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on fundamental SuperHyperNumber and 186
using neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s 187
published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Journal of Mathematical 188
Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with abbreviation “J Math 189
Techniques Comput Math” in volume 1 and issue 3 with pages 242-263. The research 190
article studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and 191
SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results based on initial 192
background and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers. 193
In some articles are titled “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 194
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 195
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [4] by Henry Garrett (2022), “0049 — 196
(Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs” in Ref. [5] by Henry Garrett 197
(2022), “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of Confrontation under 198
Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 199
4/62
in Ref. [6] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer 200
Alongside The Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique 201
inside Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition” in Ref. [7] by 202
Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s 203
Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [8] by Henry Garrett (2022), 204
“The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and Affected Cells Toward The 205
Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New Multiple Definitions On the Sets 206
Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory 207
Based on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [9] by Henry 208
Garrett (2022), “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The Worst Case 209
of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In Cancer’s Recognition 210
Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [10] by Henry Garrett (2022), 211
“Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the Cancer’s Neutrosophic 212
Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in 213
Ref. [11] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the 214
Cancer’s Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 215
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [12] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed 216
SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” 217
in Ref. [13] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs 218
To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic 219
Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [14] by Henry Garrett (2022), 220
“Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction To Use 221
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond” 222
in Ref. [15] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s 223
Recognition by Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs ” in 224
Ref. [16] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To 225
Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 226
Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [12] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on 227
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in 228
Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [17] by Henry 229
Garrett (2022), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 230
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” 231
in Ref. [18] by Henry Garrett (2022),“(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 232
Recognitions Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances” in 233
Ref. [19] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With 234
SuperHyperDefensive and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On 235
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of 236
Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [20] by 237
Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 238
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions” in Ref. [21] by 239
Henry Garrett (2022), “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 240
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in 241
Cancer’s Treatments” in Ref. [22] by Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperDominating 242
and SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in 243
Game Theory and Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [23] by Henry Garrett 244
(2022), “SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To Monitor 245
Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [24] by Henry 246
Garrett (2023), “The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In The 247
Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme SuperHyperMatching 248
Set and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [25] by Henry 249
Garrett (2023), “Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 250
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 251
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [26] by Henry 252
5/62
Garrett (2023), “Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In Front of 253
Cancer’s Attacks In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s 254
Recognition called Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [27] by Henry Garrett 255
(2023), “Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 256
Forwarding Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in 257
Ref. [28] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every 258
Embedded Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and 259
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique” in 260
Ref. [29] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic 261
Regions titled neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic 262
Recognition modeled in the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [30] by 263
Henry Garrett (2023), “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To 264
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in 265
Ref. [31] by Henry Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To 266
Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 267
Special ViewPoints” in Ref. [32] by Henry Garrett (2023), “(Neutrosophic) 268
SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by Well-SuperHyperModelled 269
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [33] by Henry Garrett (2023), 270
“Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction To Use 271
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond” 272
in Ref. [34] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in 273
Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [35] by Henry 274
Garrett (2022), “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 275
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) 276
SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [36] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Neutrosophic Notions 277
Concerning SuperHyperDominating and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in 278
SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [37] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Initial Material of 279
Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some Neutrosophic Notions Based on 280
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)” in 281
Ref. [38] by Henry Garrett (2022), there are some endeavors to formalize the basic 282
SuperHyperNotions about neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. 283
Some studies and researches about neutrosophic graphs, are proposed as book in 284
Ref. [39] by Henry Garrett (2022) which is indexed by Google Scholar and has more 285
than 2732 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs” and published 286
by Ohio: E-publishing: Educational Publisher 1091 West 1st Ave Grandview Heights, 287
Ohio 43212 United State. This research book covers different types of notions and 288
settings in neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. 289
Also, some studies and researches about neutrosophic graphs, are proposed as book 290
in Ref. [40] by Henry Garrett (2022) which is indexed by Google Scholar and has more 291
than 3504 readers in Scribd. It’s titled “Neutrosophic Duality” and published by 292
Florida: GLOBAL KNOWLEDGE - Publishing House 848 Brickell Ave Ste 950 Miami, 293
Florida 33131 United States. This research book presents different types of notions 294
SuperHyperResolving and SuperHyperDominating in the setting of duality in 295
neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. This research 296
book has scrutiny on the complement of the intended set and the intended set, 297
simultaneously. It’s smart to consider a set but acting on its complement that what’s 298
done in this research book which is popular in the terms of high readers in Scribd. 299
1.1 Motivation and Contributions 300
In this research, there are some ideas in the featured frameworks of motivations. I try 301
to bring the motivations in the narrative ways. Some cells have been faced with some 302
attacks from the situation which is caused by the cancer’s attacks. In this case, there 303
6/62
are some embedded analysis on the ongoing situations which in that, the cells could be 304
labelled as some groups and some groups or individuals have excessive labels which all 305
are raised from the behaviors to overcome the cancer’s attacks. In the embedded 306
situations, the individuals of cells and the groups of cells could be considered as “new 307
groups”. Thus it motivates us to find the proper SuperHyperModels for getting more 308
proper analysis on this messy story. I’ve found the SuperHyperModels which are 309
officially called “SuperHyperGraphs” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”. In this 310
SuperHyperModel, the cells and the groups of cells are defined as “SuperHyperVertices” 311
and the relations between the individuals of cells and the groups of cells are defined as 312
“SuperHyperEdges”. Thus it’s another motivation for us to do research on this 313
SuperHyperModel based on the “Cancer’s Recognitions”. Sometimes, the situations get 314
worst. The situation is passed from the certainty and precise style. Thus it’s the beyond 315
them. There are three descriptions, namely, the degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy 316
and neutrality, for any object based on vague forms, namely, incomplete data, imprecise 317
data, and uncertain analysis. The latter model could be considered on the previous 318
SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperGraph but it’s officially 319
called “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”. The cancer is the disease but the model is 320
going to figure out what’s going on this phenomenon. The special case of this disease is 321
considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The cells 322
are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the 323
matter of mind. The recognition of the cancer could help to find some treatments for 324
this disease. The SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are the 325
SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognitions” and both bases are the background 326
of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, 327
groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes 328
some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the 329
forms of alliances’ styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are 330
formally called “1-failed SuperHyperForcing” in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. 331
The prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to figure out the 332
background for the SuperHyperNotions. The recognition of the cancer in the long-term 333
function. The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called 334
SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this 335
research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are 336
some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the 337
cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be 338
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and 339
what’s done. There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the 340
names, and some general models. The moves and the traces of the cancer on the 341
complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a 342
neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, 343
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find 344
either the optimal 1-failed SuperHyperForcing or the neutrosophic 1-failed 345
SuperHyperForcing in those neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. Some general results are 346
introduced. Beyond that in SuperHyperStar, all possible SuperHyperPaths have only 347
two SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough since it’s essential to have at least three 348
SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a SuperHyperCycle. There isn’t any formation of 349
any SuperHyperCycle but literarily, it’s the deformation of any SuperHyperCycle. It, 350
literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. 351
Question 1.1. How to define the SuperHyperNotions and to do research on them to 352
find the “ amount of 1-failed SuperHyperForcing” of either individual of cells or the 353
groups of cells based on the fixed cell or the fixed group of cells, extensively, the “amount 354
of 1-failed SuperHyperForcing” based on the fixed groups of cells or the fixed groups of 355
7/62
group of cells? 356
Question 1.2. What are the best descriptions for the “Cancer’s Recognitions” in terms 357
of these messy and dense SuperHyperModels where embedded notions are illustrated? 358
It’s motivation to find notions to use in this dense model is titled 359
“SuperHyperGraphs”. Thus it motivates us to define different types of “1-failed 360
SuperHyperForcing” and “neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing” on 361
“SuperHyperGraph” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. Then the research has 362
taken more motivations to define SuperHyperClasses and to find some connections amid 363
this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions. It motivates us to get some 364
instances and examples to make clarifications about the framework of this research. The 365
general results and some results about some connections are some avenues to make key 366
point of this research, “Cancer’s Recognitions”, more understandable and more clear. 367
The framework of this research is as follows. In the beginning, I introduce basic 368
definitions to clarify about preliminaries. In the subsection “Preliminaries”, initial 369
definitions about SuperHyperGraphs and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are 370
deeply-introduced and in-depth-discussed. The elementary concepts are clarified and 371
illustrated completely and sometimes review literature are applied to make sense about 372
what’s going to figure out about the upcoming sections. The main definitions and their 373
clarifications alongside some results about new notions, 1-failed SuperHyperForcing and 374
neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, are figured out in sections “1-failed 375
SuperHyperForcing” and “Neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing”. In the sense of 376
tackling on getting results and in order to make sense about continuing the research, the 377
ideas of SuperHyperUniform and Neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform are introduced and 378
as their consequences, corresponded SuperHyperClasses are figured out to debut what’s 379
done in this section, titled “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on 380
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. As going back to origin of the notions, there are 381
some smart steps toward the common notions to extend the new notions in new 382
frameworks, SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, in the sections 383
“Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. The 384
starter research about the general SuperHyperRelations and as concluding and closing 385
section of theoretical research are contained in the section “General Results”. Some 386
general SuperHyperRelations are fundamental and they are well-known as fundamental 387
SuperHyperNotions as elicited and discussed in the sections, “General Results”, 388
“1-failed SuperHyperForcing”, “Neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing”, “Results on 389
SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. There are 390
curious questions about what’s done about the SuperHyperNotions to make sense about 391
excellency of this research and going to figure out the word “best” as the description 392
and adjective for this research as presented in section, “1-failed SuperHyperForcing”. 393
The keyword of this research debut in the section “Applications in Cancer’s 394
Recognitions” with two cases and subsections “Case 1: The Initial Steps Toward 395
SuperHyperBipartite as SuperHyperModel” and “Case 2: The Increasing Steps Toward 396
SuperHyperMultipartite as SuperHyperModel”. In the section, “Open Problems”, there 397
are some scrutiny and discernment on what’s done and what’s happened in this research 398
in the terms of “questions” and “problems” to make sense to figure out this research in 399
featured style. The advantages and the limitations of this research alongside about 400
what’s done in this research to make sense and to get sense about what’s figured out are 401
included in the section, “Conclusion and Closing Remarks”. 402
1.2 Preliminaries 403
In this subsection, the basic material which is used in this research, is presented. Also, 404
the new ideas and their clarifications are elicited. 405
8/62
Definition 1.3 (Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [42],Definition 2.1,p.87). 406
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 407
+
]− 0, 1 [. 408
Definition 1.4 (Single Valued Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [45],Definition 6,p.2). 409
Let X be a space of points (objects) with generic elements in X denoted by x. A

single valued neutrosophic set A (SVNS A) is characterized by truth-membership
function TA (x), an indeterminacy-membership function IA (x), and a falsity-membership
function FA (x). For each point x in X, TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) ∈ [0, 1]. A SVNS A can be
written as
A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}.
Definition 1.5. The degree of truth-membership,

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

and FA (X) = min[FA (vi ), FA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X .
Definition 1.6. The support of X ⊂ A of the single valued neutrosophic set

A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}:
supp(X) = {x ∈ X : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) > 0}.
Definition 1.7 (Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). (Ref. [44],Definition 410
3,p.291). 411
Assume V 0 is a given set. A neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an 412
ordered pair S = (V, E), where 413
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 414
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 415
1, 2, . . . , n); 416
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued neutrosophic subsets of V ; 417
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 418
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 419
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 420
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 421
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 422
9/62
supp(Ei0 ) = V, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 );
P
(viii) i0 423
(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 . 424
Here the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the neutrosophic 425
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 426
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 427
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the neutrosophic 428
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 429
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 430
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the neutrosophic 431
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 432
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 433
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 434
Definition 1.8 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 435
(Ref. [44],Section 4,pp.291-292). 436
Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered pair S = (V, E). 437
The neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the neutrosophic 438
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vi of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) 439
could be characterized as follow-up items. 440
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 441
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 442
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 443
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 444
HyperEdge; 445
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 446
SuperEdge; 447
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 448
SuperHyperEdge. 449
If we choose different types of binary operations, then we could get hugely diverse 450
types of general forms of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG). 451
Definition 1.9 (t-norm). (Ref. [43], Definition 5.1.1, pp.82-83). 452
A binary operation ⊗ : [0, 1] × [0, 1] → [0, 1] is a t-norm if it satisfies the following 453
for x, y, z, w ∈ [0, 1]: 454
(i) 1 ⊗ x = x; 455
(ii) x ⊗ y = y ⊗ x; 456
(iii) x ⊗ (y ⊗ z) = (x ⊗ y) ⊗ z; 457
(iv) If w ≤ x and y ≤ z then w ⊗ y ≤ x ⊗ z. 458
10/62
Definition 1.10. The degree of truth-membership,
indeterminacy-membership and falsity-membership of the subset X ⊂ A of
the single valued neutrosophic set A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X} (with
respect to t-norm Tnorm ):
TA (X) = Tnorm [TA (vi ), TA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X ,
IA (X) = Tnorm [IA (vi ), IA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X ,

and FA (X) = Tnorm [FA (vi ), FA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X .
Definition 1.11. The support of X ⊂ A of the single valued neutrosophic set
A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}:
supp(X) = {x ∈ X : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) > 0}.
Definition 1.12. (General Forms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 459
Assume V 0 is a given set. A neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an 460
ordered pair S = (V, E), where 461
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 462
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 463
1, 2, . . . , n); 464
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued neutrosophic subsets of V ; 465
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 466
1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 467
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 468
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 469
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 470
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n ).
0 471
Here the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the neutrosophic 472
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), 473
and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 474
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership the neutrosophic 475
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 476
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of 477
indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the neutrosophic 478
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 to the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, 479
the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) 480
are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets V and E are crisp sets. 481
Definition 1.13 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 482
(Ref. [44],Section 4,pp.291-292). 483
Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered pair S = (V, E). 484
The neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the neutrosophic 485
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vi of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) 486
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 488
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 489
11/62
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 490
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 491
HyperEdge; 492
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called 493
SuperEdge; 494
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 495
SuperHyperEdge. 496
This SuperHyperModel is too messy and too dense. Thus there’s a need to have 497
some restrictions and conditions on SuperHyperGraph. The special case of this 498
SuperHyperGraph makes the patterns and regularities. 499
Definition 1.14. A graph is SuperHyperUniform if it’s SuperHyperGraph and the 500
number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. 501
To get more visions on 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, the some SuperHyperClasses are 502
introduced. It makes to have 1-failed SuperHyperForcing more understandable. 503
Definition 1.15. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 504
SuperHyperClasses as follows. 505
(i). It’s SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 506
given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; 507
(ii). it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 508
given SuperHyperEdges; 509
(iii). it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all 510
SuperHyperEdges; 511
(iv). it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 512
given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has 513
no SuperHyperEdge in common; 514
(v). it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid 515
two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi separate sets, 516
has no SuperHyperEdge in common; 517
(vi). it’s SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 518
given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any 519
common SuperVertex. 520
Definition 1.16. Let an ordered pair S = (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph

(NSHG) S. Then a sequence of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) and
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)
V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , . . . , Vs−1 , Es−1 , Vs
is called a neutrosophic SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from neutrosophic 521
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V1 to neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vs if either 522
of following conditions hold: 523
(i) Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 524
(ii) there’s a vertex vi ∈ Vi such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 525
12/62
(iii) there’s a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi such that Vi0 , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 526
(iv) there’s a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 527
0 0
(v) there’s a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 528
(vi) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 529
0 0
(vii) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 530
(viii) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi0 , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 531
(ix) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1

0
∈ Vi+1 such that 532
0 0
Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 . 533
Definition 1.17. (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths). 534
Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered pair S = (V, E).

A neutrosophic SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV)
V1 to neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vs is sequence of neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) and neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)
V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , . . . , Vs−1 , Es−1 , Vs ,
(i) If for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | = 2, then NSHP is called path; 536
(ii) if for all Ej 0 , |Ej 0 | = 2, and there’s Vi , |Vi | ≥ 1, then NSHP is called SuperPath; 537
(iii) if for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called HyperPath; 538
(iv) if there are Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | ≥ 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called SuperHyperPath. 539
Definition 1.18. ((neutrosophic) 1-failed SuperHyperForcing). 540
Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 541
(i) an 1-failed SuperHyperForcing Z(N SHG) for a neutrosophic 542
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum cardinality of a 543
SuperHyperSet S of black SuperHyperVertices (whereas SuperHyperVertices in 544
V (G) \ S are colored white) such that V (G) isn’t turned black after finitely many 545
applications of “the color-change rule”: a white SuperHyperVertex is converted to 546
a black SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white SuperHyperNeighbor of a black 547
SuperHyperVertex with the additional condition is referred by “1-” about the 548
usage of any black SuperHyperVertex only once to act on white 549
SuperHyperVertex to be black SuperHyperVertex; 550
(ii) a neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing Zn (N SHG) for a neutrosophic 551
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a 552
SuperHyperSet S of black SuperHyperVertices (whereas SuperHyperVertices in 553
V (G) \ S are colored white) such that V (G) is turned black after finitely many 554
applications of “the color-change rule”: a white SuperHyperVertex is converted to 555
a black SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white SuperHyperNeighbor of a black 556
SuperHyperVertex with the additional condition is referred by “1-” about the 557
usage of any black SuperHyperVertex only once to act on white 558
SuperHyperVertex to be black SuperHyperVertex. 559
Definition 1.19. ((neutrosophic)δ− 1-failed SuperHyperForcing). 560
Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 561
13/62
Table 1. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHy-
perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition
(1.22)
The Values of The Vertices The Number of Position in Alphabet
The Values of The SuperVertices The maximum Values of Its Vertices
The Values of The Edges The maximum Values of Its Vertices
The Values of The HyperEdges The maximum Values of Its Vertices
The Values of The SuperHyperEdges The maximum Values of Its Endpoints
(i) an δ−1-failed SuperHyperForcing is a maximal 1-failed SuperHyperForcing 562
of SuperHyperVertices with a maximum cardinality such that either of the 563
following expressions hold for the (neutrosophic) cardinalities of 564
SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 565
|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ; (1.1)

|S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. (1.2)
The Expression (1.1), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the 566
Expression (1.2), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; 567
(ii) a neutrosophic δ−1-failed SuperHyperForcing is a maximal neutrosophic 568
1-failed SuperHyperForcing of SuperHyperVertices with maximum neutrosophic 569
cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the neutrosophic 570
cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 571
|S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ; (1.3)

|S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ. (1.4)
The Expression (1.3), holds if S is a neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive. 572
And the Expression (1.4), holds if S is a neutrosophic 573
δ−SuperHyperDefensive. 574
For the sake of having a neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, there’s a need to 575
“redefine” the notion of “neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. The SuperHyperVertices 576
and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. 577
In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. 578
Definition 1.20. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined 579
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph if the Table (1) holds. 580
It’s useful to define a “neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s 581
more ways to get neutrosophic type-results to make a neutrosophic 1-failed 582
SuperHyperForcing more understandable. 583
Definition 1.21. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some 584
neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the Table (2) holds. Thus SuperHyperPath, 585
SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 586
SuperHyperWheel, are neutrosophic SuperHyperPath, neutrosophic 587
SuperHyperCycle, neutrosophic SuperHyperStar, neutrosophic 588
SuperHyperBipartite, neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite, and 589
neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel if the Table (2) holds. 590
It’s useful to define a “neutrosophic” version of an 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 591
Since there’s more ways to get type-results to make an 1-failed SuperHyperForcing more 592
understandable. 593
14/62
perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, Mentioned in the Definition
(1.21)

perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition
(1.22)
For the sake of having a neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, there’s a need to 594
“redefine” the notion of “1-failed SuperHyperForcing”. The SuperHyperVertices and 595
the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In 596
this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. 597
Definition 1.22. Assume an 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. It’s redefined a 598
neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing if the Table (3) holds. 599
2 General Results 600
For the 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, and the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, 601
some general results are introduced. 602
Remark 2.1. Let remind that the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing is “redefined” 603
on the positions of the alphabets. 604
Corollary 2.2. Assume 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Then 605
N eutrosophic 1 − f ailedSuperHyperF orcing =

{the1 − f ailedSuperHyperF orcingof theSuperHyperV ertices |
max |SuperHyperDef ensiveSuperHyper
Alliances|neutrosophiccardinalityamidthose1−f ailedSuperHyperF orcing. }
Where σi is the unary operation on the SuperHyperVertices of the SuperHyperGraph to 606
assign the determinacy, the indeterminacy and the neutrality, for i = 1, 2, 3, respectively. 607
Corollary 2.3. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the same identical letter 608
of the alphabet. Then the notion of neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing and 1-failed 609
SuperHyperForcing coincide. 610
of the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a neutrosophic 612
1-failed SuperHyperForcing if and only if it’s an 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 613
of the alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a strongest 615
SuperHyperCycle if and only if it’s a longest SuperHyperCycle. 616
15/62
Corollary 2.6. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the 617
same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing 618
is its 1-failed SuperHyperForcing and reversely. 619
Corollary 2.7. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperCycle, 620
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel) on 621
the same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its neutrosophic 1-failed 622
SuperHyperForcing is its 1-failed SuperHyperForcing and reversely. 623
Corollary 2.8. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its neutrosophic 624
1-failed SuperHyperForcing isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1-failed 625
SuperHyperForcing isn’t well-defined. 626
Corollary 2.9. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then 627
its neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing isn’t well-defined if and only if its 1-failed 628
SuperHyperForcing isn’t well-defined. 629
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). 631
Then its neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing isn’t well-defined if and only if its 632
1-failed SuperHyperForcing isn’t well-defined. 633
Corollary 2.11. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its neutrosophic 634
1-failed SuperHyperForcing is well-defined if and only if its 1-failed SuperHyperForcing 635
is well-defined. 636
Corollary 2.12. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 637
Then its neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing is well-defined if and only if its 638
1-failed SuperHyperForcing is well-defined. 639
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). 641
Then its neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing is well-defined if and only if its 642
1-failed SuperHyperForcing is well-defined. 643
Proposition 2.14. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then V 644
is 645
(i) : the dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 646
(ii) : the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 647
(iii) : the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 648
(iv) : the δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 649
(v) : the strong δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 650
(vi) : the connected δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 651
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider V. All 652
SuperHyperMembers of V have at least one SuperHyperNeighbor inside the 653
SuperHyperSet more than SuperHyperNeighbor out of SuperHyperSet. Thus, 654
16/62
(i). V is the dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing since the 655
following statements are equivalent. 656
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > |N (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > |N (a) ∩ ∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(ii). V is the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing since the 657
∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |Ns (a) ∩ ∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(iii). V is the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing since 659
the following statements are equivalent. 660
∀a ∈ S, |Nc (a) ∩ S| > |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > |Nc (a) ∩ ∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(iv). V is the δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing since the 661
∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ S))| > δ ≡

∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V ) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ V ))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V ) − (N (a) ∩ (∅))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V ) − (∅)| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V )| > δ.
(v). V is the strong δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing since the 663
∀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.
17/62
(vi). V is connected δ-dual 1-failed SuperHyperForcing since the following statements 665
are equivalent. 666
∀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.
667
Proposition 2.15. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then 668
∅ is 669
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 670
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 671
(iii) : the connected defensive SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 672
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 673
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 674
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 675
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider ∅. All 676
SuperHyperMembers of ∅ have no SuperHyperNeighbor inside the SuperHyperSet less 677
than SuperHyperNeighbor out of SuperHyperSet. Thus, 678
(i). ∅ is the SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing since the following 679
statements are equivalent. 680
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |N (a) ∩ ∅| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |N (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |N (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(ii). ∅ is the strong SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing since the following 681
∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |Ns (a) ∩ ∅| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Ns (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Ns (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(iii). ∅ is the connected SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing since the 683
18/62
∀a ∈ S, |Nc (a) ∩ S| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |Nc (a) ∩ ∅| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Nc (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Nc (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(iv). ∅ is the δ-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing since the following 685
∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |(N (a) ∩ ∅) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ ∅))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |(N (a) ∩ ∅) − (N (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
(v). ∅ is the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing since the 687
∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |(Ns (a) ∩ ∅) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ ∅))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |(Ns (a) ∩ ∅) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
(vi). ∅ is the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing since the 689
∀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.
691
Proposition 2.16. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then an 692
independent SuperHyperSet is 693
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 694
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 695
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 696
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 697
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 698
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 699
19/62
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider S. All 700
SuperHyperMembers of S have no SuperHyperNeighbor inside the SuperHyperSet less 701
(i). An independent SuperHyperSet is the SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 703
SuperHyperForcing since the following statements are equivalent. 704
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, |∅| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, 0 < |N (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ S, 0 < |N (a)| ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(ii). An independent SuperHyperSet is the strong SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 705
∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, |∅| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, 0 < |Ns (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ S, 0 < |Ns (a)| ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(iii). An independent SuperHyperSet is the connected SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 707
∀a ∈ S, |Nc (a) ∩ S| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |Nc (a) ∩ S| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, |∅| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, 0 < |Nc (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ S, 0 < |Nc (a)| ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(iv). An independent SuperHyperSet is the δ-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 709
∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ S, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
(v). An independent SuperHyperSet is the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 711
∀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.
20/62
(vi). An independent SuperHyperSet is the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 713
∀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.
715
Proposition 2.17. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform 716
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath. Then V is a maximal 717
(i) : SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 718
(ii) : strong SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 719
(iii) : connected SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 720
(iv) : O(N SHG)-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 721
(v) : strong O(N SHG)-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 722
(vi) : connected O(N SHG)-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 723
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 724
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 725
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath. 726
(i). Consider one segment is out of S which is SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 727
SuperHyperForcing. This segment has 2t SuperHyperNeighbors in S, i.e, Suppose 728
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 729
SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s 730
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperCycle, 731
|N (xii=1,2,...,t )| = |N (yii=1,2,...,t )| = |N (zii=1,2,...,t )| = 2t. Thus 732
∀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 733
1-failed SuperHyperForcing in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperCycle. 734
Consider one segment, with two segments related to the SuperHyperLeaves as 735
exceptions, is out of S which is SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. This 736
segment has 2t SuperHyperNeighbors in S, i.e, Suppose xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S such that 737
yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By it’s the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the 738
21/62
interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperPath, 739
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ (V \ (V \ {xii=1,2,...,t }))| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ {xii=1,2,...,t })| ≡
∃yii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ {xi }ti=1 , |{z1 , z2 , . . . , zt−1 }| <
|{x1 , x2 , . . . , xt−1 })| ≡
∃y ∈ S, t − 1 < t − 1.
1-failed SuperHyperForcing in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperPath. 742
(ii), (iii) are obvious by (i). 743
(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal and it’s a SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 744
SuperHyperForcing. Thus it’s |V |-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 745
(v), (vi) are obvious by (iv). 746
Proposition 2.18. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 747
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel. Then V is a maximal 748
(i) : dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 749
(ii) : strong dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 750
(iii) : connected dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 751
(iv) : O(N SHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 752
(v) : strong O(N SHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 753
(vi) : connected O(N SHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 754
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 755
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform 756
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. 757
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 760
exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s 761
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel, 762
22/62
∀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 764
1-failed SuperHyperForcing in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel. 765
(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal and it is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 767
SuperHyperForcing. Thus it’s a dual |V |-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 768
SuperHyperForcing. 769
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath. Then the number of 772
(i) : the 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 773
(ii) : the 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 774
(iii) : the connected 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 775
(iv) : the O(N SHG)-1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 776
(v) : the strong O(N SHG)-1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 777
(vi) : the connected O(N SHG)-1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 778
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 779
SuperHyperVertices coincide. 780
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 781
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath. 782
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 785
SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s 786
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperCycle, 787
23/62
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ (V \ (V \ {xii=1,2,...,t }))| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ {xii=1,2,...,t })| ≡
∃yii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ {xi }ti=1 , |{z1 , z2 , . . . , zt−1 }| < |{x1 , x2 , . . . , xt−1 })| ≡
∃y ∈ S, t − 1 < t − 1.
1-failed SuperHyperForcing in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperCycle. 790
Consider one segment, with two segments related to the SuperHyperLeaves as 791
exceptions, is out of S which is SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. This 792
segment has 2t SuperHyperNeighbors in S, i.e, Suppose xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S such that 793
yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By it’s the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the 794
interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperPath, 795
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ (V \ (V \ {xii=1,2,...,t }))| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ {xii=1,2,...,t })| ≡
∃yii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ {xi }ti=1 , |{z1 , z2 , . . . , zt−1 }| <
|{x1 , x2 , . . . , xt−1 })| ≡
∃y ∈ S, t − 1 < t − 1.
1-failed SuperHyperForcing in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperPath. 798
(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal and it’s a SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 800
SuperHyperForcing. Thus it’s |V |-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 801
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. Then the number of 804
(i) : the dual 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 805
(ii) : the dual 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 806
(iii) : the dual connected 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 807
(iv) : the dual O(N SHG)-1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 808
(v) : the strong dual O(N SHG)-1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 809
(vi) : the connected dual O(N SHG)-1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 810
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 811
24/62
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform 813
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperWheel. 814
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 817
exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s 818
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel, 819
∀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 821
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing in a given SuperHyperUniform 822
SuperHyperWheel. 823
(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal and it’s a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 825
SuperHyperForcing. Thus it isn’t an |V |-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 826
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperStar/SuperHyperComplete 830
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 831
SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of multiplying r with the 832
number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices is a 833
O(N SHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 837
O(N SHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 838
O(N SHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 839
Proof. (i). Consider n half +1 SuperHyperVertices are in S which is 840
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. A SuperHyperVertex has either n2 or 841
one SuperHyperNeighbors in S. If the SuperHyperVertex is non-SuperHyperCenter, then 842
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
25/62
If the SuperHyperVertex is SuperHyperCenter, then 843
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 844
SuperHyperForcing in a given SuperHyperStar. 845
Consider n half +1 SuperHyperVertices are in S which is SuperHyperDefensive 846
1-failed SuperHyperForcing. A SuperHyperVertex has at most n2 SuperHyperNeighbors 847
in S. 848
n n
∀a ∈ S, > |N (a) ∩ S| > − 1 > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
2 2
n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
SuperHyperForcing in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite which isn’t a 850
SuperHyperStar. 851
1-failed SuperHyperForcing and they’re chosen from different SuperHyperParts, equally 853
or almost equally as possible. A SuperHyperVertex has at most n2 854
SuperHyperNeighbors in S. 855
n n
∀a ∈ S, > |N (a) ∩ S| > − 1 > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
2 2
n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
SuperHyperForcing in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite which is 857
neither a SuperHyperStar nor SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite. 858

O(N SHG)
+1
(iv). By (i), {xi }i=12
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 860
O(N SHG)
SuperHyperForcing. Thus it’s 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 861
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a 866
SuperHyperSet contains the half of multiplying r with the number of all the 867
SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart 868
is a 869
(iv) : δ-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 873
(v) : strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 874
(vi) : connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 875
26/62
Proof. (i). Consider the half of multiplying r with the number of all the 876
SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart 877
are in S which is SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. A 878
SuperHyperVertex has either n − 1, 1 or zero SuperHyperNeighbors in S. If the 879
SuperHyperVertex is in S, then 880
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 0 < 1.
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 881
Consider the half of multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus 883
one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart are in S which is 884
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. A SuperHyperVertex has no 885
SuperHyperNeighbor in S. 886
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 0 < δ.
SuperHyperStar. 889
Consider the half of multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus 890
one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart are in S which is 891
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. A SuperHyperVertex has no 892
SuperHyperNeighbor in S. 893
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 0 < δ.
(iv). By (i), S is a SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Thus it’s an 898
δ-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 899
SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite. Then Then the 903
number of 904
O(N SHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 908
O(N SHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 909
O(N SHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 910
27/62
is one and it’s only S, a SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of 911
multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the 912
SuperHyperVertices. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 913
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. A SuperHyperVertex has either n2 or 916
one SuperHyperNeighbors in S. If the SuperHyperVertex is non-SuperHyperCenter, then 917
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
If the SuperHyperVertex is SuperHyperCenter, then 918
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
1-failed SuperHyperForcing. A SuperHyperVertex has at most n2 SuperHyperNeighbors 922
in S. 923
n n
∀a ∈ S, > |N (a) ∩ S| > − 1 > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
2 2
n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
SuperHyperStar. 926
1-failed SuperHyperForcing and they’re chosen from different SuperHyperParts, equally 928
or almost equally as possible. A SuperHyperVertex has at most n2 929
n n
∀a ∈ S, > |N (a) ∩ S| > − 1 > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
2 2
n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2

O(N SHG)
+1
(iv). By (i), {xi }i=12
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 935
SuperHyperForcing. Thus it’s O(N SHG) 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 936
Proposition 2.24. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. The 939
number of connected component is |V − S| if there’s a SuperHyperSet which is a dual 940
28/62
(iv) : 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 944
(v) : strong 1-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 945
(vi) : connected 1-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 946
Proof. (i). Consider some SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 947
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. These SuperHyperVertex-type have 948
some SuperHyperNeighbors in S but no SuperHyperNeighbor out of S. Thus 949
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
SuperHyperForcing and number of connected component is |V − S|. 951
(iv). By (i), S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Thus it’s 953
a dual 1-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 954
Proposition 2.25. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then the 956
number is at most O(N SHG) and the neutrosophic number is at most On (N SHG). 957
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider V. All 958
SuperHyperMembers of V have at least one SuperHyperNeighbor inside the 959
SuperHyperSet more than SuperHyperNeighbor out of SuperHyperSet. Thus, 960
V is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing since the following 961
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > |N (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > |N (a) ∩ ∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
V is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing since the following 963
∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |Ns (a) ∩ ∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
V is connected a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing since the 965
29/62
∀a ∈ S, |Nc (a) ∩ S| > |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > |Nc (a) ∩ ∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
V is a dual δ-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing since the following 967
∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ S))| > δ ≡

∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V ) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ V ))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V ) − (N (a) ∩ (∅))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V ) − (∅)| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V )| > δ.
V is a dual strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing since the 969
∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S))| > δ ≡

∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V ) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ V ))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V ) − (Ns (a) ∩ (∅))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V ) − (∅)| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V )| > δ.
V is a dual connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing since the 971
∀a ∈ S, |(Nc (a) ∩ S) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S))| > δ ≡

∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V ) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ V ))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V ) − (Nc (a) ∩ (∅))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V ) − (∅)| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V )| > δ.
Thus V is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing and V is the biggest 973
SuperHyperSet in N SHG : (V, E). Then the number is at most O(N SHG : (V, E)) and 974
the neutrosophic number is at most On (N SHG : (V, E)). 975
Proposition 2.26. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 976
SuperHyperComplete. The number is O(N SHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and the neutrosophic number is 977
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of dual 978
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(N SHG:(V,E))

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 982
30/62
(v) : strong ( O(N SHG:(V,E))
(vi) : connected ( O(N SHG:(V,E))

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 984
Proof. (i). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 985
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. A SuperHyperVertex has n half 986
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
SuperHyperForcing in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraph. Thus the 989
number is O(N SHG:(V,E))

2 + 1 and the neutrosophic number is 990
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual SuperHyperDefensive 991
t>
2
1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 992
(ii). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 993
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual strong SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 996

min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual strong 999
t>
2
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 1000
(iii). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 1001
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual connected SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 1004

min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual connected 1007
t>
2
(iv). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 1009
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1012
1-failed SuperHyperForcing in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraph. Thus 1013
the number is O(N SHG:(V,E))

31/62
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual 1015
t>
2
( O(N SHG:(V,E))
(v). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 1017
∀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 1020
( O(N SHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing in a given 1021
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraph. Thus the number is O(N SHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and 1022
the neutrosophic number is min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a 1023
t>
2
dual strong ( O(N SHG:(V,E))

(vi). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 1025
∀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 1028
( O(N SHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing in a given 1029
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraph. Thus the number is O(N SHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and 1030
the neutrosophic number is min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a 1031
t>
2
dual connected ( O(N SHG:(V,E))

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 1032
∅. The number is 0 and the neutrosophic number is 0, for an independent SuperHyperSet 1035
in the setting of dual 1036
(iv) : 0-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 1040
(v) : strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 1041
(vi) : connected 0-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 1042
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider ∅. All 1043
SuperHyperMembers of ∅ have no SuperHyperNeighbor inside the SuperHyperSet less 1044
32/62
(i). ∅ is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing since the following 1046
∀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 1048
in the setting of a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 1049
(ii). ∅ is a dual strong SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing since the 1050
∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |Ns (a) ∩ ∅| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Ns (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Ns (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
in the setting of a dual strong SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 1053
(iii). ∅ is a dual connected SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing since 1054
∀a ∈ S, |Nc (a) ∩ S| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |Nc (a) ∩ ∅| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Nc (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Nc (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
in the setting of a dual connected SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 1057
(iv). ∅ is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing since the following 1058
∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |(N (a) ∩ ∅) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ ∅))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |(N (a) ∩ ∅) − (N (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
in the setting of a dual 0-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 1061
(v). ∅ is a dual strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing since the 1062
33/62
∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |(Ns (a) ∩ ∅) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ ∅))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |(Ns (a) ∩ ∅) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
in the setting of a dual strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 1065
(vi). ∅ is a dual connected SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing since 1066
∀a ∈ S, |(Nc (a) ∩ S) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |(Nc (a) ∩ ∅) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ ∅))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |(Nc (a) ∩ ∅) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
in the setting of a dual connected 0-offensive SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 1069
SuperHyperComplete. Then there’s no independent SuperHyperSet. 1072
SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel. The number is 1074
O(N SHG : (V, E)) and the neutrosophic number is On (N SHG : (V, E)), in the setting 1075
of a dual 1076
(iv) : O(N SHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 1080
(v) : strong O(N SHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 1081
(vi) : connected O(N SHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 1082
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 1083
SuperHyperCycle/SuperHyperPath/SuperHyperWheel. 1084
(i). Consider one SuperHyperVertex is out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1085
1-failed SuperHyperForcing. This SuperHyperVertex has one SuperHyperNeighbor in S, 1086
i.e, suppose x ∈ V \ S such that y, z ∈ N (x). By it’s SuperHyperCycle, 1087
|N (x)| = |N (y)| = |N (z)| = 2. Thus 1088
∀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.
34/62
Thus it’s contradiction. It implies every V \ {x} isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1089
1-failed SuperHyperForcing in a given SuperHyperCycle. 1090
Consider one SuperHyperVertex is out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1091
i.e, Suppose x ∈ V \ S such that y, z ∈ N (x). By it’s SuperHyperPath, 1093
|N (x)| = |N (y)| = |N (z)| = 2. Thus 1094
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |N (y) ∩ S| < |N (y) ∩ (V \ (V \ {x}))| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |N (y) ∩ S| < |N (y) ∩ {x})| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |{z}| < |{x})| ≡
∃y ∈ S, 1 < 1.
1-failed SuperHyperForcing in a given SuperHyperPath. 1096
Consider one SuperHyperVertex is out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1097
i.e, Suppose x ∈ V \ S such that y, z ∈ N (x). By it’s SuperHyperWheel, 1099
|N (x)| = |N (y)| = |N (z)| = 2. Thus 1100
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |N (y) ∩ S| < |N (y) ∩ (V \ (V \ {x}))| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |N (y) ∩ S| < |N (y) ∩ {x})| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |{z}| < |{x})| ≡
∃y ∈ S, 1 < 1.
1-failed SuperHyperForcing in a given SuperHyperWheel. 1102
(iv). By (i), V is maximal and it’s a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 1104
SuperHyperForcing. Thus it’s a dual O(N SHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 1105
Thus the number is O(N SHG : (V, E)) and the neutrosophic number is 1108
On (N SHG : (V, E)), in the setting of all types of a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 1109
SuperHyperStar/complete SuperHyperBipartite/complete SuperHyperMultiPartite. The 1112

min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual 1114
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(N SHG:(V,E))

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

35/62
(vi) : connected ( O(N SHG:(V,E))
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. A SuperHyperVertex has at most n 1122
half SuperHyperNeighbors in S. If the SuperHyperVertex is the non-SuperHyperCenter, 1123
then 1124
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
If the SuperHyperVertex is the SuperHyperCenter, then 1125
∀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 1128
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

δ δ
∀a ∈ S, >n− .
2 2
SuperHyperForcing in a given complete SuperHyperBipartite which isn’t a 1131
SuperHyperStar. 1132
Consider n half +1 SuperHyperVertices are in S which is a dual 1133
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing and they are chosen from different 1134
SuperHyperParts, equally or almost equally as possible. A SuperHyperVertex in S has 1135
δ half SuperHyperNeighbors in S. 1136
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

δ δ
∀a ∈ S, >n− .
2 2
SuperHyperForcing in a given complete SuperHyperMultipartite which is neither a 1138
SuperHyperStar nor complete SuperHyperBipartite. 1139

O(N SHG:(V,E))
+1
(iv). By (i), {xi }i=1 2
is maximal and it’s a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1141
1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Thus it’s a dual O(N SHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1-SuperHyperDefensive 1142
Thus the number is O(N SHG:(V,E))2 + 1 and the neutrosophic number is 1145
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of all dual 1-failed 1146
t>
2
Proposition 2.31. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a SuperHyperFamily of the N SHGs : (V, E) 1148
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs which are from one-type SuperHyperClass which the 1149
result is obtained for the individuals. Then the results also hold for the 1150
SuperHyperFamily N SHF : (V, E) of these specific SuperHyperClasses of the 1151
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs. 1152
36/62
Proof. There are neither SuperHyperConditions nor SuperHyperRestrictions on the 1153
SuperHyperVertices. Thus the SuperHyperResults on individuals, N SHGs : (V, E), are 1154
extended to the SuperHyperResults on SuperHyperFamily, N SHF : (V, E). 1155
Proposition 2.32. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If 1156
S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, then ∀v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S 1157
such that 1158
(i) v ∈ Ns (x); 1159
(ii) vx ∈ E. 1160
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 1161
Consider v ∈ V \ S. Since S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, 1162
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (v) ∩ S| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S, v ∈ Ns (x).
(ii). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider 1163
v ∈ V \ S. Since S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, 1164
∀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.
1165
Proposition 2.33. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If 1166
S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, then 1167
(i) S is SuperHyperDominating set; 1168
(ii) there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic number. 1169
Consider v ∈ V \ S. Since S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, 1171
either 1172
∀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 1173
∀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. 1174
37/62
v ∈ V \ S. Since S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, either 1176
∀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 1177
∀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. 1178
The only case is about the relation amid SuperHyperVertices in S in the terms of 1179
SuperHyperNeighbors. It implies there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic 1180
number. 1181
Proposition 2.34. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 1182
Then 1183
(i) Γ ≤ O; 1184
(ii) Γs ≤ On . 1185
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Let 1186
S = V. 1187
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ V, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ V )|
v ∈ ∅, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > |Ns (v) ∩ ∅|
v ∈ ∅, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > |∅|
v ∈ ∅, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > 0
It implies V is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. For all 1188
SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S, S ⊆ V. Thus for all SuperHyperSets of 1189
SuperHyperVertices S, |S| ≤ |V |. It implies for all SuperHyperSets of 1190
SuperHyperVertices S, |S| ≤ O. So for all SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices 1191
S, Γ ≤ O. 1192
(ii). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Let S = V. 1193
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ V, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ V )|
v ∈ ∅, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > |Ns (v) ∩ ∅|
v ∈ ∅, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > |∅|
v ∈ ∅, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > 0
It implies V is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. For all 1194
SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S, S ⊆ V. Thus for all 1195
SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 1196
S, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ Σv∈V Σ3i=1 σi (v). It implies for all SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic 1197
SuperHyperVertices S, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ On . So for all SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic 1198
SuperHyperVertices S, Γs ≤ On . 1199
38/62
Proposition 2.35. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1200
which is connected. Then 1201
(i) Γ ≤ O − 1; 1202
(ii) Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 1203
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Let 1204
S = V − {x} where x is arbitrary and x ∈ V. 1205
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ V − {x}, |Ns (v) ∩ (V − {x})| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ (V − {x}))|
|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > |Ns (x) ∩ {x}|
|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > |∅|
|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > 0
It implies V − {x} is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. For all 1206
SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, S ⊆ V − {x}. Thus for all 1207
SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, |S| ≤ |V − {x}|. It implies for all 1208
SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, |S| ≤ O − 1. So for all SuperHyperSets 1209
of SuperHyperVertices S, Γ ≤ O − 1. 1210
(ii). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Let 1211
S = V − {x} where x is arbitrary and x ∈ V. 1212
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ V − {x}, |Ns (v) ∩ (V − {x})| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ (V − {x}))|
|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > |Ns (x) ∩ {x}|
|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > |∅|
|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > 0
It implies V − {x} is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. For all 1213
SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, S ⊆ V − {x}. Thus for all 1214
SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 1215
S 6= V, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ Σv∈V −{x} Σ3i=1 σi (v). It implies for all SuperHyperSets of 1216
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). So for all 1217
SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S, Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 1218
Proposition 2.36. Let N SHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperPath. Then 1219
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 1220
SuperHyperForcing; 1221
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1222
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1223
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1224
a dual 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 1225
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an odd SuperHyperPath. Let 1226
39/62
S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all vi , vj ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 1227
v ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 }| = 2 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn }|∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 2 >
0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 }| >
|Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 })|
It implies S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 1228
SuperHyperForcing. If S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } − {vi } where vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }, then 1229
∃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 1230
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. It induces S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is 1231
a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 1232
(ii) and (iii) are trivial. 1233
(iv). By (i), S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 1234
SuperHyperForcing. Thus it’s enough to show that S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual 1235
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an odd 1236
SuperHyperPath. Let S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all 1237
vi , vj ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 1238
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 2.37. Let N SHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperPath. Then 1244
(i) the set S = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 1245
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and 1247
{v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }; 1248
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1249
40/62
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1250
dual 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 1251
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an even SuperHyperPath. Let 1252
S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } where for all vi , vj ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 1253
v ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn }| = 2 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }|∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 2 >
0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn }| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn })|
It implies S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 1254
SuperHyperForcing. If S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } − {vi } where vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, then 1255
∃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 1256
1-failed SuperHyperForcing. It induces S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual 1257
(iv). By (i), S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 1260
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an even 1262
SuperHyperPath. Let S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all 1263
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 2.38. Let N SHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperCycle. Then 1270
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 1271
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and 1273
{v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1274
41/62
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } σ(s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } σ(s)}; 1275
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only 1276
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an even SuperHyperCycle. Let 1278
S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } where for all vi , vj ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 1279
v ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn }| = 2 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }|∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 2 >
0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn }| >
|Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn })|
It implies S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 1280
SuperHyperForcing. If S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } − {vi } where vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, then 1281
∃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 1282
1-failed SuperHyperForcing. It induces S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual 1283
(iv). By (i), S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 1286
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an even 1288
SuperHyperCycle. Let S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all 1289
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 2.39. Let N SHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperCycle. Then 1296
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 1297
42/62
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 1299
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 1300
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only 1301
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an odd SuperHyperCycle. Let 1303
S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all vi , vj ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 1304
v ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 }| = 2 >

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

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
(iv). By (i), S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 1311
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an odd 1313
SuperHyperCycle. Let S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all 1314
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 2.40. Let N SHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperStar. Then 1321
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c} is a dual maximal 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 1322
43/62
(ii) Γ = 1; 1323
(iii) Γs = Σ3i=1 σi (c); 1324
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c} and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 1325
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a SuperHyperStar. 1326
∀v ∈ V \ {c}, |Ns (v) ∩ {c}| = 1 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {c})|∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 >
0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {c}, |Ns (v) ∩ {c}| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {c})|
It implies S = {c} is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. If 1327
S = {c} − {c} = ∅, then 1328
∃v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 0 = 0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 0 6> 0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
So S = {c} − {c} = ∅ isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. It 1329
induces S = {c} is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 1330
(iv). By (i), S = {c} is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 1332
Thus it’s enough to show that S ⊆ S 0 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 1333
SuperHyperForcing. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a SuperHyperStar. Let S ⊆ S 0 . 1334
∀v ∈ V \ {c}, |Ns (v) ∩ {c}| = 1 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {c})|∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | = 1 >
0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
It implies S 0 ⊆ S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 1335
Proposition 2.41. Let N SHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperWheel. Then 1336
6+3(i−1)≤n
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual 1337
maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 1338
6+3(i−1)≤n
(ii) Γ = |{v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 |; 1339
(iii) Γs = Σ{v1 ,v3 }∪{v6 ,v9 ··· ,vi+6 ,··· ,vn }6+3(i−1)≤n Σ3i=1 σi (s); 1340
i=1
6+3(i−1)≤n
(iv) the SuperHyperSet {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is only a dual 1341
maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 1342
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a SuperHyperWheel. Let 1343

6+3(i−1)≤n
S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 . There are either 1344
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 2 > 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
44/62
or 1345
∀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 1346
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. If 1347

6+3(i−1)≤n
S 0 = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 − {z} where 1348
6+3(i−1)≤n
z ∈ S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 , then There are either 1349
0 0 0
∀z ∈ V \ S , |Ns (z) ∩ S | = 1 < 2 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S )|
∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | < |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
or 1350
∀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 1351
6+3(i−1)≤n
z ∈ S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1352
1-failed SuperHyperForcing. It induces 1353

6+3(i−1)≤n
S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual maximal 1354
(ii), (iii) and (iv) are obvious. 1356
Proposition 2.42. Let N SHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperComplete. Then 1357
bn
2 c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 1358
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1; 1360
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} b n c+1

2
; 1361
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 1362
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an odd SuperHyperComplete. Let 1364

bn
2 c+1
S = {vi }i=1 . Thus 1365
n n
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = b c + 1 > b c − 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
b n c+1
It implies S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. If 1366
0 bn
2 c+1 bn
2 c+1
S = {vi }i=1 − {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1 , then 1367
n n
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = b c = b c = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
b n c+1 b n c+1
So S 0 = {vi }i=12
− {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1
2
isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1368
bn
2 c+1
1-failed SuperHyperForcing. It induces S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1369
45/62
Proposition 2.43. Let N SHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperComplete. Then 1372
bn
2c
(ii) Γ = b n2 c; 1375
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} bnc

2
; 1376
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1377
bn
2c
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an even SuperHyperComplete. Let S = {vi }i=1 . 1379
Thus 1380
n n
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = b c > b c − 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
bnc
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. If 1381
n
0 b2c bn
2c
S = {vi }i=1 − {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1 , then 1382
n n
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = b c − 1 
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
bnc bnc
So S 0 = {vi }i=12
− {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1
2
isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 1383
bn2c
SuperHyperForcing. It induces S = {vi }i=1 is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1384
Proposition 2.44. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of neutrosophic 1387
SuperHyperStars with common neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet. Then 1388
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 1389
SuperHyperForcing for N SHF; 1390
(ii) Γ = m for N SHF : (V, E); 1391
(iii) Γs = Σm 3
i=1 Σj=1 σj (ci ) for N SHF : (V, E); 1392
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual 1-failed 1393
SuperHyperForcing for N SHF : (V, E). 1394
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a SuperHyperStar. 1395
∀v ∈ V \ {c}, |Ns (v) ∩ {c}| = 1 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {c})|∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 >
0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {c}, |Ns (v) ∩ {c}| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {c})|
It implies S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 1396
SuperHyperForcing for N SHF : (V, E). If S = {c} − {c} = ∅, then 1397
∃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)|.
46/62
So S = {c} − {c} = ∅ isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing for 1398
N SHF : (V, E). It induces S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual maximal 1399
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing for N SHF : (V, E). 1400
(iv). By (i), S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 1402
SuperHyperForcing for N SHF : (V, E). Thus it’s enough to show that S ⊆ S 0 is a dual 1403
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing for N SHF : (V, E). Suppose 1404
N SHG : (V, E) is a SuperHyperStar. Let S ⊆ S 0 . 1405
∀v ∈ V \ {c}, |Ns (v) ∩ {c}| = 1 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {c})|∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | = 1 >
0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
It implies S 0 ⊆ S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing for 1406
N SHF : (V, E). 1407
Proposition 2.45. Let N SHF : (V, E) be an m-SuperHyperFamily of odd 1408
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 1409
SuperHyperSet. Then 1410
bn
2 c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 1411
SuperHyperForcing for N SHF; 1412
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 for N SHF : (V, E); 1413
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} b n c+1

2
for N SHF : (V, E); 1414
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only a dual maximal 1-failed 1415
bn
2 c+1
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is odd SuperHyperComplete. Let S = {vi }i=1 . 1417
Thus 1418
n n
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = b c + 1 > b c − 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
b n c+1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing for 1419
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 1420
n n
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = b c = b c = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
b n c+1 b n c+1
So S 0 = {vi }i=12
− {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1
2
isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1421
bn
2 c+1
1-failed SuperHyperForcing for N SHF : (V, E). It induces S = {vi }i=1 is a dual 1422
maximal SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing for N SHF : (V, E). 1423
Proposition 2.46. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of even 1425
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraphs with common neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 1426
SuperHyperSet. Then 1427
bn
2c
SuperHyperForcing for N SHF : (V, E); 1429
47/62
(ii) Γ = b n2 c for N SHF : (V, E); 1430
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} 2

bnc for N SHF : (V, E); 1431
S={vi }i=1
bnc
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only dual maximal 1-failed 1432
bnc
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is even SuperHyperComplete. Let S = {vi }i=1
2
. 1434
Thus 1435
n n
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = b c > b c − 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
bnc
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing for 1436
bn
2c bn
2c
N SHF : (V, E). If S 0 = {vi }i=1 − {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1 , then 1437
n n
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = b c − 1 
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
bnc bnc
So S 0 = {vi }i=1
2
− {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1
2
isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 1438
bn
2c
SuperHyperForcing for N SHF : (V, E). It induces S = {vi }i=1 is a dual maximal 1439
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing for N SHF : (V, E). 1440
Then following statements hold; 1443
(i) if s ≥ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1444
t-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, then S is an 1445
s-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 1446
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1447
t-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, then S is a dual 1448
s-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 1449
Consider a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an t-SuperHyperDefensive 1451
1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Then 1452
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < t;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < t ≤ s;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < s.
Thus S is an s-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 1453
a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual t-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 1455
SuperHyperForcing. Then 1456
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > t;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > t ≥ s;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > s.
Thus S is a dual s-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 1457
48/62
(i) if s ≥ t + 2 and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an 1460
t-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, then S is an 1461
s-SuperHyperPowerful 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 1462
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual 1463
t-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, then S is a dual 1464
s-SuperHyperPowerful 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 1465
Consider a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an t-SuperHyperDefensive 1467
1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Then 1468
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < t;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < t ≤ t + 2 ≤ s;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < s.
Thus S is an (t + 2)−SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. By S is an 1469
s−SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing and S is a dual 1470
(s + 2)−SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, S is an 1471
s-SuperHyperPowerful 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 1472
a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual t-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 1474
SuperHyperForcing. Then 1475
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > t;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > t ≥ s > s − 2;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > s − 2.
Thus S is an (s − 2)−SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. By S is an 1476
(s − 2)−SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing and S is a dual 1477
s−SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, S is an s−SuperHyperPowerful 1478
Proposition 2.49. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a[an] 1480
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following 1481
statements hold; 1482
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b 2r c + 1, then N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 1485
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then N SHG : (V, E) is an r-SuperHyperDefensive 1487
1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 1488
(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 1489
r-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 1490
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic 1491
SuperHyperGraph. Then 1492
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.
49/62
Thus S is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 1493
(ii). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic 1494
r r
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > b c + 1 − (b c − 1);
2 2
r r
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > b c + 1 − (b c − 1) > 2;
2 2
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2.
Thus S is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 1496
(iii). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic 1497
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < r − 0;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < r − 0 = r;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < r.
Thus S is an r-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 1499
(iv). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic 1500
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > r − 0;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > r − 0 = r;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > r.
Thus S is a dual r-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 1502
Proposition 2.50. Let N SHG : (V, E) is a[an] 1503
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following 1504
statements hold; 1505
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b 2r c + 1 if N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 1508
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if N SHG : (V, E) is an r-SuperHyperDefensive 1510
(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 1512
r-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 1513
∀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
50/62
SuperHyperGraph and a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Then 1517
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2;

r r
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2 = b c + 1 − (b c − 1);
2 2
r r
2 2
r r
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| = b c + 1, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S) = b c − 1.
2 2
SuperHyperGraph and an r-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 1519
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < r;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < r = r − 0;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < r − 0;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| = r, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| = 0.
SuperHyperGraph and a dual r-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Then 1521
∀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.
1522
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 1524
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1525
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b O−1

2 c + 1 if N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 1528
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if N SHG : (V, E) is an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1530
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 1533
SuperHyperGraph and an 2- SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Then 1535
∀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
51/62
SuperHyperGraph and a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Then 1537
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2;

O−1 O−1
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2 = b c + 1 − (b c − 1);
2 2
O−1 O−1
2 2
O−1 O−1
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| = b c + 1, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S) = b c − 1.
2 2
SuperHyperGraph and an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 1539
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < O − 1;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < O − 1 = O − 1 − 0;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < O − 1 − 0;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| = O − 1, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| = 0.
SuperHyperGraph and a dual r-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Then 1541
∀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.
1542
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 1544
SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 1545
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b O−1

2 c + 1, then N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 1548
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then N SHG : (V, E) is 1550
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; 1551
(O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 1553
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperComplete. Then 1555
O−1 O−1
2 2
O−1 O−1
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| b c + 1 − (b c − 1) > 2;
2 2
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2.
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < O − 1 − 0;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < O − 1 − 0 = O − 1;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < O − 1.
Thus S is an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 1562
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > O − 1 − 0;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > O − 1 − 0 = O − 1;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > O − 1.
Thus S is a dual (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 1565
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperCycle. 1567
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2 if N SHG : (V, E)) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 1569
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2 if N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1571
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if N SHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1573
2-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 1576
SuperHyperGraph and S is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 1578
Then 1579
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2 = 2 − 0;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| < 2, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| = 0.
SuperHyperGraph and S is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 1581
53/62
Then 1582
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2 = 2 − 0;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| > 2, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S) = 0.
SuperHyperGraph and S is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 1584
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2 = 2 − 0;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2 − 0;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| < 2, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| = 0.
SuperHyperGraph and S is a dual r-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 1586
Then 1587
∀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.
1588
[r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperCycle. 1590
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2, then N SHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1592
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2, then N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 1594
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then N SHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive 1596
2-SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. 1599
SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperCycle. Then 1601
∀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.
54/62
∀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.
3 Applications in Cancer’s Recognitions 1612
The cancer is the disease but the model is going to figure out what’s going on this 1613
phenomenon. The special case of this disease is considered and as the consequences of 1614
the model, some parameters are used. The cells are under attack of this disease but the 1615
moves of the cancer in the special region are the matter of mind. The recognition of the 1616
cancer could help to find some treatments for this disease. 1617
In the following, some steps are devised on this disease. 1618
Step 1. (Definition) The recognition of the cancer in the long-term function. 1619
Step 2. (Issue) The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called 1620
SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by 1621
this research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since 1622
there are some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and 1623
the effects of the cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another 1624
model [it’s said to be neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient 1625
perception on what’s happened and what’s done. 1626
Step 3. (Model) There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve 1627
got the names, and some general models. The moves and the traces of the cancer 1628
on the complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized 1629
by a neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, 1630
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to 1631
find either the 1-failed SuperHyperForcing or the neutrosophic 1-failed 1632
SuperHyperForcing in those neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. 1633
3.1 Case 1: The Initial Steps Toward 1634
SuperHyperBipartite as SuperHyperModel 1635
Step 4. (Solution) In the Figure (1), the SuperHyperBipartite is highlighted and 1636
featured. 1637
By using the Figure (1) and the Table (4), the neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite 1638
is obtained. 1639
55/62
Figure 1. A SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of 1-failed SuperHyper-
Forcing
Table 4. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyper-

Edges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite
56/62
Figure 2. A SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of 1-failed SuperHy-
perForcing
Table 5. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyper-

Edges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite
3.2 Case 2: The Increasing Steps Toward 1640
SuperHyperMultipartite as SuperHyperModel 1641
Step 4. (Solution) In the Figure (2), the SuperHyperMultipartite is highlighted and 1642
featured. 1643
By using the Figure (2) and the Table (5), the neutrosophic 1644
SuperHyperMultipartite is obtained. 1645
4 Open Problems 1646
In what follows, some “problems” and some “questions” are proposed. 1647
The 1-failed SuperHyperForcing and the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing 1648
are defined on a real-world application, titled “Cancer’s Recognitions”. 1649
Question 4.1. Which the else SuperHyperModels could be defined based on Cancer’s 1650
recognitions? 1651
Question 4.2. Are there some SuperHyperNotions related to 1-failed 1652
SuperHyperForcing and the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing? 1653
Question 4.3. Are there some Algorithms to be defined on the SuperHyperModels to 1654
compute them? 1655
Question 4.4. Which the SuperHyperNotions are related to beyond the 1-failed 1656
SuperHyperForcing and the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing? 1657
57/62
Problem 4.5. The 1-failed SuperHyperForcing and the neutrosophic 1-failed 1658
SuperHyperForcing do a SuperHyperModel for the Cancer’s recognitions and they’re 1659
based on 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, are there else? 1660
Problem 4.6. Which the fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are related to these 1661
SuperHyperNumbers types-results? 1662
Problem 4.7. What’s the independent research based on Cancer’s recognitions 1663
concerning the multiple types of SuperHyperNotions? 1664
5 Conclusion and Closing Remarks 1665
In this section, concluding remarks and closing remarks are represented. The drawbacks 1666
of this research are illustrated. Some benefits and some advantages of this research are 1667
highlighted. 1668
This research uses some approaches to make neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs more 1669
understandable. In this endeavor, two SuperHyperNotions are defined on the 1-failed 1670
SuperHyperForcing. For that sake in the second definition, the main definition of the 1671
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph is redefined on the position of the alphabets. Based on 1672
the new definition for the neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, the new SuperHyperNotion, 1673
neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, finds the convenient background to implement 1674
some results based on that. Some SuperHyperClasses and some neutrosophic 1675
SuperHyperClasses are the cases of this research on the modeling of the regions where 1676
are under the attacks of the cancer to recognize this disease as it’s mentioned on the 1677
title “Cancer’s Recognitions”. To formalize the instances on the SuperHyperNotion, 1678
1-failed SuperHyperForcing, the new SuperHyperClasses and SuperHyperClasses, are 1679
introduced. Some general results are gathered in the section on the 1-failed 1680
SuperHyperForcing and the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. The 1681
clarifications, instances and literature reviews have taken the whole way through. In 1682
this research, the literature reviews have fulfilled the lines containing the notions and 1683
the results. The SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are the 1684
SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Recognitions” and both bases are the background 1685
of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, 1686
groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes 1687
some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the 1688
longest and strongest styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are 1689
formally called “1-failed SuperHyperForcing” in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. 1690
The prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to figure out the 1691
background for the SuperHyperNotions. In the Table (6), some limitations and
Table 6. A Brief Overview about Advantages and Limitations of this Research

Advantages Limitations
1. Redefining Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1. General Results
2. 1-failed SuperHyperForcing
3. Neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing 2. Other SuperHyperNumbers
4. Modeling of Cancer’s Recognitions
5. SuperHyperClasses 3. SuperHyperFamilies
1692
advantages of this research are pointed out. 1693
58/62
References 1694
1. Henry Garrett, “Properties of SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 1695
SuperHyperGraph”, Neutrosophic Sets and Systems 49 (2022) 531-561 (doi: 1696
10.5281/zenodo.6456413). 1697
(http://fs.unm.edu/NSS/NeutrosophicSuperHyperGraph34.pdf). 1698
(https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nss journal/vol49/iss1/34). 1699
2. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Co-degree and Neutrosophic Degree alongside 1700
Chromatic Numbers in the Setting of Some Classes Related to Neutrosophic 1701
Hypergraphs”, J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res 1(1) (2022) 06-14. 1702
3. Henry Garrett, “Super Hyper Dominating and Super Hyper Resolving on 1703
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions in Game Theory and 1704
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 1(3) 1705
(2022) 242-263. 1706
4. Garrett, Henry. “0039 — Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as 1707
(Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in 1708
(Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear 1709
Research - Zenodo, Nov. 2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear 1710
Research, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6319942. 1711
https://oa.mg/work/10.5281/zenodo.6319942 1712
5. Garrett, Henry. “0049 — (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic 1713
Graphs.” CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research - Zenodo, Feb. 1714
2022. CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research, 1715
https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724. 1716
https://oa.mg/work/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724 1717
6. Henry Garrett, “Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of 1718
Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of 1719
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010308 (doi: 1720
10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1). 1721
7. Henry Garrett, “Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The 1722
Foggy Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside 1723
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 1724
2023010282 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1). 1725
8. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In 1726
Cancer’s Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 1727
2023010267 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1). 1728
9. Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and 1729
Affected Cells Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New 1730
Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The 1731
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and 1732
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi: 1733
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1). 1734
10. Henry Garrett, “Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The 1735
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In 1736
Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 1737
2023, 2023010262,(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1). 1738
59/62
11. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the 1739
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in 1740
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 1741
10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1). 1742
12. Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s 1743
Circumstances Where Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 1744
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224, (doi: 1745
10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1). 1746
13. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 1747
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 1748
2023010105 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 1749
14. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form 1750
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions 1751
In Special ViewPoints”, Preprints 2023, 2023010088 (doi: 1752
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 1753
15. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 1754
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s 1755
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, Preprints 2023, 2023010044 1756
16. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by 1757
Well- SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 1758
2023010043 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1). 1759
17. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 1760
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And 1761
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010105 (doi: 1762
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1). 1763
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions 1765
In Special ViewPoints”, Preprints 2023, 2023010088 (doi: 1766
10.20944/preprints202301.0088.v1). 1767
19. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions 1768
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 1769
2022, 2022120549 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 1770
20. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive 1771
and SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) 1772
SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s 1773
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 1774
2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 1775
21. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 1776
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions”, 1777
Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 1778
22. Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on 1779
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications 1780
in Cancer’s Treatments”, Preprints 2022, 2022120324 (doi: 1781
10.20944/preprints202212.0324.v1). 1782
60/62
23. Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on 1783
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in Game Theory and 1784
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 1785
10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1). 1786
24. Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To 1787
Monitor Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, 1788
ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35061.65767). 1789
25. Henry Garrett,“The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In 1790
The Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme 1791
SuperHyperMatching Set and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, 1792
ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18494.15680). 1793
26. Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the 1794
Cancer’s Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By 1795
SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 1796
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922). 1797
27. Henry Garrett,“Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In 1798
Front of Cancer’s Attacks In The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed 1799
SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called Neutrosophic 1800
SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.15897.70243). 1801
28. Henry Garrett,“Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic 1802
Recognition Forwarding Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic 1803
29. Henry Garrett,“Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded 1805
Regions and Sub-Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and 1806
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique”, 1807
ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23172.19849). 1808
30. Henry Garrett,“Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled 1809
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition 1810
modeled in the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, 1811
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17385.36968). 1812
31. Henry Garrett, “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To 1813
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 1814
Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In 1817
Special ViewPoints”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11447.80803). 1818
33. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by 1819
Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 1820
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35774.77123). 1821
34. Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the 1822
SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s 1823
Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond ”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 1824
10.13140/RG.2.2.36141.77287). 1825
35. Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 1826
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 1827
10.13140/RG.2.2.29430.88642). 1828
61/62
36. Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And 1829
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And 1830
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 1831
10.13140/RG.2.2.11369.16487). 1832
37. Henry Garrett, “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating 1833
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 1834
2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29173.86244). 1835
38. Henry Garrett, “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some 1836
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in 1837
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 1838
10.13140/RG.2.2.25385.88160). 1839
39. Henry Garrett, (2022). “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs”, Ohio: E-publishing: 1840
Educational Publisher 1091 West 1st Ave Grandview Heights, Ohio 43212 1841
United States. ISBN: 979-1-59973-725-6 1842
(http://fs.unm.edu/BeyondNeutrosophicGraphs.pdf). 1843
40. Henry Garrett, (2022). “Neutrosophic Duality”, Florida: GLOBAL 1844
KNOWLEDGE - Publishing House 848 Brickell Ave Ste 950 Miami, Florida 1845
33131 United States. ISBN: 978-1-59973-743-0 1846
(http://fs.unm.edu/NeutrosophicDuality.pdf). 1847
41. F. Smarandache, “Extension of HyperGraph to n-SuperHyperGraph and to 1848
Plithogenic n-SuperHyperGraph, and Extension of HyperAlgebra to n-ary 1849
(Classical-/Neutro-/Anti-) HyperAlgebra”, Neutrosophic Sets and Systems 33 1850
(2020) 290-296. (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3783103). 1851
42. M. Akram et al., “Single-valued neutrosophic Hypergraphs”, TWMS J. App. 1852
Eng. Math. 8 (1) (2018) 122-135. 1853
43. S. Broumi et al., “Single-valued neutrosophic graphs”, Journal of New Theory 10 1854
(2016) 86-101. 1855
44. H. Wang et al., “Single-valued neutrosophic sets”, Multispace and 1856
Multistructure 4 (2010) 410-413. 1857
45. H.T. Nguyen and E.A. Walker, “A First course in fuzzy logic”, CRC Press, 2006. 1858
62/62
View publication stats

The Constructions of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs on the Cancer&#39;s Recognition in The Confrontation With Super Attacks In Hyper Situations By Implementing (Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in The Technical Approaches to Neutralize SuperHyperViews

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Constructions of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs on the Cancer&#39;s Recognition in The Confrontation With Super Attacks In Hyper Situations By Implementing (Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in The Technical Approaches to Neutralize SuperHyperViews

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

The Constructions of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs on the Cancer's

Preprint · January 2023

240 PUBLICATIONS 1,366 CITATIONS

Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs View project

Number Graphs And Numbers View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

The Constructions of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs on 2

the Cancer’s Recognition in The Confrontation With Super 3

Attacks In Hyper Situations By Implementing (Neutrosophic) 4

1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in The Technical Approaches to 5

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

In this research, new setting is introduced for new SuperHyperNotions, namely, an 12

1-failed SuperHyperForcing and Neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Two 13

further and the SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperUniform, and SuperHyperClass based 15

comparison between this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions and 18

fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are featured. The definitions are followed by the 19

officially called “SuperHyperEdge”. The frameworks “SuperHyperGraph” and 27

“neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” are chosen and elected to research about “Cancer’s 28

Recognitions”. Thus these complex and dense SuperHyperModels open up some 29

avenues to research on theoretical segments and “Cancer’s Recognitions”. Some avenues 30

questions and some problems. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then an “1-failed 32

SuperHyperForcing” Z(N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) 33

is the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of black SuperHyperVertices 34

SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white 37

SuperHyperNeighbor of a black SuperHyperVertex. The additional condition is referred 38

SuperHyperVertex to be black SuperHyperVertex; a “neutrosophic 1-failed 40

SuperHyperForcing” Zn (N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) 41

is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of black 42

SuperHyperVertices (whereas SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white) such 43

white SuperHyperNeighbor of a black SuperHyperVertex. The additional condition is 46

white SuperHyperVertex to be black SuperHyperVertex. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. 48

Then an “δ−1-failed SuperHyperForcing” is a maximal 1-failed SuperHyperForcing of 49

SuperHyperVertices with maximum cardinality such that either of the following 50

expressions hold for the (neutrosophic) cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 51

|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ, |S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. The first Expression, 52

holds if S is an “δ−SuperHyperOffensive”. And the second Expression, holds if S is an 53

“δ−SuperHyperDefensive”; a“neutrosophic δ−1-failed SuperHyperForcing” is a maximal 54

neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing of SuperHyperVertices with maximum 55

neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : |S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic > 57

|S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ, |S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ. 58

The first Expression, holds if S is a “neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive”. And the 59

second Expression, holds if S is a “neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperDefensive”. It’s useful to 60

define a “neutrosophic” version of an 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Since there’s more 61

ways to get type-results to make an 1-failed SuperHyperForcing more understandable. 62

For the sake of having neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, there’s a need to 63

“redefine” the notion of an “1-failed SuperHyperForcing”. The SuperHyperVertices and 64

Assume an 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. It’s redefined a neutrosophic 1-failed 67

SuperHyperForcing if the mentioned Table holds, concerning, “The Values of Vertices, 68

SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyperEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic 69

Position in Alphabet”, “The Values of The SuperVertices&The maximum Values of Its 71

SuperHyperEdges&The maximum Values of Its Endpoints”. To get structural examples 74

and instances, I’m going to introduce the next SuperHyperClass of SuperHyperGraph 75

foundation of previous definition in the kind of SuperHyperClass. If there’s a need to 77

have all SuperHyperConnectivities until the 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, then it’s 78

officially called an “1-failed SuperHyperForcing” but otherwise, it isn’t an 1-failed 79

definition titled an “1-failed SuperHyperForcing”. These two examples get more 81

SuperHyperClass based on an 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. For the sake of having a 83

neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of a 84

“neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing” and a “neutrosophic 1-failed 85

SuperHyperForcing”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned 86

the position of labels to assign to the values. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 88

It’s redefined “neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” if the intended Table holds. And an 89

1-failed SuperHyperForcing are redefined to an “neutrosophic 1-failed 90

The Constructions of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs on the Cancer's Recognition in The Confrontation With Super Attacks In Hyper Situations By Implementing (Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in The Technical Approaches to Neutralize SuperHyperViews

The Constructions of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs on the Cancer's Recognition in The Confrontation With Super Attacks In Hyper Situations By Implementing (Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in The Technical Approaches to Neutralize SuperHyperViews