Failed SuperHyperStable

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics ·
DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com · Manhattan, NY, USA

Abstract
In this research book, there are two research chapters “Extreme Failed SuperHyperStable” and 1
“Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable” about some researches on Extreme Failed SuperHyper- 2
Stable and neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. With researches on the basic properties, the 3
research book starts to make Extreme Failed SuperHyperStable theory and neutrosophic Failed 4
SuperHyperStable theory more understandable. 5
6
In the first chapter, in this research, new setting is introduced for new SuperHyperNotions, 7
namely, a Failed SuperHyperStable and Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. Two different 8
types of SuperHyperDefinitions are debut for them but the research goes further and the Supe- 9
rHyperNotion, SuperHyperUniform, and SuperHyperClass based on that are well-defined and 10
well-reviewed. The literature review is implemented in the whole of this research. For shining the 11
elegancy and the significancy of this research, the comparison between this SuperHyperNotion with 12
other SuperHyperNotions and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are featured. The definitions are 13
followed by the examples and the instances thus the clarifications are driven with different tools. The 14
applications are figured out to make sense about the theoretical aspect of this ongoing research. The 15
“Cancer’s Recognitions” are the under research to figure out the challenges make sense about ongoing 16
and upcoming research. The special case is up. The cells are viewed in the deemed ways. There are 17
different types of them. Some of them are individuals and some of them are well-modeled by the 18
group of cells. These types are all officially called “SuperHyperVertex” but the relations amid them 19
all officially called “SuperHyperEdge”. The frameworks “SuperHyperGraph” and “neutrosophic 20
SuperHyperGraph” are chosen and elected to research about “Cancer’s Recognitions”. Thus these 21
complex and dense SuperHyperModels open up some avenues to research on theoretical segments 22
and “Cancer’s Recognitions”. Some avenues are posed to pursue this research. It’s also officially 23
collected in the form of some questions and some problems. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then a 24
“Failed SuperHyperStable” I(N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the 25
maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a SuperHyper- 26
Vertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then an “δ−Failed 27

SuperHyperStable” is a maximal Failed SuperHyperStable of SuperHyperVertices with maximum 28
cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the (neutrosophic) cardinalities of 29
SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : |S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ, |S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. 30
The first Expression, holds if S is an “δ−SuperHyperOffensive”. And the second Expression, 31
holds if S is an “δ−SuperHyperDefensive”; a“neutrosophic δ−Failed SuperHyperStable” is a 32
maximal neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable of SuperHyperVertices with maximum neutrosophic 33
i
cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the neutrosophic cardinalit- 34
ies of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : |S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + 35
δ, |S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ. The first Expression, holds if S is a 36
“neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive”. And the second Expression, holds if S is a “neutrosophic 37
δ−SuperHyperDefensive”. It’s useful to define a “neutrosophic” version of a Failed SuperHyperStable. 38
Since there’s more ways to get type-results to make a Failed SuperHyperStable more understandable. 39
For the sake of having neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, there’s a need to “redefine” the 40
notion of a “Failed SuperHyperStable”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are 41
assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of 42
the position of labels to assign to the values. Assume a Failed SuperHyperStable. It’s redefined a 43
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable if the mentioned Table holds, concerning, “The Values of 44
Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyperEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic 45
SuperHyperGraph” with the key points, “The Values of The Vertices & The Number of Position 46
in Alphabet”, “The Values of The SuperVertices&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The 47
Values of The Edges&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The HyperEdges&The 48
maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The SuperHyperEdges&The maximum Values 49
of Its Endpoints”. To get structural examples and instances, I’m going to introduce the next 50
SuperHyperClass of SuperHyperGraph based on a Failed SuperHyperStable. It’s the main. It’ll 51
be disciplinary to have the foundation of previous definition in the kind of SuperHyperClass. If 52

there’s a need to have all SuperHyperConnectivities until the Failed SuperHyperStable, then it’s 53
officially called a “Failed SuperHyperStable” but otherwise, it isn’t a Failed SuperHyperStable. 54
There are some instances about the clarifications for the main definition titled a “Failed SuperHy- 55
perStable”. These two examples get more scrutiny and discernment since there are characterized 56
in the disciplinary ways of the SuperHyperClass based on a Failed SuperHyperStable. For the 57
sake of having a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of 58
a “neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable” and a “neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable”. The 59
SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the 60
alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. 61
Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined “neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” if the 62
intended Table holds. And a Failed SuperHyperStable are redefined to a “neutrosophic Failed 63
SuperHyperStable” if the intended Table holds. It’s useful to define “neutrosophic” version of 64
SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s more ways to get neutrosophic type-results to make a neutrosophic 65
Failed SuperHyperStable more understandable. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There 66
are some neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the intended Table holds. Thus SuperHyperPath, 67
SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and SuperHy- 68
perWheel, are “neutrosophic SuperHyperPath”, “neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle”, “neutrosophic 69

SuperHyperStar”, “neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite”, “neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite”, 70
and “neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel” if the intended Table holds. A SuperHyperGraph has a 71
“neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable” where it’s the strongest [the maximum neutrosophic value 72
from all the Failed SuperHyperStable amid the maximum value amid all SuperHyperVertices from 73
a Failed SuperHyperStable.] Failed SuperHyperStable. A graph is a SuperHyperUniform if it’s 74
a SuperHyperGraph and the number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. Assume a 75
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some SuperHyperClasses as follows. It’s SuperHyperPath 76
if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; 77
it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges; 78
it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all SuperHyperEdges; it’s 79

SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges 80
and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s 81
SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges 82
and these SuperVertices, forming multi separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s a 83
SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and 84
one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any common SuperVertex. The SuperHyperModel 85
proposes the specific designs and the specific architectures. The SuperHyperModel is officially called 86
“SuperHyperGraph” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. In this SuperHyperModel, The “specific” 87
cells and “specific group” of cells are SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperVertices” and the common 88
and intended properties between “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells are SuperHyperModeled 89
as “SuperHyperEdges”. Sometimes, it’s useful to have some degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy, 90
and neutrality to have more precise SuperHyperModel which in this case the SuperHyperModel 91
is called “neutrosophic”. In the future research, the foundation will be based on the “Cancer’s 92
Recognitions” and the results and the definitions will be introduced in redeemed ways. The 93
recognition of the cancer in the long-term function. The specific region has been assigned by the 94
model [it’s called SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by 95
this research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some 96
determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the cancer on that 97
region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] 98
to have convenient perception on what’s happened and what’s done. There are some specific models, 99
which are well-known and they’ve got the names, and some SuperHyperGeneral SuperHyperModels. 100
The moves and the traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and between complicated groups of 101
cells could be fantasized by a neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, 102
SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find either the 103
longest Failed SuperHyperStable or the strongest Failed SuperHyperStable in those neutrosophic 104
SuperHyperModels. For the longest Failed SuperHyperStable, called Failed SuperHyperStable, 105
and the strongest SuperHyperCycle, called neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, some general 106
results are introduced. Beyond that in SuperHyperStar, all possible SuperHyperPaths have only two 107
SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough since it’s essential to have at least three SuperHyperEdges 108
to form any style of a SuperHyperCycle. There isn’t any formation of any SuperHyperCycle but 109
literarily, it’s the deformation of any SuperHyperCycle. It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. A 110
basic familiarity with SuperHyperGraph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory are 111
proposed. 112
Keywords: SuperHyperGraph, (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable, Cancer’s Recognition 113
AMS Subject Classification: 05C17, 05C22, 05E45 114

115
In the second chapter, in this research, new setting is introduced for new SuperHyperNotion, 116
namely, Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. Two different types of SuperHyperDefinitions are 117
debut for them but the research goes further and the SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperUniform, and 118
SuperHyperClass based on that are well-defined and well-reviewed. The literature review is imple- 119
mented in the whole of this research. For shining the elegancy and the significancy of this research, 120
the comparison between this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions and fundamental 121
SuperHyperNumbers are featured. The definitions are followed by the examples and the instances 122
thus the clarifications are driven with different tools. The applications are figured out to make sense 123
about the theoretical aspect of this ongoing research. The “Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition” are 124

the under research to figure out the challenges make sense about ongoing and upcoming research. 125
The special case is up. The cells are viewed in the deemed ways. There are different types of them. 126
Some of them are individuals and some of them are well-modeled by the group of cells. These 127
types are all officially called “SuperHyperVertex” but the relations amid them all officially called 128
“SuperHyperEdge”. The frameworks “SuperHyperGraph” and “neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” are 129
chosen and elected to research about “Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition”. Thus these complex and 130
dense SuperHyperModels open up some avenues to research on theoretical segments and “Cancer’s 131
Neutrosophic Recognition”. Some avenues are posed to pursue this research. It’s also officially col- 132
lected in the form of some questions and some problems. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 133
Then a “neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable” In (N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 134
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of 135
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to have a 136
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge in common. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then an “δ−Failed 137

SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : |S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ, |S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. 140
The first Expression, holds if S is an “δ−SuperHyperOffensive”. And the second Expression, 141
holds if S is an “δ−SuperHyperDefensive”; a“neutrosophic δ−Failed SuperHyperStable” is a 142
maximal neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable of SuperHyperVertices with maximum neutrosophic 143

cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the neutrosophic cardinalities of 144
SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : |S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ, |S ∩ 145
N (s)|neutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ. The first Expression, holds if S is a “neut- 146
rosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive”. And the second Expression, holds if S is a “neutrosophic 147
δ−SuperHyperDefensive”. It’s useful to define “neutrosophic” version of Failed SuperHyperStable. 148
Since there’s more ways to get type-results to make Failed SuperHyperStable more understandable. 149
For the sake of having neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion 150
of “Failed SuperHyperStable”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by 151
the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of 152
labels to assign to the values. Assume a Failed SuperHyperStable. It’s redefined neutrosophic Failed 153
SuperHyperStable if the mentioned Table holds, concerning, “The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, 154
Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyperEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” with 155
the key points, “The Values of The Vertices & The Number of Position in Alphabet”, “The Values 156
of The SuperVertices&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The Edges&The 157
maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The HyperEdges&The maximum Values of 158
Its Vertices”, “The Values of The SuperHyperEdges&The maximum Values of Its Endpoints”. 159
To get structural examples and instances, I’m going to introduce the next SuperHyperClass of 160
SuperHyperGraph based on Failed SuperHyperStable. It’s the main. It’ll be disciplinary to have 161
the foundation of previous definition in the kind of SuperHyperClass. If there’s a need to have 162
all SuperHyperConnectivities until the Failed SuperHyperStable, then it’s officially called “Failed 163
SuperHyperStable” but otherwise, it isn’t Failed SuperHyperStable. There are some instances about 164
the clarifications for the main definition titled “Failed SuperHyperStable”. These two examples 165
get more scrutiny and discernment since there are characterized in the disciplinary ways of the 166
SuperHyperClass based on Failed SuperHyperStable. For the sake of having neutrosophic Failed 167
SuperHyperStable, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of “neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable” 168
and “neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges 169
are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the 170

position of labels to assign to the values. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined 171
“neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” if the intended Table holds. And Failed SuperHyperStable are 172
redefined “neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable” if the intended Table holds. It’s useful to 173
define “neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s more ways to get neutrosophic 174
type-results to make neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable more understandable. Assume a 175
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the intended 176
Table holds. Thus SuperHyperPath, SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, 177

SuperHyperMultiPartite, and SuperHyperWheel, are “neutrosophic SuperHyperPath”, “neutro- 178
sophic SuperHyperCycle”, “neutrosophic SuperHyperStar”, “neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite”, 179
“neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite”, and “neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel” if the intended Table 180
holds. A SuperHyperGraph has “neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable” where it’s the strongest 181
[the maximum neutrosophic value from all Failed SuperHyperStable amid the maximum value amid 182
all SuperHyperVertices from a Failed SuperHyperStable.] Failed SuperHyperStable. A graph is 183

SuperHyperUniform if it’s SuperHyperGraph and the number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are 184
the same. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some SuperHyperClasses as follows. 185
It’s SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges 186
with two exceptions; it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 187
given SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all 188
SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 189
given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge 190
in common; it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 191
SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge 192
in common; it’s SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 193
SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any common SuperVertex. 194
The SuperHyperModel proposes the specific designs and the specific architectures. The SuperHy- 195
perModel is officially called “SuperHyperGraph” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. In this 196
SuperHyperModel, The “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells are SuperHyperModeled as 197
“SuperHyperVertices” and the common and intended properties between “specific” cells and “specific 198
group” of cells are SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperEdges”. Sometimes, it’s useful to have some 199
degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy, and neutrality to have more precise SuperHyperModel which 200
in this case the SuperHyperModel is called “neutrosophic”. In the future research, the foundation 201
will be based on the “Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition” and the results and the definitions will 202
be introduced in redeemed ways. The neutrosophic recognition of the cancer in the long-term 203
function. The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called SuperHyperGraph] 204
and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this research. Sometimes the 205
move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some determinacy, indeterminacy 206
and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the cancer on that region; this event leads 207
us to choose another model [it’s said to be neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient 208
perception on what’s happened and what’s done. There are some specific models, which are 209
well-known and they’ve got the names, and some SuperHyperGeneral SuperHyperModels. The 210
moves and the traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and between complicated groups of 211


literarily, it’s the deformation of any SuperHyperCycle. It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. A 220
basic familiarity with SuperHyperGraph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory are 221
proposed. 222
Keywords: Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, Cancer’s 223
Neutrosophic Recognition 224

226
The following references are cited by chapters. 227
228
[Ref1] Henry Garrett, “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To Super- 229
HyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, 230
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28945.92007). 231

232
[Ref2] Henry Garrett, “Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled Neutro- 233
sophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition modeled in the Form of 234
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17385.36968). 235
236
The links to the contributions of this research book are listed below. 237


Article #110 238

239
Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To SuperHyperModel Cancer’s 240
Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs 241
242
@WordPress: https://drhenrygarrett.wordpress.com/2023/01/03/failed-superhyperstable-13/ 243
244
@Preprints_org: ?????? 245
246
@ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/366839936 247
248
@Scribd: https://www.scribd.com/document/617719054 249
250

@academia: https://www.academia.edu/94276865 251

252
@ZENODO_ORG: https://zenodo.org/record/7502645 Article #110 253
254
Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable 255
in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition modeled in the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs 256

257
259
261

263

265
267
@ZENODO_ORG: https://zenodo.org/record/7504772 268
269
Some studies and researches about neutrosophic graphs, are proposed as book in the follow- 270
ing by Henry Garrett (2022) which is indexed by Google Scholar and has more than 2479 readers in 271
Scribd. It’s titled “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs” and published by Ohio: E-publishing: Educational 272
Publisher 1091 West 1st Ave Grandview Heights, Ohio 43212 United State. This research book 273
covers different types of notions and settings in neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic 274
SuperHyperGraph theory. 275
276

[Ref] Henry Garrett, (2022). “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs”, Ohio: E-publishing: Educational 277
Publisher 1091 West 1st Ave Grandview Heights, Ohio 43212 United States. ISBN: 978-1-59973-725-6 278
(http://fs.unm.edu/BeyondNeutrosophicGraphs.pdf). 279
280
Also, some studies and researches about neutrosophic graphs, are proposed as book in the 281
following by Henry Garrett (2022) which is indexed by Google Scholar and has more than 3192 read- 282
ers in Scribd. It’s titled “Neutrosophic Duality” and published by Florida: GLOBAL KNOWLEDGE 283
- Publishing House 848 Brickell Ave Ste 950 Miami, Florida 33131 United States. This research book 284
presents different types of notions SuperHyperResolving and SuperHyperDominating in the setting 285
of duality in neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory. This research 286
book has scrutiny on the complement of the intended set and the intended set, simultaneously. It’s 287
smart to consider a set but acting on its complement that what’s done in this research book which is 288
popular in the terms of high readers in Scribd. [Ref] Henry Garrett, (2022). “Neutrosophic Duality”, 289

Florida: GLOBAL KNOWLEDGE - Publishing House 848 Brickell Ave Ste 950 Miami, Florida 290
33131 United States. ISBN: 978-1-59973-743-0 (http://fs.unm.edu/NeutrosophicDuality.pdf). 291
Background 292
There are some researches covering the topic of this research. In what follows, there are some 293
discussion and literature reviews about them. 294
First article is titled “properties of SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” in 295
Ref. [HG1] by Henry Garrett (2022). It’s first step toward the research on neutrosophic 296
SuperHyperGraphs. This research article is published on the journal “Neutrosophic Sets and 297
Systems” in issue 49 and the pages 531-561. In this research article, different types of notions like 298
dominating, resolving, coloring, Eulerian(Hamiltonian) neutrosophic path, n-Eulerian(Hamiltonian) 299
neutrosophic path, zero forcing number, zero forcing neutrosophic- number, independent number, 300
independent neutrosophic-number, clique number, clique neutrosophic-number, matching number, 301
matching neutrosophic-number, girth, neutrosophic girth, 1-zero-forcing number, 1-zero- forcing 302
neutrosophic-number, failed 1-zero-forcing number, failed 1-zero-forcing neutrosophic-number, global- 303
offensive alliance, t-offensive alliance, t-defensive alliance, t-powerful alliance, and global-powerful 304
alliance are defined in SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Some Classes of 305
SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are cases of research. Some results are 306
applied in family of SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Thus this research 307
article has concentrated on the vast notions and introducing the majority of notions. 308
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “neutrosophic co-degree and neutrosophic 309
degree alongside chromatic numbers in the setting of some classes related to neutrosophic hypergraphs” 310



in Ref. [HG2] by Henry Garrett (2022). In this research article, a novel approach is implemented 311
on SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on general forms without using 312
neutrosophic classes of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s published in prestigious and fancy 313
journal is entitled “Journal of Current Trends in Computer Science Research (JCTCSR)” with 314
abbreviation “J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res” in volume 1 and issue 1 with pages 06-14. The 315
research article studies deeply with choosing neutrosophic hypergraphs instead of neutrosophic 316
SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward independent results based on initial background. 317
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “Super Hyper Dominating and Super 318
Hyper Resolving on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions in Game Theory and 319
Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes” in Ref. [HG3] by Henry Garrett (2022). In this research article, 320
a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based 321
on fundamental SuperHyperNumber and using neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of neutrosophic 322
SuperHyperGraph. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is entitled “Journal of 323
Mathematical Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)” with abbreviation “J Math 324
Techniques Comput Math” in volume 1 and issue 3 with pages 242-263. The research article 325
studies deeply with choosing directly neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. 326
It’s the breakthrough toward independent results based on initial background and fundamental 327
SuperHyperNumbers. 328
In some articles are titled “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions Featuring 329
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances” in Ref. [HG4] by Henry Garrett (2022), 330
“(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive and SuperHyperOffensive Type- 331
SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling 332
of Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [HG5] by 333
Henry Garrett (2022), “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 334
With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions” in Ref. [HG6] by Henry Garrett (2022), 335
“Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and 336
SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s Treatments” in Ref. [HG7] by Henry Garrett 337
(2022), “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs 338
And Their Directions in Game Theory and Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. [HG8] 339
by Henry Garrett (2022), “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To 340
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [HG9] 341

by Henry Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic 342
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints” in Ref. 343
[HG10] by Henry Garrett (2023), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition 344
by Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [HG11] by Henry 345
Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction To Use 346

Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond” in Ref. 347
[HG12] by Henry Garrett (2022), “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s 348
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [HG13] by Henry Garrett (2022), 349
“Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling 350
in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [HG14] by Henry 351
Garrett (2022), “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating and Neutrosophic 352
SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. [HG15] by Henry Garrett (2022), “Initial 353
Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic 354
SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)” in Ref. [HG16] by 355
Henry Garrett (2022), there are some endeavors to formalize the basic SuperHyperNotions about 356

neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. 357

Some studies and researches about neutrosophic graphs, are proposed as book in Ref. [HG17] 358
by Henry Garrett (2022) which is indexed by Google Scholar and has more than 2347 readers in 359
Also, some studies and researches about neutrosophic graphs, are proposed as book in Ref. [HG18] 364
Scribd. It’s titled “Neutrosophic Duality” and published by Florida: GLOBAL KNOWLEDGE - 366
Publishing House 848 Brickell Ave Ste 950 Miami, Florida 33131 United States. This research book 367
smart to consider a set but acting on its complement that what’s done in this research book which 371
is popular in the terms of high readers in Scribd. 372

Bibliography 373
[1] Henry Garrett, “Properties of SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyper- 374
Graph”, Neutrosophic Sets and Systems 49 (2022) 531-561 (doi: 10.5281/zen- 375
odo.6456413). (http://fs.unm.edu/NSS/NeutrosophicSuperHyperGraph34.pdf). (ht- 376
tps://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nss_journal/vol49/iss1/34). 377
[2] Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Co-degree and Neutrosophic Degree alongside Chromatic 378
Numbers in the Setting of Some Classes Related to Neutrosophic Hypergraphs”, J Curr Trends 379
Comp Sci Res 1(1) (2022) 06-14. 380
[3] Henry Garrett, “Super Hyper Dominating and Super Hyper Resolving on Neutrosophic Super 381
Hyper Graphs and Their Directions in Game Theory and Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes”, 382
J Math Techniques Comput Math 1(3) (2022) 242-263. 383
[4] Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions Featuring 384

(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 2022, 2022120549 (doi: 385
10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 386
[5] Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive and Super- 387
HyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) 388
SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses”, 389
Preprints 2022, 2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1). 390
[6] Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 391

With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions”, Preprints 2022, 2022120500 (doi: 392
10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 393
[7] Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on Neutrosophic 394

SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”, 395
[8] Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic Super- 397

HyperGraphs And Their Directions in Game Theory and Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”, 398
[9] Henry Garrett, “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To SuperHyper- 400
Model Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, 401
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28945.92007). 402
xvii
[10] Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic SuperHy- 403
perStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints”, ResearchGate 404
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11447.80803). 405
[11] Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by Well- 406
SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 407

10.13140/RG.2.2.35774.77123). 408
[12] Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction To 409

Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond”, 410
ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.36141.77287). 411
[13] Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And 412
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29430.88642). 413
[14] Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) 414
SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, 415
[15] Henry Garrett, “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning SuperHyperDominating and 417
Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 418
10.13140/RG.2.2.29173.86244). 419
[16] Henry Garrett, “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some Neutrosophic 420
Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 421
(NSHG)”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.25385.88160). 422
[17] Henry Garrett, (2022). “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs”, Ohio: E-publishing: Educational 423
Publisher 1091 West 1st Ave Grandview Heights, Ohio 43212 United States. ISBN: 979-1- 424
59973-725-6 (http://fs.unm.edu/BeyondNeutrosophicGraphs.pdf). 425
[18] Henry Garrett, (2022). “Neutrosophic Duality”, Florida: GLOBAL KNOWLEDGE - Publishing 426
House 848 Brickell Ave Ste 950 Miami, Florida 33131 United States. ISBN: 978-1-59973-743-0 427
(http://fs.unm.edu/NeutrosophicDuality.pdf). 428
[19] F. Smarandache, “Extension of HyperGraph to n-SuperHyperGraph and to Plithogenic n- 429
SuperHyperGraph, and Extension of HyperAlgebra to n-ary (Classical-/Neutro-/Anti-) Hyper- 430

Algebra”, Neutrosophic Sets and Systems 33 (2020) 290-296. (doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3783103). 431
[20] M. Akram et al., “Single-valued neutrosophic Hypergraphs”, TWMS J. App. Eng. Math. 8 (1) 432
(2018) 122-135. 433
[21] S. Broumi et al., “Single-valued neutrosophic graphs”, Journal of New Theory 10 (2016) 86-101. 434
[22] H. Wang et al., “Single-valued neutrosophic sets”, Multispace and Multistructure 4 (2010) 435
410-413. 436
[23] H.T. Nguyen and E.A. Walker, “A First course in fuzzy logic”, CRC Press, 2006. 437

– 438
439
#Latest_Updates 440
441
#The_Links 442
443
| Book #66 444

445
|Title: Failed SuperHyperStable 446
447
| Available at Twitter, ResearchGate, Scribd, Academia, Zenodo, LinkedIn 448
449
– 450
451
| Publisher | – 452
453
| ISBN | – 454
455
#Latest_Updates 456
457
#The_Links 458
459
| @ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/366867409 460
461
| @Scribd:?????? 462
463
| @academia: https://www.academia.edu/94347021 464
465
| @ZENODO_ORG: https://zenodo.org/record/7504782 466
467
| @WordPress: https://drhenrygarrett.wordpress.com/2023/01/05/failed-superhyperstable- 468
published-version/ 469
470
471

Failed SuperHyperStable (Published Version) 472

473
The Link: 474
475
https://drhenrygarrett.wordpress.com/2023/01/05/failed-superhyperstable-published-version/ 476
477
– 478
479
Posted by Dr. Henry Garrett 480
481
January 05, 2023 482
483
Posted in 0066| Failed SuperHyperStable 484
485
Tags: 486
Applications, Applied Mathematics, Applied Research, Cancer, Cancer’s Recognitions, Combinator- 487
ics, Edge, Edges, Failed SuperHyperStable, Graph Theory, Graphs, Latest Research, Literature 488
Reviews, Modeling, Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, Neutrosophic Graph, Neutrosophic 489
Graph Theory, Neutrosophic Science, Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses, Neutrosophic SuperHyper- 490

Graph, Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Theory, neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs, Open Problems, 491
Open Questions, Problems, Pure Math, Pure Mathematics, Questions, Real-World Applications, 492
Recent Research, Recognitions, Research, Research Article, Research Articles, Research Book, 493
Research Chapter, Research Chapters, Review, SuperHyperClasses, SuperHyperEdges, SuperHyper- 494
Graph, SuperHyperGraph Theory, SuperHyperGraphs, SuperHyperModeling, SuperHyperVertices, 495
Theoretical Research, Vertex, Vertices 496





Acknowledgements 497
The author is going to express his gratitude and his appreciation about the brains and their hands 498
which are showing the importance of words in the framework of every wisdom, knowledge, arts, and 499
emotions which are streaming in the lines from the words, notions, ideas and approaches to have 500
the material and the contents which are only the way to flourish the minds, to grow the notions, to 501
advance the ways and to make the stable ways to be amid events and storms of minds for surviving 502
from them and making the outstanding experiences about the tools and the ideas to be on the star 503
lines of words and shining like stars, forever. 504
xxv
Contents 505
Abstract i 506
Bibliography xvii 507
Acknowledgements xxv 508
Contents xxvii 509
List of Figures xxix 510
List of Tables xxxiii 511
1 Extreme Failed SuperHyperStable 1 512
2 Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To SuperHy- 513

perModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs 514
5 515
3 Abstract 7 516
4 Background 11 517
5 Motivation and Contributions 15 518
6 Preliminaries 19 519
7 Extreme Failed SuperHyperStable 27 520
8 Results on Extreme SuperHyperClasses 57 521
9 General Extreme Results 67 522
10 Applications in Cancer’s Extreme Recognition 111 523
11 Case 1: The Initial Steps Toward SuperHyperBipartite as SuperHyperModel 113 524
xxvii
12 Case 2: The Increasing Steps Toward SuperHyperMultipartite as SuperHy- 525

perModel 115 526
13 Open Problems 117 527
14 Conclusion and Closing Remarks 119 528
Bibliography 121 529
15 Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable 123 530
16 Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled neutrosophic 531

Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition modeled in 532
the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs 127 533
17 Abstract 129 534
18 Background 133 535
19 Motivation and Contributions 137 536
20 Preliminaries 141 537
21 Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable 149 538
22 Results on Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses 181 539
23 General Neutrosophic Results 201 540
24 Applications in Cancer’s Neutrosophic recognition 247 541
25 Case 1: The Initial Steps Toward neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite as 542

neutrosophic SuperHyperModel 249 543
26 Case 2: The Increasing Steps Toward neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite 544

as neutrosophic SuperHyperModel 251 545
27 Open Problems 253 546
28 Conclusion and Closing Remarks 255 547
Bibliography 257 548
29 “SuperHyperGraph-Based Books”: | Featured Tweets 259 549
30 “SuperHyperGraph-Based Books”: | Featured Tweets 277 550
31 CV 305 551

List of Figures 552
7.1 The SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Notions of Failed SuperHyperStable in the 553
Example (7.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 554
Example (7.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 556
Example (7.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 558
Example (7.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 560
Example (7.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 562
Example (7.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 564
Example (7.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 566
Example (7.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 568
Example (7.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 570
Example (7.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 572
Example (7.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 574
Example (7.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 576
Example (7.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 578
Example (7.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 580
Example (7.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 582
Example (7.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 584
xxix
Example (7.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 586
Example (7.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 588
Example (7.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 590
Example (7.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 592
8.1 A neutrosophic SuperHyperPath Associated to the Notions of Failed SuperHyperStable 593

in the Example (8.0.3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 594
8.2 A SuperHyperCycle Associated to the Notions of Failed SuperHyperStable in the 595

Example (8.0.5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 596
8.3 A SuperHyperStar Associated to the Notions of Failed SuperHyperStable in the Example 597
(8.0.7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 598
8.4 A SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of Failed SuperHyperStable in the 599

Example (8.0.9) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 600
8.5 A SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of Failed SuperHyperStable in 601

the Example (8.0.11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 602
8.6 A SuperHyperWheel Associated to the Notions of Failed SuperHyperStable in the 603
Example (8.0.13) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 604
11.1 A SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of Failed SuperHyperStable . . . . 113 605
12.1 A SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of Failed SuperHyperStable . . . 115 606
21.1 The neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph s Associated to the Notions of neutrosophic Failed 607
SuperHyperStable in the Example (21.0.1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 608
21.10The neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph s Associated to the Notions of neutrosophic Failed 625










22.1 A neutrosophic SuperHyperPath Associated to the Notions of neutrosophic Failed 647

SuperHyperStable in the Example (22.0.3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 648
22.2 A neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle Associated to the Notions of neutrosophic Failed 649

22.3 A neutrosophic SuperHyperStar Associated to the Notions of neutrosophic Failed 651

22.4 A neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of neutrosophic Failed 653

22.5 A neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of neutrosophic 655

Failed SuperHyperStable in the Example (22.0.11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196 656
22.6 A neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel Associated to the Notions of neutrosophic Failed 657
25.1 A neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of neutrosophic Failed 659

SuperHyperStable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249 660
26.1 A neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of neutrosophic 661

Failed SuperHyperStable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251 662
29.1 “SuperHyperGraph-Based Books”: | Featured Tweets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260 663
29.3 “SuperHyperGraph-Based Books”: | Featured Tweets #66 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262 665


29.10“SuperHyperGraph-Based Books”: | Featured Tweets #65 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268 672








List of Tables 710
6.1 The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyperEdges 711
Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition (20.0.20) . 25 712
Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, Mentioned in the Definition (20.0.19) 25 714
Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 718
Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 720
14.1 A Brief Overview about Advantages and Limitations of this Research . . . . . . . . . 120 721
Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, Mentioned in the Definition (20.0.19) 147 725
Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath Mentioned in the Example (22.0.3) . . . 183 729
Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle Mentioned in the Example (22.0.5) . . 186 731
Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar Mentioned in the Example (22.0.7) . . . 189 733
Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite Mentioned in the Example (22.0.9) 192 735
Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite N SHM : (V, E), Mentioned in 737
the Example (22.0.11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 738
xxxiii
22.6 The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyperEdges Belong 739
to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E), Mentioned in the Example 740
(22.0.13) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198 741
25.1 The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and neutrosophic SuperHy- 742
perEdges Belong to The neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250 743
26.1 The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and neutrosophic SuperHy- 744
perEdges Belong to The neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252 745
28.1 A Brief Overview about Advantages and Limitations of this Research . . . . . . . . . 256 746

CHAPTER 1 747
Extreme Failed SuperHyperStable 748
The following sections are cited as follows, which is my 104th manuscript and I use prefix 104 as 749
number before any labelling for items. 750
751
[Ref1] Henry Garrett, “Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To Super- 752
HyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, 753
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28945.92007). 754
755
The links to the contributions of this research chapter are listed below. 756
1

Article #104 757

758
Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To SuperHyperModel Cancer’s 759
Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs 760
761
@WordPress: https://drhenrygarrett.wordpress.com/2023/01/03/failed-superhyperstable-13 762
763
765
767
769


771

CHAPTER 2 773
Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed 774
SuperHyperStable To SuperHyperModel 775
Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) 776
SuperHyperGraphs 777
5
CHAPTER 3 778
Abstract 779
In this research, new setting is introduced for new SuperHyperNotions, namely, a Failed SuperHy- 780
perStable and Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. Two different types of SuperHyperDefinitions 781
are debut for them but the research goes further and the SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperUniform, 782
and SuperHyperClass based on that are well-defined and well-reviewed. The literature review 783
is implemented in the whole of this research. For shining the elegancy and the significancy of 784
this research, the comparison between this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions and 785
fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are featured. The definitions are followed by the examples and 786
the instances thus the clarifications are driven with different tools. The applications are figured out 787
to make sense about the theoretical aspect of this ongoing research. The “Cancer’s Recognitions” 788
are the under research to figure out the challenges make sense about ongoing and upcoming research. 789
The special case is up. The cells are viewed in the deemed ways. There are different types of them. 790
Some of them are individuals and some of them are well-modeled by the group of cells. These 791
types are all officially called “SuperHyperVertex” but the relations amid them all officially called 792
chosen and elected to research about “Cancer’s Recognitions”. Thus these complex and dense Super- 794
HyperModels open up some avenues to research on theoretical segments and “Cancer’s Recognitions”. 795
Some avenues are posed to pursue this research. It’s also officially collected in the form of some 796
questions and some problems. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then a “Failed SuperHyperStable” 797
I(N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum cardinality of a 798
SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a SuperHyperVertex to have a Super- 799
HyperEdge in common. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then an “δ−Failed SuperHyperStable” is 800

a maximal Failed SuperHyperStable of SuperHyperVertices with maximum cardinality such that 801
either of the following expressions hold for the (neutrosophic) cardinalities of SuperHyperNeigh- 802
bors of s ∈ S : |S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ, |S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. The first 803
Expression, holds if S is an “δ−SuperHyperOffensive”. And the second Expression, holds if S is an 804
“δ−SuperHyperDefensive”; a“neutrosophic δ−Failed SuperHyperStable” is a maximal neutrosophic 805
Failed SuperHyperStable of SuperHyperVertices with maximum neutrosophic cardinality such that 806
either of the following expressions hold for the neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of 807
s ∈ S : |S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ, |S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ 808
N (s))|neutrosophic + δ. The first Expression, holds if S is a “neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive”. 809
And the second Expression, holds if S is a “neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperDefensive”. It’s useful to 810
define a “neutrosophic” version of a Failed SuperHyperStable. Since there’s more ways to get type- 811
results to make a Failed SuperHyperStable more understandable. For the sake of having neutrosophic 812
7
Failed SuperHyperStable, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of a “Failed SuperHyperStable”. 813
The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of 814
the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. 815
Assume a Failed SuperHyperStable. It’s redefined a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable if the 816
mentioned Table holds, concerning, “The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, 817
and SuperHyperEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” with the key points, “The 818
Values of The Vertices & The Number of Position in Alphabet”, “The Values of The SuperVer- 819
tices&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The Edges&The maximum Values of 820
Its Vertices”, “The Values of The HyperEdges&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values 821
of The SuperHyperEdges&The maximum Values of Its Endpoints”. To get structural examples and 822
instances, I’m going to introduce the next SuperHyperClass of SuperHyperGraph based on a Failed 823
SuperHyperStable. It’s the main. It’ll be disciplinary to have the foundation of previous definition 824
in the kind of SuperHyperClass. If there’s a need to have all SuperHyperConnectivities until the 825
Failed SuperHyperStable, then it’s officially called a “Failed SuperHyperStable” but otherwise, it 826
isn’t a Failed SuperHyperStable. There are some instances about the clarifications for the main 827
definition titled a “Failed SuperHyperStable”. These two examples get more scrutiny and discernment 828
since there are characterized in the disciplinary ways of the SuperHyperClass based on a Failed 829
SuperHyperStable. For the sake of having a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, there’s a need 830
to “redefine” the notion of a “neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable” and a “neutrosophic Failed 831
SuperHyperStable”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels 832
from the letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels 833
to assign to the values. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined “neutrosophic 834
SuperHyperGraph” if the intended Table holds. And a Failed SuperHyperStable are redefined to 835
a “neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable” if the intended Table holds. It’s useful to define “neut- 836
rosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s more ways to get neutrosophic type-results 837
to make a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable more understandable. Assume a neutrosophic 838
SuperHyperGraph. There are some neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the intended Table holds. 839
Thus neutrosophic SuperHyperPath , SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, 840
SuperHyperMultiPartite, and SuperHyperWheel, are “neutrosophic neutrosophic SuperHyperPath 841
”, “neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle”, “neutrosophic SuperHyperStar”, “neutrosophic SuperHyper- 842
Bipartite”, “neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite”, and “neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel” if the 843

intended Table holds. A SuperHyperGraph has a “neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable” where 844
it’s the strongest [the maximum neutrosophic value from all the Failed SuperHyperStable amid 845
the maximum value amid all SuperHyperVertices from a Failed SuperHyperStable.] Failed Supe- 846
rHyperStable. A graph is a SuperHyperUniform if it’s a SuperHyperGraph and the number of 847
elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are 848
some SuperHyperClasses as follows. It’s neutrosophic SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex 849
as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; it’s SuperHyperCycle if 850
it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperStar 851
it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s 852
only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, 853
forming two separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s 854
only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, 855
forming multi separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s a SuperHyperWheel if it’s 856
only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has 857
one SuperHyperEdge with any common SuperVertex. The SuperHyperModel proposes the specific 858

designs and the specific architectures. The SuperHyperModel is officially called “SuperHyperGraph” 859
and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. In this SuperHyperModel, The “specific” cells and “specific 860
group” of cells are SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperVertices” and the common and intended 861
properties between “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells are SuperHyperModeled as “Su- 862
perHyperEdges”. Sometimes, it’s useful to have some degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy, and 863
neutrality to have more precise SuperHyperModel which in this case the SuperHyperModel is called 864
“neutrosophic”. In the future research, the foundation will be based on the “Cancer’s Recognitions” 865
and the results and the definitions will be introduced in redeemed ways. The recognition of the 866
cancer in the long-term function. The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called 867
SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this research. 868
Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some determinacy, 869
indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the cancer on that region; this 870
event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have 871
convenient perception on what’s happened and what’s done. There are some specific models, which 872
are well-known and they’ve got the names, and some SuperHyperGeneral SuperHyperModels. The 873
moves and the traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and between complicated groups of 874
cells could be fantasized by a neutrosophic neutrosophic SuperHyperPath (-/SuperHyperCycle, 875
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to 876
find either the longest Failed SuperHyperStable or the strongest Failed SuperHyperStable in those 877
neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. For the longest Failed SuperHyperStable, called Failed Super- 878
HyperStable, and the strongest SuperHyperCycle, called neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, 879
some general results are introduced. Beyond that in SuperHyperStar, all possible neutrosophic 880
SuperHyperPath s have only two SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough since it’s essential to have 881
at least three SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a SuperHyperCycle. There isn’t any formation 882
of any SuperHyperCycle but literarily, it’s the deformation of any SuperHyperCycle. It, literarily, 883
deforms and it doesn’t form. A basic familiarity with SuperHyperGraph theory and neutrosophic 884
SuperHyperGraph theory are proposed. 885
Keywords: SuperHyperGraph, (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable, Cancer’s Recognition 886

CHAPTER 4 888
Background 889


11






CHAPTER 5 970
Motivation and Contributions 971
In this research, there are some ideas in the featured frameworks of motivations. I try to bring the 972
motivations in the narrative ways. Some cells have been faced with some attacks from the situation 973
which is caused by the cancer’s attacks. In this case, there are some embedded analysis on the ongoing 974
situations which in that, the cells could be labelled as some groups and some groups or individuals 975
have excessive labels which all are raised from the behaviors to overcome the cancer’s attacks. In 976
the embedded situations, the individuals of cells and the groups of cells could be considered as “new 977
groups”. Thus it motivates us to find the proper SuperHyperModels for getting more proper analysis 978
on this messy story. I’ve found the SuperHyperModels which are officially called “SuperHyperGraphs” 979
and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”. In this SuperHyperModel, the cells and the groups of 980
cells are defined as “SuperHyperVertices” and the relations between the individuals of cells and 981
the groups of cells are defined as “SuperHyperEdges”. Thus it’s another motivation for us to do 982
research on this SuperHyperModel based on the “Cancer’s Recognitions”. Sometimes, the situations 983
get worst. The situation is passed from the certainty and precise style. Thus it’s the beyond them. 984
There are three descriptions, namely, the degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality, for 985
any object based on vague forms, namely, incomplete data, imprecise data, and uncertain analysis. 986
The latter model could be considered on the previous SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperModel. 987
It’s SuperHyperGraph but it’s officially called “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”. The cancer is 988
the disease but the model is going to figure out what’s going on this phenomenon. The special case 989
of this disease is considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The 990
cells are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the matter 991
of mind. The recognition of the cancer could help to find some treatments for this disease. The 992
SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are the SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s 993
Recognitions” and both bases are the background of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been 994
happened on the region, full of cells, groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the 995
SuperHyperModel proposes some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of 996
the cancer in the forms of alliances’ styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are 997
formally called “ Failed SuperHyperStable” in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. The prefix 998
“SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to figure out the background for the 999
SuperHyperNotions. The recognition of the cancer in the long-term function. The specific region 1000
has been assigned by the model [it’s called SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from 1001
the cancer is identified by this research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified 1002
since there are some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of 1003
the cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be neutrosophic 1004
15
SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and what’s done. There are 1005
some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the names, and some general models. 1006
The moves and the traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and between complicated groups 1007
of cells could be fantasized by a neutrosophic neutrosophic SuperHyperPath (-/SuperHyperCycle, 1008
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is 1009
to find either the optimal Failed SuperHyperStable or the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable 1010
in those neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. Some general results are introduced. Beyond that in 1011
SuperHyperStar, all possible neutrosophic SuperHyperPath s have only two SuperHyperEdges but 1012
it’s not enough since it’s essential to have at least three SuperHyperEdges to form any style of 1013
a SuperHyperCycle. There isn’t any formation of any SuperHyperCycle but literarily, it’s the 1014
deformation of any SuperHyperCycle. It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. 1015
Question 5.0.1. How to define the SuperHyperNotions and to do research on them to find the “ 1016
amount of Failed SuperHyperStable” of either individual of cells or the groups of cells based on the 1017
fixed cell or the fixed group of cells, extensively, the “amount of Failed SuperHyperStable” based on 1018
the fixed groups of cells or the fixed groups of group of cells? 1019
Question 5.0.2. What are the best descriptions for the “Cancer’s Recognitions” in terms of these 1020
messy and dense SuperHyperModels where embedded notions are illustrated? 1021
It’s motivation to find notions to use in this dense model is titled “SuperHyperGraphs”. Thus 1022
it motivates us to define different types of “ Failed SuperHyperStable” and “neutrosophic Failed 1023
SuperHyperStable” on “SuperHyperGraph” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. Then the 1024
research has taken more motivations to define SuperHyperClasses and to find some connections 1025
amid this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions. It motivates us to get some instances 1026
and examples to make clarifications about the framework of this research. The general results and 1027
some results about some connections are some avenues to make key point of this research, “Cancer’s 1028
Recognitions”, more understandable and more clear. 1029
The framework of this research is as follows. In the beginning, I introduce basic definitions to clarify 1030
about preliminaries. In the subsection “Preliminaries”, initial definitions about SuperHyperGraphs 1031
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are deeply-introduced and in-depth-discussed. The elementary 1032
concepts are clarified and illustrated completely and sometimes review literature are applied to 1033
make sense about what’s going to figure out about the upcoming sections. The main definitions 1034
and their clarifications alongside some results about new notions, Failed SuperHyperStable and 1035
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, are figured out in sections “ Failed SuperHyperStable” and 1036
“Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable”. In the sense of tackling on getting results and in order 1037
to make sense about continuing the research, the ideas of SuperHyperUniform and Neutrosophic 1038
SuperHyperUniform are introduced and as their consequences, corresponded SuperHyperClasses 1039
are figured out to debut what’s done in this section, titled “Results on SuperHyperClasses” 1040
and “Results on Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. As going back to origin of the notions, 1041
there are some smart steps toward the common notions to extend the new notions in new 1042
frameworks, SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, in the sections “Results 1043

on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. The starter research 1044
about the general SuperHyperRelations and as concluding and closing section of theoretical research 1045
are contained in the section “General Results”. Some general SuperHyperRelations are fundamental 1046
and they are well-known as fundamental SuperHyperNotions as elicited and discussed in the sections, 1047
“General Results”, “ Failed SuperHyperStable”, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable”, “Results 1048
on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. There are curious 1049

questions about what’s done about the SuperHyperNotions to make sense about excellency of this 1050
research and going to figure out the word “best” as the description and adjective for this research 1051
as presented in section, “ Failed SuperHyperStable”. The keyword of this research debut in the 1052
section “Applications in Cancer’s Recognitions” with two cases and subsections “Case 1: The 1053
Initial Steps Toward SuperHyperBipartite as SuperHyperModel” and “Case 2: The Increasing Steps 1054
Toward SuperHyperMultipartite as SuperHyperModel”. In the section, “Open Problems”, there 1055
are some scrutiny and discernment on what’s done and what’s happened in this research in the 1056
terms of “questions” and “problems” to make sense to figure out this research in featured style. The 1057
advantages and the limitations of this research alongside about what’s done in this research to make 1058
sense and to get sense about what’s figured out are included in the section, “Conclusion and Closing 1059
Remarks”. 1060

CHAPTER 6 1061
Preliminaries 1062
In this subsection, the basic material which is used in this research, is presented. Also, the new 1063
ideas and their clarifications are elicited. 1064
Definition 6.0.1 (Neutrosophic Set). (Ref.[2],Definition 2.1,p.87).

Let X be a space of points (objects) with generic elements in X denoted by x; then the neutrosophic
set A (NS A) is an object having the form
A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}
+
where the functions T, I, F : X →]− 0, 1 [ define respectively the a truth-membership function,
an indeterminacy-membership function, and a falsity-membership function of the element
x ∈ X to the set A with the condition
−
0 ≤ TA (x) + IA (x) + FA (x) ≤ 3+ .
+
The functions TA (x), IA (x) and FA (x) are real standard or nonstandard subsets of ]− 0, 1 [. 1065
Definition 6.0.2 (Single Valued Neutrosophic Set). (Ref.[5],Definition 6,p.2).

Let X be a space of points (objects) with generic elements in X denoted by x. A single
valued neutrosophic set A (SVNS A) is characterized by truth-membership function TA (x),
an indeterminacy-membership function IA (x), and a falsity-membership function FA (x). For each
point x in X, TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) ∈ [0, 1]. A SVNS A can be written as
A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}.
Definition 6.0.3. The degree of truth-membership, indeterminacy-membership and falsity-
membership of the subset X ⊂ A of the single valued neutrosophic set A = {< x :
TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}:
TA (X) = min[TA (vi ), TA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X ,
IA (X) = min[IA (vi ), IA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X ,
and FA (X) = min[FA (vi ), FA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X .
Definition 6.0.4. The support of X ⊂ A of the single valued neutrosophic set A = {< x :
TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}:
supp(X) = {x ∈ X : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) > 0}.
19
Definition 6.0.5 (Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). (Ref.[4],Definition 3,p.291). 1066

Assume V 0 is a given set. A neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered pair 1067
S = (V, E), where 1068
(i) V = {V1 , V2 , . . . , Vn } a finite set of finite single valued neutrosophic subsets of V 0 ; 1069
(ii) V = {(Vi , TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi )) : TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), FV 0 (Vi ) ≥ 0}, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 1070
(iii) E = {E1 , E2 , . . . , En0 } a finite set of finite single valued neutrosophic subsets of V ; 1071
(iv) E = {(Ei0 , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )) : TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 ) ≥ 0}, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 1072
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 1073
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 1074
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 1075
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n ); 1076
0
(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 . 1077
Here the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej 0 and the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 1078
(NSHV) Vj are single valued neutrosophic sets. TV 0 (Vi ), IV 0 (Vi ), and FV 0 (Vi ) denote the degree of 1079
truth-membership, the degree of indeterminacy-membership and the degree of falsity-membership 1080
the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V. 1081
TV0 (Ei0 ), TV0 (Ei0 ), and TV0 (Ei0 ) denote the degree of truth-membership, the degree of indeterminacy- 1082
membership and the degree of falsity-membership of the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei0 1083
to the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E. Thus, the ii0 th element of the incidence matrix 1084
of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) are of the form (Vi , TV0 (Ei0 ), IV0 (Ei0 ), FV0 (Ei0 )), the sets 1085
V and E are crisp sets. 1086
Definition 6.0.6 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 1087

(Ref.[4],Section 4,pp.291-292). 1088
Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered pair S = (V, E). The neutrosophic 1089
SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei0 and the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vi of neutrosophic 1090
SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) could be characterized as follow-up items. 1091
(i) If |Vi | = 1, then Vi is called vertex; 1092
(ii) if |Vi | ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex; 1093
(iii) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called edge; 1094
(iv) if for all Vi s are incident in Ei0 , |Vi | = 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called HyperEdge; 1095

(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | = 2, then Ei0 is called SuperEdge; 1096
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei0 such that |Vi | ≥ 1, and |Ei0 | ≥ 2, then Ei0 is called 1097
SuperHyperEdge. 1098
If we choose different types of binary operations, then we could get hugely diverse types of 1099
general forms of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG). 1100
Definition 6.0.7 (t-norm). (Ref.[3], Definition 5.1.1, pp.82-83). 1101
A binary operation ⊗ : [0, 1]×[0, 1] → [0, 1] is a t-norm if it satisfies the following for x, y, z, w ∈ [0, 1]: 1102
(i) 1 ⊗ x = x; 1103
(ii) x ⊗ y = y ⊗ x; 1104
(iii) x ⊗ (y ⊗ z) = (x ⊗ y) ⊗ z; 1105
(iv) If w ≤ x and y ≤ z then w ⊗ y ≤ x ⊗ z. 1106
Definition 6.0.8. The degree of truth-membership, indeterminacy-membership and falsity-

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

and FA (X) = Tnorm [FA (vi ), FA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X .
TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}:
Definition 6.0.10. (General Forms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 1107

S = (V, E), where 1109
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 1114
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 1115
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 1116
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n ). 1117
0


(Ref.[4],Section 4,pp.291-292). 1128
This SuperHyperModel is too messy and too dense. Thus there’s a need to have some restrictions 1139
and conditions on SuperHyperGraph. The special case of this SuperHyperGraph makes the patterns 1140
and regularities. 1141
Definition 6.0.12. A graph is SuperHyperUniform if it’s SuperHyperGraph and the number of 1142
elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. 1143
To get more visions on , the some SuperHyperClasses are introduced. It makes to have more 1144
understandable. 1145
Definition 6.0.13. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some SuperHyperClasses 1146
as follows. 1147
(i). It’s neutrosophic SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 1148
given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; 1149
(ii). it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 1150
SuperHyperEdges; 1151
(iii). it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all SuperHyperEdges; 1152
(iv). it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 1153
SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge 1154
in common; 1155

(v). it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 1156
in common; 1158
(vi). it’s SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 1159
SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any common 1160
SuperVertex. 1161
Definition 6.0.14. Let an ordered pair S = (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S.

Then a sequence of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) and neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges
(NSHE)
V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , . . . , Vs−1 , Es−1 , Vs
is called a neutrosophic neutrosophic SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from neutrosophic 1162
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V1 to neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vs if either of following 1163
conditions hold: 1164
(i) Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 1165
(ii) there’s a vertex vi ∈ Vi such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 1166
(iii) there’s a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi such that Vi0 , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 1167
(iv) there’s a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 1168
0 0
(v) there’s a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , Vi+1 ∈ E i0 ; 1169
(vi) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 1170
0 0
(vii) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 1171
(viii) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi0 , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 1172
(ix) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1

0
∈ Vi+1 such that Vi0 , Vi+1
0
∈ Ei0 . 1173
Definition 6.0.15. (Characterization of the Neutrosophic neutrosophic SuperHyperPath s).

Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered pair S = (V, E). A neutrosophic
neutrosophic SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V1 to
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vs is sequence of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (NSHV)
and neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)
V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , . . . , Vs−1 , Es−1 , Vs ,
could be characterized as follow-up items. 1174
(i) If for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | = 2, then NSHP is called path; 1175
(ii) if for all Ej 0 , |Ej 0 | = 2, and there’s Vi , |Vi | ≥ 1, then NSHP is called SuperPath; 1176
(iii) if for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called HyperPath; 1177
(iv) if there are Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | ≥ 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called neutrosophic SuperHyperPath 1178
. 1179

Definition 6.0.16. ((neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable). 1180

Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then 1181
(i) a Failed SuperHyperStable I(N SHG) for a SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the 1182
maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a 1183
SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common; 1184
(ii) a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable In (N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyper- 1185

Graph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyper- 1186
Set S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 1187

to have a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge in common. 1188
Definition 6.0.17. ((neutrosophic)δ−Failed SuperHyperStable). 1189

(i) an δ−Failed SuperHyperStable is a maximal of SuperHyperVertices with a maximum 1191

cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the (neutrosophic) cardinalities 1192
of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 1193
|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ; (6.1)

|S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. (6.2)
The Expression (20.1), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the Expression (20.2), 1194
holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; 1195
(ii) a neutrosophic δ−Failed SuperHyperStable is a maximal neutrosophic of SuperHyper- 1196
Vertices with maximum neutrosophic cardinality such that either of the following expressions 1197
hold for the neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 1198
|S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ; (6.3)

|S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ. (6.4)
The Expression (20.3), holds if S is a neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the 1199
Expression (20.4), holds if S is a neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperDefensive. 1200
For the sake of having a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, there’s a need to “redefine” 1201
the notion of “neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges 1202
are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of 1203
the position of labels to assign to the values. 1204
Definition 6.0.18. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined neutrosophic 1205

SuperHyperGraph if the Table (20.1) holds. 1206
It’s useful to define a “neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s more ways to 1207
get neutrosophic type-results to make a neutrosophic more understandable. 1208
Definition 6.0.19. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some neutrosophic 1209
SuperHyperClasses if the Table (20.2) holds. Thus neutrosophic SuperHyperPath , SuperHy- 1210
perCycle, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and SuperHyperWheel, 1211
are neutrosophic neutrosophic SuperHyperPath , neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle, neut- 1212
rosophic SuperHyperStar, neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite, neutrosophic SuperHy- 1213
perMultiPartite, and neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel if the Table (20.2) holds. 1214

Table 6.1: The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyperEdges Belong
to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition (20.0.20)
The Values of The Vertices The Number of Position in Alphabet

The Values of The SuperVertices The maximum Values of Its Vertices
The Values of The Edges The maximum Values of Its Vertices
The Values of The HyperEdges The maximum Values of Its Vertices
The Values of The SuperHyperEdges The maximum Values of Its Endpoints
to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, Mentioned in the Definition (20.0.19)


It’s useful to define a “neutrosophic” version of a Failed SuperHyperStable. Since there’s more 1215
ways to get type-results to make a Failed SuperHyperStable more understandable. 1216
For the sake of having a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, there’s a need to “redefine” the 1217
notion of “ ”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from 1218
the letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to 1219
the values. 1220
Definition 6.0.20. Assume a Failed SuperHyperStable. It’s redefined a neutrosophic Failed 1221
SuperHyperStable if the Table (20.3) holds. 1222

CHAPTER 7 1223
Extreme Failed SuperHyperStable 1224
Example 7.0.1. Assume the SuperHyperGraphs in the Figures (7.1), (7.2), (7.3), (7.4), (7.5), (7.6), 1225
(7.7), (7.8), (7.9), (7.10), (7.11), (7.12), (7.13), (7.14), (7.15), (7.16), (7.17), (7.18), (7.19), and 1226
(7.20). 1227
• On the Figure (7.1), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, Failed SuperHyperStable, is up. E1 1228
and E3 Failed SuperHyperStable are some empty SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop 1229
SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of SuperHyperNeighbor, 1230
there’s only one SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The SuperHyperVertex, V3 is isolated means 1231
that there’s no SuperHyperEdge has it as an endpoint. Thus SuperHyperVertex, V3 , 1232

is contained in every given Failed SuperHyperStable. All the following SuperHyperSet 1233
of SuperHyperVertices is the simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable. 1234
{V3 , V1 , V2 }. The SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V3 , V1 , V2 }, is the simple type- 1235
SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable. The SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices, 1236
{V3 , V1 , V2 }, is corresponded to a Failed SuperHyperStable I(N SHG) for a SuperHyperGraph 1237
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices 1238

such that there’s a SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. There’re 1239
only three SuperHyperVertices inside the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non- 1240
obvious Failed SuperHyperStable is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of 1241
the Failed SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet includes only one SuperHyperVertex. 1242
But the SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V3 , V1 , V2 }, doesn’t have less than two 1243
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple type- 1244
SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable is up. To sum them up, the SuperHyperSet 1245
of SuperHyperVertices, {V3 , V1 , V2 }, is the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the 1246
Failed SuperHyperStable. Since the SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices, {V3 , V1 , V2 }, is 1247
corresponded to a Failed SuperHyperStable I(N SHG) for a SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) 1248
is the SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a SuperHyperVertex to have 1249
a SuperHyperEdge in common and they are corresponded to a Failed SuperHyperStable. 1250

Since it’s the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices such 1251
that there’s a SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. There aren’t only less 1252
than two SuperHyperVertices inside the intended SuperHyperSet, {V3 , V1 , V2 }. Thus the non- 1253
obvious Failed SuperHyperStable, {V3 , V1 , V2 }, is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet 1254
of the Failed SuperHyperStable, {V3 , V1 , V2 }, is the SuperHyperSet, {V3 , V1 , V2 }, doesn’t 1255
include only less than two SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1256
27
N SHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet 1257
of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable amid those obvious simple type-SuperHyperSets 1258
of the Failed SuperHyperStable, is only {V3 , V4 , V2 }. 1259
• On the Figure (7.2), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, Failed SuperHyperStable, is up. E1 1260
and E3 Failed SuperHyperStable are some empty SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop 1261
SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of SuperHyperNeighbor, 1262
there’s only one SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The SuperHyperVertex, V3 is isolated means 1263
that there’s no SuperHyperEdge has it as an endpoint. Thus SuperHyperVertex, V3 , 1264

is contained in every given Failed SuperHyperStable. All the following SuperHyperSet 1265
of SuperHyperVertices is the simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable. 1266
{V3 , V1 , V2 }. The SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V3 , V1 , V2 }, is the simple type- 1267
SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable. The SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices, 1268
{V3 , V1 , V2 }, is corresponded to a Failed SuperHyperStable I(N SHG) for a SuperHyperGraph 1269
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices 1270

such that there’s a SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. There’re 1271
only three SuperHyperVertices inside the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non- 1272
obvious Failed SuperHyperStable is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of 1273
the Failed SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet includes only one SuperHyperVertex. 1274
Failed SuperHyperStable. Since the SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices, {V3 , V1 , V2 }, is 1279
corresponded to a Failed SuperHyperStable I(N SHG) for a SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) 1280
is the SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a SuperHyperVertex to have 1281
a SuperHyperEdge in common and they are corresponded to a Failed SuperHyperStable. 1282

Since it’s the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices such 1283
that there’s a SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. There aren’t only less 1284
than two SuperHyperVertices inside the intended SuperHyperSet, {V3 , V1 , V2 }. Thus the non- 1285
obvious Failed SuperHyperStable, {V3 , V1 , V2 }, is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet 1286
of the Failed SuperHyperStable, {V3 , V1 , V2 }, is the SuperHyperSet, {V3 , V1 , V2 }, doesn’t 1287
N SHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet 1289
of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable amid those obvious simple type-SuperHyperSets 1290
of the Failed SuperHyperStable, is only {V3 , V4 , V1 }. 1291
• On the Figure (7.3), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, Failed SuperHyperStable, is up. E1 , E2 1292
and E3 are some empty SuperHyperEdges but E4 is a SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of 1293
SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The SuperHyperSet of Su- 1294
perHyperVertices, {V3 , V2 }, is the simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable. 1295

The SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices, {V3 , V2 }, is the maximum cardinality of 1296
a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a SuperHyperVertex to have 1297
a SuperHyperEdge in common. There’re only two SuperHyperVertex inside the intended 1298
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious Failed SuperHyperStable is up. The obvious simple 1299
type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet includes only one 1300
SuperHyperVertex in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). But the 1301

SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V3 , V2 }, doesn’t have less than two SuperHyperVertex 1302
inside the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of 1303
the Failed SuperHyperStable is up. To sum them up, the SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVer- 1304
tices, {V3 , V2 },is the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable. 1305
Since the SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices, {V3 , V2 }, is corresponded to a Failed 1306
SuperHyperStable I(N SHG) for a SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the SuperHyperSet 1307
S of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in 1308

common and they are Failed SuperHyperStable. Since it’s the maximum cardinality 1309
of a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a SuperHyperVertex to have a 1310
SuperHyperEdge in common. There aren’t only less than two SuperHyperVertices inside the 1311
intended SuperHyperSets, {V3 , V2 }, Thus the non-obvious Failed SuperHyperStable, {V3 , V2 }, 1312
is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable, {V3 , V2 }, is the 1313
SuperHyperSet, {V3 , V2 }, don’t include only more than one SuperHyperVertex in a connected 1314
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only 1315
obvious simple type-SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable amid those 1316
obvious simple type-SuperHyperSets of the Failed SuperHyperStable, is only {V3 , V2 }. 1317
• On the Figure (7.4), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, a Failed SuperHyperStable, is 1318

up. There’s no empty SuperHyperEdge but E3 are a loop SuperHyperEdge on {F }, 1319
and there are some SuperHyperEdges, namely, E1 on {H, V1 , V3 }, alongside E2 on 1320
{O, H, V4 , V3 } and E4 , E5 on {N, V1 , V2 , V3 , F }. The SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, 1321

{V2 , V4 , V1 }, is the simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable. The 1322
SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V4 , V1 }, is the maximum cardinality of a 1323
SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a SuperHyperVertex to have a 1324
SuperHyperEdge in common. There’re only three SuperHyperVertices inside the intended 1325
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious Failed SuperHyperStable is up. The obvious simple 1326
type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet includes only one 1327

SuperHyperVertex since it doesn’t form any kind of pairs titled to SuperHyperNeighbors 1328
in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). But the SuperHyperSet of 1329
SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V4 , V1 }, doesn’t have less than two SuperHyperVertices inside the 1330
intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed 1331
SuperHyperStable is up. To sum them up, the SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, 1332
{V2 , V4 , V1 }, is the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable. 1333

Since the SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V4 , V1 }, is the SuperHyperSet 1334
Ss of a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a SuperHyperVertex 1335
to have a SuperHyperEdge in common and it’s Failed SuperHyperStable. Since it’s 1336
the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s 1337
a SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. There aren’t only less than two 1338
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended SuperHyperSet, {V2 , V4 , V1 }. Thus the non-obvious 1339
Failed SuperHyperStable, {V2 , V4 , V1 }, is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of 1340
the Failed SuperHyperStable, {V2 , V4 , V1 }, is a SuperHyperSet, {V2 , V4 , V1 }, doesn’t include 1341
only less than two SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1342
N SHG : (V, E). 1343
• On the Figure (7.5), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, Failed SuperHyperStable, is up. There’s 1344
neither empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The SuperHyperSet of Supe- 1345
rHyperVertices, {V2 , V6 , V9 , V15 , V10 }, is the simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed Su- 1346

perHyperStable. The SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V6 , V9 , V15 , V10 }, is 1347

a SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. There’re not only one Su- 1349
perHyperVertex inside the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious Failed Supe- 1350
rHyperStable is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyper- 1351
Stable is a SuperHyperSet includes only one SuperHyperVertex thus it doesn’t form any 1352
kind of pairs titled to SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1353

N SHG : (V, E). But the SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V6 , V9 , V15 , V10 }, doesn’t 1354
have less than two SuperHyperVertices inside the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the 1355
non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable is up. To sum 1356
them up, the SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V6 , V9 , V15 , V10 }, is the non-obvious 1357
simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable. Since the SuperHyperSet of the 1358
SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V6 , V9 , V15 , V10 }, is the SuperHyperSet Ss of SuperHyperVertices 1359

such that there’s a SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. and it’s 1360
Failed SuperHyperStable. Since it’s the maximum cardinality of SuperHyperVertices 1361
such that there’s a SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. There aren’t only 1362
less than two SuperHyperVertices inside the intended SuperHyperSet, {V2 , V6 , V9 , V15 , V10 }. 1363
Thus the non-obvious Failed SuperHyperStable, {V2 , V6 , V9 , V15 , V10 }, is up. The obvious simple 1364
type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable, {V2 , V6 , V9 , V15 , V10 }, is a SuperHyperSet, 1365

{V2 , V6 , V9 , V15 , V10 }, doesn’t include only less than two SuperHyperVertices in a connec- 1366
ted neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is mentioned as the SuperHyperModel 1367
N SHG : (V, E) in the Figure (7.5). 1368
• On the Figure (7.6), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, Failed SuperHyperStable, is up. 1369
There’s neither empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The SuperHyperSet 1370
of SuperHyperVertices, 1371
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 },
is the simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable. The SuperHyperSet of the 1372
SuperHyperVertices, 1373
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 },
is the maximum cardinality of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a SuperHyperVertex 1374
to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. There’re not only one SuperHyperVertex inside the 1375
intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious Failed SuperHyperStable is up. The obvious 1376
simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet includes 1377
only one SuperHyperVertex doesn’t form any kind of pairs titled to SuperHyperNeighbors 1378
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 },

doesn’t have less than two SuperHyperVertices inside the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the 1381
non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable is up. To sum them 1382
up, the SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, 1383
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 },
is the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable. Since the 1384
SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices, 1385
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 },
is the SuperHyperSet Ss of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a SuperHyperVertex to 1386

have a SuperHyperEdge in common and it’s a Failed SuperHyperStable. Since it’s 1387
the maximum cardinality of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a SuperHyperVertex 1388
to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. There aren’t only less than two SuperHyperVertices 1389
inside the intended SuperHyperSet, 1390
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 },
Thus the non-obvious Failed SuperHyperStable, 1391
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 },
is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable, 1392
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 },
is a SuperHyperSet, 1393
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 },
doesn’t include only less than two SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic 1394
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) with a illustrated SuperHyperModeling of the Figure 1395
(7.6). 1396
of SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V5 , V9 , V7 }, is the simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed 1399
SuperHyperStable. The SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V5 , V9 , V7 }, is 1400
the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a 1401
SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. There’s only one SuperHyperVertex 1402
inside the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious Failed SuperHyperStable 1403

is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable is a 1404

SuperHyperSet includes only one SuperHyperVertex doesn’t form any kind of pairs are titled 1405
to SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). 1406
But the SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V5 , V9 , V7 }, doesn’t have less than two 1407
of SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V5 , V9 , V7 }, is the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the 1410

Failed SuperHyperStable. Since the SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V5 , V9 , V7 }, 1411
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended SuperHyperSet, {V2 , V5 , V9 , V7 }. Thus the non-obvious 1416
Failed SuperHyperStable, {V2 , V5 , V9 , V7 }, is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet 1417
of the Failed SuperHyperStable,{V2 , V5 , V9 , V7 }, is a SuperHyperSet, {V2 , V5 , V9 , V7 }, doesn’t 1418
N SHG : (V, E) of depicted SuperHyperModel as the Figure (7.7). 1420
SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. There’s only one SuperHyperVertex 1426
inside the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious Failed SuperHyperStable 1427
is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable is a 1428

SuperHyperSet includes only one SuperHyperVertex doesn’t form any kind of pairs are titled 1429
But the SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V5 , V9 , V7 }, doesn’t have less than two 1431
of SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V5 , V9 , V7 }, is the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the 1434
Failed SuperHyperStable. Since the SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V5 , V9 , V7 }, 1435
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended SuperHyperSet, {V2 , V5 , V9 , V7 }. Thus the non-obvious 1440
Failed SuperHyperStable, {V2 , V5 , V9 , V7 }, is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet 1441
of the Failed SuperHyperStable,{V2 , V5 , V9 , V7 }, is a SuperHyperSet, {V2 , V5 , V9 , V7 }, doesn’t 1442
N SHG : (V, E) of dense SuperHyperModel as the Figure (7.8). 1444
of SuperHyperVertices, 1447
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,

V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 },

is the simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable. The SuperHyperSet of the 1448
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 },
to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. There’re only only SuperHyperVertex inside the 1451
intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious Failed SuperHyperStable is up. The obvious 1452
simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet includes 1453
only one SuperHyperVertex doesn’t form any kind of pairs titled to SuperHyperNeighbors 1454
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 },
up, the SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, 1459
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 },
SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices, 1461
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 },
the maximum cardinality of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a SuperHyperVertex 1464
to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. There aren’t only less than two SuperHyperVertices 1465
inside the intended SuperHyperSet, 1466
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 }.
Thus the non-obvious Failed SuperHyperStable, 1467
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 },
is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable, 1468
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 },

{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 },
doesn’t include only less than two SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic 1470
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) with a messy SuperHyperModeling of the Figure (7.9). 1471

SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. There’re not only two SuperHyper- 1477
Vertices inside the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious Failed SuperHyperStable 1478
is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable is a SuperHy- 1479
perSet includes only two SuperHyperVertices doesn’t form any kind of pairs are titled to 1480
SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). But the 1481
SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V5 , V8 }, doesn’t have less than two SuperHyperVer- 1482
tices inside the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of 1483
the Failed SuperHyperStable is up. To sum them up, the SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, 1484
{V2 , V5 , V8 , V7 },is the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable. 1485
Since the SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V5 , V8 , V7 }, is the SuperHyperSet 1486
Ss of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge 1487
in common and it’s a Failed SuperHyperStable. Since it’s the maximum cardinality 1488
of a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a SuperHyperVertex to have 1489
a SuperHyperEdge in common. There aren’t only less than two SuperHyperVertices inside 1490
the intended SuperHyperSet, {V2 , V5 , V8 , V7 }. Thus the non-obvious Failed SuperHyperStable, 1491
{V2 , V5 , V8 , V7 }, is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyper- 1492
Stable, {V2 , V5 , V8 , V7 }, is a SuperHyperSet, {V2 , V5 , V8 , V7 }, doesn’t include only more than 1493
one SuperHyperVertex in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) of 1494

highly-embedding-connected SuperHyperModel as the Figure (7.10). 1495
neither empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The SuperHyperSet of SuperHy- 1497
perVertices, {V2 , V5 }, is the simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable. The 1498
SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V5 , V6 }, is the maximum cardinality of a 1499
SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a SuperHyperVertex to have a Supe- 1500
rHyperEdge in common. There’re not only less than one SuperHyperVertices inside the inten- 1501
ded SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious Failed SuperHyperStable is up. The obvious simple 1502
type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet includes only less 1503

than two SuperHyperVertices don’t form any kind of pairs are titled to SuperHyperNeighbors 1504
SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V5 , V6 }, doesn’t have less than two SuperHyperVertices inside the 1506
intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed Supe- 1507
rHyperStable is up. To sum them up, the SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V5 , V6 }, 1508

SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V5 , V6 }, is the SuperHyperSet Ss of SuperHy- 1510

perVertices such that there’s a SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common and 1511
it’s a Failed SuperHyperStable. Since it’s the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyper- 1512
Set S of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge 1513
in common. There aren’t only less than two SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Su- 1514
perHyperSet, {V2 , V5 , V6 }. Thus the non-obvious Failed SuperHyperStable, {V2 , V5 , V6 }, is 1515
up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable, {V2 , V5 , V6 }, is 1516
a SuperHyperSet, {V2 , V5 , V6 }, doesn’t include only less than two SuperHyperVertices in a 1517
connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). 1518
of SuperHyperVertices, {V4 , V5 , V6 , V9 , V10 , V2 }, is the simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed 1521
SuperHyperStable. The SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices, {V4 , V5 , V6 , V9 , V10 , V2 }, 1522

to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. There’re not only less than two SuperHyperVertices 1524
inside the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious Failed SuperHyperStable is up. 1525
The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet 1526
includes only less than two SuperHyperVertices doesn’t form any kind of pairs are titled 1527
But the SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V4 , V5 , V6 , V9 , V10 , V2 }, doesn’t have less 1529
than two SuperHyperVertices inside the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious 1530
simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable is up. To sum them up, the 1531
SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V4 , V5 , V6 , V9 , V10 , V2 }, is the non-obvious simple 1532
type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable. Since the SuperHyperSet of the 1533
SuperHyperVertices, {V4 , V5 , V6 , V9 , V10 , V2 }, is the SuperHyperSet Ss of SuperHyperVertices 1534
such that there’s a SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common and they are 1535
Failed SuperHyperStable. Since it’s the maximum cardinality of SuperHyperVertices 1536
such that there’s a SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. There aren’t only 1537
less than two SuperHyperVertices inside the intended SuperHyperSet, {V4 , V5 , V6 , V9 , V10 , V2 }. 1538
Thus the non-obvious Failed SuperHyperStable, {V4 , V5 , V6 , V9 , V10 , V2 }, is up. The obvious 1539
simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable,{V4 , V5 , V6 , V9 , V10 , V2 }, is a 1540
SuperHyperSet, {V4 , V5 , V6 , V9 , V10 , V2 }, doesn’t include only more than one SuperHyperVertex 1541
in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) in highly-multiple-connected- 1542
style SuperHyperModel On the Figure (7.12). 1543
neither empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The SuperHyperSet of SuperHy- 1545
perVertices, {V2 , V5 , V6 }, is the simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable. 1546
The SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V5 , V6 }, is the maximum cardinality 1547
of a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a SuperHyperVertex to have 1548

a SuperHyperEdge in common. There’re not only less than two SuperHyperVertices inside 1549
the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious Failed SuperHyperStable is up. The 1550
obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet 1551
includes only less than two SuperHyperVertices don’t form any kind of pairs are titled 1552

Failed SuperHyperStable. Since the SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V5 , V6 }, 1558

SuperHyperVertices inside the intended SuperHyperSet, {V2 , V5 , V6 }. Thus the non-obvious 1563
Failed SuperHyperStable, {V2 , V5 , V6 }, is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the 1564
Failed SuperHyperStable, {V2 , V5 , V6 }, is a SuperHyperSet, {V2 , V5 , V6 }, does includes only less 1565
than two SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). 1566
neither empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The SuperHyperSet of Super- 1568
HyperVertices, {V3 , V1 }, is the simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable. 1569
The SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices, {V3 , V1 }, is the maximum cardinality of 1570
a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a SuperHyperVertex to have 1571
a SuperHyperEdge in common. There’re only less than two SuperHyperVertices inside 1572
the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious Failed SuperHyperStable is up. The 1573
obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet 1574

includes only less than two SuperHyperVertices doesn’t form any kind of pairs are titled to 1575
SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). But 1576
the SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V3 , V1 }, doesn’t have less than two SuperHyperVer- 1577
tices inside the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet 1578
of the Failed SuperHyperStable is up. To sum them up, the SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVer- 1579
tices, {V3 , V1 }, is the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable. 1580
Since the SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices, {V3 , V1 }, is the SuperHyperSet Ss of 1581
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in 1582
common and it’s a Failed SuperHyperStable. Since it’s the maximum cardinality of 1583
a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a SuperHyperVertex to have a 1584
SuperHyperEdge in common. There aren’t only less than two SuperHyperVertices inside the 1585
intended SuperHyperSet, {V3 , V1 }. Thus the non-obvious Failed SuperHyperStable, {V3 , V1 }, 1586
is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable, {V3 , V1 }, is a 1587
SuperHyperSet, {V3 , V1 }, does includes only less than two SuperHyperVertices in a connected 1588
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). 1589

a SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. There’re only less than two 1595
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious Failed Su- 1596
perHyperStable is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyper- 1597
Stable is a SuperHyperSet includes only less than two SuperHyperVertices doesn’t form 1598
any kind of pairs are titled to SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected neutrosophic SuperHy- 1599

perGraph N SHG : (V, E). But the SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices,{V5 , V2 , V6 , V4 }, 1600

doesn’t have less than two SuperHyperVertices inside the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus 1601
the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable is up. To sum 1602
them up, the SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V5 , V2 , V6 , V4 }, is the non-obvious 1603
simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable. Since the SuperHyperSet of 1604
the SuperHyperVertices, {V5 , V2 , V6 , V4 }, is the SuperHyperSet Ss of SuperHyperVertices 1605
such that there’s a SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common and it’s a 1606
Failed SuperHyperStable. Since it’s the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S 1607
of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in 1608
common. There aren’t only less than two SuperHyperVertices inside the intended SuperHy- 1609
perSet, {V5 , V2 , V6 , V4 }. Thus the non-obvious Failed SuperHyperStable, {V5 , V2 , V6 , V4 }, is up. 1610
The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable, {V5 , V2 , V6 , V4 }, is a 1611
SuperHyperSet, {V5 , V2 , V6 , V4 }, doesn’t include only less than two SuperHyperVertices in a 1612
connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) as Linearly-Connected SuperHy- 1613
perModel On the Figure (7.15). 1614
rHyperVertices, {V1 , V3 , V7 , V13 , V22 , V18 }, is the simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed 1617
is the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s 1619

SuperHyperVertices inside the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious Failed Super- 1621
HyperStable is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable 1622
is a SuperHyperSet includes only less than two SuperHyperVertices doesn’t form any kind 1623
of pairs are titled to SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1624
N SHG : (V, E). But the SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V3 , V7 , V13 , V22 , V18 }, 1625
up, the SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V3 , V7 , V13 , V22 , V18 }, is the non-obvious 1628
the SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V3 , V7 , V13 , V22 , V18 }, is the SuperHyperSet Ss of SuperHyper- 1630
Vertices such that there’s a SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common and 1631
it’s a Failed SuperHyperStable. Since it’s the maximum cardinality of a SuperHy- 1632
perSet S of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHy- 1633
perEdge in common. There aren’t only less than two SuperHyperVertices inside the intended 1634
SuperHyperSet, {V1 , V3 , V7 , V13 , V22 , V18 }. Thus the non-obvious Failed SuperHyperStable, 1635
{V1 , V3 , V7 , V13 , V22 , V18 }, is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed Supe- 1636
rHyperStable, {V1 , V3 , V7 , V13 , V22 , V18 }, is a SuperHyperSet, {V1 , V3 , V7 , V13 , V22 , V18 }, does 1637
includes only less than two SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1638
N SHG : (V, E). 1639

doesn’t have less than two SuperHyperVertices inside the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus 1651
the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable is up. To sum 1652
them up, the SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V3 , V7 , V13 , V22 , V18 }, is the non- 1653
obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable. Since the SuperHyperSet 1654
of the SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V3 , V7 , V13 , V22 , V18 }, is the SuperHyperSet Ss of SuperHy- 1655
perVertices such that there’s a SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common 1656
and it’s a Failed SuperHyperStable. Since it’s the maximum cardinality of a Supe- 1657
rHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a SuperHyperVertex to have a Supe- 1658
rHyperEdge in common. There aren’t only less than two SuperHyperVertices inside the 1659
intended SuperHyperSet,{V1 , V3 , V7 , V13 , V22 , V18 }. Thus the non-obvious Failed SuperHyper- 1660
Stable, {V1 , V3 , V7 , V13 , V22 , V18 }, is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed 1661
SuperHyperStable, {V1 , V3 , V7 , V13 , V22 , V18 }, is a SuperHyperSet, {V1 , V3 , V7 , V13 , V22 , V18 }, 1662
does includes only less than two SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyper- 1663
Graph N SHG : (V, E) as Linearly-over-packed SuperHyperModel is featured On the Figure 1664
(7.17). 1665
up, the SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V3 , V7 , V13 , V22 , V18 }, is the non-obvious 1679
the SuperHyperVertices, {V1 , V3 , V7 , V13 , V22 , V18 }, is the SuperHyperSet Ss of SuperHyper- 1681
Vertices such that there’s a SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common and 1682
it’s a Failed SuperHyperStable. Since it’s the maximum cardinality of a SuperHy- 1683
perSet S of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHy- 1684

perEdge in common. There’re only less than two SuperHyperVertices inside the intended 1685
SuperHyperSet, {V1 , V3 , V7 , V13 , V22 , V18 }. Thus the non-obvious Failed SuperHyperStable, 1686
{V1 , V3 , V7 , V13 , V22 , V18 }, is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed Supe- 1687
rHyperStable, {V1 , V3 , V7 , V13 , V22 , V18 }, is a SuperHyperSet, {V1 , V3 , V7 , V13 , V22 , V18 }, does 1688
includes only less than two SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1689
N SHG : (V, E) 1690

• On the Figure (7.19), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, Failed SuperHyperStable, is up.

There’s neither empty SuperHyperEdge nor loop SuperHyperEdge. The SuperHyperSet
of SuperHyperVertices,
{interior SuperHyperVertices}the number of SuperHyperEdges ,
is the simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable. The SuperHyperSet of the
SuperHyperVertices,
is the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices such that
there’s a SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. There’re only less
than two SuperHyperVertices inside the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious
Failed SuperHyperStable is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed
SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet includes only less than two SuperHyperVertices
doesn’t form any kind of pairs are titled to SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). But the SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices,
doesn’t have less than two SuperHyperVertices inside the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the
non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable is up. To sum them
up, the SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices,
is the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable. Since the
SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices,
is the SuperHyperSet Ss of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a SuperHyperVertex to
have a SuperHyperEdge in common and it’s a Failed SuperHyperStable. Since it’s
the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s
a SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. There aren’t only less than two
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended SuperHyperSet,
{interior SuperHyperVertices}the number of SuperHyperEdges .
Thus the non-obvious Failed SuperHyperStable,
is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable,
is a SuperHyperSet,
does includes only less than two SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyper- 1691
Graph N SHG : (V, E). 1692

• On the Figure (7.20), the SuperHyperNotion, namely, Failed SuperHyperStable, is up.

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

SuperHyperVertices,
is the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices such that

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

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

have a SuperHyperEdge in common and it’s a Failed SuperHyperStable. Since it’s
the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s
a SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. There aren’t only less than two
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended SuperHyperSet,
{interior SuperHyperVertices}the number of SuperHyperEdges .
Thus the non-obvious Failed SuperHyperStable,
is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable,
is a SuperHyperSet, does includes only less than two SuperHyperVertices in a connected 1693
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). 1694

Figure 7.1: The SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Notions of Failed SuperHyperStable in the
Example (7.0.1)
Example (7.0.1)

Example (7.0.1)
Example (7.0.1)

Example (7.0.1)
Example (7.0.1)

Example (7.0.1)
Example (7.0.1)

Example (7.0.1)
Example (7.0.1)

Example (7.0.1)
Example (7.0.1)

Example (7.0.1)
Proposition 7.0.2. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). Then in 1695
the worst case, literally, V \ V \ {x, z}, is a Failed SuperHyperStable. In other words, the least 1696
cardinality, the lower sharp bound for the cardinality, of a Failed SuperHyperStable is the cardinality 1697
of V \ V \ {x, z}. 1698
Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). The SuperHyperSet of 1699
the SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {z} is a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s 1700
a SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common but it isn’t a Failed SuperHyperStable. 1701
Since it doesn’t have the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices 1702
such that there’s a SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. The SuperHyperSet 1703
of the SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {x, y, z} is the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of 1704

SuperHyperVertices but it isn’t a Failed SuperHyperStable. Since it doesn’t do the procedure 1705
such that such that there’s a SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. [there’er at 1706
least three SuperHyperVertices inside implying there’s, sometimes in the connected neutrosophic 1707
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E), a SuperHyperVertex, titled its SuperHyperNeighbor, to that 1708
SuperHyperVertex in the SuperHyperSet S so as S doesn’t do “the procedure”.]. There’re only 1709
two SuperHyperVertices inside the intended SuperHyperSet, V \ V \ {x, z}. Thus the obvious 1710
Failed SuperHyperStable, V \ V \ {x, z}, is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the 1711
Failed SuperHyperStable, V \ V \ {x, z}, is a SuperHyperSet, V \ V \ {x, z}, includes only two 1712
SuperHyperVertices doesn’t form any kind of pairs are titled SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected 1713
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). Since the SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices 1714
V \V \{x, z}, is the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices such that 1715
V (G) there’s a SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. 1716

Example (7.0.1)
Proposition 7.0.3. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). Then the 1717
extreme number of Failed SuperHyperStable has, the least cardinality, the lower sharp bound for 1718
cardinality, is the extreme cardinality of V \ V \ {x, z} if there’s a Failed SuperHyperStable with the 1719
least cardinality, the lower sharp bound for cardinality. 1720
Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). Consider there’s a 1721
Failed SuperHyperStable with the least cardinality, the lower sharp bound for cardinality. The 1722
SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {z} is a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices 1723
such that there’s a SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common but it isn’t a Failed 1724
SuperHyperStable. Since it doesn’t have the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of 1725
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. 1726
The SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {x, y, z} is the maximum cardinality of 1727
a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices but it isn’t a Failed SuperHyperStable. Since it 1728
doesn’t do the procedure such that such that there’s a SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge 1729
in common. [there’er at least three SuperHyperVertices inside implying there’s, sometimes in 1730

Example (7.0.1)
Example (7.0.1)

Example (7.0.1)
Example (7.0.1)

Example (7.0.1)
the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E), a SuperHyperVertex, titled its 1731
SuperHyperNeighbor, to that SuperHyperVertex in the SuperHyperSet S so as S doesn’t do 1732
“the procedure”.]. There’re only two SuperHyperVertices inside the intended SuperHyperSet, 1733
V \ V \ {x, z}. Thus the obvious Failed SuperHyperStable, V \ V \ {x, z}, is up. The obvious 1734
simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable, V \ V \ {x, z}, is a SuperHyperSet, 1735
V \ V \ {x, z}, includes only two SuperHyperVertices doesn’t form any kind of pairs are titled 1736
SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). Since the 1737
SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {x, z}, is the maximum cardinality of a 1738
SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices such that V (G) there’s a SuperHyperVertex to have a 1739
SuperHyperEdge in common. Thus, in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E), 1740
the extreme number of Failed SuperHyperStable has, the least cardinality, the lower sharp bound 1741
for cardinality, is the extreme cardinality of V \ V \ {x, z} if there’s a Failed SuperHyperStable with 1742
the least cardinality, the lower sharp bound for cardinality. 1743
Proposition 7.0.4. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). If a 1744
SuperHyperEdge has z SuperHyperVertices, then z − 2 number of those interior SuperHyperVertices 1745
from that SuperHyperEdge exclude to any Failed SuperHyperStable. 1746
Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). Let a SuperHyperEdge 1747
has z SuperHyperVertices. Consider z − 2 number of those SuperHyperVertices from that 1748
SuperHyperEdge exclude to any given SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices. Consider 1749
there’s a Failed SuperHyperStable with the least cardinality, the lower sharp bound for cardinality. 1750
Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). The SuperHyperSet of the 1751

Example (7.0.1)
SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {z} is a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a 1752

SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common but it isn’t a Failed SuperHyperStable. 1753
Since it doesn’t have the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices 1754
such that there’s a SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. The SuperHyperSet 1755
of the SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {x, y, z} is the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of 1756

V (G) there’s a SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. Thus, in a connected 1768
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E), a SuperHyperEdge has z SuperHyperVertices, 1769
then z − 2 number of those interior SuperHyperVertices from that SuperHyperEdge exclude to any 1770
Failed SuperHyperStable. 1771

Proposition 7.0.5. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). There’s 1772
only one SuperHyperEdge has only less than three distinct interior SuperHyperVertices inside of any 1773
given Failed SuperHyperStable. In other words, there’s only an unique SuperHyperEdge has only two 1774
distinct SuperHyperVertices in a Failed SuperHyperStable. 1775
has some SuperHyperVertices. Consider some numbers of those SuperHyperVertices from that 1777
SuperHyperEdge excluding more than two distinct SuperHyperVertices, exclude to any given 1778
SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices. Consider there’s Failed SuperHyperStable with the 1779
least cardinality, the lower sharp bound for cardinality. Assume a connected neutrosophic 1780
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). The SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {z} 1781
is a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a SuperHyperVertex to have a 1782
SuperHyperEdge in common but it isn’t a Failed SuperHyperStable. Since it doesn’t have 1783
a SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. The SuperHyperSet of the 1785
SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {x, y, z} is the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of 1786


neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E), there’s only one SuperHyperEdge has only less 1799
than three distinct interior SuperHyperVertices inside of any given Failed SuperHyperStable. In 1800
other words, there’s only an unique SuperHyperEdge has only two distinct SuperHyperVertices in a 1801
Proposition 7.0.6. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). The all 1803
interior SuperHyperVertices belong to any Failed SuperHyperStable if for any of them, there’s no 1804
other corresponded SuperHyperVertex such that the two interior SuperHyperVertices are mutually 1805
SuperHyperNeighbors with an exception once. 1806
Proof. Let a SuperHyperEdge has some SuperHyperVertices. Consider all numbers of those Super- 1807
HyperVertices from that SuperHyperEdge excluding more than two distinct SuperHyperVertices, 1808
exclude to any given SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices. Consider there’s a Failed SuperHy- 1809
perStable with the least cardinality, the lower sharp bound for cardinality. Assume a connected 1810
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). The SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices 1811
V \ V \ {z} is a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a SuperHyperVertex 1812
to have a SuperHyperEdge in common but it isn’t a Failed SuperHyperStable. Since it doesn’t 1813
have the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a 1814

SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. The SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyper- 1815

Vertices V \ V \ {x, y, z} is the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices 1816
but it isn’t a Failed SuperHyperStable. Since it doesn’t do the procedure such that such that 1817
there’s a SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. [there’er at least three Super- 1818
HyperVertices inside implying there’s, sometimes in the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1819
N SHG : (V, E), a SuperHyperVertex, titled its SuperHyperNeighbor, to that SuperHyperVertex in 1820
the SuperHyperSet S so as S doesn’t do “the procedure”.]. There’re only two SuperHyperVertices 1821
inside the intended SuperHyperSet, V \ V \ {x, z}. Thus the obvious Failed SuperHyperStable, 1822
V \ V \ {x, z}, is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the Failed SuperHyperStable, 1823
V \ V \ {x, z}, is a SuperHyperSet, V \ V \ {x, z}, includes only two SuperHyperVertices doesn’t 1824
form any kind of pairs are titled SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyper- 1825
Graph N SHG : (V, E). Since the SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {x, z}, is the 1826
maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices such that V (G) there’s a 1827

SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. Thus, in a connected neutrosophic 1828
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E), the all interior SuperHyperVertices belong to any Failed Super- 1829
HyperStable if for any of them, there’s no other corresponded SuperHyperVertex such that the two 1830
interior SuperHyperVertices are mutually SuperHyperNeighbors with an exception once. 1831
Proposition 7.0.7. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). The any 1832
Failed SuperHyperStable only contains all interior SuperHyperVertices and all exterior SuperHyper- 1833
Vertices where there’s any of them has no SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s no SuperHyperNeigh- 1834
borhoods in with an exception once but everything is possible about SuperHyperNeighborhoods and 1835
SuperHyperNeighbors out. 1836
has some SuperHyperVertices. Consider all numbers of those SuperHyperVertices from that 1838
SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices. Consider there’s a Failed SuperHyperStable with 1840
the least cardinality, the lower sharp bound for cardinality. Assume a connected neutrosophic 1841


neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E), the any Failed SuperHyperStable only contains all 1860
interior SuperHyperVertices and all exterior SuperHyperVertices where there’s any of them has no 1861
SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s no SuperHyperNeighborhoods in with an exception once but 1862
everything is possible about SuperHyperNeighborhoods and SuperHyperNeighbors out. 1863
Remark 7.0.8. The words “ Failed SuperHyperStable” and “SuperHyperDominating” both refer 1864
to the maximum type-style. In other words, they both refer to the maximum number and the 1865
SuperHyperSet with the maximum cardinality. 1866
Proposition 7.0.9. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). Consider 1867
a SuperHyperDominating. Then a Failed SuperHyperStable is either out with one additional member. 1868
Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). Consider a Super- 1869
HyperDominating. By applying the Proposition (7.0.7), the results are up. Thus on a connected 1870
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E), and in a SuperHyperDominating, a Failed Super- 1871
HyperStable is either out with one additional member. 1872

CHAPTER 8 1873
Results on Extreme SuperHyperClasses 1874
Proposition 8.0.1. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperPath N SHP : (V, E). Then a 1875
Failed SuperHyperStable-style with the maximum SuperHyperCardinality is a SuperHyperSet of the 1876
interior SuperHyperVertices. 1877
Proposition 8.0.2. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperPath N SHP : (V, E). Then 1878
a Failed SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet of the interior SuperHyperVertices with only all 1879
exceptions in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices from the common SuperHyperEdges excluding 1880
only two interior SuperHyperVertices from the common SuperHyperEdges. a Failed SuperHyperStable 1881
has the number of all the interior SuperHyperVertices minus their SuperHyperNeighborhoods plus 1882
one. 1883
Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperPath N SHP : (V, E). Let a SuperHyperEdge 1884

57
Figure 8.1: A neutrosophic SuperHyperPath Associated to the Notions of Failed SuperHyperStable

in the Example (8.0.3)
neutrosophic SuperHyperPath N SHP : (V, E), a Failed SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet of the 1907
interior SuperHyperVertices with only all exceptions in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices from 1908
the common SuperHyperEdges excluding only two interior SuperHyperVertices from the common 1909
SuperHyperEdges. a Failed SuperHyperStable has the number of all the interior SuperHyperVertices 1910
minus their SuperHyperNeighborhoods plus one. 1911
Example 8.0.3. In the Figure (8.1), the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperPath N SHP : (V, E), is 1912
highlighted and featured. The SuperHyperSet, {V27 , V2 , V7 , V12 , V22 , V25 }, of the SuperHyperVertices 1913
of the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperPath N SHP : (V, E), in the SuperHyperModel (8.1), is 1914
the Failed SuperHyperStable. 1915
Proposition 8.0.4. Assume a connected SuperHyperCycle N SHC : (V, E). Then a Failed 1916
SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet of the interior SuperHyperVertices with only all exceptions 1917
in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices from the same SuperHyperNeighborhoods excluding one 1918
SuperHyperVertex. a Failed SuperHyperStable has the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one 1919
and the lower bound is the half number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one. 1920
Proof. Assume a connected SuperHyperCycle N SHC : (V, E). Let a SuperHyperEdge has some 1921
SuperHyperVertices. Consider all numbers of those SuperHyperVertices from that SuperHyperEdge 1922
excluding more than two distinct SuperHyperVertices, exclude to any given SuperHyperSet of the 1923
SuperHyperVertices. Consider there’s a Failed SuperHyperStable with the least cardinality, the lower 1924
sharp bound for cardinality. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). 1925
The SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices V \V \{z} is a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices 1926

SuperHyperEdge in common. Thus, in a connected SuperHyperCycle N SHC : (V, E), a Failed 1943
in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices from the same SuperHyperNeighborhoods excluding one 1945
SuperHyperVertex. a Failed SuperHyperStable has the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus 1946
one and the lower bound is the half number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one. 1947
Example 8.0.5. In the Figure (8.2), the connected SuperHyperCycle N SHC : (V, E), is highlighted 1948
and featured. The obtained SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the 1949
SuperHyperVertices of the connected SuperHyperCycle N SHC : (V, E), in the SuperHyperModel 1950
(8.2), 1951
{{P13 , J13 , K13 , H13 },

{Z13 , W13 , V13 }, {U14 , T14 , R14 , S14 },
{P15 , J15 , K15 , R15 },
{J5 , O5 , K5 , L5 }, {J5 , O5 , K5 , L5 }, V3 ,
{U6 , H7 , J7 , K7 , O7 , L7 , P7 }, {T8 , U8 , V8 , S8 },
{T9 , K9 , J9 }, {H10 , J10 , E10 , R10 , W9 },
{S11 , R11 , O11 , L11 },
{U12 , V12 , W12 , Z12 , O12 },
{S7 , T7 , R7 , U7 }},
is the Failed SuperHyperStable. 1952
Proposition 8.0.6. Assume a connected SuperHyperStar N SHS : (V, E). Then a Failed SuperHy- 1953
perStable is a SuperHyperSet of the interior SuperHyperVertices, excluding the SuperHyperCenter, 1954
with only all exceptions in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices from common SuperHyperEdge, 1955
excluding only one SuperHyperVertex. a Failed SuperHyperStable has the number of the cardinality 1956
of the second SuperHyperPart plus one. 1957
Proof. Assume a connected SuperHyperStar N SHS : (V, E). Let a SuperHyperEdge has some 1958

Figure 8.2: A SuperHyperCycle Associated to the Notions of Failed SuperHyperStable in the

Example (8.0.5)


SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). Since 1977
the SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {x, z}, is the maximum cardinality 1978
of a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices such that V (G) there’s a SuperHyperVertex to 1979
have a SuperHyperEdge in common. Thus, in a connected SuperHyperStar N SHS : (V, E), a 1980
Failed SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet of the interior SuperHyperVertices, excluding the 1981

Figure 8.3: A SuperHyperStar Associated to the Notions of Failed SuperHyperStable in the Example
(8.0.7)
SuperHyperCenter, with only all exceptions in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices from common 1982
SuperHyperEdge, excluding only one SuperHyperVertex. a Failed SuperHyperStable has the number 1983
of the cardinality of the second SuperHyperPart plus one. 1984
Example 8.0.7. In the Figure (8.3), the connected SuperHyperStar N SHS : (V, E), is highlighted 1985
and featured. The obtained SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the 1986
SuperHyperVertices of the connected SuperHyperStar N SHS : (V, E), in the SuperHyperModel 1987
(8.3), 1988
{{V14 , O14 , U14 },

{W14 , D15 , Z14 , C15 , E15 },
{P3 , O3 , R3 , L3 , S3 }, {P2 , T2 , S2 , R2 , O2 },
{O6 , O7 , K7 , P6 , H7 , J7 , E7 , L7 },
{J8 , Z10 , W10 , V10 }, {W11 , V11 , Z11 , C12 },
{U13 , T13 , R13 , S13 }, {H13 },
{E13 , D13 , C13 , Z12 }, }
Proposition 8.0.8. Assume a connected SuperHyperBipartite N SHB : (V, E). Then a Failed 1990

in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices titled SuperHyperNeighbors with only one exception. a 1992
Failed SuperHyperStable has the number of the cardinality of the first SuperHyperPart multiplies 1993
with the cardinality of the second SuperHyperPart plus one. 1994
Proof. Assume a connected SuperHyperBipartite N SHB : (V, E). Let a SuperHyperEdge has some 1995



SuperHyperEdge in common. Thus, in a connected SuperHyperBipartite N SHB : (V, E), a Failed 2017
in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices titled SuperHyperNeighbors with only one exception. a 2019
Failed SuperHyperStable has the number of the cardinality of the first SuperHyperPart multiplies 2020
with the cardinality of the second SuperHyperPart plus one. 2021
Example 8.0.9. In the Figure (8.4), the connected SuperHyperBipartite N SHB : (V, E), is 2022
highlighted and featured. The obtained SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the 2023
SuperHyperVertices of the connected SuperHyperBipartite N SHB : (V, E), in the SuperHyperModel 2024
(8.4), 2025
{V1 , {C4 , D4 , E4 , H4 },
{K4 , J4 , L4 , O4 }, {W2 , Z2 , C3 }, {C13 , Z12 , V12 , W12 },
Proposition 8.0.10. Assume a connected SuperHyperMultipartite N SHM : (V, E). Then a Failed 2027
SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet of the interior SuperHyperVertices with only one exception in 2028
the form of interior SuperHyperVertices from a SuperHyperPart and only one exception in the form 2029
of interior SuperHyperVertices from another SuperHyperPart titled “SuperHyperNeighbors” with 2030
neglecting and ignoring one of them. a Failed SuperHyperStable has the number of all the summation 2031
on the cardinality of the all SuperHyperParts form distinct SuperHyperEdges plus one. 2032

Figure 8.4: A SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of Failed SuperHyperStable in the

Example (8.0.9)
Proof. Assume a connected SuperHyperMultipartite N SHM : (V, E). Let a SuperHyperEdge 2033


Figure 8.5: A SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of Failed SuperHyperStable in the

Example (8.0.11)
SuperHyperMultipartite N SHM : (V, E), a Failed SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet of the 2056

interior SuperHyperVertices with only one exception in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices from 2057
a SuperHyperPart and only one exception in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices from another 2058
SuperHyperPart titled “SuperHyperNeighbors” with neglecting and ignoring one of them. a Failed 2059
SuperHyperStable has the number of all the summation on the cardinality of the all SuperHyperParts 2060
form distinct SuperHyperEdges plus one. 2061
Example 8.0.11. In the Figure (8.5), the connected SuperHyperMultipartite N SHM : (V, E), is 2062
highlighted and featured. The obtained SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the 2063
SuperHyperVertices of the connected SuperHyperMultipartite N SHM : (V, E), 2064
{{{L4 , E4 , O4 , D4 , J4 , K4 , H4 },
{S10 , R10 , P10 },
{Z7 , W7 }, {U7 , V7 }},
in the SuperHyperModel (8.5), is the Failed SuperHyperStable. 2065
Proposition 8.0.12. Assume a connected SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E). Then a Failed Super- 2066
HyperStable is a SuperHyperSet of the interior SuperHyperVertices, excluding the SuperHyperCenter, 2067
with only one exception in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices from same SuperHyperEdge 2068
with the exclusion once. a Failed SuperHyperStable has the number of all the number of all the 2069
SuperHyperEdges have no common SuperHyperNeighbors for a SuperHyperVertex with the exclusion 2070
once. 2071
Proof. Assume a connected SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E). Let a SuperHyperEdge has some 2072




SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices such that V (G) there’s a SuperHyperVertex to have 2093
a SuperHyperEdge in common. Thus, in a connected SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E), a 2094
Failed SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet of the interior SuperHyperVertices, excluding the 2095
SuperHyperCenter, with only one exception in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices from same 2096
SuperHyperEdge with the exclusion once. a Failed SuperHyperStable has the number of all the 2097
number of all the SuperHyperEdges have no common SuperHyperNeighbors for a SuperHyperVertex 2098
with the exclusion once. 2099
Example 8.0.13. In the Figure (8.6), the connected SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E), is 2100
highlighted and featured. The obtained SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, 2101
of the SuperHyperVertices of the connected SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E), 2102
{V5 ,
{Z13 , W13 , U13 , V13 , O14 },
{T10 , K10 , J10 },
{E7 , C7 , Z6 }, {K7 , J7 , L7 },
{T14 , U14 , R15 , S15 }},

Figure 8.6: A SuperHyperWheel Associated to the Notions of Failed SuperHyperStable in the

Example (8.0.13)

CHAPTER 9 2104
General Extreme Results 2105
For the Failed SuperHyperStable, and the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, some general 2106
results are introduced. 2107
Remark 9.0.1. Let remind that the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable is “redefined” on the 2108
positions of the alphabets. 2109
Corollary 9.0.2. Assume Failed SuperHyperStable. Then 2110
N eutrosophic F ailedSuperHyperStable =
{theF ailedSuperHyperStableof theSuperHyperV ertices |
max |SuperHyperDef ensiveSuperHyper
Stable|neutrosophiccardinalityamidthoseF ailedSuperHyperStable. }
Where σi is the unary operation on the SuperHyperVertices of the SuperHyperGraph to assign the 2111
determinacy, the indeterminacy and the neutrality, for i = 1, 2, 3, respectively. 2112
Corollary 9.0.3. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the same identical letter of the alphabet. 2113
Then the notion of neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable and Failed SuperHyperStable coincide. 2114
Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable if 2116
and only if it’s a Failed SuperHyperStable. 2117
Then a consecutive sequence of the SuperHyperVertices is a strongest SuperHyperCycle if and only if 2119
it’s a longest SuperHyperCycle. 2120
Corollary 9.0.6. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the same 2121

identical letter of the alphabet. Then its neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable is its Failed 2122
SuperHyperStable and reversely. 2123
Corollary 9.0.7. Assume a neutrosophic neutrosophic SuperHyperPath (-/SuperHyperCycle, Super- 2124

HyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel) on the same identical 2125
letter of the alphabet. Then its neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable is its Failed SuperHyperStable 2126
and reversely. 2127
Corollary 9.0.8. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its neutrosophic Failed SuperHy- 2128
perStable isn’t well-defined if and only if its Failed SuperHyperStable isn’t well-defined. 2129
67
Corollary 9.0.9. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its 2130

neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable isn’t well-defined if and only if its Failed SuperHyperStable 2131
isn’t well-defined. 2132
Corollary 9.0.10. Assume a neutrosophic neutrosophic SuperHyperPath (-/SuperHyperCycle, 2133

SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). Then its 2134
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable isn’t well-defined if and only if its Failed SuperHyperStable 2135
isn’t well-defined. 2136
Corollary 9.0.11. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its neutrosophic Failed 2137
SuperHyperStable is well-defined if and only if its Failed SuperHyperStable is well-defined. 2138

neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable is well-defined if and only if its Failed SuperHyperStable 2140
is well-defined. 2141
Corollary 9.0.13. Assume a neutrosophic neutrosophic SuperHyperPath (-/SuperHyperCycle, 2142

SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). Then its 2143
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable is well-defined if and only if its Failed SuperHyperStable 2144
is well-defined. 2145
Proposition 9.0.14. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then V is 2146
(i) : the dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 2147
(ii) : the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 2148
(iii) : the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 2149
(iv) : the δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 2150
(v) : the strong δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 2151
(vi) : the connected δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 2152
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider V. All SuperHy- 2153
perMembers of V have at least one SuperHyperNeighbor inside the SuperHyperSet more than 2154
SuperHyperNeighbor out of SuperHyperSet. Thus, 2155

(i). V is the dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable since the following statements are 2156
equivalent. 2157
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > |N (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > |N (a) ∩ ∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(ii). V is the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable since the following 2158
statements are equivalent. 2159
∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡

∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |Ns (a) ∩ ∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(iii). V is the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable since the following 2160
∀a ∈ S, |Nc (a) ∩ S| > |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > |Nc (a) ∩ ∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(iv). V is the δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable since the following statements 2162
are equivalent. 2163
∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ S))| > δ ≡

∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V ) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ V ))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V ) − (N (a) ∩ (∅))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V ) − (∅)| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V )| > δ.
(v). V is the strong δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable since the following 2164
∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S))| > δ ≡

∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V ) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ V ))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V ) − (Ns (a) ∩ (∅))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V ) − (∅)| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V )| > δ.
(vi). V is connected δ-dual Failed SuperHyperStable since the following statements are equivalent. 2166
∀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.
2167

Proposition 9.0.15. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then ∅ is 2168
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 2169
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 2170
(iii) : the connected defensive SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 2171
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 2172
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 2173
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 2174
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider ∅. All SuperHyper- 2175
Members of ∅ have no SuperHyperNeighbor inside the SuperHyperSet less than SuperHyperNeighbor 2176
out of SuperHyperSet. Thus, 2177
(i). ∅ is the SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable since the following statements are 2178
equivalent. 2179
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |N (a) ∩ ∅| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |N (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |N (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(ii). ∅ is the strong SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable since the following statements 2180
∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |Ns (a) ∩ ∅| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Ns (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Ns (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(iii). ∅ is the connected SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable since the following statements 2182
∀a ∈ S, |Nc (a) ∩ S| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |Nc (a) ∩ ∅| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Nc (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Nc (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.

(iv). ∅ is the δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable since the following statements are 2184
equivalent. 2185
∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |(N (a) ∩ ∅) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ ∅))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |(N (a) ∩ ∅) − (N (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
(v). ∅ is the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable since the following statements 2186
∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |(Ns (a) ∩ ∅) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ ∅))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |(Ns (a) ∩ ∅) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
(vi). ∅ is the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable since the following 2188
∀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.
2190
Proposition 9.0.16. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then an independent 2191
SuperHyperSet is 2192
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 2193
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 2194
(iii) : the connected SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 2195
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 2196
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 2197
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 2198
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider S. All SuperHyper- 2199
Members of S have no SuperHyperNeighbor inside the SuperHyperSet less than SuperHyperNeighbor 2200

(i). An independent SuperHyperSet is the SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable since the 2202
following statements are equivalent. 2203
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, |∅| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, 0 < |N (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ S, 0 < |N (a)| ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(ii). An independent SuperHyperSet is the strong SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable 2204

since the following statements are equivalent. 2205
∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, |∅| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, 0 < |Ns (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ S, 0 < |Ns (a)| ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(iii). An independent SuperHyperSet is the connected SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable 2206

∀a ∈ S, |Nc (a) ∩ S| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |Nc (a) ∩ S| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, |∅| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, 0 < |Nc (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ S, 0 < |Nc (a)| ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(iv). An independent SuperHyperSet is the δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable since 2208
the following statements are equivalent. 2209
∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ S, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
(v). An independent SuperHyperSet is the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable 2210

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

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

∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ S, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
(vi). An independent SuperHyperSet is the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyper- 2212

Stable since the following statements are equivalent. 2213
∀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.
2214
Proposition 9.0.17. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperGraph 2215

which is a SuperHyperCycle/neutrosophic SuperHyperPath . Then V is a maximal 2216
(i) : SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 2217
(ii) : strong SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 2218
(iii) : connected SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 2219
(iv) : O(N SHG)-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 2220
(v) : strong O(N SHG)-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 2221
(vi) : connected O(N SHG)-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 2222
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 2223
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperUniform 2224

SuperHyperCycle/neutrosophic SuperHyperPath . 2225
(i). Consider one segment is out of S which is SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 2226
This segment has 2t SuperHyperNeighbors in S, i.e, Suppose xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S such that 2227
yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By it’s the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 2228
SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperCycle, |N (xii=1,2,...,t )| = 2229

|N (yii=1,2,...,t )| = |N (zii=1,2,...,t )| = 2t. Thus 2230
∀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 Failed 2231
SuperHyperStable in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperCycle. 2232
Consider one segment, with two segments related to the SuperHyperLeaves as exceptions, is out of S 2233
which is SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. This segment has 2t SuperHyperNeighbors 2234
in S, i.e, Suppose xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \S such that yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By it’s the exterior 2235
SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s SuperHyperUniform 2236
neutrosophic SuperHyperPath , |N (xii=1,2,...,t )| = |N (yii=1,2,...,t )| = |N (zii=1,2,...,t )| = 2t. Thus 2237
∀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.
SuperHyperStable in a given SuperHyperUniform neutrosophic SuperHyperPath . 2239
(ii), (iii) are obvious by (i). 2240
(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal and it’s a SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. Thus it’s 2241
|V |-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 2242

(v), (vi) are obvious by (iv). 2243
Proposition 9.0.18. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 2244

SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel. Then V is a maximal 2245
(i) : dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 2246
(ii) : strong dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 2247
(iii) : connected dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 2248

(iv) : O(N SHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 2249
(v) : strong O(N SHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 2250
(vi) : connected O(N SHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 2251
Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 2252
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperGraph which is a 2253

SuperHyperWheel. 2254
yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By it’s the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the in- 2257
terior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel, |N (xii=1,2,...,t )| = 2258
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∃yii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ) ∈ V \ {xi }ti=1 ,
|N (yii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t )) ∩ S| <
|N (yii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t )) ∩ (V \ (V \ {xii=1,2,...,t }))| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t )) ∩ {xii=1,2,...,t })| ≡
|{z1 , z2 , . . . , zt−1 , z10 , z20 , . . . , zt0 }| < |{x1 , x2 , . . . , xt−1 })| ≡
∃y ∈ S, 2t − 1 < t − 1.
Thus it’s contradiction. It implies every V \ {xii=1,2,...,t } is SuperHyperDefensive Failed 2260

SuperHyperStable in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel. 2261
(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal and it is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. Thus 2263
it’s a dual |V |-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 2264


which is a SuperHyperCycle/neutrosophic SuperHyperPath . Then the number of 2267
(i) : the Failed SuperHyperStable; 2268
(ii) : the Failed SuperHyperStable; 2269
(iii) : the connected Failed SuperHyperStable; 2270
(iv) : the O(N SHG)-Failed SuperHyperStable; 2271
(v) : the strong O(N SHG)-Failed SuperHyperStable; 2272

(vi) : the connected O(N SHG)-Failed SuperHyperStable. 2273
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices 2274
coincide. 2275

SuperHyperCycle/neutrosophic SuperHyperPath . 2277
yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By it’s the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior 2280
SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperCycle, |N (xii=1,2,...,t )| = 2281
∀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.
SuperHyperStable in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperCycle. 2284
Consider one segment, with two segments related to the SuperHyperLeaves as exceptions, is out of S 2285
which is SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. This segment has 2t SuperHyperNeighbors 2286
in S, i.e, Suppose xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \S such that yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By it’s the exterior 2287
SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s SuperHyperUniform 2288
neutrosophic SuperHyperPath , |N (xii=1,2,...,t )| = |N (yii=1,2,...,t )| = |N (zii=1,2,...,t )| = 2t. Thus 2289
∀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.
SuperHyperStable in a given SuperHyperUniform neutrosophic SuperHyperPath . 2291
(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal and it’s a SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. Thus it’s 2293

|V |-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 2294

which is a SuperHyperWheel. Then the number of 2297
(i) : the dual Failed SuperHyperStable; 2298
(ii) : the dual Failed SuperHyperStable; 2299
(iii) : the dual connected Failed SuperHyperStable; 2300
(iv) : the dual O(N SHG)-Failed SuperHyperStable; 2301
(v) : the strong dual O(N SHG)-Failed SuperHyperStable; 2302
(vi) : the connected dual O(N SHG)-Failed SuperHyperStable. 2303
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices 2304
coincide. 2305
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperGraph which is a 2306

SuperHyperWheel. 2307
yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By it’s the exterior SuperHyperVertices and the in- 2310
terior SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel, |N (xii=1,2,...,t )| = 2311
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∃yii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ) ∈ V \ {xi }ti=1
, |N (yii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t )) ∩ S| <
|{z1 , z2 , . . . , zt−1 , z10 , z20 , . . . , zt0 }| < |{x1 , x2 , . . . , xt−1 })| ≡
∃y ∈ S, 2t − 1 < t − 1.
Thus it’s contradiction. It implies every V \ {xii=1,2,...,t } isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 2313
SuperHyperStable in a given SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperWheel. 2314
(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal and it’s a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. Thus it 2316
isn’t an |V |-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 2317


which is a SuperHyperStar/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete SuperHy- 2320
perMultipartite. Then a SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of multiplying 2321
r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices is a 2322
O(N SHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 2326
O(N SHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 2327
O(N SHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 2328
Proof. (i). Consider n half +1 SuperHyperVertices are in S which is SuperHyperDefensive Failed 2329
SuperHyperStable. A SuperHyperVertex has either n2 or one SuperHyperNeighbors in S. If the 2330
SuperHyperVertex is non-SuperHyperCenter, then 2331
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
If the SuperHyperVertex is SuperHyperCenter, then 2332
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable in a 2333
given SuperHyperStar. 2334
Consider n half +1 SuperHyperVertices are in S which is SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyper- 2335
Stable. A SuperHyperVertex has at most n2 SuperHyperNeighbors in S. 2336
n n
∀a ∈ S, > |N (a) ∩ S| > − 1 > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
2 2
n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite which isn’t a SuperHyperStar. 2338
Stable and they’re chosen from different SuperHyperParts, equally or almost equally as possible. A 2340
SuperHyperVertex has at most n2 SuperHyperNeighbors in S. 2341
n n
∀a ∈ S, > |N (a) ∩ S| > − 1 > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
2 2
n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2

Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable 2342
in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite which is neither a SuperHyperStar nor 2343
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite. 2344
O(N SHG)
+1
(iv). By (i), {xi }i=12
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. Thus it’s 2346
O(N SHG)
2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 2347

which is a SuperHyperStar/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete Super- 2350
HyperMultipartite. Then a SuperHyperSet contains the half of multiplying r with the number of all 2351
the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart is a 2352
(iv) : δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 2356
(v) : strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 2357
(vi) : connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 2358
Proof. (i). Consider the half of multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one 2359
of all the SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart are in S which is SuperHyperDefensive 2360
Failed SuperHyperStable. A SuperHyperVertex has either n − 1, 1 or zero SuperHyperNeighbors in 2361
S. If the SuperHyperVertex is in S, then 2362
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 0 < 1.
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable in a given 2363
SuperHyperStar. 2364
Consider the half of multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the 2365
SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart are in S which is SuperHyperDefensive Failed 2366
SuperHyperStable. A SuperHyperVertex has no SuperHyperNeighbor in S. 2367
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 0 < δ.
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite which isn’t a SuperHyperStar. 2369

Consider the half of multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the 2370
SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart are in S which is SuperHyperDefensive Failed 2371
SuperHyperStable. A SuperHyperVertex has no SuperHyperNeighbor in S. 2372
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 0 < δ.

SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite which is neither a SuperHyperStar nor SuperHyper- 2374
Complete SuperHyperBipartite. 2375
(iv). By (i), S is a SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. Thus it’s an δ- 2377
SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 2378

which is a SuperHyperStar/SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite/SuperHyperComplete Super- 2381
HyperMultipartite. Then Then the number of 2382
O(N SHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 2386
O(N SHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 2387
O(N SHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 2388
is one and it’s only S, a SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of multiplying 2389
r with the number of all the SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the SuperHyperVertices. Where the 2390
exterior SuperHyperVertices and the interior SuperHyperVertices coincide. 2391
SuperHyperStable. A SuperHyperVertex has either n2 or one SuperHyperNeighbors in S. If the 2393
SuperHyperVertex is non-SuperHyperCenter, then 2394
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
If the SuperHyperVertex is SuperHyperCenter, then 2395
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
Stable. A SuperHyperVertex has at most n2 SuperHyperNeighbors in S. 2399
n n
∀a ∈ S, > |N (a) ∩ S| > − 1 > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
2 2
n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2

given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite which isn’t a SuperHyperStar. 2401
Stable and they’re chosen from different SuperHyperParts, equally or almost equally as possible. A 2403
SuperHyperVertex has at most n2 SuperHyperNeighbors in S. 2404
n n
∀a ∈ S, > |N (a) ∩ S| > − 1 > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
2 2
n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperMultipartite which is neither a SuperHyperStar nor 2406

SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperBipartite. 2407
O(N SHG)
+1
(iv). By (i), {xi }i=12
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. Thus it’s 2409
O(N SHG)
2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 2410
Proposition 9.0.24. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. The number of 2412
connected component is |V − S| if there’s a SuperHyperSet which is a dual 2413
(iv) : Failed SuperHyperStable; 2417
(v) : strong 1-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 2418
(vi) : connected 1-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 2419
Proof. (i). Consider some SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 2420
Failed SuperHyperStable. These SuperHyperVertex-type have some SuperHyperNeighbors in S but 2421

no SuperHyperNeighbor out of S. Thus 2422
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable and 2423
number of connected component is |V − S|. 2424
(iv). By (i), S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. Thus it’s a dual 1- 2426
Proposition 9.0.25. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then the number is 2429
at most O(N SHG) and the neutrosophic number is at most On (N SHG). 2430

Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider V. All SuperHy- 2431
perMembers of V have at least one SuperHyperNeighbor inside the SuperHyperSet more than 2432
SuperHyperNeighbor out of SuperHyperSet. Thus, 2433
V is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable since the following statements are 2434
equivalent. 2435
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > |N (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > |N (a) ∩ ∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
V is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable since the following statements are 2436
equivalent. 2437
∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |Ns (a) ∩ ∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
V is connected a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable since the following statements 2438
∀a ∈ S, |Nc (a) ∩ S| > |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > |Nc (a) ∩ ∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
V is a dual δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable since the following statements are 2440
equivalent. 2441
∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ S))| > δ ≡

∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V ) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ V ))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V ) − (N (a) ∩ (∅))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V ) − (∅)| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V )| > δ.
V is a dual strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable since the following statements 2442
∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S))| > δ ≡

∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V ) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ V ))| > δ ≡

∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V ) − (Ns (a) ∩ (∅))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V ) − (∅)| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V )| > δ.
V is a dual connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable since the following statements 2444
∀a ∈ S, |(Nc (a) ∩ S) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S))| > δ ≡

∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V ) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ V ))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V ) − (Nc (a) ∩ (∅))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V ) − (∅)| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V )| > δ.
Thus V is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable and V is the biggest SuperHyperSet 2446
in N SHG : (V, E). Then the number is at most O(N SHG : (V, E)) and the neutrosophic number 2447
is at most On (N SHG : (V, E)). 2448
Proposition 9.0.26. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is Su- 2449
perHyperComplete. The number is O(N SHG:(V,E))2 + 1 and the neutrosophic number is 2450
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of dual 2451
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(N SHG:(V,E))

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 2455
(v) : strong ( O(N SHG:(V,E))

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

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 2457
Proof. (i). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 2458
Failed SuperHyperStable. A SuperHyperVertex has n half SuperHyperNeighbors in S. 2459
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable in a given 2460
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraph. Thus the number is O(N SHG:(V,E)) 2 +1 and the neutrosophic 2461
number is min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual SuperHyperDefensive 2462
t>
2

(ii). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 2464
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual strong SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable 2466
in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraph. Thus the number is O(N SHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and 2467
the neutrosophic number is min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual strong 2468
t>
2
(iii). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 2470
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual connected SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyper- 2472
Stable in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraph. Thus the number is O(N SHG:(V,E)) 2 +1 2473
and the neutrosophic number is min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual 2474
t>
2
connected SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 2475
(iv). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 2476
∀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 Failed 2478
SuperHyperStable in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraph. Thus the number is 2479

O(N SHG:(V,E))
2 + 1 and the neutrosophic number is min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in 2480
t>
2
the setting of a dual ( O(N SHG:(V,E))

(v). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 2482
SuperHyperStable. A SuperHyperVertex has n half SuperHyperNeighbors in S. 2483
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual strong ( O(N SHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 2484
Failed SuperHyperStable in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraph. Thus the number is 2485
O(N SHG:(V,E))
2 + 1 and the neutrosophic number is min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the 2486
t>
2
setting of a dual strong ( O(N SHG:(V,E))

(vi). Consider n half −1 SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 2488
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

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

Failed SuperHyperStable in a given SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraph. Thus the number is 2491
O(N SHG:(V,E))
t>
2
setting of a dual connected ( O(N SHG:(V,E))

Proposition 9.0.27. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is ∅. The number 2494
is 0 and the neutrosophic number is 0, for an independent SuperHyperSet in the setting of dual 2495
(iv) : 0-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 2499
(v) : strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 2500
(vi) : connected 0-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 2501
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider ∅. All SuperHyper- 2502
Members of ∅ have no SuperHyperNeighbor inside the SuperHyperSet less than SuperHyperNeighbor 2503

(i). ∅ is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable since the following statements are 2505
equivalent. 2506
∀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 in the setting 2507
of a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 2508

(ii). ∅ is a dual strong SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable since the following statements 2509
∀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.

of a dual strong SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 2512
(iii). ∅ is a dual connected SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable since the following 2513
∀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.
of a dual connected SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 2516
(iv). ∅ is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable since the following statements are 2517
equivalent. 2518
∀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.
of a dual 0-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 2520
(v). ∅ is a dual strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable since the following statements 2521
∀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.
of a dual strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 2524
(vi). ∅ is a dual connected SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable since the following 2525
∀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.

of a dual connected 0-offensive SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 2528
Proposition 9.0.28. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyper- 2529
Complete. Then there’s no independent SuperHyperSet. 2530
Proposition 9.0.29. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyper- 2531
Cycle/neutrosophic SuperHyperPath /SuperHyperWheel. The number is O(N SHG : (V, E)) and the 2532
neutrosophic number is On (N SHG : (V, E)), in the setting of a dual 2533
(iv) : O(N SHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 2537
(v) : strong O(N SHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 2538
(vi) : connected O(N SHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 2539
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperCycle/neut- 2540

rosophic SuperHyperPath /SuperHyperWheel. 2541
(i). Consider one SuperHyperVertex is out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed Super- 2542
HyperStable. This SuperHyperVertex has one SuperHyperNeighbor in S, i.e, suppose x ∈ V \ S 2543
such that y, z ∈ N (x). By it’s SuperHyperCycle, |N (x)| = |N (y)| = |N (z)| = 2. Thus 2544
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |N (y) ∩ S| < |N (y) ∩ (V \ (V \ {x}))| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |N (y) ∩ S| < |N (y) ∩ {x})| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |{z}| < |{x})| ≡
∃y ∈ S, 1 < 1.
Thus it’s contradiction. It implies every V \ {x} isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 2545
SuperHyperStable in a given SuperHyperCycle. 2546
Consider one SuperHyperVertex is out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 2547
SuperHyperStable. This SuperHyperVertex has one SuperHyperNeighbor in S, i.e, Suppose x ∈ V \S 2548
such that y, z ∈ N (x). By it’s neutrosophic SuperHyperPath , |N (x)| = |N (y)| = |N (z)| = 2. Thus 2549
∀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.

SuperHyperStable in a given neutrosophic SuperHyperPath . 2551
Consider one SuperHyperVertex is out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 2552
SuperHyperStable. This SuperHyperVertex has one SuperHyperNeighbor in S, i.e, Suppose x ∈ V \S 2553
such that y, z ∈ N (x). By it’s SuperHyperWheel, |N (x)| = |N (y)| = |N (z)| = 2. Thus 2554
∀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.
SuperHyperStable in a given SuperHyperWheel. 2556

(iv). By (i), V is maximal and it’s a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. Thus it’s 2558
a dual O(N SHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 2559
Thus the number is O(N SHG : (V, E)) and the neutrosophic number is On (N SHG : (V, E)), in 2561
the setting of all types of a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 2562
perHyperStar/complete SuperHyperBipartite/complete SuperHyperMultiPartite. The number is 2564
O(N SHG:(V,E))
t>
2
setting of a dual 2566
(iv) : ( O(N SHG:(V,E))



SuperHyperStable. A SuperHyperVertex has at most n half SuperHyperNeighbors in S. If the 2574

SuperHyperVertex is the non-SuperHyperCenter, then 2575
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
If the SuperHyperVertex is the SuperHyperCenter, then 2576
∀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 SuperHyperDefensive Failed 2579

SuperHyperStable. 2580
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

δ δ
∀a ∈ S, >n− .
2 2
given complete SuperHyperBipartite which isn’t a SuperHyperStar. 2582
Consider n half +1 SuperHyperVertices are in S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 2583
SuperHyperStable and they are chosen from different SuperHyperParts, equally or almost equally 2584
as possible. A SuperHyperVertex in S has δ half SuperHyperNeighbors in S. 2585
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

δ δ
∀a ∈ S, >n− .
2 2
2586
in a given complete SuperHyperMultipartite which is neither a SuperHyperStar nor complete 2588
SuperHyperBipartite. 2589
O(N SHG:(V,E))
+1
(iv). By (i), {xi }i=1 2
is maximal and it’s a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHy- 2591
perStable. Thus it’s a dual O(N SHG:(V,E))
2 + 1-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 2592
Thus the number is O(N SHG:(V,E))

2 +1 and the neutrosophic number is min Σ ⊆V σ(v),
v∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E))2594
t>
2
in the setting of all dual Failed SuperHyperStable. 2595
Proposition 9.0.31. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a SuperHyperFamily of the N SHGs : (V, E) 2596
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs which are from one-type SuperHyperClass which the result is obtained 2597
for the individuals. Then the results also hold for the SuperHyperFamily N SHF : (V, E) of these 2598
specific SuperHyperClasses of the neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs. 2599
Proof. There are neither SuperHyperConditions nor SuperHyperRestrictions on the SuperHyper- 2600
Vertices. Thus the SuperHyperResults on individuals, N SHGs : (V, E), are extended to the 2601
SuperHyperResults on SuperHyperFamily, N SHF : (V, E). 2602
Proposition 9.0.32. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If S is a dual 2603
SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable, then ∀v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S such that 2604
(i) v ∈ Ns (x); 2605
(ii) vx ∈ E. 2606

Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider v ∈ V \ S. 2607
Since S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable, 2608
∀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 v ∈ V \ S. Since 2609
S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable, 2610
∀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.
2611
Proposition 9.0.33. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If S is a dual 2612
SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable, then 2613
(i) S is SuperHyperDominating set; 2614
(ii) there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic number. 2615
Since S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable, either 2617
∀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 2618
∀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. 2619

S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable, either 2621
∀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 2622
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (v) ∩ S| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S : v ∈ Ns (x)
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S : vx ∈ E.
Thus every SuperHyperVertex v ∈ V \ S, has at least one SuperHyperNeighbor in S. The only case 2623
is about the relation amid SuperHyperVertices in S in the terms of SuperHyperNeighbors. It implies 2624
there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic number. 2625
Proposition 9.0.34. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then 2626
(i) Γ ≤ O; 2627
(ii) Γs ≤ On . 2628
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Let S = V. 2629
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ V, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ V )|
v ∈ ∅, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > |Ns (v) ∩ ∅|
v ∈ ∅, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > |∅|
v ∈ ∅, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > 0
It implies V is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. For all SuperHyperSets of 2630

SuperHyperVertices S, S ⊆ V. Thus for all SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S, |S| ≤ |V |. 2631
It implies for all SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S, |S| ≤ O. So for all SuperHyperSets of 2632
SuperHyperVertices S, Γ ≤ O. 2633
(ii). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Let S = V. 2634
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ V, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ V )|
v ∈ ∅, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > |Ns (v) ∩ ∅|
v ∈ ∅, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > |∅|
v ∈ ∅, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > 0
It implies V is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. For all SuperHyperSets 2635

of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S, S ⊆ V. Thus for all SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic 2636
SuperHyperVertices S, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ Σv∈V Σ3i=1 σi (v). It implies for all SuperHyperSets of 2637
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ On . So for all SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic 2638
SuperHyperVertices S, Γs ≤ On . 2639

Proposition 9.0.35. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 2640
connected. Then 2641
(i) Γ ≤ O − 1; 2642
(ii) Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 2643
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Let S = V − {x} 2644
where x is arbitrary and x ∈ V. 2645
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ V − {x}, |Ns (v) ∩ (V − {x})| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ (V − {x}))|
|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > |Ns (x) ∩ {x}|
|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > |∅|
|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > 0
It implies V − {x} is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. For all SuperHyperSets 2646
of SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, S ⊆ V − {x}. Thus for all SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices 2647

S= 6 V, |S| ≤ |V − {x}|. It implies for all SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, |S| ≤ O − 1. 2648
So for all SuperHyperSets of SuperHyperVertices S, Γ ≤ O − 1. 2649
(ii). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Let S = V − {x} where x 2650
is arbitrary and x ∈ V. 2651
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > |Ns (x) ∩ {x}|
|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > |∅|
|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > 0
It implies V − {x} is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. For all SuperHyperSets 2652
of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, S ⊆ V − {x}. Thus for all SuperHyperSets of 2653

neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ Σv∈V −{x} Σ3i=1 σi (v). It implies for 2654
all SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 2655
So for all SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S, Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 2656
Proposition 9.0.36. Let N SHG : (V, E) be an odd neutrosophic SuperHyperPath . Then 2657
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyper- 2658
Stable; 2659
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 and corresponded SuperHyperSet is S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 2660
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 2661
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only a dual Failed 2662

Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an odd neutrosophic SuperHyperPath . Let S = 2664
{v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all vi , vj ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 2665
v ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 }| = 2 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn }|∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 2 >
0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 }| >
|Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 })|
It implies S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. If 2666

S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } − {vi } where vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }, then 2667
∃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 SuperHyperDefensive Failed 2668
SuperHyperStable. It induces S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 2669
(ii) and (iii) are trivial. 2671
(iv). By (i), S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 2672
Thus it’s enough to show that S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 2673
SuperHyperStable. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an odd neutrosophic SuperHyperPath . Let 2674
S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all vi , vj ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 2675
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 9.0.37. Let N SHG : (V, E) be an even neutrosophic SuperHyperPath . Then 2681
(i) the set S = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 2682

(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }; 2683
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 2684
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only dual Failed 2685
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an even neutrosophic SuperHyperPath . Let S = 2687
{v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } where for all vi , vj ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 2688
v ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn }| = 2 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }|∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 2 >
0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn }| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn })|
It implies S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. If 2689
S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } − {vi } where vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, then 2690
∃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 Failed 2691
SuperHyperStable. It induces S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 2692
(iv). By (i), S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. Thus it’s 2695
enough to show that S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 2696
Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an even neutrosophic SuperHyperPath . Let S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } 2697
where for all vi , vj ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 2698
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 9.0.38. Let N SHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperCycle. Then 2704
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyper- 2705

Stable; 2706
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }; 2707
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } σ(s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } σ(s)}; 2708
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only dual Failed 2709
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an even SuperHyperCycle. Let S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } where 2711
for all vi , vj ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 2712
v ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn }| = 2 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }|∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 2 >
0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn }| >
|Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn })|
It implies S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. If 2713
S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } − {vi } where vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, then 2714
∃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 Failed 2715

SuperHyperStable. It induces S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 2716
(iv). By (i), S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. Thus it’s 2719
enough to show that S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 2720
Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an even SuperHyperCycle. Let S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all 2721
vi , vj ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 2722
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 9.0.39. Let N SHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperCycle. Then 2728
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyper- 2729
Stable; 2730
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 2732
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only dual Failed 2733
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an odd SuperHyperCycle. Let S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } where 2735
for all vi , vj ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 2736
v ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 }| = 2 >

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

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 = 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 6> 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
(iv). By (i), S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 2743
Thus it’s enough to show that S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 2744
SuperHyperStable. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an odd SuperHyperCycle. Let S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } 2745
where for all vi , vj ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, vi vj 6∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 2746
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 9.0.40. Let N SHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperStar. Then 2752
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c} is a dual maximal Failed SuperHyperStable; 2753
(ii) Γ = 1; 2754
(iii) Γs = Σ3i=1 σi (c); 2755
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c} and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual Failed SuperHyperStable. 2756
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a SuperHyperStar. 2757
∀v ∈ V \ {c}, |Ns (v) ∩ {c}| = 1 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {c})|∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 >
0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {c}, |Ns (v) ∩ {c}| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {c})|
It implies S = {c} is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. If S = {c} − {c} = ∅, 2758

then 2759
∃v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 0 = 0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 0 6> 0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
So S = {c} − {c} = ∅ isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. It induces S = {c} 2760
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 2761
(iv). By (i), S = {c} is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. Thus it’s enough to 2763

show that S ⊆ S 0 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) 2764
is a SuperHyperStar. Let S ⊆ S 0 . 2765
∀v ∈ V \ {c}, |Ns (v) ∩ {c}| = 1 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {c})|∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | = 1 >
0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
It implies S 0 ⊆ S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 2766
Proposition 9.0.41. Let N SHG : (V, E) be SuperHyperWheel. Then 2767
6+3(i−1)≤n
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual maximal 2768
SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 2769
6+3(i−1)≤n
(ii) Γ = |{v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 |; 2770
(iii) Γs = Σ{v1 ,v3 }∪{v6 ,v9 ··· ,vi+6 ,··· ,vn }6+3(i−1)≤n Σ3i=1 σi (s); 2771
i=1
6+3(i−1)≤n
(iv) the SuperHyperSet {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is only a dual maximal 2772
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a SuperHyperWheel. Let S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ 2774

6+3(i−1)≤n
{v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 . There are either 2775
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 2 > 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
or 2776
∀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 SuperHyperDefensive 2777
0 6+3(i−1)≤n
Failed SuperHyperStable. If S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 − {z} where 2778
6+3(i−1)≤n
z ∈ S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 , then There are either 2779
∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | = 1 < 2 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|

∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | < |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
or 2780
∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | = 1 = 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|

∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|

6+3(i−1)≤n
So S 0 = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 − {z} where z ∈ S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ 2781
6+3(i−1)≤n
{v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. It 2782
6+3(i−1)≤n
induces S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive 2783
(ii), (iii) and (iv) are obvious. 2785
Proposition 9.0.42. Let N SHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperComplete. Then 2786
b n c+1
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 2787
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1; 2788
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} b n c+1

2
; 2789
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 2790
b n c+1
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an odd SuperHyperComplete. Let S = {vi }i=1
2
. Thus 2791
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=12
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. If S 0 = 2792
bn c+1 bn
2 c+1
{vi }i=1
2
− {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1 , then 2793
n n
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = b c = b c = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
b n c+1 b n c+1
So S 0 = {vi }i=1 2
− {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1
2
isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive 2794
bn c+1
Failed SuperHyperStable. It induces S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 2795
Proposition 9.0.43. Let N SHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperComplete. Then 2798
bnc
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 2799
(ii) Γ = b n2 c; 2800
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} bnc

2
; 2801
S={vi }i=1
bnc
2
is only a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive Failed 2802

bnc
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an even SuperHyperComplete. Let S = {vi }i=1
2
. Thus 2804
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 bnc
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. If S 0 = {vi }i=1
2
−{z} 2805
bn c
where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1 2
, then 2806
n n
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = b c − 1 
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
bnc bnc
So S 0 = {vi }i=1 2
− {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1
2
isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 2807
bn c
SuperHyperStable. It induces S = {vi }i=1 is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive Failed
2
2808
Proposition 9.0.44. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of neutrosophic SuperHyperStars 2811

with common neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet. Then 2812
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable 2813

for N SHF; 2814
(ii) Γ = m for N SHF : (V, E); 2815
(iii) Γs = Σm 3
i=1 Σj=1 σj (ci ) for N SHF : (V, E); 2816
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual Failed SuperHyperStable 2817
for N SHF : (V, E). 2818
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a SuperHyperStar. 2819
∀v ∈ V \ {c}, |Ns (v) ∩ {c}| = 1 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {c})|∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 >
0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {c}, |Ns (v) ∩ {c}| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {c})|
It implies S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable for 2820

N SHF : (V, E). If S = {c} − {c} = ∅, then 2821
∃v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 0 = 0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 0 6> 0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
So S = {c}−{c} = ∅ isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable for N SHF : (V, E). 2822
It induces S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable 2823

for N SHF : (V, E). 2824

(iv). By (i), S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable for 2826
N SHF : (V, E). Thus it’s enough to show that S ⊆ S 0 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed 2827
SuperHyperStable for N SHF : (V, E). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a SuperHyperStar. Let S ⊆ S 0 . 2828
∀v ∈ V \ {c}, |Ns (v) ∩ {c}| = 1 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {c})|∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | = 1 >
0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
It implies S 0 ⊆ S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable for N SHF : (V, E). 2829
Proposition 9.0.45. Let N SHF : (V, E) be an m-SuperHyperFamily of odd SuperHyperComplete 2830

SuperHyperGraphs with common neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet. Then 2831
b n c+1
2
is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyper- 2832
Stable for N SHF; 2833
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 for N SHF : (V, E); 2834

2
for N SHF : (V, E); 2835
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only a dual maximal Failed SuperHyperStable for 2836
N SHF : (V, E). 2837
b n c+1
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is odd SuperHyperComplete. Let S = {vi }i=1
2
. Thus 2838
n n
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
b n c+1
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable for N SHF : 2839
0 bn
2 c+1 bn
2 c+1
(V, E). If S = {vi }i=1 − {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1 , then 2840
n n
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
b n c+1 b n c+1
So S 0 = {vi }i=1 2
− {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1
2
isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive 2841
bn
2 c+1
Failed SuperHyperStable for N SHF : (V, E). It induces S = {vi }i=1 is a dual maximal 2842
SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable for N SHF : (V, E). 2843
Proposition 9.0.46. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of even SuperHyperComplete 2845
SuperHyperGraphs with common neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet. Then 2846

bnc
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable for 2847
N SHF : (V, E); 2848
(ii) Γ = b n2 c for N SHF : (V, E); 2849
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} 2

bnc for N SHF : (V, E); 2850
S={vi }i=1
bnc
2
are only dual maximal Failed SuperHyperStable for N SHF : 2851
(V, E). 2852
bnc
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is even SuperHyperComplete. Let S = {vi }i=1
2
. Thus 2853
n n
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
bnc
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable for N SHF : (V, E). 2854
n
0 b c bn
2c
If S = {vi }i=1 − {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1
2
, then 2855
n n
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
bnc bnc
So S 0 = {vi }i=1
2
− {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1
2
isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyper- 2856
bn2c
Stable for N SHF : (V, E). It induces S = {vi }i=1 is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive Failed 2857
SuperHyperStable for N SHF : (V, E). 2858
Proposition 9.0.47. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following 2860
statements hold; 2861
(i) if s ≥ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an t-SuperHyperDefensive Failed 2862

SuperHyperStable, then S is an s-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable; 2863
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual t-SuperHyperDefensive Failed 2864
SuperHyperStable, then S is a dual s-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 2865
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider a 2866
SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an t-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 2867
Then 2868
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < t;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < t ≤ s;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < s.
Thus S is an s-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 2869
(ii). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider a SuperHyperSet 2870
S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual t-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. Then 2871
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > t;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > t ≥ s;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > s.
Thus S is a dual s-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 2872
Proposition 9.0.48. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following 2873
statements hold; 2874
(i) if s ≥ t + 2 and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an t-SuperHyperDefensive Failed 2875
SuperHyperStable, then S is an s-SuperHyperPowerful Failed SuperHyperStable; 2876
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual t-SuperHyperDefensive Failed 2877

SuperHyperStable, then S is a dual s-SuperHyperPowerful Failed SuperHyperStable. 2878
SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices is an t-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 2880
Then 2881
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < t;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < t ≤ t + 2 ≤ s;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < s.
Thus S is an (t + 2)−SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. By S is an 2882

s−SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable and S is a dual (s + 2)−SuperHyperDefensive 2883
Failed SuperHyperStable, S is an s-SuperHyperPowerful Failed SuperHyperStable. 2884
S of SuperHyperVertices is a dual t-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. Then 2886
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > t;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > t ≥ s > s − 2;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > s − 2.
Thus S is an (s − 2)−SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. By S is an (s − 2887
2)−SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable and S is a dual s−SuperHyperDefensive Failed 2888

SuperHyperStable, S is an s−SuperHyperPowerful Failed SuperHyperStable. 2889
Proposition 9.0.49. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic 2890

SuperHyperGraph. Then following statements hold; 2891
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b 2r c + 1, then N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 2894
Failed SuperHyperStable; 2895
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then N SHG : (V, E) is an r-SuperHyperDefensive Failed 2896

(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then N SHG : (V, E) is a dual r-SuperHyperDefensive 2898

Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHy- 2900

perGraph. Then 2901
r r
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < b c + 1 − (b c − 1);
2 2
r r
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < b c + 1 − (b c − 1) < 2;
2 2
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2.
Thus S is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 2902

(ii). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 2903
Then 2904
r r
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > b c + 1 − (b c − 1);
2 2
r r
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > b c + 1 − (b c − 1) > 2;
2 2
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2.
Thus S is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 2905
(iii). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 2906

Then 2907
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < r − 0;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < r − 0 = r;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < r.
Thus S is an r-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 2908

(iv). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 2909
Then 2910
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > r − 0;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > r − 0 = r;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > r.
Thus S is a dual r-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 2911
Proposition 9.0.50. Let N SHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic 2912

(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b 2r c + 1 if N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive Failed 2916
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if N SHG : (V, E) is an r-SuperHyperDefensive Failed 2918

(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if N SHG : (V, E) is a dual r-SuperHyperDefensive Failed 2920


perGraph. Then 2923
∀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
(ii). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 2924
and a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. Then 2925
∀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
(iii). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 2926
and an r-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 2927
∀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.
(iv). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 2928

and a dual r-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. Then 2929
∀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.
2930
SuperHyperGraph which is a SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 2932
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b O−1

2 c + 1 if N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 2935

(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if N SHG : (V, E) is an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive Failed 2937

(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if N SHG : (V, E) is a dual (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 2939


perGraph and an 2- SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. Then 2942
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2;

O−1 O−1
2 2
O−1 O−1
2 2
O−1 O−1
2 2
and a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. Then 2944
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2;

O−1 O−1
2 2
O−1 O−1
2 2
O−1 O−1
2 2
and an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 2946
∀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.
and a dual r-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. Then 2948
∀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.
2949

(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b O−1

2 c + 1, then N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 2954
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then N SHG : (V, E) is (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive Failed 2956

(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then N SHG : (V, E) is a dual (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 2958

perGraph which is a SuperHyperComplete. Then 2961
O−1 O−1
2 2
O−1 O−1
2 2
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2.

which is a SuperHyperComplete. Then 2964
O−1 O−1
2 2
O−1 O−1
2 2
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2.

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < O − 1 − 0;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < O − 1 − 0 = O − 1;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < O − 1.
Thus S is an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 2968

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > O − 1 − 0;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > O − 1 − 0 = O − 1;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > O − 1.
Thus S is a dual (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 2971


SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperCycle. Then following statements hold; 2973
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2 if N SHG : (V, E)) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive Failed 2974
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2 if N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive Failed 2976
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if N SHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive Failed 2978

(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive Failed 2980


perGraph and S is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. Then 2983
∀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.

and S is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. Then 2985
∀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.

and S is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. 2987
∀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.

and S is a dual r-SuperHyperDefensive Failed SuperHyperStable. Then 2989
∀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.
2990


SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHyperCycle. Then following statements hold; 2992
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2, then N SHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive Failed 2993
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2, then N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive Failed 2995
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then N SHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive Failed 2997
(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 2999


perGraph which is SuperHyperCycle. Then 3002
∀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.

which is SuperHyperCycle. Then 3005
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2 − 0;

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

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

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

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

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

CHAPTER 10 3013
Applications in Cancer’s Extreme 3014
Recognition 3015
The cancer is the disease but the model is going to figure out what’s going on this phenomenon. 3016
The special case of this disease is considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters 3017
are used. The cells are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region 3018
are the matter of mind. The recognition of the cancer could help to find some treatments for this 3019
disease. 3020
In the following, some steps are devised on this disease. 3021
Step 1. (Definition) The recognition of the cancer in the long-term function. 3022
Step 2. (Issue) The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called SuperHyperGraph] 3023
and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this research. Sometimes the 3024
move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some determinacy, indeterminacy 3025
and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the cancer on that region; this event leads us 3026
to choose another model [it’s said to be neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient 3027
perception on what’s happened and what’s done. 3028
Step 3. (Model) There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the names, 3029
and some general models. The moves and the traces of the cancer on the complex tracks 3030
and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a neutrosophic neutrosophic 3031
SuperHyperPath (-/SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyper- 3032
Multipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find either the Failed SuperHyperStable or 3033
the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in those neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. 3034
111
CHAPTER 11 3035
Case 1: The Initial Steps Toward 3036
SuperHyperBipartite as 3037
SuperHyperModel 3038
Step 4. (Solution) In the Figure (11.1), the SuperHyperBipartite is highlighted and featured. 3039
By using the Figure (11.1) and the Table (11.1), the neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite is 3040
obtained. 3041
The obtained SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the SuperHyperVertices 3042
Figure 11.1: A SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of Failed SuperHyperStable
113
to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite

of the connected SuperHyperBipartite N SHB : (V, E), in the SuperHyperModel (11.1), 3043
{V1 , {C4 , D4 , E4 , H4 },
{K4 , J4 , L4 , O4 }, {W2 , Z2 , C3 }, {C13 , Z12 , V12 , W12 },

CHAPTER 12 3045
Case 2: The Increasing Steps Toward 3046
SuperHyperMultipartite as 3047
SuperHyperModel 3048
Step 4. (Solution) In the Figure (12.1), the SuperHyperMultipartite is highlighted and featured. 3049
By using the Figure (12.1) and the Table (12.1), the neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite is 3050
obtained. 3051
The obtained SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the SuperHyperVertices 3052
of the connected SuperHyperMultipartite N SHM : (V, E), 3053
{{{L4 , E4 , O4 , D4 , J4 , K4 , H4 },
{S10 , R10 , P10 },
Figure 12.1: A SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of Failed SuperHyperStable
115
to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite

{Z7 , W7 }, {U7 , V7 }},

CHAPTER 13 3055
Open Problems 3056
In what follows, some “problems” and some “questions” are proposed. 3057
The Failed SuperHyperStable and the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable are defined on a 3058
real-world application, titled “Cancer’s Recognitions”. 3059
Question 13.0.1. Which the else SuperHyperModels could be defined based on Cancer’s recognitions? 3060
Question 13.0.2. Are there some SuperHyperNotions related to Failed SuperHyperStable and the 3061
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable? 3062
Question 13.0.3. Are there some Algorithms to be defined on the SuperHyperModels to compute 3063
them? 3064
Question 13.0.4. Which the SuperHyperNotions are related to beyond the Failed SuperHyperStable 3065
and the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable? 3066
Problem 13.0.5. The Failed SuperHyperStable and the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable do a 3067
SuperHyperModel for the Cancer’s recognitions and they’re based on Failed SuperHyperStable, are 3068
there else? 3069
Problem 13.0.6. Which the fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are related to these SuperHyperNum- 3070
bers types-results? 3071
Problem 13.0.7. What’s the independent research based on Cancer’s recognitions concerning the 3072
multiple types of SuperHyperNotions? 3073
117
CHAPTER 14 3074
Conclusion and Closing Remarks 3075
In this section, concluding remarks and closing remarks are represented. The drawbacks of this 3076
research are illustrated. Some benefits and some advantages of this research are highlighted. 3077
This research uses some approaches to make neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs more understandable. 3078
In this endeavor, two SuperHyperNotions are defined on the Failed SuperHyperStable. For 3079
that sake in the second definition, the main definition of the neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 3080
is redefined on the position of the alphabets. Based on the new definition for the neutrosophic 3081
SuperHyperGraph, the new SuperHyperNotion, neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, finds the 3082
convenient background to implement some results based on that. Some SuperHyperClasses and some 3083
neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses are the cases of this research on the modeling of the regions where 3084
are under the attacks of the cancer to recognize this disease as it’s mentioned on the title “Cancer’s 3085
Recognitions”. To formalize the instances on the SuperHyperNotion, Failed SuperHyperStable, the 3086
new SuperHyperClasses and SuperHyperClasses, are introduced. Some general results are gathered 3087
in the section on the Failed SuperHyperStable and the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 3088
The clarifications, instances and literature reviews have taken the whole way through. In this 3089
research, the literature reviews have fulfilled the lines containing the notions and the results. The 3090
SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are the SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s 3091
Recognitions” and both bases are the background of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been 3092
happened on the region, full of cells, groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the 3093
SuperHyperModel proposes some SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of 3094
the cancer in the longest and strongest styles with the formation of the design and the architecture 3095
are formally called “ Failed SuperHyperStable” in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. The 3096
prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to figure out the background for 3097
the SuperHyperNotions. In the Table (14.1), some limitations and advantages of this research are 3098
pointed out. 3099
119
Table 14.1: A Brief Overview about Advantages and Limitations of this Research
Advantages Limitations
1. Redefining Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1. General Results
2. Failed SuperHyperStable
3. Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable 2. Other SuperHyperNumbers
4. Modeling of Cancer’s Recognitions
5. SuperHyperClasses 3. SuperHyperFamilies

Bibliography 3100
Comp Sci Res 1(1) (2022) 06-14. 3107

10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 3113

10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 3120


(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28945.92007). 3129
121
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11447.80803). 3132

10.13140/RG.2.2.35774.77123). 3135

10.13140/RG.2.2.29173.86244). 3146

(2018) 122-135. 3160
410-413. 3163

CHAPTER 15 3165
Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable 3166
The following sections are cited as follows, which is my 110th manuscript and I use prefix 110 as 3167
number before any labelling for items. 3168
3169
[Ref2] Henry Garrett, “Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled neutro- 3170
sophic Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition modeled in the Form of 3171
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17385.36968). 3172
3173
The links to the contributions of this research chapter are listed below. 3174
123
Article #110 3175

3176
Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable 3177
in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition modeled in the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs 3178
3179
3181
3183
3185
3187
3189
3191
3192



CHAPTER 16 3193
Different Neutrosophic Types of 3194
Neutrosophic Regions titled neutrosophic 3195
Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s 3196
Neutrosophic Recognition modeled in the 3197
Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs 3198
127
CHAPTER 17 3199
Abstract 3200
In this research, new setting is introduced for new SuperHyperNotion, namely, Neutrosophic Failed 3201
SuperHyperStable. Two different types of SuperHyperDefinitions are debut for them but the research 3202
goes further and the SuperHyperNotion, SuperHyperUniform, and SuperHyperClass based on that 3203
are well-defined and well-reviewed. The literature review is implemented in the whole of this 3204
research. For shining the elegancy and the significancy of this research, the comparison between 3205
this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are 3206
featured. The definitions are followed by the examples and the instances thus the clarifications are 3207
driven with different tools. The applications are figured out to make sense about the theoretical 3208
aspect of this ongoing research. The “Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition” are the under research 3209
to figure out the challenges make sense about ongoing and upcoming research. The special case 3210
is up. The cells are viewed in the deemed ways. There are different types of them. Some of 3211
them are individuals and some of them are well-modeled by the group of cells. These types 3212
are all officially called “SuperHyperVertex” but the relations amid them all officially called 3213
chosen and elected to research about “Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition”. Thus these complex and 3215
dense SuperHyperModels open up some avenues to research on theoretical segments and “Cancer’s 3216
Neutrosophic Recognition”. Some avenues are posed to pursue this research. It’s also officially 3217
collected in the form of some questions and some problems. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 3218
Then a “neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable” In (N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 3219
N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S 3220
of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to have 3221

a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge in common. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then an “δ−Failed 3222
SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : |S ∩N (s)| > |S ∩(V \N (s))|+δ, |S ∩N (s)| < |S ∩(V \N (s))|+δ. The 3225
first Expression, holds if S is an “δ−SuperHyperOffensive”. And the second Expression, holds if S is an 3226
“δ−SuperHyperDefensive”; a“neutrosophic δ−Failed SuperHyperStable” is a maximal neutrosophic 3227

Failed SuperHyperStable of SuperHyperVertices with maximum neutrosophic cardinality such that 3228
either of the following expressions hold for the neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of 3229
s ∈ S : |S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ, |S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ 3230
N (s))|neutrosophic + δ. The first Expression, holds if S is a “neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive”. 3231
And the second Expression, holds if S is a “neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperDefensive”. It’s useful to 3232
define “neutrosophic” version of Failed SuperHyperStable. Since there’s more ways to get type-results 3233
129
to make Failed SuperHyperStable more understandable. For the sake of having neutrosophic Failed 3234
SuperHyperStable, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of “Failed SuperHyperStable”. The 3235
SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the 3236
alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. 3237
Assume a Failed SuperHyperStable. It’s redefined neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable if the 3238
mentioned Table holds, concerning, “The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and 3239
SuperHyperEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” with the key points, “The Values 3240
of The Vertices & The Number of Position in Alphabet”, “The Values of The SuperVertices&The 3241
maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The Edges&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, 3242
“The Values of The HyperEdges&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The 3243
SuperHyperEdges&The maximum Values of Its Endpoints”. To get structural examples and 3244
instances, I’m going to introduce the next SuperHyperClass of SuperHyperGraph based on Failed 3245
SuperHyperStable. It’s the main. It’ll be disciplinary to have the foundation of previous definition in 3246
the kind of SuperHyperClass. If there’s a need to have all SuperHyperConnectivities until the Failed 3247
SuperHyperStable, then it’s officially called “Failed SuperHyperStable” but otherwise, it isn’t Failed 3248
SuperHyperStable. There are some instances about the clarifications for the main definition titled 3249
“Failed SuperHyperStable”. These two examples get more scrutiny and discernment since there are 3250
characterized in the disciplinary ways of the SuperHyperClass based on Failed SuperHyperStable. 3251
For the sake of having neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, there’s a need to “redefine” the 3252
notion of “neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable” and “neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable”. 3253
The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the 3254
alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. Assume 3255
a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined “neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” if the intended 3256
Table holds. And Failed SuperHyperStable are redefined “neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable” if 3257
the intended Table holds. It’s useful to define “neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since 3258
there’s more ways to get neutrosophic type-results to make neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable 3259
more understandable. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some neutrosophic 3260
SuperHyperClasses if the intended Table holds. Thus SuperHyperPath, SuperHyperCycle, 3261
SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and SuperHyperWheel, are 3262
“neutrosophic SuperHyperPath”, “neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle”, “neutrosophic SuperHyperStar”, 3263
“neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite”, “neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite”, and “neutrosophic 3264

SuperHyperWheel” if the intended Table holds. A SuperHyperGraph has “neutrosophic 3265
Failed SuperHyperStable” where it’s the strongest [the maximum neutrosophic value from 3266
all Failed SuperHyperStable amid the maximum value amid all SuperHyperVertices from a 3267
Failed SuperHyperStable.] Failed SuperHyperStable. A graph is SuperHyperUniform if it’s 3268
SuperHyperGraph and the number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. Assume a 3269
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some SuperHyperClasses as follows. It’s SuperHyperPath 3270
if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; 3271
it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges; 3272
it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all SuperHyperEdges; it’s 3273
SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges 3274
and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s 3275
SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges 3276
and these SuperVertices, forming multi separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s 3277
SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and 3278
one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any common SuperVertex. The SuperHyperModel 3279

proposes the specific designs and the specific architectures. The SuperHyperModel is officially called 3280
“SuperHyperGraph” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. In this SuperHyperModel, The “specific” 3281
cells and “specific group” of cells are SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperVertices” and the common 3282
and intended properties between “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells are SuperHyperModeled 3283
as “SuperHyperEdges”. Sometimes, it’s useful to have some degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy, 3284
and neutrality to have more precise SuperHyperModel which in this case the SuperHyperModel 3285
is called “neutrosophic”. In the future research, the foundation will be based on the “Cancer’s 3286
Neutrosophic Recognition” and the results and the definitions will be introduced in redeemed ways. 3287
The neutrosophic recognition of the cancer in the long-term function. The specific region has been 3288
assigned by the model [it’s called SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is 3289
identified by this research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are 3290
some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the cancer on that 3291
region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] 3292
to have convenient perception on what’s happened and what’s done. There are some specific models, 3293
which are well-known and they’ve got the names, and some SuperHyperGeneral SuperHyperModels. 3294
The moves and the traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and between complicated groups of 3295
literarily, it’s the deformation of any SuperHyperCycle. It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. 3304
A basic familiarity with SuperHyperGraph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory are 3305
proposed. 3306
Keywords: Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, Cancer’s 3307
Neutrosophic Recognition 3308


CHAPTER 18 3310
Background 3311


133






CHAPTER 19 3392
Motivation and Contributions 3393
In this research, there are some ideas in the featured frameworks of motivations. I try to bring 3394
the motivations in the narrative ways. Some cells have been faced with some attacks from the 3395
situation which is caused by the cancer’s attacks. In this case, there are some embedded analysis 3396
on the ongoing situations which in that, the cells could be labelled as some groups and some 3397
groups or individuals have excessive labels which all are raised from the behaviors to overcome 3398
the cancer’s attacks. In the embedded situations, the individuals of cells and the groups of 3399
cells could be considered as “new groups”. Thus it motivates us to find the proper neutrosophic 3400
SuperHyperModels for getting more proper analysis on this messy story. I’ve found the neutrosophic 3401
SuperHyperModels which are officially called “neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph s” and “neutrosophic 3402
SuperHyperGraph s”. In this neutrosophic SuperHyperModel, the cells and the groups of cells 3403
are defined as “neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices ” and the relations between the individuals of 3404
cells and the groups of cells are defined as “neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges ”. Thus it’s another 3405
motivation for us to do research on this neutrosophic SuperHyperModel based on the “Cancer’s 3406
neutrosophic recognition s”. Sometimes, the situations get worst. The situation is passed from the 3407
certainty and precise style. Thus it’s the beyond them. There are three descriptions, namely, the 3408
degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality, for any object based on vague forms, namely, 3409
incomplete data, imprecise data, and uncertain analysis. The latter model could be considered on the 3410
previous neutrosophic SuperHyperModel . It’s neutrosophic SuperHyperModel . It’s neutrosophic 3411
SuperHyperGraph but it’s officially called “neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph s”. The cancer is the 3412
disease but the model is going to figure out what’s going on this phenomenon. The special case of 3413
this disease is considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are used. The 3414
cells are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the 3415
matter of mind. The neutrosophic recognition of the cancer could help to find some treatments 3416
for this disease. The neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are the 3417
neutrosophic SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s neutrosophic recognition s” and both bases are 3418
the background of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of 3419
cells, groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the neutrosophic SuperHyperModel 3420
proposes some neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion s based on the connectivities of the moves of the 3421
cancer in the forms of alliances’ styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are 3422
formally called “ neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable” in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. 3423
The prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to figure out the background 3424
for the neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion s. The neutrosophic recognition of the cancer in the 3425
long-term function. The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called neutrosophic 3426
137
SuperHyperGraph ] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this research. 3427
Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some determinacy, 3428
indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the cancer on that region; this event 3429
leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ] to have convenient 3430
perception on what’s happened and what’s done. There are some specific models, which are well- 3431
known and they’ve got the names, and some general models. The moves and the traces of the cancer 3432
on the complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a neutrosophic 3433
SuperHyperPath (-/neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle, neutrosophic SuperHyperStar, neutrosophic 3434
SuperHyperBipartite, neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite, neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel ). The 3435
aim is to find either the optimal neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable or the neutrosophic Failed 3436
SuperHyperStable in those neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. Some general results are introduced. 3437
Beyond that in neutrosophic SuperHyperStar, all possible neutrosophic SuperHyperPaths have 3438
only two neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough since it’s essential to have at least 3439
three neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. There 3440
isn’t any formation of any neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle but literarily, it’s the deformation of any 3441
neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. 3442
Question 19.0.1. How to define the neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion s and to do research on them to 3443
find the “ amount of neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable” of either individual of cells or the groups 3444
of cells based on the fixed cell or the fixed group of cells, extensively, the “amount of neutrosophic 3445
Failed SuperHyperStable” based on the fixed groups of cells or the fixed groups of group of cells? 3446
Question 19.0.2. What are the best descriptions for the “Cancer’s neutrosophic recognition s” 3447
in terms of these messy and dense neutrosophic SuperHyperModels where embedded notions are 3448
illustrated? 3449
It’s motivation to find notions to use in this dense model is titled “neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 3450
s”. Thus it motivates us to define different types of “ neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable” and 3451
“neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable” on “neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph ” and “neutrosophic 3452
SuperHyperGraph ”. Then the research has taken more motivations to define SuperHyperClasses 3453
and to find some connections amid this neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion with other neutrosophic 3454
SuperHyperNotion s. It motivates us to get some instances and examples to make clarifications 3455
about the framework of this research. The general results and some results about some connections 3456
are some avenues to make key point of this research, “Cancer’s neutrosophic recognition s”, more 3457
understandable and more clear. 3458
The framework of this research is as follows. In the beginning, I introduce basic definitions to clarify 3459
about preliminaries. In the subsection “Preliminaries”, initial definitions about neutrosophic 3460
SuperHyperGraph s and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are deeply-introduced and in-depth- 3461
discussed. The elementary concepts are clarified and illustrated completely and sometimes review 3462
literature are applied to make sense about what’s going to figure out about the upcoming sections. 3463
The main definitions and their clarifications alongside some results about new notions, neutrosophic 3464
Failed SuperHyperStable and neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, are figured out in sections 3465
“ neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable” and “neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable”. In the 3466
sense of tackling on getting results and in order to make sense about continuing the research, 3467
the ideas of SuperHyperUniform and Neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform are introduced and as 3468
their consequences, corresponded SuperHyperClasses are figured out to debut what’s done in this 3469
section, titled “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. 3470
As going back to origin of the notions, there are some smart steps toward the common notions 3471

to extend the new notions in new frameworks, neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic 3472
SuperHyperGraph, in the sections “Results on SuperHyperClasses” and “Results on Neutrosophic 3473
SuperHyperClasses”. The starter research about the general SuperHyperRelations and as concluding 3474
and closing section of theoretical research are contained in the section “General Results”. Some 3475
general SuperHyperRelations are fundamental and they are well-known as fundamental neutrosophic 3476
SuperHyperNotion s as elicited and discussed in the sections, “General Results”, “ neutrosophic 3477
Failed SuperHyperStable”, “neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable”, “Results on SuperHyperClasses” 3478

and “Results on Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”. There are curious questions about what’s done 3479
about the neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion s to make sense about excellency of this research and 3480
going to figure out the word “best” as the description and adjective for this research as presented 3481
in section, “ neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable”. The keyword of this research debut in the 3482
section “Applications in Cancer’s neutrosophic recognition s” with two cases and subsections “Case 3483
1: The Initial Steps Toward neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite as neutrosophic SuperHyperModel ” 3484

and “Case 2: The Increasing Steps Toward neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite as neutrosophic 3485
SuperHyperModel ”. In the section, “Open Problems”, there are some scrutiny and discernment on 3486
what’s done and what’s happened in this research in the terms of “questions” and “problems” to 3487
make sense to figure out this research in featured style. The advantages and the limitations of this 3488
research alongside about what’s done in this research to make sense and to get sense about what’s 3489
figured out are included in the section, “Conclusion and Closing Remarks”. 3490

CHAPTER 20 3491
Preliminaries 3492
In this subsection, the basic material which is used in this research, is presented. Also, the new 3493
ideas and their clarifications are elicited. 3494
Definition 20.0.1 (Neutrosophic Set). (Ref.[2],Definition 2.1,p.87).

Let X be a space of points (objects) with generic elements in X denoted by x; then the neutrosophic
set A (NS A) is an object having the form
A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}
+
where the functions T, I, F : X →]− 0, 1 [ define respectively the a truth-membership function,
an indeterminacy-membership function, and a falsity-membership function of the element
x ∈ X to the set A with the condition
−
0 ≤ TA (x) + IA (x) + FA (x) ≤ 3+ .
+
The functions TA (x), IA (x) and FA (x) are real standard or nonstandard subsets of ]− 0, 1 [. 3495
Definition 20.0.2 (Single Valued Neutrosophic Set). (Ref.[5],Definition 6,p.2).

Let X be a space of points (objects) with generic elements in X denoted by x. A single
valued neutrosophic set A (SVNS A) is characterized by truth-membership function TA (x),
an indeterminacy-membership function IA (x), and a falsity-membership function FA (x). For each
point x in X, TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) ∈ [0, 1]. A SVNS A can be written as
A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}.
Definition 20.0.3. The degree of truth-membership, indeterminacy-membership and
falsity-membership of the subset X ⊂ A of the single valued neutrosophic set A = {< x :
TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}:
TA (X) = min[TA (vi ), TA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X ,
IA (X) = min[IA (vi ), IA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X ,
and FA (X) = min[FA (vi ), FA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X .
TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}:
141
Definition 20.0.5 (Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). (Ref.[4],Definition 3,p.291). 3496

S = (V, E), where 3498
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 3503
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 3504
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 3505
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n ); 3506
0
(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 . 3507

(Ref.[4],Section 4,pp.291-292). 3518

If we choose different types of binary operations, then we could get hugely diverse types of 3529
general forms of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG). 3530
Definition 20.0.7 (t-norm). (Ref.[3], Definition 5.1.1, pp.82-83). 3531
A binary operation ⊗ : [0, 1]×[0, 1] → [0, 1] is a t-norm if it satisfies the following for x, y, z, w ∈ [0, 1]: 3532
(i) 1 ⊗ x = x; 3533
(ii) x ⊗ y = y ⊗ x; 3534
(iii) x ⊗ (y ⊗ z) = (x ⊗ y) ⊗ z; 3535
(iv) If w ≤ x and y ≤ z then w ⊗ y ≤ x ⊗ z. 3536
Definition 20.0.8. The degree of truth-membership, indeterminacy-membership and

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

and FA (X) = Tnorm [FA (vi ), FA (vj )]vi ,vj ∈X .
TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}:
Definition 20.0.10. (General Forms of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). 3537

S = (V, E), where 3539
(v) Vi 6= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 3544
(vi) Ei0 6= ∅, (i0 = 1, 2, . . . , n0 ); 3545
P
(vii) i supp(Vi ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); 3546
0 0
P
(viii) i0 supp(Ei ) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n ). 3547
0


(Ref.[4],Section 4,pp.291-292). 3558
This SuperHyperModel is too messy and too dense. Thus there’s a need to have some restrictions 3569
and conditions on SuperHyperGraph. The special case of this SuperHyperGraph makes the patterns 3570
and regularities. 3571
Definition 20.0.12. A graph is SuperHyperUniform if it’s SuperHyperGraph and the number of 3572
elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. 3573
To get more visions on , the some SuperHyperClasses are introduced. It makes to have more 3574
understandable. 3575
Definition 20.0.13. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some SuperHyperClasses 3576
as follows. 3577
(i). It’s neutrosophic SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two 3578
given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; 3579
(ii). it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 3580
SuperHyperEdges; 3581
(iii). it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all SuperHyperEdges; 3582
(iv). it’s SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 3583
SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge 3584
in common; 3585

(v). it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 3586
in common; 3588
(vi). it’s SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 3589
SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any common 3590
SuperVertex. 3591
Definition 20.0.14. Let an ordered pair S = (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S.

Then a sequence of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) and neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges
(NSHE)
V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , . . . , Vs−1 , Es−1 , Vs
is called a neutrosophic neutrosophic SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from neutrosophic 3592
SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V1 to neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vs if either of following 3593
conditions hold: 3594
(i) Vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 3595
(ii) there’s a vertex vi ∈ Vi such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 3596
(iii) there’s a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi such that Vi0 , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 3597
(iv) there’s a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 3598
0 0
(v) there’s a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi , Vi+1 ∈ E i0 ; 3599
(vi) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 3600
0 0
(vii) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi , Vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 3601
(viii) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi0 , vi+1 ∈ Ei0 ; 3602
(ix) there are a SuperVertex Vi0 ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex Vi+1

0
∈ Vi+1 such that Vi0 , Vi+1
0
∈ Ei0 . 3603
Definition 20.0.15. (Characterization of the Neutrosophic neutrosophic SuperHyperPath s).

Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an ordered pair S = (V, E). A neutrosophic
neutrosophic SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V1 to
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vs is sequence of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (NSHV)
and neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE)
V1 , E1 , V2 , E2 , V3 , . . . , Vs−1 , Es−1 , Vs ,
could be characterized as follow-up items. 3604
(i) If for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | = 2, then NSHP is called path; 3605
(ii) if for all Ej 0 , |Ej 0 | = 2, and there’s Vi , |Vi | ≥ 1, then NSHP is called SuperPath; 3606
(iii) if for all Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | = 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called HyperPath; 3607
(iv) if there are Vi , Ej 0 , |Vi | ≥ 1, |Ej 0 | ≥ 2, then NSHP is called neutrosophic SuperHyperPath 3608
. 3609

Definition 20.0.16. ((neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable). 3610

(i) a Failed SuperHyperStable I(N SHG) for a SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the 3612
maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a 3613
SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common; 3614
(ii) a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable In (N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyper- 3615

Graph N SHG : (V, E) is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyper- 3616

to have a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge in common. 3618
Definition 20.0.17. ((neutrosophic)δ−Failed SuperHyperStable). 3619

(i) an δ−Failed SuperHyperStable is a maximal of SuperHyperVertices with a maximum 3621

cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the (neutrosophic) cardinalities 3622
of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 3623
|S ∩ N (s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ; (20.1)

|S ∩ N (s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))| + δ. (20.2)
The Expression (20.1), holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the Expression (20.2), 3624
holds if S is an δ−SuperHyperDefensive; 3625
(ii) a neutrosophic δ−Failed SuperHyperStable is a maximal neutrosophic of SuperHyper- 3626
Vertices with maximum neutrosophic cardinality such that either of the following expressions 3627
hold for the neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 3628
|S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ; (20.3)

|S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ. (20.4)
The Expression (20.3), holds if S is a neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive. And the 3629
Expression (20.4), holds if S is a neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperDefensive. 3630
For the sake of having a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, there’s a need to “redefine” 3631
the notion of “neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges 3632
are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of 3633
the position of labels to assign to the values. 3634
Definition 20.0.18. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined neutrosophic 3635

SuperHyperGraph if the Table (20.1) holds. 3636
It’s useful to define a “neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s more ways to 3637
get neutrosophic type-results to make a neutrosophic more understandable. 3638
Definition 20.0.19. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some neutrosophic 3639
SuperHyperClasses if the Table (20.2) holds. Thus neutrosophic SuperHyperPath , SuperHy- 3640
perCycle, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and SuperHyperWheel, 3641
are neutrosophic neutrosophic SuperHyperPath , neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle, neut- 3642
rosophic SuperHyperStar, neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite, neutrosophic SuperHy- 3643
perMultiPartite, and neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel if the Table (20.2) holds. 3644


to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, Mentioned in the Definition (20.0.19)


It’s useful to define a “neutrosophic” version of a Failed SuperHyperStable. Since there’s more 3645
ways to get type-results to make a Failed SuperHyperStable more understandable. 3646
For the sake of having a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, there’s a need to “redefine” the 3647
notion of “ ”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from 3648
the letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to 3649
the values. 3650
Definition 20.0.20. Assume a Failed SuperHyperStable. It’s redefined a neutrosophic Failed 3651
SuperHyperStable if the Table (20.3) holds. 3652

CHAPTER 21 3653
Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable 3654
Example 21.0.1. Assume the neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph s in the Figures (21.1), (21.2), (21.3), 3655
(21.4), (21.5), (21.6), (21.7), (21.8), (21.9), (21.10), (21.11), (21.12), (21.13), (21.14), (21.15), (21.16), 3656
(21.17), (21.18), (21.19), and (21.20). 3657
• On the Figure (21.1), the neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion, namely, neutrosophic Failed 3658
SuperHyperStable, is up. E1 and E3 neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable are some empty 3659
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a 3660
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s 3661
only one neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, 3662

V3 is isolated means that there’s no neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has it as an endpoint. 3663
Thus neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is contained in every given neutrosophic Failed 3664
SuperHyperStable. All the following SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is 3665
the simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. {V3 , V1 , V2 }. 3666
The SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V3 , V1 , V2 }, is the simple type- 3667
SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. The SuperHyperSet of 3668

the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V3 , V1 , V2 }, is corresponded to a neutrosophic 3669
Failed SuperHyperStable I(N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) 3670
is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic 3671
SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to have a neutrosophic 3672
SuperHyperEdge in common. There’re only three neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside 3673
the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable is 3674
up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable is a 3675
SuperHyperSet includes only one neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex. But the SuperHyperSet 3676
of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V3 , V1 , V2 }, doesn’t have less than two neutrosophic 3677
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple 3678
type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable is up. To sum them up, 3679
the SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V3 , V1 , V2 }, is the non-obvious 3680

simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. Since the 3681
SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V3 , V1 , V2 }, is corresponded to 3682
a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable I(N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 3683
N SHG : (V, E) is the SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that 3684
there’s a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to have a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge in 3685
common and they are corresponded to a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. Since 3686
149
it’s the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic 3687

SuperHyperEdge in common. There aren’t only less than two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 3689
inside the intended SuperHyperSet, {V3 , V1 , V2 }. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic Failed 3690
SuperHyperStable, {V3 , V1 , V2 }, is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the 3691
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, {V3 , V1 , V2 }, is the SuperHyperSet, {V3 , V1 , V2 }, doesn’t 3692
include only less than two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic 3693
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only obvious simple 3694
type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable amid those 3695
obvious simple type-SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, is only 3696
{V3 , V4 , V2 }. 3697
SuperHyperStable, is up. E1 and E3 neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable are some empty 3699
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and E4 is a 3700
only one neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, 3702

V3 is isolated means that there’s no neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has it as an endpoint. 3703
Thus neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 , is contained in every given neutrosophic Failed 3704
SuperHyperStable. All the following SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is 3705
the simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. {V3 , V1 , V2 }. 3706
The SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V3 , V1 , V2 }, is the simple type- 3707
SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. The SuperHyperSet of 3708

the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V3 , V1 , V2 }, is corresponded to a neutrosophic 3709
Failed SuperHyperStable I(N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) 3710
is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic 3711
SuperHyperEdge in common. There’re only three neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside 3713
SuperHyperSet includes only one neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex. But the SuperHyperSet 3716
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple 3718
type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable is up. To sum them up, 3719
the SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V3 , V1 , V2 }, is the non-obvious 3720

simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. Since the 3721
SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V3 , V1 , V2 }, is corresponded to 3722
a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable I(N SHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 3723
N SHG : (V, E) is the SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that 3724
there’s a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to have a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge in 3725
common and they are corresponded to a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. Since 3726
it’s the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic 3727
inside the intended SuperHyperSet, {V3 , V1 , V2 }. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic Failed 3730
SuperHyperStable, {V3 , V1 , V2 }, is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the 3731
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, {V3 , V1 , V2 }, is the SuperHyperSet, {V3 , V1 , V2 }, doesn’t 3732

SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only obvious simple 3734
type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable amid those 3735
obvious simple type-SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, is only 3736
{V3 , V4 , V1 }. 3737
• On the Figure (21.3), the neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion, namely, neutrosophic Failed Super- 3738
HyperStable, is up. E1 , E2 and E3 are some empty neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges but E4 is a 3739

only one neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, namely, E4 . The SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic 3741
SuperHyperVertices, {V3 , V2 }, is the simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed 3742
SuperHyperStable. The SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V3 , V2 }, 3743
is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic Supe- 3744
rHyperVertices such that there’s a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to have a neutrosophic 3745
SuperHyperEdge in common. There’re only two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex inside the 3746
intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable is up. 3747
The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable is a Su- 3748
perHyperSet includes only one neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in a connected neutrosophic 3749
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). But the SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVer- 3750
tices, {V3 , V2 }, doesn’t have less than two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex inside the intended 3751
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed 3752
SuperHyperStable is up. To sum them up, the SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyper- 3753
Vertices, {V3 , V2 },is the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed 3754
SuperHyperStable. Since the SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V3 , V2 }, 3755
is corresponded to a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable I(N SHG) for a neutrosophic 3756
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) is the SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVer- 3757
tices such that there’s a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to have a neutrosophic SuperHy- 3758
perEdge in common and they are neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. Since it’s 3759
the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic Super- 3760
HyperVertices such that there’s a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to have a neutrosophic 3761
inside the intended SuperHyperSets, {V3 , V2 }, Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic Failed Su- 3763
perHyperStable, {V3 , V2 }, is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 3764
Failed SuperHyperStable, {V3 , V2 }, is the SuperHyperSet, {V3 , V2 }, don’t include only more 3765
than one neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 3766
N SHG : (V, E). It’s interesting to mention that the only obvious simple type-SuperHyperSets 3767
of the neutrosophic neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable amid those obvious simple type- 3768
SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, is only {V3 , V2 }. 3769
• On the Figure (21.4), the neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion, namely, a neutrosophic Failed Supe- 3770
rHyperStable, is up. There’s no empty neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge but E3 are a loop neutro- 3771
sophic SuperHyperEdge on {F }, and there are some neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges , namely, 3772
E1 on {H, V1 , V3 }, alongside E2 on {O, H, V4 , V3 } and E4 , E5 on {N, V1 , V2 , V3 , F }. The Supe- 3773
rHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V4 , V1 }, is the simple type-SuperHyperSet 3774
of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. The SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHy- 3775
perVertices, {V2 , V4 , V1 }, is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a SuperHyperSet 3776
S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to 3777

have a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge in common. There’re only three neutrosophic SuperHy- 3778
perVertices inside the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic Failed 3779
SuperHyperStable is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed Su- 3780
perHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet includes only one neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex since 3781
it doesn’t form any kind of pairs titled to neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in a connec- 3782
ted neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). But the SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic 3783
SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V4 , V1 }, doesn’t have less than two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 3784
inside the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of 3785
the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable is up. To sum them up, the SuperHyperSet of 3786
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V4 , V1 }, is the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet 3787
of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. Since the SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Su- 3788
perHyperVertices, {V2 , V4 , V1 }, is the SuperHyperSet Ss of a SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic 3789

SuperHyperEdge in common and it’s neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. Since 3791
it’s the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic Su- 3792
perHyperVertices such that there’s a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to have a neutrosophic 3793
SuperHyperEdge in common. There aren’t only less than two neutrosophic SuperHyperVer- 3794
tices inside the intended SuperHyperSet, {V2 , V4 , V1 }. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic 3795
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, {V2 , V4 , V1 }, is a SuperHyperSet, {V2 , V4 , V1 }, doesn’t 3797
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). 3799
SuperHyperStable, is up. There’s neither empty neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge nor loop 3801
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. The SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, 3802
{V2 , V6 , V9 , V15 , V10 }, is the simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHy- 3803
perStable. The SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V6 , V9 , V15 , V10 }, 3804
is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic Supe- 3805

SuperHyperEdge in common. There’re not only one neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex inside 3807
SuperHyperSet includes only one neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex thus it doesn’t form any 3810
kind of pairs titled to neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected neutrosophic Supe- 3811

rHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). But the SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, 3812
{V2 , V6 , V9 , V15 , V10 }, doesn’t have less than two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the 3813
intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutro- 3814
sophic Failed SuperHyperStable is up. To sum them up, the SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic 3815
SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V6 , V9 , V15 , V10 }, is the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of 3816
the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. Since the SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 3817
SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V6 , V9 , V15 , V10 }, is the SuperHyperSet Ss of neutrosophic SuperHy- 3818
perVertices such that there’s a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to have a neutrosophic Su- 3819
perHyperEdge in common. and it’s neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. Since it’s 3820
the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that 3821
there’s a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to have a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge in common. 3822
There aren’t only less than two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Super- 3823

HyperSet, {V2 , V6 , V9 , V15 , V10 }. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, 3824
{V2 , V6 , V9 , V15 , V10 }, is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed 3825
SuperHyperStable, {V2 , V6 , V9 , V15 , V10 }, is a SuperHyperSet, {V2 , V6 , V9 , V15 , V10 }, doesn’t in- 3826
clude only less than two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic SuperHy- 3827
perGraph N SHG : (V, E) is mentioned as the neutrosophic SuperHyperModel N SHG : (V, E) 3828
in the Figure (21.5). 3829
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 },
is the simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. The 3833
SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, 3834
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 },
is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that 3835

There’re not only one neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex inside the intended SuperHyperSet. 3837
Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable is up. The obvious simple 3838
type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet 3839
includes only one neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex doesn’t form any kind of pairs titled to 3840
neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : 3841
(V, E). But the SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, 3842
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 },
doesn’t have less than two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Super- 3843
HyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed 3844
Vertices, 3846
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 },
is the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 3847
Since the SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, 3848
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 },
is the SuperHyperSet Ss of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a neutro- 3849
sophic SuperHyperVertex to have a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge in common and it’s a 3850

neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. Since it’s the maximum neutrosophic cardinality 3851
of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to 3852
have a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge in common. There aren’t only less than two neutrosophic 3853
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended SuperHyperSet, 3854
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 },
Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, 3855
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 },
is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, 3856
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 },
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 },
doesn’t include only less than two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic 3858
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) with a illustrated neutrosophic SuperHyperModel ing of 3859
the Figure (21.6). 3860

{V2 , V5 , V9 , V7 }, is the simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyper- 3864
Stable. The SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V5 , V9 , V7 }, is 3865
SuperHyperEdge in common. There’s only one neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex inside the 3868
intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable is 3869

up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable 3870
is a SuperHyperSet includes only one neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex doesn’t form any 3871
kind of pairs are titled to neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected neutrosophic 3872
tices, {V2 , V5 , V9 , V7 }, doesn’t have less than two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside 3874
the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neut- 3875
rosophic Failed SuperHyperStable is up. To sum them up, the SuperHyperSet of neutro- 3876
sophic SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V5 , V9 , V7 }, is the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet 3877
of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. Since the SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 3878
SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V5 , V9 , V7 }, is the SuperHyperSet Ss of neutrosophic SuperHyper- 3879
Vertices such that there’s a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to have a neutrosophic Super- 3880
HyperEdge in common and it’s a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. Since it’s 3881


inside the intended SuperHyperSet, {V2 , V5 , V9 , V7 }. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic Failed 3885
SuperHyperStable, {V2 , V5 , V9 , V7 }, is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the 3886
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable,{V2 , V5 , V9 , V7 }, is a SuperHyperSet, {V2 , V5 , V9 , V7 }, 3887
doesn’t include only less than two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutro- 3888
sophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) of depicted neutrosophic SuperHyperModel as the 3889
Figure (21.7). 3890

SuperHyperEdge in common. There’s only one neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex inside the 3898
intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable is 3899
is a SuperHyperSet includes only one neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex doesn’t form any 3901
tices, {V2 , V5 , V9 , V7 }, doesn’t have less than two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside 3904
sophic SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V5 , V9 , V7 }, is the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet 3907
of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. Since the SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 3908

neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable,{V2 , V5 , V9 , V7 }, is a SuperHyperSet, {V2 , V5 , V9 , V7 }, 3917
doesn’t include only less than two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutro- 3918
sophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) of dense neutrosophic SuperHyperModel as the 3919
Figure (21.8). 3920
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 },

is the simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. The 3924

SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, 3925
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 },
is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that 3926

There’re only only neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex inside the intended SuperHyperSet. 3928
Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable is up. The obvious simple 3929
type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet 3930
includes only one neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex doesn’t form any kind of pairs titled to 3931
(V, E). But the SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, 3933
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 },
Vertices, 3937
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 },
is the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 3938
Since the SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, 3939
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 },
is the SuperHyperSet Ss of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a neutro- 3940

sophic SuperHyperVertex to have a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge in common and it’s a 3941
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. Since it’s the maximum neutrosophic cardinality 3942
of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to 3943
have a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge in common. There aren’t only less than two neutrosophic 3944
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended SuperHyperSet, 3945
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 }.
Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, 3946
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 },

is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, 3947
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 },
{V2 , V4 , V6 , V8 , V10 ,
V22 , V19 , V17 , V15 , V13 , V11 },
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) with a messy neutrosophic SuperHyperModel 3950
ing of the Figure (21.9). 3951

SuperHyperEdge in common. There’re not only two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside 3959
is a SuperHyperSet includes only two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices doesn’t form any 3962
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). But the SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyper- 3964
Vertices, {V2 , V5 , V8 }, doesn’t have less than two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside 3965
sophic SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V5 , V8 , V7 },is the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of 3968
the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. Since the SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 3969

neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, {V2 , V5 , V8 , V7 }, is a SuperHyperSet, {V2 , V5 , V8 , V7 }, 3978
doesn’t include only more than one neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in a connected neut- 3979
rosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) of highly-embedding-connected neutrosophic 3980
SuperHyperModel as the Figure (21.10). 3981
SuperHyperStable, is up. There’s neither empty neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge nor 3983

loop neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. The SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyper- 3984

Vertices, {V2 , V5 }, is the simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHy- 3985
perStable. The SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V5 , V6 }, is 3986
the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic Supe- 3987
SuperHyperEdge in common. There’re not only less than one neutrosophic SuperHyper- 3989
Vertices inside the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic Failed 3990
SuperHyperStable is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed 3991
SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet includes only less than two neutrosophic SuperHy- 3992
perVertices don’t form any kind of pairs are titled to neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors 3993
in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). But the SuperHyperSet 3994
SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable is up. To sum them up, the 3997
SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V5 , V6 }, is the non-obvious simple 3998
type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. Since the SuperHyperSet 3999
of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V5 , V6 }, is the SuperHyperSet Ss of neutrosophic 4000
SuperHyperEdge in common and it’s a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. Since 4002

neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, {V2 , V5 , V6 }, is a SuperHyperSet, {V2 , V5 , V6 }, doesn’t 4008

Vertices, {V4 , V5 , V6 , V9 , V10 , V2 }, is the simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 4014
Failed SuperHyperStable. The SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, 4015
{V4 , V5 , V6 , V9 , V10 , V2 }, is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of neutrosophic Su- 4016
perHyperVertices such that there’s a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to have a neut- 4017

rosophic SuperHyperEdge in common. There’re not only less than two neutrosophic 4018
SuperHyperVertices inside the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious neut- 4019
rosophic Failed SuperHyperStable is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of 4020
the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet includes only less than 4021
two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices doesn’t form any kind of pairs are titled to 4022

(V, E). But the SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V4 , V5 , V6 , V9 , V10 , V2 }, 4024
SuperHyperStable is up. To sum them up, the SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHy- 4027
perVertices, {V4 , V5 , V6 , V9 , V10 , V2 }, is the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the 4028
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. Since the SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Super- 4029

HyperVertices, {V4 , V5 , V6 , V9 , V10 , V2 }, is the SuperHyperSet Ss of neutrosophic SuperHyper- 4030

Vertices such that there’s a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to have a neutrosophic SuperHy- 4031
perEdge in common and they are neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. Since it’s 4032
the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that 4033
There aren’t only less than two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended SuperHy- 4035
perSet, {V4 , V5 , V6 , V9 , V10 , V2 }. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, 4036
{V4 , V5 , V6 , V9 , V10 , V2 }, is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 4037
Failed SuperHyperStable,{V4 , V5 , V6 , V9 , V10 , V2 }, is a SuperHyperSet, {V4 , V5 , V6 , V9 , V10 , V2 }, 4038
doesn’t include only more than one neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in a connected neutro- 4039
sophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) in highly-multiple-connected-style neutrosophic 4040
SuperHyperModel On the Figure (21.12). 4041
{V2 , V5 , V6 }, is the simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyper- 4045
Stable. The SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V5 , V6 }, is 4046
SuperHyperEdge in common. There’re not only less than two neutrosophic SuperHyper- 4049
Vertices inside the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic Failed 4050
SuperHyperStable is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed 4051
perVertices don’t form any kind of pairs are titled to neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors 4053
SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V5 , V6 }, is the non-obvious simple 4058
type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. Since the SuperHyperSet 4059
of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V2 , V5 , V6 }, is the SuperHyperSet Ss of neutrosophic 4060

neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, {V2 , V5 , V6 }, is a SuperHyperSet, {V2 , V5 , V6 }, does 4068
includes only less than two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic 4069
Vertices, {V3 , V1 }, is the simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed Super- 4074

HyperStable. The SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V3 , V1 }, is 4075

SuperHyperEdge in common. There’re only less than two neutrosophic SuperHyperVer- 4078
tices inside the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic Failed Su- 4079
perHyperStable is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed 4080
perVertices doesn’t form any kind of pairs are titled to neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors 4082
of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V3 , V1 }, doesn’t have less than two neutrosophic Su- 4084
perHyperVertices inside the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple type- 4085
SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V3 , V1 }, is the non-obvious simple type- 4087

SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. Since the SuperHyperSet of 4088
the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V3 , V1 }, is the SuperHyperSet Ss of neutrosophic 4089

tices inside the intended SuperHyperSet, {V3 , V1 }. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic Failed 4095
SuperHyperStable, {V3 , V1 }, is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutro- 4096
sophic Failed SuperHyperStable, {V3 , V1 }, is a SuperHyperSet, {V3 , V1 }, does includes only 4097
less than two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 4098
N SHG : (V, E). 4099

tices inside the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic Failed Su- 4108
perHyperStable is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed 4109
perVertices doesn’t form any kind of pairs are titled to neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors 4111
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices ,{V5 , V2 , V6 , V4 }, doesn’t have less than two neutrosophic 4113
SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V5 , V2 , V6 , V4 }, is the non-obvious simple 4116
type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. Since the SuperHyperSet of 4117
the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V5 , V2 , V6 , V4 }, is the SuperHyperSet Ss of neutrosophic 4118


neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, {V5 , V2 , V6 , V4 }, is a SuperHyperSet, {V5 , V2 , V6 , V4 }, 4126
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) as Linearly-Connected neutrosophic SuperHyperModel On 4128
the Figure (21.15). 4129

{V1 , V3 , V7 , V13 , V22 , V18 }, is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a SuperHyper- 4135
to have a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge in common. There’re only less than two neut- 4137
rosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious 4138
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet 4139
of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet includes only less 4140

than two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices doesn’t form any kind of pairs are titled to 4141
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. Since the SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Su- 4148
perHyperVertices, {V1 , V3 , V7 , V13 , V22 , V18 }, is the SuperHyperSet Ss of neutrosophic Supe- 4149

SuperHyperEdge in common. There aren’t only less than two neutrosophic SuperHyper- 4154
Vertices inside the intended SuperHyperSet, {V1 , V3 , V7 , V13 , V22 , V18 }. Thus the non-obvious 4155
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, {V1 , V3 , V7 , V13 , V22 , V18 }, is up. The obvious simple 4156
type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, {V1 , V3 , V7 , V13 , V22 , V18 }, 4157
is a SuperHyperSet, {V1 , V3 , V7 , V13 , V22 , V18 }, does includes only less than two neutrosophic 4158
SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). 4159



SuperHyperEdge in common. There aren’t only less than two neutrosophic SuperHyper- 4184
Vertices inside the intended SuperHyperSet,{V1 , V3 , V7 , V13 , V22 , V18 }. Thus the non-obvious 4185
SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) as Linearly- 4189
over-packed neutrosophic SuperHyperModel is featured On the Figure (21.17). 4190



tices inside the intended SuperHyperSet, {V1 , V3 , V7 , V13 , V22 , V18 }. Thus the non-obvious 4216
SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E) 4220
• On the Figure (21.19), the neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion, namely, neutrosophic Failed

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

SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic Supe-

rHyperVertices such that there’s a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to have a neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge in common. There’re only less than two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
inside the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic Failed SuperHyper-
Stable is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHy-
perStable is a SuperHyperSet includes only less than two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
doesn’t form any kind of pairs are titled to neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in a connec-
ted neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). But the SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices,
doesn’t have less than two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Super-
HyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed
SuperHyperStable is up. To sum them up, the SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Vertices,
is the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable.

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

sophic SuperHyperVertex to have a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge in common and it’s a
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. Since it’s the maximum neutrosophic cardinality
of a SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a neutrosophic

SuperHyperVertex to have a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge in common. There aren’t only

less than two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended SuperHyperSet,
{interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices }the number of neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges .
Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable,
is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable,
is a SuperHyperSet,
does includes only less than two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic 4221
• On the Figure (21.20), the neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion, namely, neutrosophic Failed

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

SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic Supe-

rHyperVertices such that there’s a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to have a neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge in common. There’re only less than two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
inside the intended SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic Failed SuperHyper-
Stable is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHy-
perStable is a SuperHyperSet includes only less than two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
doesn’t form any kind of pairs are titled to neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in a connec-
ted neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). But the SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices,
doesn’t have less than two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended Super-
HyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed
SuperHyperStable is up. To sum them up, the SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Vertices,

Figure 21.1: The neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph s Associated to the Notions of neutrosophic Failed
SuperHyperStable in the Example (21.0.1)
is the non-obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable.

Since the SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
is the SuperHyperSet Ss of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a neutro-
sophic SuperHyperVertex to have a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge in common and it’s a
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. Since it’s the maximum neutrosophic cardinality
of a SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex to have a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge in common. There aren’t only
less than two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended SuperHyperSet,
{interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices }the number of neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges .
Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable,
is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable,
is a SuperHyperSet, does includes only less than two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in a 4223
connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). 4224
Proposition 21.0.2. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). Then 4225
in the worst case, literally, V \ V \ {x, z}, is a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. In other 4226
words, the least neutrosophic cardinality, the lower sharp bound for the neutrosophic cardinality, of 4227
a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable is the neutrosophic cardinality of V \ V \ {x, z}. 4228





Figure 21.10: The neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph s Associated to the Notions of neutrosophic

Failed SuperHyperStable in the Example (21.0.1)






Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). The SuperHyperSet 4229
of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {z} is a SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic 4230

SuperHyperEdge in common but it isn’t a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable . Since it 4232
doesn’t have the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic 4233
SuperHyperEdge in common. The SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 4235
V \ V \ {x, y, z} is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic 4236
SuperHyperVertices but it isn’t a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable . Since it doesn’t do the 4237
procedure such that such that there’s a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to have a neutrosophic 4238
SuperHyperEdge in common. [there’er at least three neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside 4239
implying there’s, sometimes in the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E), a 4240
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, titled its neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, to that neutrosophic 4241
two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended SuperHyperSet, V \ V \ {x, z}. Thus 4243








the obvious neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, V \ V \ {x, z}, is up. The obvious simple type- 4244
SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, V \ V \ {x, z}, is a SuperHyperSet, 4245
V \ V \ {x, z}, includes only two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices doesn’t form any kind of 4246
pairs are titled neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 4247
N SHG : (V, E). Since the SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices V \V \{x, z}, is the 4248
maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 4249

such that V (G) there’s a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to have a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 4250
in common. 4251
Proposition 21.0.3. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). Then the 4252
neutrosophic number of neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable has, the least neutrosophic cardinality, 4253
the lower sharp bound for neutrosophic cardinality, is the neutrosophic neutrosophic cardinality of 4254
V \V \{x, z} if there’s a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable with the least neutrosophic cardinality, 4255
the lower sharp bound for neutrosophic cardinality . 4256
Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). Consider there’s a 4257
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable with the least neutrosophic cardinality, the lower sharp 4258
bound for neutrosophic cardinality. The SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 4259
V \V \{z} is a SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a neutrosophic 4260
SuperHyperVertex to have a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge in common but it isn’t a neutrosophic 4261
Failed SuperHyperStable . Since it doesn’t have the maximum neutrosophic cardinality 4262
of a SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there’s a neutrosophic 4263
SuperHyperVertex to have a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge in common. The SuperHyperSet 4264


of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {x, y, z} is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality 4265

of a SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices but it isn’t a neutrosophic Failed 4266
SuperHyperStable . Since it doesn’t do the procedure such that such that there’s a neutrosophic 4267
SuperHyperVertex to have a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge in common. [there’er at least three 4268
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside implying there’s, sometimes in the connected neutrosophic 4269
SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E), a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, titled its neutrosophic 4270
SuperHyperNeighbor, to that neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in the SuperHyperSet S so as S 4271
doesn’t do “the procedure”.]. There’re only two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the 4272
intended SuperHyperSet, V \ V \ {x, z}. Thus the obvious neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, 4273
V \ V \ {x, z}, is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed 4274
SuperHyperStable, V \V \{x, z}, is a SuperHyperSet, V \V \{x, z}, includes only two neutrosophic 4275
SuperHyperVertices doesn’t form any kind of pairs are titled neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors 4276
in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). Since the SuperHyperSet of the 4277
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {x, z}, is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of 4278
a SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that V (G) there’s a neutrosophic 4279

SuperHyperVertex to have a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge in common. Thus, in a connected 4280
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E), the neutrosophic number of neutrosophic Failed 4281
SuperHyperStable has, the least neutrosophic cardinality, the lower sharp bound for neutrosophic 4282
cardinality, is the neutrosophic neutrosophic cardinality of V \V \{x, z} if there’s a neutrosophic Failed 4283
SuperHyperStable with the least neutrosophic cardinality, the lower sharp bound for neutrosophic 4284
cardinality . 4285

Proposition 21.0.4. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). If a 4286
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has z neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, then z − 2 number of those 4287
interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from that neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge exclude to any 4288
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 4289
Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). Let a neutrosophic 4290
SuperHyperEdge has z neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Consider z − 2 number of those 4291
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from that neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge exclude to any given 4292
SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Consider there’s a neutrosophic 4293

Failed SuperHyperStable with the least neutrosophic cardinality, the lower sharp bound for 4294
neutrosophic cardinality. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). 4295
The SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {z} is a SuperHyperSet S of 4296
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge in common but it isn’t a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable . Since 4298
it doesn’t have the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic 4299



in common. Thus, in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E), a neutrosophic 4317
SuperHyperEdge has z neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, then z − 2 number of those interior 4318
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from that neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge exclude to any 4319
Proposition 21.0.5. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). There’s 4321
only one neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has only less than three distinct interior neutrosophic 4322
SuperHyperVertices inside of any given neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. In other words, there’s 4323
only an unique neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has only two distinct neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 4324
in a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable . 4325
SuperHyperEdge has some neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Consider some numbers of those 4327
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from that neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge excluding more than 4328
two distinct neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, exclude to any given SuperHyperSet of the 4329

neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices . Consider there’s neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable 4330

with the least neutrosophic cardinality, the lower sharp bound for neutrosophic cardinality. 4331
Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). The SuperHyperSet 4332



in common. Thus, in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E), there’s 4354
only one neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has only less than three distinct interior neutrosophic 4355
SuperHyperVertices inside of any given neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. In other words, there’s 4356
only an unique neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has only two distinct neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 4357
in a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable . 4358
Proposition 21.0.6. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). The all 4359
interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong to any neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable if for 4360
any of them, there’s no other corresponded neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex such that the two interior 4361
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are mutually neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors with an exception 4362
once. 4363
Proof. Let a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has some neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Consider 4364
all numbers of those neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from that neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 4365
excluding more than two distinct neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, exclude to any given 4366
SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Consider there’s a neutrosophic 4367
Failed SuperHyperStable with the least neutrosophic cardinality, the lower sharp bound for 4368
neutrosophic cardinality. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). 4369
The SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {z} is a SuperHyperSet S of 4370
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge in common but it isn’t a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable . Since 4372
it doesn’t have the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic 4373




in common. Thus, in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E), the all interior 4391
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong to any neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable if for any 4392
of them, there’s no other corresponded neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex such that the two interior 4393
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are mutually neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors with an exception 4394
once. 4395
Proposition 21.0.7. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). The any 4396
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable only contains all interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 4397
and all exterior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices where there’s any of them has no neutrosophic 4398
SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s no neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhoods in with an exception 4399
once but everything is possible about neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhoods and neutrosophic 4400
SuperHyperEdge has some neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Consider all numbers of those 4403
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Consider there’s a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable 4406




in common. Thus, in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E), the any 4430
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable only contains all interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 4431
and all exterior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices where there’s any of them has no neutrosophic 4432
SuperHyperNeighbors in and there’s no neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhoods in with an exception 4433
once but everything is possible about neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhoods and neutrosophic 4434
Remark 21.0.8. The words “ neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable” and “SuperHyperDominating” 4436
both refer to the maximum type-style. In other words, they both refer to the maximum number and 4437
the SuperHyperSet with the maximum neutrosophic cardinality. 4438
Proposition 21.0.9. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). Consider 4439
a SuperHyperDominating. Then a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable is either out with one 4440
additional member. 4441
Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). Consider a SuperHy- 4442
perDominating. By applying the Proposition (21.0.7), the results are up. Thus on a connected 4443
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E), and in a SuperHyperDominating, a neutrosophic 4444
Failed SuperHyperStable is either out with one additional member. 4445

CHAPTER 22 4446
Results on Neutrosophic 4447
SuperHyperClasses 4448
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable-style with the maximum neutrosophic SuperHyperCardinality 4450
is a SuperHyperSet of the interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices . 4451
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet of the interior neutrosophic SuperHyper- 4453
Vertices with only all exceptions in the form of interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from the 4454
common neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges excluding only two interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 4455
from the common neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges . A neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable has the 4456
number of all the interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices minus their neutrosophic SuperHyper- 4457
Neighborhoods plus one. Thus, 4458
N eutrosophic neutrosophicF ailedSuperHyperStable = {The number-of-all

-the-SuperHyperVertices
-minus-SuperHyperNeighborhoods-plus-one
SuperHyperSets of the
SuperHyperVertices | min |the
SuperHyperSets of the SuperHyperVertices with only
two exceptions
in the form of
interior
SuperHyperVertices
excluding one from common
SuperHyperEdge.|neutrosophic cardinality amid those SuperHyperSets. }
Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperPath N SHP : (V, E). Let a neutrosophic 4461
181


in common. Thus, in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperPath N SHP : (V, E), a neutrosophic 4489
Failed SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet of the interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 4490
with only all exceptions in the form of interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from the common 4491
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges excluding only two interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from the 4492
common neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges . A neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable has the number of 4493
all the interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices minus their neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhoods 4494
plus one. Thus, 4495

-minus-SuperHyperNeighborhoods-plus-one
SuperHyperVertices | min |the
SuperHyperSets of the SuperHyperVertices with only
two exceptions
in the form of
interior
SuperHyperVertices

to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperPath Mentioned in the Example (22.0.3)

Figure 22.1: A neutrosophic SuperHyperPath Associated to the Notions of neutrosophic Failed

excluding one from common

Example 22.0.3. In the Figure (22.1), the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperPath N SHP : (V, E), 4498
is highlighted and featured. 4499

By using the Figure (22.1) and the Table (22.1), the neutrosophic SuperHyperPath is obtained. 4500
The SuperHyperSet, {V27 , V2 , V7 , V12 , V22 , V25 }, of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the 4501
connected neutrosophic SuperHyperPath N SHP : (V, E), in the neutrosophic SuperHyperModel 4502
(22.1), is the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 4503

Proposition 22.0.4. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle N SHC : (V, E). Then a 4504
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet of the interior neutrosophic SuperHy- 4505
perVertices with only all exceptions in the form of interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from 4506
the same neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhoods excluding one neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex. A 4507
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable has the number of all the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges plus 4508
one and the lower bound is the half number of all the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges plus one. Thus, 4509

-the-SuperHyperEdges
-plus-one
SuperHyperVertices | min |the SuperHyperSets of the
SuperHyperVertices with only
all exceptions in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices
excluding one
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex
from same
neutrosophic
Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle N SHC : (V, E). Let a neutrosophic 4512


in common. Thus, in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle N SHC : (V, E), a neutrosophic 4540
Failed SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet of the interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 4541
with only all exceptions in the form of interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from the 4542
same neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighborhoods excluding one neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex. A 4543
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable has the number of all the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges 4544
plus one and the lower bound is the half number of all the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges plus one. 4545
Thus, 4546

-the-SuperHyperEdges
-plus-one
all exceptions in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices
excluding one
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex
from same
neutrosophic
Example 22.0.5. In the Figure (22.2), the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle N SHC : (V, E), 4549

By using the Figure (22.2) and the Table (22.2), the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle is obtained. 4551
The obtained SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the neutrosophic SuperHy- 4552
perVertices of the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle N SHC : (V, E), in the neutrosophic 4553
SuperHyperModel (22.2), 4554
{{P13 , J13 , K13 , H13 },

{Z13 , W13 , V13 }, {U14 , T14 , R14 , S14 },
{P15 , J15 , K15 , R15 },
{J5 , O5 , K5 , L5 }, {J5 , O5 , K5 , L5 }, V3 ,
{U6 , H7 , J7 , K7 , O7 , L7 , P7 }, {T8 , U8 , V8 , S8 },
{T9 , K9 , J9 }, {H10 , J10 , E10 , R10 , W9 },

to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle Mentioned in the Example (22.0.5)

Figure 22.2: A neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle Associated to the Notions of neutrosophic Failed

{S11 , R11 , O11 , L11 },

{U12 , V12 , W12 , Z12 , O12 },
{S7 , T7 , R7 , U7 }},
is the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 4555
Proposition 22.0.6. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperStar N SHS : (V, E). Then a 4556
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet of the interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVer- 4557
tices, excluding the SuperHyperCenter, with only all exceptions in the form of interior neutrosophic 4558
SuperHyperVertices from common neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, excluding only one neutrosophic 4559
SuperHyperVertex. A neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable has the number of the neutrosophic 4560
cardinality of the second SuperHyperPart plus one. Thus, 4561

-the-neutrosophic-
cardinality-of-second-SuperHyperPart-plus-one
two exceptions in
the form of
interior
SuperHyperVertices,
excluding one
SuperHyperVertex
and the SuperHyperCenter,
from any
given SuperHyperEdge.|neutrosophic cardinality amid those SuperHyperSets. }
Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperStar N SHS : (V, E). Let a neutrosophic 4564





in common. Thus, in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperStar N SHS : (V, E), a neutrosophic 4592
Failed SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet of the interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, 4593
excluding the SuperHyperCenter, with only all exceptions in the form of interior neutrosophic 4594
SuperHyperVertices from common neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, excluding only one neutrosophic 4595
SuperHyperVertex. A neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable has the number of the neutrosophic 4596

-the-neutrosophic-
cardinality-of-second-SuperHyperPart-plus-one
two exceptions in
the form of
interior
SuperHyperVertices,
excluding one
SuperHyperVertex
and the SuperHyperCenter,
from any
given SuperHyperEdge.|neutrosophic cardinality amid those SuperHyperSets. }
Example 22.0.7. In the Figure (22.3), the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperStar N SHS : (V, E), 4600
By using the Figure (22.3) and the Table (22.3), the neutrosophic SuperHyperStar is obtained. 4602
The obtained SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the neutrosophic SuperHy- 4603
perVertices of the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperStar N SHS : (V, E), in the neutrosophic 4604
{{V14 , O14 , U14 },

{W14 , D15 , Z14 , C15 , E15 },
{P3 , O3 , R3 , L3 , S3 }, {P2 , T2 , S2 , R2 , O2 },
{O6 , O7 , K7 , P6 , H7 , J7 , E7 , L7 },
{J8 , Z10 , W10 , V10 }, {W11 , V11 , Z11 , C12 },
{U13 , T13 , R13 , S13 }, {H13 },
{E13 , D13 , C13 , Z12 }, }

to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperStar Mentioned in the Example (22.0.7)

Figure 22.3: A neutrosophic SuperHyperStar Associated to the Notions of neutrosophic Failed


Proposition 22.0.8. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite N SHB : (V, E). Then 4607
a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet of the interior neutrosophic SuperHy- 4608
perVertices with only all exceptions in the form of interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices titled 4609
neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors with only one exception. A neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable 4610
has the number of the neutrosophic cardinality of the first SuperHyperPart multiplies with the 4611
neutrosophic cardinality of the second SuperHyperPart plus one. Thus, 4612

-of-neutrosophic-cardinality-of-first-SuperHyperPart-multiplies-
second-one-plus-plus
SuperHyperSets of the SuperHyperVertices | min |
the SuperHyperSets of the
interior neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices,
with only all
exceptions in the form
of SuperHyperNeighbors
excluding one,
from same
SuperHyperEdge.
|neutrosophic cardinality amid those SuperHyperSets. }
Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite N SHB : (V, E). Let a neutrosophic 4615




in common. Thus, in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite N SHB : (V, E), a neutrosophic 4643
Failed SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet of the interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with 4644
only all exceptions in the form of interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices titled neutrosophic 4645
SuperHyperNeighbors with only one exception. a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable has the 4646
number of the neutrosophic cardinality of the first SuperHyperPart multiplies with the neutrosophic 4647

-of-neutrosophic-cardinality-of-first-SuperHyperPart-multiplies-
second-one-plus-plus
SuperHyperSets of the SuperHyperVertices | min |
the SuperHyperSets of the
interior neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices,
with only all
exceptions in the form
of SuperHyperNeighbors
excluding one,
from same
SuperHyperEdge.
Example 22.0.9. In the Figure (22.4), the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite N SHB : 4651
(V, E), is highlighted and featured. 4652
By using the Figure (22.4) and the Table (22.4), the neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite N SHB : 4653
(V, E), is obtained. 4654
The obtained SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the neutrosophic SuperHyper- 4655
Vertices of the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite N SHB : (V, E), in the neutrosophic 4656

to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite Mentioned in the Example (22.0.9)

Figure 22.4: A neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of neutrosophic Failed

{V1 , {C4 , D4 , E4 , H4 },
{K4 , J4 , L4 , O4 }, {W2 , Z2 , C3 }, {C13 , Z12 , V12 , W12 },
Proposition 22.0.10. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite N SHM : (V, E). 4659
Then a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet of the interior neutrosophic Super- 4660
HyperVertices with only one exception in the form of interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from a 4661
SuperHyperPart and only one exception in the form of interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from 4662
another SuperHyperPart titled “neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors ” with neglecting and ignoring 4663
one of them. A neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable has the number of all the summation on the 4664
neutrosophic cardinality of the all SuperHyperParts form distinct neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges 4665

plus one. Thus, 4666
N eutrosophic neutrosophicF ailedSuperHyperStable = {the-number-of-all-the-

summation-on-the-
neutrosophic-
cardinality-of-the-all-
SuperHyperParts-form-
distinct-neutrosophic-
SuperHyperEdges-
plus-one
SuperHyperSets of the SuperHyperVertices | min | of the interior
neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices
with only one
exception in the
form of interior
neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices
from a SuperHyperPart
and only one
exception in the form
of interior
neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices
from another
SuperHyperPart titled
“neutrosophic
SuperHyperNeighbors ” with
neglecting and
ignoring one of them.
Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite N SHM : (V, E). Let a neut- 4669
rosophic SuperHyperEdge has some neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Consider all numbers of 4670
those neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from that neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge excluding more 4671
than two distinct neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, exclude to any given SuperHyperSet of the 4672
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Consider there’s a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable with 4673

the least neutrosophic cardinality, the lower sharp bound for neutrosophic cardinality. Assume 4674
a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). The SuperHyperSet of the neut- 4675
rosophic SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {z} is a SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyper- 4676
Vertices such that there’s a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to have a neutrosophic SuperHy- 4677
perEdge in common but it isn’t a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable . Since it doesn’t have 4678
the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyper- 4679
Vertices such that there’s a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to have a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge 4680
in common. The SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {x, y, z} is the 4681
maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices but 4682
it isn’t a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable . Since it doesn’t do the procedure such that such 4683
that there’s a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to have a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge in common. 4684
[there’er at least three neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside implying there’s, sometimes in the 4685
connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E), a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, titled 4686
its neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, to that neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in the SuperHyperSet 4687
S so as S doesn’t do “the procedure”.]. There’re only two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside 4688
the intended SuperHyperSet, V \ V \ {x, z}. Thus the obvious neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, 4689
V \ V \ {x, z}, is up. The obvious simple type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Failed Super- 4690
HyperStable, V \ V \ {x, z}, is a SuperHyperSet, V \ V \ {x, z}, includes only two neutrosophic 4691
SuperHyperVertices doesn’t form any kind of pairs are titled neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors 4692
in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). Since the SuperHyperSet of the 4693
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices V \ V \ {x, z}, is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of 4694
a SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that V (G) there’s a neutrosophic 4695
SuperHyperVertex to have a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge in common. Thus, in a connected 4696
neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite N SHM : (V, E), a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable is 4697
a SuperHyperSet of the interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with only one exception in the 4698
form of interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from a SuperHyperPart and only one exception in 4699
the form of interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from another SuperHyperPart titled “neutro- 4700
sophic SuperHyperNeighbors ” with neglecting and ignoring one of them. a neutrosophic Failed 4701
SuperHyperStable has the number of all the summation on the neutrosophic cardinality of the all 4702
SuperHyperParts form distinct neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges plus one. Thus, 4703
N eutrosophic neutrosophicF ailedSuperHyperStable = {the-number-of-all-the-

summation-on-the-
neutrosophic-
cardinality-of-the-all-
SuperHyperParts-form-
distinct-neutrosophic-
SuperHyperEdges-
plus-one
SuperHyperSets of the SuperHyperVertices | min | of the interior
neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices
with only one
exception in the

to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite N SHM : (V, E), Mentioned in the Example (22.0.11)

form of interior
neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices
from a SuperHyperPart
and only one
exception in the form
of interior
neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices
from another
SuperHyperPart titled
“neutrosophic
SuperHyperNeighbors ” with
neglecting and
ignoring one of them.
Example 22.0.11. In the Figure (22.5), the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite 4706
N SHM : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. By using the Figure (22.5) and the Table (22.5), the 4707
neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite N SHM : (V, E), is obtained. 4708
4709
The obtained SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the neutrosophic Supe- 4710
rHyperVertices of the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite N SHM : (V, E), 4711
{{{L4 , E4 , O4 , D4 , J4 , K4 , H4 },
{S10 , R10 , P10 },
{Z7 , W7 }, {U7 , V7 }},
in the neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (22.5), is the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 4712

Figure 22.5: A neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of neutrosophic

Proposition 22.0.12. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E). 4713
Then a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet of the interior neutrosophic 4714
SuperHyperVertices, excluding the SuperHyperCenter, with only one exception in the form of 4715
interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from same neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge with the 4716
exclusion once. A neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable has the number of all the number of 4717
all the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges have no common neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors for a 4718
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex with the exclusion once. Thus, 4719
N eutrosophic F ailed SuperHyperStable =

{ The-number-
of-all-the-number-of-all-the-neutrosophic-SuperHyperEdges-
have-no-common-neutrosophic-SuperHyperNeighbors-for-a-
neutrosophic-SuperHyperVertex-with-the-exclusion-once
SuperHyperSets of the SuperHyperVertices | min | SuperHyperSet
of the interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, excluding the
SuperHyperCenter, with only one exception in
the form of interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from
same neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge with
the exclusion once.|neutrosophic cardinality amid those SuperHyperSets. }
Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E). Let a neutrosophic 4722




in common. Thus, in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E), a neutrosophic 4750
Failed SuperHyperStable is a SuperHyperSet of the interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, 4751
excluding the SuperHyperCenter, with only one exception in the form of interior neutrosophic 4752
SuperHyperVertices from same neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge with the exclusion once. a 4753
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable has the number of all the number of all the neutrosophic 4754
SuperHyperEdges have no common neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors for a neutrosophic 4755
SuperHyperVertex with the exclusion once. Thus, 4756
N eutrosophic F ailed SuperHyperStable =

{ The-number-
of-all-the-number-of-all-the-neutrosophic-SuperHyperEdges-
have-no-common-neutrosophic-SuperHyperNeighbors-for-a-
neutrosophic-SuperHyperVertex-with-the-exclusion-once
SuperHyperSets of the SuperHyperVertices | min | SuperHyperSet
of the interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, excluding the
SuperHyperCenter, with only one exception in
the form of interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from

to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E), Mentioned in the Example (22.0.13)

same neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge with

the exclusion once.|neutrosophic cardinality amid those SuperHyperSets. }
Example 22.0.13. In the Figure (22.6), the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel N SHW : 4759
(V, E), is highlighted and featured. 4760

By using the Figure (22.6) and the Table (22.6), the neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E), 4761
is obtained. 4762
The obtained SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the neutrosophic SuperHyper- 4763
Vertices of the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E), 4764
{V5 ,
{Z13 , W13 , U13 , V13 , O14 },
{T10 , K10 , J10 },
{E7 , C7 , Z6 }, {K7 , J7 , L7 },
{T14 , U14 , R15 , S15 }},

Figure 22.6: A neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel Associated to the Notions of neutrosophic Failed


CHAPTER 23 4766
General Neutrosophic Results 4767
For the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, and the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, some 4768
general results are introduced. 4769
Remark 23.0.1. Let remind that the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable is “redefined” on the 4770
positions of the alphabets. 4771
Corollary 23.0.2. Assume neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. Then 4772
N eutrosophic neutrosophicF ailedSuperHyperStable =

{theneutrosophicF ailedSuperHyperStableof theneutrosophicSuperHyperV ertices |
max |SuperHyperDef ensiveSuperHyper
Stable|neutrosophiccardinalityamidthoseneutrosophicF ailedSuperHyperStable. }
Where σi is the unary operation on the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the neutrosophic 4773
SuperHyperGraph to assign the determinacy, the indeterminacy and the neutrality, for i = 1, 2, 3, 4774
respectively. 4775
Corollary 23.0.3. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the same identical letter of the 4776
alphabet. Then the notion of neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable and neutrosophic Failed 4777
SuperHyperStable coincide. 4778
alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is a neutrosophic 4780
Failed SuperHyperStable if and only if it’s a neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable . 4781
alphabet. Then a consecutive sequence of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is a strongest 4783
neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle if and only if it’s a longest neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle . 4784
Corollary 23.0.6. Assume SuperHyperClasses of a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the same 4785

identical letter of the alphabet. Then its neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable is its neutrosophic 4786
Failed SuperHyperStable and reversely. 4787
Corollary 23.0.7. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperPath (-/neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle, neut- 4788

rosophic SuperHyperStar, neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite, neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite, 4789
neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel ) on the same identical letter of the alphabet. Then its neutrosophic 4790
Failed SuperHyperStable is its neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable and reversely. 4791
201
SuperHyperStable isn’t well-defined if and only if its neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable isn’t 4793
well-defined. 4794

neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable isn’t well-defined if and only if its neutrosophic Failed 4796
SuperHyperStable isn’t well-defined. 4797

neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel ). Then its neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable isn’t well-defined 4800
if and only if its neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable isn’t well-defined. 4801
SuperHyperStable is well-defined if and only if its neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable is well- 4803
defined. 4804

neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable is well-defined if and only if its neutrosophic Failed 4806
SuperHyperStable is well-defined. 4807

neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel ). Then its neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable is well-defined if 4810
and only if its neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable is well-defined. 4811
Proposition 23.0.14. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then V is 4812
(i) : the dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 4813
(ii) : the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 4814
(iii) : the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 4815
(iv) : the δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 4816
(v) : the strong δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 4817
(vi) : the connected δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 4818
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider V. All SuperHyper- 4819
Members of V have at least one neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor inside the SuperHyperSet more 4820
than neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor out of SuperHyperSet. Thus, 4821
(i). V is the dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable since the following 4822
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > |N (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > |N (a) ∩ ∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡

∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(ii). V is the strong dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable since the 4824
∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |Ns (a) ∩ ∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(iii). V is the connected dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable since the 4826
∀a ∈ S, |Nc (a) ∩ S| > |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > |Nc (a) ∩ ∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(iv). V is the δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable since the following 4828
∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ S))| > δ ≡

∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V ) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ V ))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V ) − (N (a) ∩ (∅))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V ) − (∅)| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V )| > δ.
(v). V is the strong δ-dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable since the 4830
∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S))| > δ ≡

∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V ) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ V ))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V ) − (Ns (a) ∩ (∅))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V ) − (∅)| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V )| > δ.
(vi). V is connected δ-dual neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable since the following statements are 4832

equivalent. 4833
∀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.
4834
Proposition 23.0.15. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then ∅ is 4835
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 4836
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 4837
(iii) : the connected defensive SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 4838
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 4839
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 4840
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 4841
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider ∅. All SuperHy- 4842
perMembers of ∅ have no neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor inside the SuperHyperSet less than 4843
neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor out of SuperHyperSet. Thus, 4844
(i). ∅ is the SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable since the following state- 4845
ments are equivalent. 4846
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |N (a) ∩ ∅| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |N (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |N (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(ii). ∅ is the strong SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable since the following 4847
∀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 neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable since the 4849
∀a ∈ S, |Nc (a) ∩ S| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |Nc (a) ∩ ∅| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Nc (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Nc (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(iv). ∅ is the δ-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable since the following 4851
∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |(N (a) ∩ ∅) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ ∅))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |(N (a) ∩ ∅) − (N (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
(v). ∅ is the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable since the following 4853
∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, |(Ns (a) ∩ ∅) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ ∅))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |(Ns (a) ∩ ∅) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
(vi). ∅ is the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable since the 4855
∀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.
4857
Proposition 23.0.16. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then an independent 4858
SuperHyperSet is 4859
(i) : the SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 4860
(ii) : the strong SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 4861

(iii) : the connected SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 4862
(iv) : the δ-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 4863
(v) : the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 4864
(vi) : the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 4865
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider S. All SuperHy- 4866
perMembers of S have no neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor inside the SuperHyperSet less than 4867

(i). An independent SuperHyperSet is the SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyper- 4869
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, |∅| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, 0 < |N (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ S, 0 < |N (a)| ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(ii). An independent SuperHyperSet is the strong SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed 4871

SuperHyperStable since the following statements are equivalent. 4872
∀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 neutrosophic Failed 4873

∀a ∈ S, |Nc (a) ∩ S| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |Nc (a) ∩ S| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, |∅| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, 0 < |Nc (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ S, 0 < |Nc (a)| ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(iv). An independent SuperHyperSet is the δ-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyper- 4875

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

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

∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ S, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
(v). An independent SuperHyperSet is the strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed 4877
∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡

∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ S, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
(vi). An independent SuperHyperSet is the connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed 4879

∀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.
4881
Proposition 23.0.17. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform neutrosophic 4882

SuperHyperGraph which is a neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle /neutrosophic SuperHyperPath . Then 4883
V is a maximal 4884
(i) : SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 4885
(ii) : strong SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 4886
(iii) : connected SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 4887
(iv) : O(N SHG)-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 4888
(v) : strong O(N SHG)-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 4889
(vi) : connected O(N SHG)-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 4890
Where the exterior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and the interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 4891
coincide. 4892

neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle /neutrosophic SuperHyperPath . 4894
(i). Consider one segment is out of S which is SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyper- 4895
Stable. This segment has 2t neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in S, i.e, Suppose xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S 4896

such that yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By it’s the exterior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 4897
and the interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s SuperHyperUniform neutrosophic 4898
SuperHyperCycle, |N (xii=1,2,...,t )| = |N (yii=1,2,...,t )| = |N (zii=1,2,...,t )| = 2t. Thus 4899
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ (V \ (V \ {xii=1,2,...,t }))| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ {xii=1,2,...,t })| ≡
∃yii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ {xi }ti=1 , |{z1 , z2 , . . . , zt−1 }| <
|{x1 , x2 , . . . , xt−1 })| ≡
∃y ∈ S, t − 1 < t − 1.
Thus it’s contradiction. It implies every V \ {xii=1,2,...,t } isn’t SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic 4900
Failed SuperHyperStable in a given SuperHyperUniform neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle . 4901
Consider one segment, with two segments related to the SuperHyperLeaves as exceptions, is 4902
out of S which is SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. This segment 4903

has 2t neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in S, i.e, Suppose xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S such that 4904
yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By it’s the exterior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and 4905
the interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s SuperHyperUniform neutrosophic 4906
SuperHyperPath, |N (xii=1,2,...,t )| = |N (yii=1,2,...,t )| = |N (zii=1,2,...,t )| = 2t. Thus 4907
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ (V \ (V \ {xii=1,2,...,t }))| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ {xii=1,2,...,t })| ≡
∃yii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ {xi }ti=1 , |{z1 , z2 , . . . , zt−1 }| <
|{x1 , x2 , . . . , xt−1 })| ≡
∃y ∈ S, t − 1 < t − 1.
Failed SuperHyperStable in a given SuperHyperUniform neutrosophic SuperHyperPath . 4909

(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal and it’s a SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 4911
Thus it’s |V |-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 4912
Proposition 23.0.18. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a 4914

SuperHyperUniform neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel . Then V is a maximal 4915
(i) : dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 4916

(ii) : strong dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 4917
(iii) : connected dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 4918
(iv) : O(N SHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 4919
(v) : strong O(N SHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 4920
(vi) : connected O(N SHG)-dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 4921
Where the exterior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and the interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 4922
coincide. 4923
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform neutrosophic SuperHyper- 4924

Graph which is a neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel . 4925
such that yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By it’s the exterior neutrosophic SuperHy- 4928
perVertices and the interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s SuperHyperUniform 4929
neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel, |N (xii=1,2,...,t )| = |N (yii=1,2,...,t )| = |N (zii=1,2,...,t )| = 3t. Thus 4930
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
|{z1 , z2 , . . . , zt−1 , z10 , z20 , . . . , zt0 }| < |{x1 , x2 , . . . , xt−1 })| ≡
∃y ∈ S, 2t − 1 < t − 1.
Thus it’s contradiction. It implies every V \ {xii=1,2,...,t } is SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed 4931
SuperHyperStable in a given SuperHyperUniform neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel . 4932
(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal and it is a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyper- 4934
Stable. Thus it’s a dual |V |-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 4935

SuperHyperGraph which is a neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle /neutrosophic SuperHyperPath . Then 4938
the number of 4939
(i) : the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 4940
(ii) : the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 4941

(iii) : the connected neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 4942
(iv) : the O(N SHG)-neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 4943
(v) : the strong O(N SHG)-neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 4944
(vi) : the connected O(N SHG)-neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 4945
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and the interior 4946
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices coincide. 4947

neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle /neutrosophic SuperHyperPath . 4949
such that yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By it’s the exterior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 4952
and the interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s SuperHyperUniform neutrosophic 4953
SuperHyperCycle, |N (xii=1,2,...,t )| = |N (yii=1,2,...,t )| = |N (zii=1,2,...,t )| = 2t. Thus 4954
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ (V \ (V \ {xii=1,2,...,t }))| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ {xii=1,2,...,t })| ≡
∃yii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ {xi }ti=1 , |{z1 , z2 , . . . , zt−1 }| < |{x1 , x2 , . . . , xt−1 })| ≡
∃y ∈ S, t − 1 < t − 1.
Failed SuperHyperStable in a given SuperHyperUniform neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle . 4956
Consider one segment, with two segments related to the SuperHyperLeaves as exceptions, is 4957
out of S which is SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. This segment 4958
has 2t neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in S, i.e, Suppose xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S such that 4959
yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By it’s the exterior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and 4960
the interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s SuperHyperUniform neutrosophic 4961
SuperHyperPath, |N (xii=1,2,...,t )| = |N (yii=1,2,...,t )| = |N (zii=1,2,...,t )| = 2t. Thus 4962
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ (V \ (V \ {xii=1,2,...,t }))| ≡
|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ {xii=1,2,...,t })| ≡
∃yii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ {xi }ti=1 , |{z1 , z2 , . . . , zt−1 }| <
|{x1 , x2 , . . . , xt−1 })| ≡

∃y ∈ S, t − 1 < t − 1.
Failed SuperHyperStable in a given SuperHyperUniform neutrosophic SuperHyperPath . 4964

(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal and it’s a SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 4966
Thus it’s |V |-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 4967

SuperHyperGraph which is a neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel . Then the number of 4970
(i) : the dual neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 4971
(ii) : the dual neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 4972
(iii) : the dual connected neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 4973
(iv) : the dual O(N SHG)-neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 4974
(v) : the strong dual O(N SHG)-neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 4975
(vi) : the connected dual O(N SHG)-neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 4976
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and the interior 4977
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices coincide. 4978
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform neutrosophic SuperHyper- 4979
Graph which is a neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel . 4980

such that yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By it’s the exterior neutrosophic SuperHy- 4983
perVertices and the interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s SuperHyperUniform 4984
neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel, |N (xii=1,2,...,t )| = |N (yii=1,2,...,t )| = |N (zii=1,2,...,t )| = 3t. Thus 4985
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∃yii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ) ∈ V \ {xi }ti=1
, |N (yii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t )) ∩ S| <
|{z1 , z2 , . . . , zt−1 , z10 , z20 , . . . , zt0 }| < |{x1 , x2 , . . . , xt−1 })| ≡
∃y ∈ S, 2t − 1 < t − 1.

Thus it’s contradiction. It implies every V \ {xii=1,2,...,t } isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutro- 4986
sophic Failed SuperHyperStable in a given SuperHyperUniform neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel . 4987
(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal and it’s a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyper- 4989
Stable. Thus it isn’t an |V |-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 4990

SuperHyperGraph which is a neutrosophic SuperHyperStar /SuperHyperComplete neutrosophic Supe- 4993
rHyperBipartite /SuperHyperComplete neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite . Then a SuperHyperSet 4994
contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of multiplying r with the number of all the neutrosophic 4995
SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is a 4996
O(N SHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 5000
O(N SHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 5001
O(N SHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 5002
Proof. (i). Consider n half +1 neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are in S which is SuperHyper- 5003
Defensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. A neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex has either 5004
n
2 or one neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in S. If the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is non- 5005
SuperHyperCenter, then 5006
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
If the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is SuperHyperCenter, then 5007
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed 5008
SuperHyperStable in a given neutrosophic SuperHyperStar . 5009
Consider n half +1 neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are in S which is SuperHyperDefensive 5010
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. A neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex has at most n2 5011
neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in S. 5012
n n
∀a ∈ S, > |N (a) ∩ S| > − 1 > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
2 2
n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2

SuperHyperStable in a given SuperHyperComplete neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite which isn’t a 5014
neutrosophic SuperHyperStar . 5015
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable and they’re chosen from different SuperHyperParts, equally 5017
or almost equally as possible. A neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex has at most n2 neutrosophic 5018
SuperHyperNeighbors in S. 5019
n n
∀a ∈ S, > |N (a) ∩ S| > − 1 > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
2 2
n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
SuperHyperStable in a given SuperHyperComplete neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite which is 5021
neither a neutrosophic SuperHyperStar nor SuperHyperComplete neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite 5022
. 5023
O(N SHG)
+1
(iv). By (i), {xi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 5025
Thus it’s O(N SHG)

2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 5026

SuperHyperGraph which is a neutrosophic SuperHyperStar /SuperHyperComplete neutrosophic Supe- 5029
rHyperBipartite /SuperHyperComplete neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite . Then a SuperHyperSet 5030
contains the half of multiplying r with the number of all the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges plus one 5031
of all the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart is a 5032
(iv) : δ-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 5036
(v) : strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 5037
(vi) : connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 5038
Proof. (i). Consider the half of multiplying r with the number of all the neutrosophic SuperHy- 5039
perEdges plus one of all the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart are in 5040
S which is SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. A neutrosophic SuperHy- 5041
perVertex has either n − 1, 1 or zero neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in S. If the neutrosophic 5042
SuperHyperVertex is in S, then 5043
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 0 < 1.

Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable 5044
in a given neutrosophic SuperHyperStar . 5045
Consider the half of multiplying r with the number of all the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges plus 5046
one of all the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart are in S which is 5047
SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. A neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 5048
has no neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor in S. 5049
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 0 < δ.
in a given SuperHyperComplete neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite which isn’t a neutrosophic 5051
SuperHyperStar . 5052
Consider the half of multiplying r with the number of all the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges plus 5053
one of all the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart are in S which is 5054
has no neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor in S. 5056
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 0 < δ.
in a given SuperHyperComplete neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite which is neither a neutrosophic 5058
SuperHyperStar nor SuperHyperComplete neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite . 5059
(iv). By (i), S is a SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. Thus it’s an 5061
δ-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 5062

SuperHyperGraph which is a neutrosophic SuperHyperStar /SuperHyperComplete neutrosophic 5065
SuperHyperBipartite /SuperHyperComplete neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite . Then Then the 5066
number of 5067
O(N SHG)
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 5071
O(N SHG)
(v) : strong 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 5072
O(N SHG)
(vi) : connected 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 5073
is one and it’s only S, a SuperHyperSet contains [the SuperHyperCenter and] the half of 5074
multiplying r with the number of all the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the 5075
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Where the exterior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and the 5076
interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices coincide. 5077

Proof. (i). Consider n half +1 neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are in S which is SuperHyper- 5078
Defensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. A neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex has either 5079
n
2 or one neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in S. If the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is non- 5080
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
If the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is SuperHyperCenter, then 5082
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. A neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex has at most n2 5086
n n
∀a ∈ S, > |N (a) ∩ S| > − 1 > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
2 2
n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
SuperHyperStable in a given SuperHyperComplete neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite which isn’t a 5089

neutrosophic SuperHyperStar . 5090
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable and they’re chosen from different SuperHyperParts, equally 5092
or almost equally as possible. A neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex has at most n2 neutrosophic 5093
n n
∀a ∈ S, > |N (a) ∩ S| > − 1 > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
2 2
n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
SuperHyperStable in a given SuperHyperComplete neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite which is 5096

neither a neutrosophic SuperHyperStar nor SuperHyperComplete neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite 5097
. 5098
O(N SHG)
+1
(iv). By (i), {xi }i=1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 5100
O(N SHG)
Thus it’s 2 + 1-dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 5101
Proposition 23.0.24. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. The number of 5103
connected component is |V − S| if there’s a SuperHyperSet which is a dual 5104

(iv) : neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 5108
(v) : strong 1-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 5109
(vi) : connected 1-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 5110
Proof. (i). Consider some neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 5111
SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. These neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 5112
-type have some neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in S but no neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor 5113
out of S. Thus 5114
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
SuperHyperStable and number of connected component is |V − S|. 5116
(iv). By (i), S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. Thus it’s a 5118
dual 1-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 5119
Proposition 23.0.25. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then the number is 5121
at most O(N SHG) and the neutrosophic number is at most On (N SHG). 5122
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider V. All SuperHyper- 5123
Members of V have at least one neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor inside the SuperHyperSet more 5124
than neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor out of SuperHyperSet. Thus, 5125
V is a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable since the following state- 5126
ments are equivalent. 5127
∀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 neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable since the following 5128

∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡

∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |Ns (a) ∩ ∅| ≡

∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
V is connected a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable since the following 5130
∀a ∈ S, |Nc (a) ∩ S| > |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > |Nc (a) ∩ ∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
V is a dual δ-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable since the following 5132
∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ S))| > δ ≡

∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V ) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ V ))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V ) − (N (a) ∩ (∅))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V ) − (∅)| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V )| > δ.
V is a dual strong δ-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable since the following 5134
∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S))| > δ ≡

∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V ) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ V ))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V ) − (Ns (a) ∩ (∅))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V ) − (∅)| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V )| > δ.
V is a dual connected δ-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable since the 5136
∀a ∈ S, |(Nc (a) ∩ S) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S))| > δ ≡

∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V ) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ V ))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V ) − (Nc (a) ∩ (∅))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V ) − (∅)| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V )| > δ.
Thus V is a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable and V is the biggest 5138
SuperHyperSet in N SHG : (V, E). Then the number is at most O(N SHG : (V, E)) and the 5139
neutrosophic number is at most On (N SHG : (V, E)). 5140

perHyperComplete. The number is O(N SHG:(V,E))2 + 1 and the neutrosophic number is 5142
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of dual 5143
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(N SHG:(V,E))

2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 5147


2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 5149
Proof. (i). Consider n half −1 neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual 5150
has n half neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in S. 5152
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHy- 5153
perStable in a given SuperHyperComplete neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Thus the number is 5154
O(N SHG:(V,E))
t>
2
setting of a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 5156
(ii). Consider n half −1 neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual SuperHy- 5157
perDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. A neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex has n half 5158
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual strong SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed Supe- 5160
rHyperStable in a given SuperHyperComplete neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Thus the number is 5161
O(N SHG:(V,E))
t>
2
setting of a dual strong SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 5163
(iii). Consider n half −1 neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual SuperHy- 5164
∀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 neutrosophic Failed 5167
SuperHyperStable in a given SuperHyperComplete neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Thus the num- 5168
ber is O(N SHG:(V,E))

2 + 1 and the neutrosophic number is min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), 5169
t>
2
in the setting of a dual connected SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 5170
(iv). Consider n half −1 neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual SuperHy- 5171
∀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 5174
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in a given SuperHyperComplete neutrosophic Su- 5175
perHyperGraph. Thus the number is O(N SHG:(V,E))

2 + 1 and the neutrosophic number 5176
is min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual ( O(N SHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)- 5177
t>
2
SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 5178
(v). Consider n half −1 neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual SuperHy- 5179
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual strong ( O(N SHG:(V,E))
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in a given SuperHyperComplete neutrosophic Supe- 5183
rHyperGraph. Thus the number is O(N SHG:(V,E))

2 + 1 and the neutrosophic number is 5184
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual strong ( O(N SHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)- 5185
t>
2
(vi). Consider n half −1 neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is a dual SuperHy- 5187
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual connected ( O(N SHG:(V,E))
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable in a given SuperHyperComplete neutrosophic Supe- 5191
rHyperGraph. Thus the number is O(N SHG:(V,E))2 + 1 and the neutrosophic number is 5192
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual connected ( O(N SHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)- 5193
t>
2
Proposition 23.0.27. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is ∅. The 5195
number is 0 and the neutrosophic number is 0, for an independent SuperHyperSet in the setting of 5196
dual 5197

(iv) : 0-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 5201
(v) : strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 5202
(vi) : connected 0-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 5203
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider ∅. All SuperHy- 5204
perMembers of ∅ have no neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor inside the SuperHyperSet less than 5205
(i). ∅ is a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable since the following 5207
∀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.
of a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 5210
(ii). ∅ is a dual strong SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable since the following 5211
∀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.
of a dual strong SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 5214

(iii). ∅ is a dual connected SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable since the 5215
∀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.
of a dual connected SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 5218
(iv). ∅ is a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable since the following 5219
∀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.
of a dual 0-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 5222
(v). ∅ is a dual strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable since the 5223
∀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.
of a dual strong 0-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 5226

(vi). ∅ is a dual connected SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable since the 5227
∀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.
of a dual connected 0-offensive SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 5230
Proposition 23.0.28. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is SuperHy- 5231
perComplete. Then there’s no independent SuperHyperSet. 5232
Proposition 23.0.29. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is neutrosophic 5233
SuperHyperCycle /neutrosophic SuperHyperPath /neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel . The number is 5234
O(N SHG : (V, E)) and the neutrosophic number is On (N SHG : (V, E)), in the setting of a dual 5235

(iv) : O(N SHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 5239
(v) : strong O(N SHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 5240
(vi) : connected O(N SHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 5241
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is neutrosophic 5242

SuperHyperCycle /neutrosophic SuperHyperPath /neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel . 5243
(i). Consider one neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 5244
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. This neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex has one neutrosophic 5245
SuperHyperNeighbor in S, i.e, suppose x ∈ V \ S such that y, z ∈ N (x). By it’s neutrosophic 5246
SuperHyperCycle, |N (x)| = |N (y)| = |N (z)| = 2. Thus 5247
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |N (y) ∩ S| < |N (y) ∩ (V \ (V \ {x}))| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |N (y) ∩ S| < |N (y) ∩ {x})| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |{z}| < |{x})| ≡
∃y ∈ S, 1 < 1.
Thus it’s contradiction. It implies every V \ {x} isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic 5248
Failed SuperHyperStable in a given neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle . 5249
Consider one neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 5250
SuperHyperNeighbor in S, i.e, Suppose x ∈ V \ S such that y, z ∈ N (x). By it’s neutrosophic 5252
SuperHyperPath, |N (x)| = |N (y)| = |N (z)| = 2. Thus 5253
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |N (y) ∩ S| < |N (y) ∩ (V \ (V \ {x}))| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |N (y) ∩ S| < |N (y) ∩ {x})| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |{z}| < |{x})| ≡
∃y ∈ S, 1 < 1.
Failed SuperHyperStable in a given neutrosophic SuperHyperPath . 5255
Consider one neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is out of S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 5256

SuperHyperNeighbor in S, i.e, Suppose x ∈ V \ S such that y, z ∈ N (x). By it’s neutrosophic 5258
SuperHyperWheel, |N (x)| = |N (y)| = |N (z)| = 2. Thus 5259
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |N (y) ∩ S| < |N (y) ∩ (V \ (V \ {x}))| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |N (y) ∩ S| < |N (y) ∩ {x})| ≡
∃y ∈ V \ {x}, |{z}| < |{x})| ≡
∃y ∈ S, 1 < 1.
Failed SuperHyperStable in a given neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel . 5261
(iv). By (i), V is maximal and it’s a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 5263
Thus it’s a dual O(N SHG : (V, E))-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 5264

Thus the number is O(N SHG : (V, E)) and the neutrosophic number is On (N SHG : (V, E)), in 5266
the setting of all types of a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 5267
Proposition 23.0.30. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is neut- 5268
rosophic SuperHyperStar /complete neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite /complete neutrosophic 5269
SuperHyperMultipartite . The number is O(N SHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and the neutrosophic number is 5270
min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual 5271
t>
2
(iv) : ( O(N SHG:(V,E))



2 + 1)-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 5277
Proof. (i). Consider n half +1 neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are in S which is SuperHyperDe- 5278
fensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. A neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex has at most n 5279
half neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in S. If the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is the non- 5280
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
If the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is the SuperHyperCenter, then 5282
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

n n
∀a ∈ S, > − 1.
2 2

Consider n half +1 neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are in S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 5285

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

δ δ
∀a ∈ S, >n− .
2 2
SuperHyperStable in a given complete neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite which isn’t a neutrosophic 5288
SuperHyperStar . 5289
Consider n half +1 neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are in S which is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 5290
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable and they are chosen from different SuperHyperParts, equally 5291
or almost equally as possible. A neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in S has δ half neutrosophic 5292

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡

δ δ
∀a ∈ S, >n− .
2 2
5294
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyper- 5295
Stable in a given complete neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite which is neither a neutrosophic 5296
SuperHyperStar nor complete neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite . 5297
O(N SHG:(V,E))
+1
(iv). By (i), {xi }i=1 2
is maximal and it’s a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed 5299
SuperHyperStable. Thus it’s a dual O(N SHG:(V,E))
2 + 1-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed 5300
Thus the number is O(N SHG:(V,E))

2 +1 and the neutrosophic number is min Σ v∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v),
5303
t>
2
in the setting of all dual neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 5304
Proposition 23.0.31. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a SuperHyperFamily of the N SHGs : (V, E) 5305
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph s which are from one-type SuperHyperClass which the result is 5306
obtained for the individuals. Then the results also hold for the SuperHyperFamily N SHF : (V, E) of 5307
these specific SuperHyperClasses of the neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph s. 5308
Proof. There are neither SuperHyperConditions nor SuperHyperRestrictions on the neutrosophic 5309
SuperHyperVertices. Thus the SuperHyperResults on individuals, N SHGs : (V, E), are extended to 5310
the SuperHyperResults on SuperHyperFamily, N SHF : (V, E). 5311
Proposition 23.0.32. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If S is a 5312

dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, then ∀v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S such that 5313
(i) v ∈ Ns (x); 5314
(ii) vx ∈ E. 5315

Since S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, 5317
∀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).
S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, 5319
∀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.
5320
Proposition 23.0.33. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If S is a 5321

dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, then 5322
(i) S is SuperHyperDominating set; 5323
(ii) there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is SuperHyperChromatic number. 5324
Since S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, either 5326
∀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 5327
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (v) ∩ S| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S : v ∈ Ns (x)
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S : vx ∈ E.
It implies S is SuperHyperDominating SuperHyperSet. 5328

S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, either 5330
∀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 5331
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (v) ∩ S| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S : v ∈ Ns (x)
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S : vx ∈ E.
Thus every neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex v ∈ V \ S, has at least one neutrosophic SuperHyper- 5332
Neighbor in S. The only case is about the relation amid neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in S 5333
in the terms of neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors . It implies there’s S ⊆ S 0 such that |S 0 | is 5334

SuperHyperChromatic number. 5335
(i) Γ ≤ O; 5337
(ii) Γs ≤ On . 5338
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Let S = V. 5339
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ V, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ V )|
v ∈ ∅, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > |Ns (v) ∩ ∅|
v ∈ ∅, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > |∅|
v ∈ ∅, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > 0
It implies V is a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. For all 5340
SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S, S ⊆ V. Thus for all SuperHyperSets 5341

of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S, |S| ≤ |V |. It implies for all SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic 5342
SuperHyperVertices S, |S| ≤ O. So for all SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 5343
S, Γ ≤ O. 5344
(ii). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Let S = V. 5345
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

v ∈ V \ V, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ V )|
v ∈ ∅, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > |Ns (v) ∩ ∅|
v ∈ ∅, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > |∅|
v ∈ ∅, |Ns (v) ∩ V | > 0
It implies V is a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. For all 5346

SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S, S ⊆ V. Thus for all SuperHyperSets 5347
of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ Σv∈V Σ3i=1 σi (v). It implies for all 5348
SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ On . So for all 5349
SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S, Γs ≤ On . 5350

Proposition 23.0.35. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 5351
connected. Then 5352
(i) Γ ≤ O − 1; 5353
(ii) Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 5354
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Let S = V − {x} 5355
where x is arbitrary and x ∈ V. 5356
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > |Ns (x) ∩ {x}|
|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > |∅|
|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > 0
It implies V − {x} is a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. For 5357

all SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, S ⊆ V − {x}. Thus for all 5358
SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, |S| ≤ |V − {x}|. It implies for all 5359
SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, |S| ≤ O − 1. So for all SuperHyperSets 5360
of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S, Γ ≤ O − 1. 5361
(ii). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Let S = V − {x} where x 5362
is arbitrary and x ∈ V. 5363
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > |Ns (x) ∩ {x}|
|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > |∅|
|Ns (x) ∩ (V − {x})| > 0
It implies V − {x} is a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. For 5364

all SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, S ⊆ V − {x}. Thus for all 5365
SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S 6= V, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ Σv∈V −{x} Σ3i=1 σi (v). 5366
It implies for all SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S = 6 V, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ 5367
3
On − Σi=1 σi (x). So for all SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S, Γs ≤ On − 5368
Σ3i=1 σi (x). 5369
Proposition 23.0.36. Let N SHG : (V, E) be an odd neutrosophic SuperHyperPath . Then 5370
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed 5371
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 5374
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only a dual 5375

Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an odd neutrosophic SuperHyperPath . Let S = 5377
v ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 }| = 2 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn }|∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 2 >
0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 }| >
|Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 })|
It implies S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyper- 5379

Stable. If S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } − {vi } where vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }, then 5380
∃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 SuperHyperDefensive neutro- 5381
sophic Failed SuperHyperStable. It induces S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 5382

(iv). By (i), S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHy- 5385
perStable. Thus it’s enough to show that S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 5386
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an odd neutrosophic Super- 5387
HyperPath . Let S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all vi , vj ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, vi vj 6∈ E and 5388
vi , vj ∈ V. 5389
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 23.0.37. Let N SHG : (V, E) be an even neutrosophic SuperHyperPath . Then 5395

(i) the set S = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyper- 5396
Stable; 5397
(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }; 5398
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 5399
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only dual 5400
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an even neutrosophic SuperHyperPath . Let S = 5402
v ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn }| = 2 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }|∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 2 >
0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn }| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn })|
It implies S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 5404
If S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } − {vi } where vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, then 5405
∃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 neutrosophic 5406
Failed SuperHyperStable. It induces S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutro- 5407
sophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 5408
(iv). By (i), S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHy- 5410
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an even neutrosophic Supe- 5412
rHyperPath . Let S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all vi , vj ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, vi vj 6∈ E and 5413
vi , vj ∈ V. 5414
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 23.0.38. Let N SHG : (V, E) be an even neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. Then 5420
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed 5421

(ii) Γ = b n2 c and corresponded SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }; 5423
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } σ(s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } σ(s)}; 5424
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only dual 5425
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an even neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. Let S = 5427
v ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn }| = 2 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }|∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 2 >
0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, |Ns (v) ∩ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn }| >
|Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn })|
It implies S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 5429

If S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } − {vi } where vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, then 5430
∃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 neutrosophic 5431
Failed SuperHyperStable. It induces S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutro- 5432

sophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 5433
(iv). By (i), S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHy- 5435
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an even neutrosophic Supe- 5437
rHyperCycle. Let S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all vi , vj ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, vi vj 6∈ E and 5438
vi , vj ∈ V. 5439
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 23.0.39. Let N SHG : (V, E) be an odd neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. Then 5445
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed 5446
(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 5449
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 } and S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only dual 5450
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an odd neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. Let S = 5452
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 neutrosophic Failed SuperHy- 5460

neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an odd neutrosophic Super- 5462
HyperCycle. Let S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all vi , vj ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, vi vj 6∈ E and 5463
vi , vj ∈ V. 5464
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 23.0.40. Let N SHG : (V, E) be neutrosophic SuperHyperStar . Then 5470
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c} is a dual maximal neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 5471
(ii) Γ = 1; 5472
(iii) Γs = Σ3i=1 σi (c); 5473
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c} and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 5474
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperStar . 5475
∀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 neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. If 5476

S = {c} − {c} = ∅, then 5477
∃v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 0 = 0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 0 6> 0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
So S = {c} − {c} = ∅ isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. It 5478
induces S = {c} is a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 5479


(iv). By (i), S = {c} is a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. Thus it’s 5481
enough to show that S ⊆ S 0 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 5482
Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperStar . Let S ⊆ S 0 . 5483
∀v ∈ V \ {c}, |Ns (v) ∩ {c}| = 1 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {c})|∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | = 1 >
0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
It implies S 0 ⊆ S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 5484
Proposition 23.0.41. Let N SHG : (V, E) be neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel . Then 5485
6+3(i−1)≤n
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual maximal 5486
SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 5487
6+3(i−1)≤n
(ii) Γ = |{v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 |; 5488
(iii) Γs = Σ{v1 ,v3 }∪{v6 ,v9 ··· ,vi+6 ,··· ,vn }6+3(i−1)≤n Σ3i=1 σi (s); 5489
i=1
6+3(i−1)≤n
(iv) the SuperHyperSet {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is only a dual maximal 5490
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel . Let S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ 5492
6+3(i−1)≤n
{v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 . There are either 5493
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 2 > 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
or 5494
∀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 SuperHyperDefensive 5495
6+3(i−1)≤n
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. If S 0 = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 − {z} 5496
6+3(i−1)≤n
where z ∈ S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 , then There are either 5497
∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | = 1 < 2 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|

∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | < |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
or 5498
∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | = 1 = 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|

∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|

6+3(i−1)≤n
So S 0 = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 − {z} where z ∈ S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ 5499
6+3(i−1)≤n
{v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed Supe- 5500
6+3(i−1)≤n
rHyperStable. It induces S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual maximal 5501
Proposition 23.0.42. Let N SHG : (V, E) be an odd SuperHyperComplete. Then 5504
b n c+1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed 5505
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1; 5507

2
; 5508
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
2
is only a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed 5509
bn
2 c+1
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an odd SuperHyperComplete. Let S = {vi }i=1 . Thus 5511
n n
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
b n c+1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. If 5512
0 bn c+1 bn
2 c+1
S = {vi }i=1
2
− {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1 , then 5513
n n
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
b n c+1 b n c+1
So S 0 = {vi }i=1
2
− {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1
2
isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic 5514
bn
2 c+1
Failed SuperHyperStable. It induces S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic 5515
Proposition 23.0.43. Let N SHG : (V, E) be an even SuperHyperComplete. Then 5518
bn
2c
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed 5519
(ii) Γ = b n2 c; 5521

2
; 5522
S={vi }i=1
bnc
2
is only a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic 5523

bnc
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an even SuperHyperComplete. Let S = {vi }i=1
2
. Thus 5525
n n
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
bnc
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. If 5526
n
0 b c bn
2c
S = {vi }i=1 − {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1
2
, then 5527
n n
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
bnc bnc
So S 0 = {vi }i=1
2
− {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1
2
isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed 5528
bn c
SuperHyperStable. It induces S = {vi }i=1 is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic
2
5529
Proposition 23.0.44. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of neutrosophic SuperHyper- 5532

Stars with common neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet. Then 5533
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed 5534

SuperHyperStable for N SHF; 5535
(ii) Γ = m for N SHF : (V, E); 5536
(iii) Γs = Σm 3
i=1 Σj=1 σj (ci ) for N SHF : (V, E); 5537
(iv) the SuperHyperSets S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } and S ⊂ S 0 are only dual neutrosophic Failed 5538
SuperHyperStable for N SHF : (V, E). 5539
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperStar . 5540
∀v ∈ V \ {c}, |Ns (v) ∩ {c}| = 1 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {c})|∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 >
0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ {c}, |Ns (v) ∩ {c}| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {c})|
It implies S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable 5541

for N SHF : (V, E). If S = {c} − {c} = ∅, then 5542
∃v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 0 = 0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

∃v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 0 6> 0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
So S = {c} − {c} = ∅ isn’t a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable for 5543
N SHF : (V, E). It induces S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive neutro- 5544
sophic Failed SuperHyperStable for N SHF : (V, E). 5545


(iv). By (i), S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyper- 5547
Stable for N SHF : (V, E). Thus it’s enough to show that S ⊆ S 0 is a dual SuperHyperDefensive 5548
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable for N SHF : (V, E). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutro- 5549
sophic SuperHyperStar . Let S ⊆ S 0 . 5550
∀v ∈ V \ {c}, |Ns (v) ∩ {c}| = 1 >

0 = |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ {c})|∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | = 1 >
0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
∀z ∈ V \ S 0 , |Ns (z) ∩ S 0 | > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S 0 )|
It implies S 0 ⊆ S is a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable for 5551
N SHF : (V, E). 5552
Proposition 23.0.45. Let N SHF : (V, E) be an m-SuperHyperFamily of odd SuperHyperComplete 5553

neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph s with common neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet. Then 5554
b n c+1
2
is a dual maximal SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed 5555
SuperHyperStable for N SHF; 5556
(ii) Γ = b n2 c + 1 for N SHF : (V, E); 5557

2
for N SHF : (V, E); 5558
S={vi }i=1
b n c+1
2
are only a dual maximal neutrosophic Failed SuperHyper- 5559
Stable for N SHF : (V, E). 5560
b n c+1
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is odd SuperHyperComplete. Let S = {vi }i=1
2
. Thus 5561
n n
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
b n c+1
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable for 5562
0 bn
2 c+1 bn
2 c+1
N SHF : (V, E). If S = {vi }i=1 − {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1 , then 5563
n n
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
b n c+1 b n c+1
So S 0 = {vi }i=1
2
− {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1
2
bn
2 c+1
SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable for N SHF : (V, E). 5566
Proposition 23.0.46. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-SuperHyperFamily of even SuperHyperComplete 5568
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph s with common neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperSet. Then 5569

bnc
(i) the SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed 5570
SuperHyperStable for N SHF : (V, E); 5571
(ii) Γ = b n2 c for N SHF : (V, E); 5572

2
for N SHF : (V, E); 5573
S={vi }i=1
bnc
2
are only dual maximal neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable 5574
for N SHF : (V, E). 5575
bn
2c
Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is even SuperHyperComplete. Let S = {vi }i=1 . Thus 5576
n n
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
bnc
2
is a dual SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable for 5577
bn
2c bn
2c
N SHF : (V, E). If S 0 = {vi }i=1 − {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1 , then 5578
n n
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
6 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
bnc bnc
So S 0 = {vi }i=12
− {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1
2
bn
2c
SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable for N SHF : (V, E). 5581
following statements hold; 5584
(i) if s ≥ t and a SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is an t-SuperHyperDefensive 5585

neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, then S is an s-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed 5586
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is a dual 5588

t-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, then S is a dual s- 5589
SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is an t-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic 5592
Failed SuperHyperStable. Then 5593
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < t;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < t ≤ s;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < s.
Thus S is an s-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 5594

S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is a dual t-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed 5596

SuperHyperStable. Then 5597
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > t;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > t ≥ s;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > s.
Thus S is a dual s-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 5598
following statements hold; 5600
(i) if s ≥ t + 2 and a SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is an t- 5601

SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, then S is an s-SuperHyperPowerful 5602
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable; 5603
(ii) if s ≤ t and a SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is a dual 5604

t-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, then S is a dual s- 5605
SuperHyperPowerful neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 5606
SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is an t-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic 5608

Failed SuperHyperStable. Then 5609
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < t;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < t ≤ t + 2 ≤ s;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < s.
Thus S is an (t + 2)−SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. By S 5610

is an s−SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable and S is a dual (s + 5611
2)−SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, S is an s-SuperHyperPowerful 5612
S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is a dual t-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed 5615
SuperHyperStable. Then 5616
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > t;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > t ≥ s > s − 2;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > s − 2.
Thus S is an (s − 2)−SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. By S 5617
is an (s − 2)−SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable and S is a dual 5618

s−SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, S is an s−SuperHyperPowerful 5619
Proposition 23.0.49. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic 5621

(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a)∩S| b 2r c + 1, then N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 5625
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then N SHG : (V, E) is an r-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic 5627

(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then N SHG : (V, E) is a dual r-SuperHyperDefensive 5629
perGraph. Then 5632
r r
2 2
r r
2 2
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2.
Thus S is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 5633

(ii). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 5634
Then 5635
r r
2 2
r r
2 2
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2.
Thus S is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 5636

(iii). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 5637
Then 5638
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < r − 0;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < r − 0 = r;
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < r.
Thus S is an r-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 5639

(iv). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 5640
Then 5641
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > r − 0;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > r − 0 = r;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > r.
Thus S is a dual r-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 5642

(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b 2r c

+ 1 if N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 5647
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if N SHG : (V, E) is an r-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic 5649

(iv) ∀a ∈ V \S, |Ns (a)∩V \S| = 0 if N SHG : (V, E) is a dual r-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic 5651

perGraph. Then 5654
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2;

r r
2 2
r r
2 2
r r
2 2
and a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. Then 5656
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2;

r r
2 2
r r
2 2
r r
2 2
and an r-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 5658
∀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.
and a dual r-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. Then 5660
∀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.
5661


(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b O−1

2 c + 1 if N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 5666
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if N SHG : (V, E) is an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic 5668

(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if N SHG : (V, E) is a dual (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 5670


perGraph and an 2- SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. Then 5673
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2;

O−1 O−1
2 2
O−1 O−1
2 2
O−1 O−1
2 2

and a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. Then 5675
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2;

O−1 O−1
2 2
O−1 O−1
2 2
O−1 O−1
2 2

and an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 5677
∀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.


and a dual r-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. Then 5679
∀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.
5680

(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| b O−1

2 c + 1, then N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 5685
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then N SHG : (V, E) is (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 5687

(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then N SHG : (V, E) is a dual (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive 5689


perGraph which is a SuperHyperComplete. Then 5692
O−1 O−1
2 2
O−1 O−1
2 2
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2.

O−1 O−1
2 2
O−1 O−1
2 2
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2.

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < O − 1 − 0;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < O − 1 − 0 = O − 1;

∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < O − 1.
Thus S is an (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 5699
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > O − 1 − 0;

∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > O − 1 − 0 = O − 1;
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > O − 1.
Thus S is a dual (O − 1)-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 5702

SuperHyperGraph which is neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. Then following statements hold; 5704
(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2 if N SHG : (V, E)) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed 5705
(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2 if N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic 5707
(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if N SHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic 5709

(iv) ∀a ∈ V \S, |Ns (a)∩V \S| = 0 if N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic 5711

perGraph and S is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. Then 5714
∀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.
and S is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. Then 5716
∀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.
and S is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 5718
∀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.


and S is a dual r-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. Then 5720
∀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.
5721

SuperHyperGraph which is neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. Then following statements hold; 5723
(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2, then N SHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic 5724
(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2, then N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 5726
(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then N SHG : (V, E) is an 2-SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic 5728

(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-SuperHyperDefensive 5730


perGraph which is neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. Then 5733
∀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.

which is neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. Then 5736
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2 − 0;

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

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

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


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

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

CHAPTER 24 5744
Applications in Cancer’s Neutrosophic 5745
recognition 5746
The cancer is the disease but the model is going to figure out what’s going on this phenomenon. The 5747
special case of this disease is considered and as the consequences of the model, some parameters are 5748
used. The cells are under attack of this disease but the moves of the cancer in the special region are 5749
the matter of mind. The neutrosophic recognition of the cancer could help to find some treatments 5750
for this disease. 5751
In the following, some steps are devised on this disease. 5752
Step 1. (Definition) The neutrosophic recognition of the cancer in the long-term function. 5753
Step 2. (Issue) The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called neutrosophic 5754
SuperHyperGraph ] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this 5755
research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some 5756
determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the effects of the cancer 5757
on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be neutrosophic 5758
SuperHyperGraph ] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and what’s done. 5759
Step 3. (Model) There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve got the names, 5760
and some general models. The moves and the traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and 5761
between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a neutrosophic SuperHyperPath 5762

(-/neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle, neutrosophic SuperHyperStar, neutrosophic SuperHyper- 5763
Bipartite, neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite, neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel ). The 5764
aim is to find either the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable or the neutrosophic Failed 5765
SuperHyperStable in those neutrosophic SuperHyperModel s. 5766
247
CHAPTER 25 5767
Case 1: The Initial Steps Toward 5768
neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite as 5769
neutrosophic SuperHyperModel 5770
Step 4. (Solution) In the Figure (25.1), the neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite is highlighted and 5771
featured. 5772
By using the Figure (25.1) and the Table (25.1), the neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite is 5773
obtained. 5774
The obtained SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the neutrosophic 5775
Figure 25.1: A neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of neutrosophic Failed

SuperHyperStable
249
Table 25.1: The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdges Belong to The neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite

SuperHyperVertices of the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite N SHB : (V, E), in 5776

the neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25.1), 5777
{V1 , {C4 , D4 , E4 , H4 },
{K4 , J4 , L4 , O4 }, {W2 , Z2 , C3 }, {C13 , Z12 , V12 , W12 },

CHAPTER 26 5779
Case 2: The Increasing Steps Toward 5780
neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite as 5781
neutrosophic SuperHyperModel 5782
Step 4. (Solution) In the Figure (26.1), the neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite is highlighted 5783
and featured. 5784
By using the Figure (26.1) and the Table (26.1), the neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite is 5785
obtained. 5786
he obtained SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of the neutrosophic 5787
Figure 26.1: A neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of neutrosophic

Failed SuperHyperStable
251
Table 26.1: The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdges Belong to The neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite

SuperHyperVertices of the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite N SHM : (V, E), 5788
{{{L4 , E4 , O4 , D4 , J4 , K4 , H4 },
{S10 , R10 , P10 },
{Z7 , W7 }, {U7 , V7 }},

CHAPTER 27 5790
Open Problems 5791
In what follows, some “problems” and some “questions” are proposed. 5792
The Failed SuperHyperStable and the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable are defined on a 5793
real-world application, titled “Cancer’s neutrosophic recognition s”. 5794
Question 27.0.1. Which the else neutrosophic SuperHyperModels could be defined based on Cancer’s 5795
neutrosophic recognition s? 5796
Question 27.0.2. Are there some neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion s related to Failed SuperHyper- 5797
Stable and the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable? 5798
Question 27.0.3. Are there some Algorithms to be defined on the neutrosophic SuperHyperModels 5799
to compute them? 5800
Question 27.0.4. Which the neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion s are related to beyond the Failed 5801
SuperHyperStable and the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable? 5802
Problem 27.0.5. The Failed SuperHyperStable and the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable do a 5803
neutrosophic SuperHyperModel for the Cancer’s neutrosophic recognition s and they’re based on 5804
neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, are there else? 5805
Problem 27.0.6. Which the fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are related to these SuperHyperNum- 5806
bers types-results? 5807
Problem 27.0.7. What’s the independent research based on Cancer’s neutrosophic recognition s 5808
concerning the multiple types of neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion s? 5809
253
CHAPTER 28 5810
Conclusion and Closing Remarks 5811
In this section, concluding remarks and closing remarks are represented. The drawbacks of this 5812
research are illustrated. Some benefits and some advantages of this research are highlighted. 5813
This research uses some approaches to make neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph s more understandable. 5814
In this endeavor, two neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion s are defined on the neutrosophic Failed 5815
SuperHyperStable. For that sake in the second definition, the main definition of the neutrosophic 5816
SuperHyperGraph is redefined on the position of the alphabets. Based on the new definition 5817
for the neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, the new neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion, neutrosophic 5818
Failed SuperHyperStable, finds the convenient background to implement some results based on 5819
that. Some SuperHyperClasses and some neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses are the cases of this 5820
research on the modeling of the regions where are under the attacks of the cancer to recognize 5821
this disease as it’s mentioned on the title “Cancer’s neutrosophic recognition s”. To formalize the 5822
instances on the neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion, neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable, the new 5823
SuperHyperClasses and SuperHyperClasses, are introduced. Some general results are gathered in the 5824
section on the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable and the neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable. 5825
The clarifications, instances and literature reviews have taken the whole way through. In this 5826
research, the literature reviews have fulfilled the lines containing the notions and the results. 5827
The neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are the neutrosophic 5828
SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s neutrosophic recognition s” and both bases are the background 5829
of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of cells, groups of 5830
cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the neutrosophic SuperHyperModel proposes some 5831
neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion s based on the connectivities of the moves of the cancer in the 5832
longest and strongest styles with the formation of the design and the architecture are formally 5833
called “ neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable” in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. The 5834
prefix “SuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded styles to figure out the background for 5835
the neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion s. In the Table (28.1), some limitations and advantages of this 5836
research are pointed out. 5837
255
Table 28.1: A Brief Overview about Advantages and Limitations of this Research
Advantages Limitations
1. Redefining Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1. General Results
2. neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable
3. neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable 2. Other SuperHyperNumbers
4. Modeling of Cancer’s Recognitions
5. SuperHyperClasses 3. SuperHyperFamilies

Bibliography 5838
Comp Sci Res 1(1) (2022) 06-14. 5845

10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1). 5851

10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1). 5858


(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28945.92007). 5867
257
2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.11447.80803). 5870

10.13140/RG.2.2.35774.77123). 5873

10.13140/RG.2.2.29173.86244). 5884

(2018) 122-135. 5898
410-413. 5901

CHAPTER 29 5903
“SuperHyperGraph-Based Books”: | 5904
Featured Tweets 5905
“SuperHyperGraph-Based Books”: | Featured Tweets 5906
259
Figure 29.1: “SuperHyperGraph-Based Books”: | Featured Tweets


Figure 29.3: “SuperHyperGraph-Based Books”: | Featured Tweets #66















CHAPTER 30 5907
“SuperHyperGraph-Based Books”: | 5908
Featured Tweets 5909
“SuperHyperGraph-Based Books”: | Featured Tweets 5910
277


























CHAPTER 31 5911
CV 5912
305
5913
Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics · DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com · Manhattan, NY, USA
Henry Garrett CV
Status: Known As Henry Garrett With Highly Productive Style.
Fields: Combinatorics, Algebraic Structures, Algebraic Hyperstructures, Fuzzy

Logic
Prefers: Graph Theory, Domination, Metric Dimension, Neutrosophic Graph

Theory, Neutrosophic Domination, Lattice Theory, Groups and
Hypergroups
Activities: Traveling, Painting, Writing, Reading books and Papers
Professional Experiences
2017 - Present Continuous Member AMS
I tried to show them that Science is not only interesting, it’s beautiful and exciting.
Participating in the academic space of the largest mathematical Society gave me valuable
experiences. The use of Bulletin and Notice of the American Mathematical Society is another
benefit of this presence.
2017 - 2019 Continuous Member EMS
The use Newsletter of the European Mathematical Society is benefit of this membership.
I am interested in giving a small, though small, effect on math epidemic progress
Awards and Achievements
Sep 2022 Award: Selected as an Editorial Board Member to JMTCM JMTCM
Award: Selected as an Editorial Board Member to Journal of Mathematical Techniques and

Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)
Journal of Mathematical Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)
Jun 2022 Award: Selected as an Editorial Board Member to JCTCSR JCTCSR
Award: Selected as an Editorial Board Member to Journal of Current Trends in Computer

Science Research(JCTCSR)
Journal of Current Trends in Computer Science Research(JCTCSR)
Jan 23, 2022 Award: Diploma By Neutrosophic Science International Association Neutrosophic Science International
Association
Award: Distinguished Achievements

Honorary Memebrship
Journal Referee
Sep 2022 Editorial Board Member to JMTCM JMTCM
Editorial Board Member to Journal of Mathematical Techniques and Computational

Mathematics(JMTCM)
Journal of Mathematical Techniques and Computational Mathematics(JMTCM)
Jun 2022 Editorial Board Member to JCTCSR JCTCSR
Editorial Board Member to Journal of Current Trends in Computer Science

Research(JCTCSR)
Journal of Current Trends in Computer Science Research(JCTCSR)
5914
Publications: Articles
2023 0126 | Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of Confrontation under Cancer’s Recognition Manuscript
as the Model in The Setting of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs
Henry Garrett,“Extreme SuperHyperClique as the Firm Scheme of Confrontation under
Cancer’s Recognition as the Model in The Setting of (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”,
Preprints 2023, 2023010308 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0308.v1).
Available at Twitter, ResearchGate, Scribd, Academia, Zenodo, LinkedIn
2023 0125 | Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The Foggy Positions Of Cells Manuscript
Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s
Recognition
Henry Garrett,“Uncertainty On The Act And Effect Of Cancer Alongside The Foggy
Positions Of Cells Toward Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique inside Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraphs Titled Cancer’s Recognition”, Preprints 2023, 2023010282 (doi:
10.20944/preprints202301.0282.v1).
2023 0124 | Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s Recognition On Neutrosophic Manuscript
SuperHyperGraphs
Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic Version Of Separates Groups Of Cells In Cancer’s
Recognition On Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010267 (doi:
10.20944/preprints202301.0267.v1).).
2023 0123 | The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and Affected Cells Toward The Totality Manuscript
Under Cancer’s Recognition By New Multiple Definitions On the Sets Polynomials Alongside Numbers
In The (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph
Henry Garrett, “The Shift Paradigm To Classify Separately The Cells and Affected Cells
Toward The Totality Under Cancer’s Recognition By New Multiple Definitions On the Sets
Polynomials Alongside Numbers In The (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperMatching Theory Based
on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints 2023, 2023010265 (doi:
10.20944/preprints202301.0265.v1).
2023 0122 | Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The Worst Case of Full Manuscript
Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In Cancer’s Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic)
SuperHyperGraphs
Henry Garrett,“Breaking the Continuity and Uniformity of Cancer In The
Worst Case of Full Connections With Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique In Cancer’s
Recognition Applied in (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010262,(doi:
10.20944/preprints202301.0262.v1).
2023 0121 | Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the Cancer’s Neutrosophic Manuscript
Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs
Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable as the Survivors on the
Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Based on Uncertainty to All Modes in Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010240 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0240.v1).
2023 0120 | Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s Circumstances Where Cancer’s Manuscript
Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs
Henry Garrett, “Extremism of the Attacked Body Under the Cancer’s Circumstances Where
Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010224,
(doi: 10.20944/preprints202301.0224.v1).
2023 0119 | SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To Monitor Cancer’s Recognition Manuscript
In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs
Henry Garrett,“SuperHyperMatching By (R-)Definitions And Polynomials To Monitor
Cancer’s Recognition In Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi:
10.13140/RG.2.2.35061.65767).
5915
2023 0118 | The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In The Cancer’s Extreme Recognition Manuscript
With Different Types of Extreme SuperHyperMatching Set and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic)
SuperHyperGraphs
Henry Garrett,“The Focus on The Partitions Obtained By Parallel Moves In The
Cancer’s Extreme Recognition With Different Types of Extreme SuperHyperMatching
Set and Polynomial on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi:
10.13140/RG.2.2.18494.15680).
2023 0117 | Indeterminacy On The All Possible Connections of Cells In Front of Cancer’s Attacks In Manuscript
The Terms of Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique on Cancer’s Recognition called Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraphs
Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the Cancer’s
Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By SuperHyperModels Named
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023,(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.15897.70243).
2023 0116 | Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the Cancer’s Recognition Manuscript
in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By SuperHyperModels Named (Neutrosophic)
SuperHyperGraphs
Henry Garrett,“Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique Decides the Failures on the Cancer’s
Recognition in the Perfect Connections of Cancer’s Attacks By SuperHyperModels Named
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32530.73922).
2023 0115 | (Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) Manuscript
SuperHyperGraphs
Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s
Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010105 (doi:
10.20944/preprints202301.0105.v1).
2023 0114 | Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition Forwarding Manuscript
Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs
Henry Garrett,“Perfect Directions Toward Idealism in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition
Forwarding Neutrosophic SuperHyperClique on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”,
ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30092.80004).
2023 0113 | Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded Regions and Sub-Regions in Manuscript
the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With (Neutrosophic)
SuperHyperClique
Henry Garrett,“Demonstrating Complete Connections in Every Embedded Regions and Sub-
Regions in the Terms of Cancer’s Recognition and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs With
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClique”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23172.19849).
2023 0112 | Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling Manuscript
in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs
Henry Garrett, “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic)
SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”,
2023 0111 | Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Manuscript

Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints
Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints”,
2023 0110 | Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled neutrosophic Failed Manuscript
SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition modeled in the Form of Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraphs
5916
Henry Garrett,“Different Neutrosophic Types of Neutrosophic Regions titled neutrosophic

Failed SuperHyperStable in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition modeled in the Form of
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17385.36968).
2022 0109 | 0039 | Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as (Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring Manuscript
alongside (Dual)Dominating in (Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph
Garrett, Henry. “0039 | Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as (Dual)Resolving and
(Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in (Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph.” CERN
European Organization for Nuclear Research - Zenodo, Nov. 2022. CERN European
Organization for Nuclear Research, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6319942.
https://oa.mg/work/10.5281/zenodo.6319942
2022 0108 | 0049 | (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Garrett, Henry. “0049 | (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs.” CERN

European Organization for Nuclear Research - Zenodo, Feb. 2022. CERN European
Organization for Nuclear Research, https://doi.org/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724.
https://oa.mg/work/10.13140/rg.2.2.35241.26724
2023 0107 | Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic Manuscript
SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond
Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction To
Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond”,
Preprints 2023, 2023010044
2023 0106 | (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by Well-SuperHyperModelled Manuscript

(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs
Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by Well-
SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, Preprints 2023, 2023010043 (doi:
10.20944/preprints202301.0043.v1).
2022 0105 | Super Hyper Dominating and Super Hyper Resolving on Neutrosophic Super Hyper Graphs Article
and Their Directions in Game Theory and Neutrosophic Super Hyper Classes
Henry Garrett, “Super Hyper Dominating and Super Hyper Resolving on Neutrosophic
Super Hyper Graphs and Their Directions in Game Theory and Neutrosophic Super Hyper
Classes”, J Math Techniques Comput Math 1(3) (2022) 242-263.
2023 0104 | Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Manuscript
Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs
Henry Garrett,“Using the Tool As (Neutrosophic) Failed SuperHyperStable To
SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”,
2023 0103 | Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable To Manuscript

Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints
Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic Messy-Style SuperHyperGraphs To Form Neutrosophic
SuperHyperStable To Act on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognitions In Special ViewPoints”,
2023 0102 | (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by Well-SuperHyperModelled Manuscript

(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs
Henry Garrett,“(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by
Well-SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi:
10.13140/RG.2.2.35774.77123).
5917
2022 0101 | Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic Manuscript
SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond
Henry Garrett,“Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction To
Use Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond”,
2022 0100 | (Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) Manuscript
SuperHyperGraphs
Henry Garrett,“(Neutrosophic) 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in Cancer’s Recognitions And
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29430.88642).
2022 0099 | Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling Manuscript
in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs
Henry Garrett,“Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic)
SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”,
2022 0098 | (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions Featuring (Neutrosophic) Manuscript

SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances
Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions Featuring
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, Preprints 2022, 2022120549 (doi:
10.20944/preprints202212.0549.v1).
2022 0098 | (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions Featuring (Neutrosophic) Manuscript

SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances
Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions
Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”, ResearchGate 2022,
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19380.94084).
2022 0097 | (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive and SuperHyperOffensive Manuscript

Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling
of Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses

Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive and
SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph With
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic)
SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022120540 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0540.v1).
2022 0097 | (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive and SuperHyperOffensive Manuscript

Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling
of Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperClasses

Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHyperDefensive and
SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph With
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic)
SuperHyperClasses”, ResearchGate 2022, (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.14426.41923).
2022 0096 | SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph With Manuscript

SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions
Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions”, Preprints 2022,
2022120500 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202212.0500.v1).
2022 0096 | SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph With Manuscript

SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions
Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions”, ResearchGate
2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20993.12640).
5918
2022 0095 | Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Manuscript
and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s Treatments
Henry Garrett,“Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”,
2022 0095 | Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Manuscript

And SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s Treatments
Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraphs And SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s Treatments”,
ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23123.04641).
2022 0094 | SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Manuscript

Their Directions in Game Theory and Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses
Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in Game Theory and Neutrosophic
SuperHyperClasses”, Preprints 2022, 2022110576 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202211.0576.v1).
2022 0094 | SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And Manuscript

Their Directions in Game Theory and Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses
Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions in Game Theory and Neutrosophic
SuperHyperClasses”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.23324.56966).
2022 0093 | Neutrosophic Co-degree and Neutrosophic Degree alongside Chromatic Numbers in the Setting Article
of Some Classes Related to Neutrosophic Hypergraphs
Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Co-degree and Neutrosophic Degree alongside Chromatic
Numbers in the Setting of Some Classes Related to Neutrosophic Hypergraphs”, J Curr Trends
Comp Sci Res 1(1) (2022) 06-14.
PDF,Abstract,Issue.
2022 0092 | Recognition of the Pattern for Vertices to Make Dimension by Resolving in some Classes of Manuscript
Neutrosophic Graphs
Henry Garrett, “Recognition of the Pattern for Vertices to Make Dimension
by Resolving in some Classes of Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi:
10.13140/RG.2.2.27281.51046).
2022 0091 | Regularity of Every Element to Function in the Type of Domination in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Regularity of Every Element to Function in the Type of Domination in

Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.22861.10727).
2022 0090 | Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some Neutrosophic Notions Based on Manuscript
Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)
Henry Garrett, “Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some Neutrosophic
Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph
(NSHG)”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.25385.88160).
2022 0089 | Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning Neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating and Manuscript
Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph
Henry Garrett, “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning Neutrosophic
SuperHyperDominating and Neutrosophic SuperHyperResolving in Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29173.86244).
2022 0088 | Seeking Empty Subgraphs To Determine Different Measurements in Some Classes of Manuscript
Neutrosophic Graphs
5919
Henry Garrett, “Seeking Empty Subgraphs To Determine Different Measurements in Some

Classes of Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30448.53766).
2022 0087 | Impacts of Isolated Vertices To Cover Other Vertices in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Impacts of Isolated Vertices To Cover Other Vertices in Neutrosophic

Graphs”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16185.44647).
2022 0086 | Perfect Locating of All Vertices in Some Classes of Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Perfect Locating of All Vertices in Some Classes of Neutrosophic Graphs”,
2022 0085 | Complete Connections Between Vertices in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Complete Connections Between Vertices in Neutrosophic Graphs”,

2022 0084 | Unique Distance Differentiation By Collection of Vertices in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Unique Distance Differentiation By Collection of Vertices in Neutrosophic

2022 0083 | Single Connection Amid Vertices From Two Given Sets Partitioning Vertex Set in Some Classes Manuscript
of Neutrosophic Graphs
Henry Garrett, “Single Connection Amid Vertices From Two Given Sets Partitioning
Vertex Set in Some Classes of Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi:
10.13140/RG.2.2.32189.33764).
2022 0082 | Separate Joint-Sets Representing Separate Numbers Where Classes of Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
and Applications are Cases of Study
Henry Garrett, “Separate Joint-Sets Representing Separate Numbers Where Classes
of Neutrosophic Graphs and Applications are Cases of Study”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi:
10.13140/RG.2.2.22666.95686).
2022 0081 | Repetitive Joint-Sets Featuring Multiple Numbers For Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Repetitive Joint-Sets Featuring Multiple Numbers For Neutrosophic

2022 0080 | Dual-Resolving Numbers Excerpt from Some Classes of Neutrosophic Graphs With Some Manuscript
Applications
Henry Garrett, “Dual-Resolving Numbers Excerpt from Some Classes of Neutrosophic
Graphs With Some Applications”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.14971.39200).
2022 0079 | Dual-Dominating Numbers in Neutrosophic Setting and Crisp Setting Obtained From Classes Manuscript
of Neutrosophic Graphs
Henry Garrett, “Dual-Dominating Numbers in Neutrosophic Setting and Crisp
Setting Obtained From Classes of Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi:
10.13140/RG.2.2.19925.91361).
2022 0078 | Neutrosophic Path-Coloring Numbers BasedOn Endpoints In Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
5920
Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Path-Coloring Numbers BasedOn Endpoints In Neutrosophic

2022 0077 | Neutrosophic Dominating Path-Coloring Numbers in New Visions of Classes of Neutrosophic Manuscript
Graphs
Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Dominating Path-Coloring Numbers in New Visions of Classes
of Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.32151.65445).
2022 0076 | Path Coloring Numbers of Neutrosophic Graphs Based on Shared Edges and Neutrosophic Manuscript
Cardinality of Edges With Some Applications from Real-World Problems
Henry Garrett, “Path Coloring Numbers of Neutrosophic Graphs Based on Shared Edges
and Neutrosophic Cardinality of Edges With Some Applications from Real-World Problems”,
2022 0075 | Neutrosophic Collapsed Numbers in the Viewpoint of Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Collapsed Numbers in the Viewpoint of Neutrosophic Graphs”,

2022 0074 | Bulky Numbers of Classes of Neutrosophic Graphs Based on Neutrosophic Edges Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Bulky Numbers of Classes of Neutrosophic Graphs Based on Neutrosophic

Edges”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.24204.18564).
2022 0073 | Dense Numbers and Minimal Dense Sets of Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Dense Numbers and Minimal Dense Sets of Neutrosophic Graphs”,
2022 0072 | Connectivities of Neutrosophic Graphs in the terms of Crisp Cycles Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Connectivities of Neutrosophic Graphs in the terms of Crisp Cycles”,

2022 0071 | Strong Paths Defining Connectivities in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Strong Paths Defining Connectivities in Neutrosophic Graphs”,

2022 0070 | Finding Longest Weakest Paths assigning numbers to some Classes of Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Finding Longest Weakest Paths assigning numbers to some Classes of
Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35579.59689).
April 12, 2022 0069 | Properties of SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Article
Henry Garrett, “Properties of SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic

SuperHyperGraph”, Neutrosophic Sets and Systems 49 (2022) 531-561 (doi:
10.5281/zenodo.6456413). (http://fs.unm.edu/NSS/NeutrosophicSuperHyperGraph34.pdf).
(https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nss_journal/vol49/iss1/34).
Available at NSS, NSS Gallery, UNM Digital Repository, Twitter, ResearchGate, Scribd,
Academia, Zenodo, LinkedIn
2022 0068 | Relations and Notions amid Hamiltonicity and Eulerian Notions in Some Classes of Manuscript
Neutrosophic Graphs
5921
Henry Garrett, “Relations and Notions amid Hamiltonicity and Eulerian Notions in Some
Classes of Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35579.59689).
2022 0067 | Eulerian Results In Neutrosophic Graphs With Applications Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Eulerian Results In Neutrosophic Graphs With Applic- ations”,

2022 0066 | Finding Hamiltonian Neutrosophic Cycles in Classes of Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Finding Hamiltonian Neutrosophic Cycles in Classes of Neutrosophic

2022 0065 | Extending Sets Type-Results in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Extending Sets Type-Results in Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate 2022

(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13317.01767).
2022 0064 | Some Polynomials Related to Numbers in Classes of (Strong) Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Some Polynomials Related to Numbers in Classes of (Strong) Neutrosophic

2022 0063 | Finding Shortest Sequences of Consecutive Vertices in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Finding Shortest Sequences of Consecutive Vertices in Neutrosophic

2022 0062 | Neutrosophic Girth Based On Crisp Cycle in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Girth Based On Crisp Cycle in Neutrosophic Graphs”,

2022 0061 | e-Matching Number and e-Matching Polynomials in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “e-Matching Number and e-Matching Polynomials in Neutrosophic Graphs”,

2022 0060 | Matching Polynomials in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Matching Polynomials in Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi:

10.13140/RG.2.2.33630.72002).
2022 0059 | Some Results in Classes Of Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Some Results in Classes Of Neutrosophic Graphs”, Preprints 2022,

2022030248 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202203.0248.v1).
2022 0058 | Matching Number in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Matching Number in Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi:

10.13140/RG.2.2.18609.86882).
5922
2022 0057 | Fuzzy Dominating Number Based On Fuzzy Bridge And Applicaions Article
M. Hamidi, and M. Nikfar, “Fuzzy Dominating Number Based On Fuzzy

Bridge And Applicaions”, Fuzzy Systems and its Applications 4(2) (2022) 205-229
(https://doi.org/10.22034/jfsa.2022.306606.1092).
Oct 2018 0056 | The Effects of Mathematics on Computer Sciences Conference Article
M. Nikfar, “The Effects of Mathematics on Computer Sciences”, Second Conference

on the Education and Applications of Mathematics, Kermanshah, Iran, 2018
(https://en.civilica.com/doc/824659).
2022 0055 | (Failed) 1-clique Number in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “(Failed) 1-Clique Number in Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate 2022

(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.14241.89449).
2022 0054 | Failed Clique Number in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Failed Clique Number in Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi:
10.13140/RG.2.2.36039.16800).
2022 0053 | Clique Number in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Clique Number in Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi:

10.13140/RG.2.2.28338.68800).
2022 0052 | (Failed) 1-independent Number in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “(Failed) 1-Independent Number in Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate

2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30593.12643).
2022 0051 | Failed Independent Number in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Failed Independent Number in Neutrosophic Graphs”, Preprints 2022,

2022020334 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202202.0334.v2)
2022 0051 | Failed Independent Number in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Failed Independent Number in Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate 2022

(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31196.05768).
2022 0050 | Independent Set in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Independent Set in Neutrosophic Graphs”, Preprints 2022, 2022020334 (doi:
10.20944/preprints202202.0334.v1).
2022 0050 | Independent Set in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Independent Set in Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi:

10.13140/RG.2.2.17472.81925).
2022 0049 | (Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript

5923
Henry Garrett, “(Failed)1-Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate

2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35241.26724).
2022 0048 | Failed Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Failed Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs”, Preprints 2022,

2022020343 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202202.0343.v1).
2022 0048 | Failed Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Failed Zero-Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate 2022

(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.24873.47209).
2022 0047 | Zero Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Zero Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi:
10.13140/RG.2.2.32265.93286).
2022 0046 | Quasi-Number in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Quasi-Number in Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi:

10.13140/RG.2.2.18470.60488).
2022 0045 | Quasi-Degree in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Quasi-Degree in Neutrosophic Graphs”, Preprints 2022, 2022020100 (doi:

10.20944/preprints202202.0100.v1).
2022 0045 | Quasi-Degree in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Quasi-Degree in ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.25460.01927).

2022 0044 | Co-Neighborhood in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Co-Neighborhood in Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi:

10.13140/RG.2.2.17687.44964).
2022 0043 | Global Powerful Alliance in Strong Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Global Powerful Alliance in Strong Neutrosophic Graphs”, Preprints 2022,
2022010429 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202201.0429.v1).
2022 0043 | Global Powerful Alliance in Strong Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Global Powerful Alliance in Strong Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate

2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.31784.24322).
2022 0042 | Global Offensive Alliance in Strong Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Global Offensive Alliance in Strong Neutrosophic Graphs”, Preprints 2022,
2022010429 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202201.0429.v1).
5924
2022 0042 | Global Offensive Alliance in Strong Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Global Offensive Alliance in Strong Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate

2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.26541.20961).
2022 0041 | Three Types of Neutrosophic Alliances based on Connectedness and (Strong) Edges Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Three Types of Neutrosophic Alliances based on Connectedness and (Strong)
Edges”, Preprints 2022, 2022010239 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202201.0239.v1).
2022 0041 | Three Types of Neutrosophic Alliances based on Connectedness and (Strong) Edges Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Three Types of Neutrosophic Alliances based on Connectedness and (Strong)
Edges”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18486.83521).
2022 0040 | Three types of neutrosophic alliances based of connectedness and (strong) edges (In-Progress) Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Three types of neutrosophic alliances based of connectedness and (strong)
edges (In-Progress)”, ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.27570.12480).
2022 0039 | Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as (Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as (Dual)Resolving and
(Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in (Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph”, Preprints
2022, 2022010145 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202201.0145.v1).
2022 0039 | Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as (Dual)Resolving and (Dual)Coloring Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Closing Numbers and Super-Closing Numbers as (Dual)Resolving
and (Dual)Coloring alongside (Dual)Dominating in (Neutrosophic)n-SuperHyperGraph”,
ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18909.54244/1).
2022 0038 | Co-degree and Degree of classes of Neutrosophic Hypergraphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Co-degree and Degree of classes of Neutrosophic Hypergraphs”, Preprints

2022, 2022010027 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202201.0027.v1).
2022 0038 | Co-degree and Degree of classes of Neutrosophic Hypergraphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Co-degree and Degree of classes of Neutrosophic Hypergraphs”,

2021 0037 | Dimension and Coloring alongside Domination in Neutrosophic Hypergraphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Dimension and Coloring alongside Domination in Neutrosophic

Hypergraphs”, Preprints 2021, 2021120448 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202112.0448.v1).
2021 0037 | Dimension and Coloring alongside Domination in Neutrosophic Hypergraphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Dimension and Coloring alongside Domination in Neutrosophic

Hypergraphs”, ResearchGate 2021 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.13070.28483).
2021 0036 | Different Types of Neutrosophic Chromatic Number Manuscript

5925
Henry Garrett, “Different Types of Neutrosophic Chromatic Number”, Preprints 2021,

2021120335 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202112.0335.v1).
2021 0036 | Different Types of Neutrosophic Chromatic Number Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Different Types of Neutrosophic Chromatic Number”, ResearchGate 2021

(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19068.46723).
2021 0035 | Neutrosophic Chromatic Number Based on Connectedness Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Chromatic Number Based on Connectedness”, Preprints 2021,

2021120226 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202112.0226.v1).
2021 0035 | Neutrosophic Chromatic Number Based on Connectedness Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic Chromatic Number Based on Connectedness”, ResearchGate

2021 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.18563.84001).
2021 0034 | Chromatic Number and Neutrosophic Chromatic Number Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Chromatic Number and Neutrosophic Chromatic Number”, Preprints 2021,
2021120177 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202112.0177.v1).
2021 0034 | Chromatic Number and Neutrosophic Chromatic Number Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Chromatic Number and Neutrosophic Chromatic Number”, ResearchGate

2021 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.36035.73766).
2021 0033 | Metric Dimension in fuzzy(neutrosophic) Graphs #12 Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Metric Dimension in fuzzy(neutrosophic) Graphs #12”, ResearchGate 2021

(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20690.48322).

(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29308.46725).

(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.21614.54085).

(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.34040.16648).

(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19464.96007).
5926
2021 0028 | Metric Dimension in fuzzy(neutrosophic) Graphs-VII Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Metric Dimension in fuzzy(neutrosophic) Graphs-VII”, ResearchGate 2021

(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.14667.72481).
2021 0028 | Metric Dimension in fuzzy(neutrosophic) Graphs-VII Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Metric Dimension in fuzzy(neutrosophic) Graphs-VII”, Preprints 2021,

2021110142 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202111.0142.v7).
2021 0027 | Metric Dimension in fuzzy(neutrosophic) Graphs-VI Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Metric Dimension in fuzzy(neutrosophic) Graphs-VI”, Preprints 2021,

2021110142 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202111.0142.v6).
2021 0026 | Metric Dimension in fuzzy(neutrosophic) Graphs-V Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Metric Dimension in fuzzy(neutrosophic) Graphs-V”, Preprints 2021,

2021110142 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202111.0142.v5).
2021 0025 | Metric Dimension in fuzzy(neutrosophic) Graphs-IV Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Metric Dimension in fuzzy(neutrosophic) Graphs-IV”, Preprints 2021,

2021110142 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202111.0142.v4).
2021 0024 | Metric Dimension in fuzzy(neutrosophic) Graphs-III Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Metric Dimension in fuzzy(neutrosophic) Graphs-III”, Preprints 2021,

2021110142 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202111.0142.v3).
2021 0023 | Metric Dimension in fuzzy(neutrosophic) Graphs-II Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Metric Dimension in fuzzy(neutrosophic) Graphs-II”, Preprints 2021,

2021110142 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202111.0142.v2).
2021 0022 | Metric Dimension in Fuzzy Graphs and Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Metric Dimension in Fuzzy Graphs and Neutrosophic Graphs”, Preprints
2021, 2021110142 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202111.0142.v1)
2021 0021 | Valued Number And Set Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Valued Number And Set”, Preprints 2021, 2021080229 (doi:
10.20944/preprints202108.0229.v1).
2021 0020 | Notion of Valued Set Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Notion of Valued Set”, Preprints 2021, 2021070410 (doi:

10.20944/preprints202107.0410.v1).
2021 0019 | Set And Its Operations Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Set And Its Operations”, Preprints 2021, 2021060508 (doi:
10.20944/preprints202106.0508.v1).
5927
2021 0018 | Metric Dimensions Of Graphs Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Metric Dimensions Of Graphs”, Preprints 2021, 2021060392 (doi:

10.20944/preprints202106.0392.v1).
2021 0017 | New Graph Of Graph Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “New Graph Of Graph”, Preprints 2021, 2021060323 (doi:

10.20944/preprints202106.0323.v1).
2021 0016 | Numbers Based On Edges Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Numbers Based On Edges”, Preprints 2021, 2021060315 (doi:

10.20944/preprints202106.0315.v1).
2021 0015 | Locating And Location Number Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Locating And Location Number”, Preprints 2021, 2021060206 (doi:
10.20944/preprints202106.0206.v1).
2021 0014 | Big Sets Of Vertices Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Big Sets Of Vertices”, Preprints 2021, 2021060189 (doi:

10.20944/preprints202106.0189.v1).
2021 0013 | Matroid And Its Outlines Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Matroid And Its Outlines”, Preprints 2021, 2021060146 (doi:
10.20944/preprints202106.0146.v1).
2021 0012 | Matroid And Its Relations Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Matroid And Its Relations”, Preprints 2021, 2021060080 (doi:
10.20944/preprints202106.0080.v1).
2021 0011 | Metric Number in Dimension Manuscript
Henry Garrett, “Metric Number in Dimension”, Preprints 2021, 2021060004 (doi:

10.20944/preprints202106.0004.v1).
2018 0010 | A Study on Domination in two Fuzzy Models Manuscript
M. Nikfar, “A Study on Domination in two Fuzzy Models”, Preprints 2018, 2018040119 (doi:
10.20944/preprints201804.0119.v2).
2019 0009 | Nikfar Domination Versus Others: Restriction, Extension Theorems and Monstrous Examples Manuscript
M. Nikfar, “Nikfar Domination Versus Others: Restriction, Extension Theorems and

Monstrous Examples”, Preprints 2019, 2019010024 (doi: 10.20944/preprints201901.0024.v3).
2019 0008 | Nikfar Dominations: Definitions, Theorems, and Connections Manuscript
M. Nikfar, “Nikfar Dominations: Definitions, Theorems, and Connections”, ResearchGate

2019 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28955.31526/1).
5928
2019 0007 | Nikfar Domination in Fuzzy Graphs Manuscript
M. Nikfar, “Nikfar Domination in Fuzzy Graphs”, Preprints 2019, 2019010024 (doi:

10.20944/preprints201901.0024.v2).

10.20944/preprints201901.0024.v2).
2018 0005 | The Results on Vertex Domination in Fuzzy Graphs Manuscript
M. Nikfar, “The Results on Vertex Domination in Fuzzy Graphs”, Preprints 2018, 2018040085
(doi: 10.20944/preprints201804.0085.v2).

10.20944/preprints201901.0024.v1).
2019 0003 | Nikfar Domination in Neutrosophic Graphs Manuscript
M. Nikfar, “Nikfar Domination in Neutrosophic Graphs”, Preprints 2019, 2019010025 (doi:

10.20944/preprints201901.0025.v1).
2018 0002 | Vertex Domination in t-Norm Fuzzy Graphs Manuscript
M. Nikfar, “Vertex Domination in t-Norm Fuzzy Graphs”, Preprints 2018, 2018040119 (doi:
10.20944/preprints201804.0119.v1).
2018 0001 | The Results on Vertex Domination in Fuzzy Graphs Manuscript
M. Nikfar, “The Results on Vertex Domination in Fuzzy Graphs”, Preprints 2018, 2018040085
(doi: 10.20944/preprints201804.0085.v1).
5929
Publications: Books
2023 0069 | SuperHyperMatching Amazon
ASIN : B0BSDPXX1P Publisher : Independently published (January 15, 2023) Language

: English Paperback : 582 pages ISBN-13 : 979-8373872683 Item Weight : 3.6 pounds
Dimensions : 8.5 x 1.37 x 11 inches
ASIN : B0BSDC1L66 Publisher : Independently published (January 16, 2023) Language
: English Hardcover : 548 pages ISBN-13 : 979-8373875424 Item Weight : 3.3 pounds
2023 0068 | Failed SuperHyperClique Amazon
ASIN : B0BRZ67NYN Publisher : Independently published (January 10, 2023) Language

ASIN : B0BRYZTK24 Publisher : Independently published (January 10, 2023) Language
2023 0067 | SuperHyperClique Amazon
ASIN : B0BRWK4S1Y Publisher : Independently published (January 8, 2023) Language

ASIN : B0BRM24YJX Publisher : Independently published (January 8, 2023) Language :
English Hardcover : 388 pages ISBN-13 : 979-8373041935 Item Weight : 2.36 pounds Dimensions
: 8.25 x 1.1 x 11 inches
2023 0066 | Failed SuperHyperStable Amazon
ASIN : B0BRNG7DC8 Publisher : Independently published (January 4, 2023) Language

ASIN : B0BRLVN39L Publisher : Independently published (January 4, 2023) Language :
: 8.25 x 0.91 x 11 inches
2023 0065 | SuperHyperStable Amazon
ASIN : B0BRDG5Z4Y Publisher : Independently published (January 2, 2023) Language

Dimensions : 8.27 x 0.7 x 11.69 inches
ASIN : B0BRJPG56M Publisher : Independently published (January 2, 2023) Language :
: 8.25 x 0.87 x 11 inches
2023 0064 | Failed SuperHyperForcing Amazon
ASIN : B0BRH5B4QM Publisher : Independently published (January 1, 2023) Language

ASIN : B0BRGX4DBJ Publisher : Independently published (January 1, 2023) Language :
: 8.25 x 0.98 x 11 inches
2022 0063 | SuperHyperForcing Amazon
ASIN : B0BRDG1KN1 Publisher : Independently published (December 30, 2022) Language

ASIN : B0BRDFFQMF Publisher : Independently published (December 30, 2022) Language
5930
2022 0062 | SuperHyperAlliances Amazon
ASIN : B0BR6YC3HG Publisher : Independently published (December 27, 2022) Language

ASIN : B0BR7CBTC6 Publisher : Independently published (December 27, 2022) Language :
: 8.25 x 0.64 x 11 inches
2022 0061 | SuperHyperGraphs Amazon
ASIN : B0BR1NHY4Z Publisher : Independently published (December 24, 2022) Language :

English Paperback : 117 pages ISBN-13 : 979-8371090133 Item Weight : 13 ounces Dimensions
: 8.5 x 0.28 x 11 inches
ASIN : B0BQXTHTXY Publisher : Independently published (December 24, 2022) Language :
English Hardcover : 117 pages ISBN-13 : 979-8371093240 Item Weight : 12.6 ounces Dimensions
: 8.25 x 0.47 x 11 inches
2022 0060 | Neut. SuperHyperEdges Amazon
ASIN : B0BNH11ZDY Publisher : Independently published (November 27, 2022) Language :

: 8.5 x 0.26 x 11 inches
ASIN : B0BNGZGPP6 Publisher : Independently published (November 27, 2022) Language :
: 8.25 x 0.45 x 11 inches
2022 0059 | Neutrosophic k-Number Amazon
ASIN : B0BF3P5X4N Publisher : Independently published (September 14, 2022) Language

ASIN : B0BF2XCDZM Publisher : Independently published (September 14, 2022) Language :
: 8.25 x 0.57 x 11 inches
2022 0058 | Neutrosophic Schedule Amazon
ASIN : B0BBJWJJZF Publisher : Independently published (August 22, 2022) Language

ASIN : B0BBJLPWKH Publisher : Independently published (August 22, 2022) Language :
: 8.25 x 1.35 x 11 inches
2022 0057 | Neutrosophic Wheel Amazon
ASIN : B0BBJRHXXG Publisher : Independently published (August 22, 2022) Language

ASIN : B0BBK3KG82 Publisher : Independently published (August 22, 2022) Language :
: 8.25 x 0.65 x 11 inches
2022 0056 | Neutrosophic t-partite Amazon
ASIN : B0BBJLZCHS Publisher : Independently published (August 22, 2022) Language

ASIN : B0BBJDFGJS Publisher : Independently published (August 22, 2022) Language :
: 8.25 x 0.75 x 11 inches
2022 0055 | Neutrosophic Bipartite Amazon

5931
ASIN : B0BB5Z9GHW Publisher : Independently published (August 22, 2022) Language

ASIN : B0BBGG9RDZ Publisher : Independently published (August 22, 2022) Language :
: 8.25 x 0.72 x 11 inches
2022 0054 | Neutrosophic Star Amazon
ASIN : B0BB5ZHSSZ Publisher : Independently published (August 22, 2022) Language :

English Paperback : 215 pages ISBN-13 : 979-8847794374 Item Weight : 1.4 pounds Dimensions
: 8.5 x 0.51 x 11 inches
ASIN : B0BBC4BL9P Publisher : Independently published (August 22, 2022) Language :
: 8.25 x 0.7 x 11 inches
2022 0053 | Neutrosophic Cycle Amazon
ASIN : B0BB62NZQK Publisher : Independently published (August 22, 2022) Language

ASIN : B0BB65QMKQ Publisher : Independently published (August 22, 2022) Language :
: 8.25 x 1 x 11 inches
2022 0052 | Neutrosophic Path Amazon
ASIN : B0BB67WCXL Publisher : Independently published (August 8, 2022) Language :

English Paperback : 315 pages ISBN-13 : 979-8847730570 Item Weight : 2 pounds Dimensions
: 8.5 x 0.74 x 11 inches
ASIN : B0BB5Z9FXL Publisher : Independently published (August 8, 2022) Language :
: 8.25 x 0.93 x 11 inches
2022 0051 | Neutrosophic Complete Amazon
ASIN : B0BB6191KN Publisher : Independently published (August 8, 2022) Language

ASIN : B0BB5RRQN7 Publisher : Independently published (August 8, 2022) Language :
: 8.25 x 0.73 x 11 inches
2022 0050 | Neutrosophic Dominating Amazon
ASIN : B0BB5QV8WT Publisher : Independently published (August 8, 2022) Language

ASIN : B0BB61WL9M Publisher : Independently published (August 8, 2022) Language :
: 8.25 x 1.03 x 11 inches
2022 0049 | Neutrosophic Resolving Amazon
ASIN : B0BBCJMRH8 Publisher : Independently published (August 8, 2022) Language

ASIN : B0BBCB6DFC Publisher : Independently published (August 8, 2022) Language :
: 8.25 x 1.06 x 11 inches
2022 0048 | Neutrosophic Stable Amazon

5932
ASIN : B0B7QGTNFW Publisher : Independently published (July 28, 2022) Language :

English Paperback : 133 pages ISBN-13 : 979-8842880348 Item Weight : 14.6 ounces Dimensions
: 8.5 x 0.32 x 11 inches
ASIN : B0B7QJWQ35 Publisher : Independently published (July 28, 2022) Language :
: 8.25 x 0.51 x 11 inches
2022 0047 | Neutrosophic Total Amazon
ASIN : B0B7GLB23F Publisher : Independently published (July 25, 2022) Language : English
Paperback : 137 pages ISBN-13 : 979-8842357741 Item Weight : 14.9 ounces Dimensions : 8.5
x 0.33 x 11 inches
ASIN : B0B6XVTDYC Publisher : Independently published (July 25, 2022) Language :
: 8.25 x 0.52 x 11 inches
2022 0046 | Neutrosophic Perfect Amazon
ASIN : B0B7CJHCYZ Publisher : Independently published (July 22, 2022) Language :

: 8.5 x 0.3 x 11 inches
ASIN : B0B7C732Z1 Publisher : Independently published (July 22, 2022) Language : English
Hardcover : 127 pages ISBN-13 : 979-8842028757 Item Weight : 13.6 ounces Dimensions : 8.25
x 0.49 x 11 inches
2022 0045 | Neutrosophic Joint Set Amazon
ASIN : B0B6L8WJ77 Publisher : Independently published (July 15, 2022) Language : English
Paperback : 139 pages ISBN-13 : 979-8840802199 Item Weight : 15 ounces Dimensions : 8.5 x
0.33 x 11 inches
ASIN : B0B6L9GJWR Publisher : Independently published (July 15, 2022) Language :
: 8.25 x 0.52 x 11 inches
August 30, 0044 | Neutrosophic Duality GLOBAL

2022 KNOWLEDGE -
Publishing
House&Amazon&Google
Scholar&UNM
Neutrosophic Duality, GLOBAL KNOWLEDGE - Publishing House:
GLOBAL KNOWLEDGE - Publishing House 848 Brickell Ave Ste 950 Miami, Florida 33131
United States. ISBN: 978-1-59973-743-0
Henry Garrett, (2022). “Neutrosophic Duality”, Florida: GLOBAL KNOWLEDGE - Publishing
House 848 Brickell Ave Ste 950 Miami, Florida 33131 United States. ISBN: 978-1-59973-743-0
(http://fs.unm.edu/NeutrosophicDuality.pdf).
ASIN : B0B4SJ8Y44 Publisher : Independently published (June 22, 2022) Language : English
Paperback : 115 pages ISBN-13 : 979-8837647598 Item Weight : 12.8 ounces Dimensions : 8.5
x 0.27 x 11 inches
ASIN : B0B46B4CXT Publisher : Independently published (June 22, 2022) Language : English
Hardcover : 115 pages ISBN-13 : 979-8837649981 Item Weight : 12.5 ounces Dimensions : 8.25
x 0.46 x 11 inches
GLOBAL KNOWLEDGE - Publishing House: http://fs.unm.edu/NeutrosophicDuality.pdf
UNM: http://fs.unm.edu/NeutrosophicDuality.pdf
Google Scholar: https://books.google.com/books?id=dWWkEAAAQBAJ
Paperback: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0B4SJ8Y44
Hardcover: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0B46B4CXT
2022 0043 | Neutrosophic Path-Coloring Amazon
5933
ASIN : B0B3F2BZC4 Publisher : Independently published (June 7, 2022) Language : English

Paperback : 161 pages ISBN-13 : 979-8834894469 Item Weight : 1.08 pounds Dimensions : 8.5
x 0.38 x 11 inches
ASIN : B0B3FGPGQ3 Publisher : Independently published (June 7, 2022) Language :
: 8.25 x 0.57 x 11 inches
2022 0042 | Neutrosophic Density Amazon
ASIN : B0B19CDX7W Publisher : Independently published (May 15, 2022) Language :

: 8.5 x 0.35 x 11 inches
ASIN : B0B14PLPGL Publisher : Independently published (May 15, 2022) Language :
: 8.25 x 0.53 x 11 inches
2022 0041 | Properties of SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Google Commerce Ltd
Publisher Infinite Study Seller Google Commerce Ltd Published on Apr 27, 2022 Pages
30 Features Original pages Best for web, tablet, phone, eReader Language English Genres
Antiques & Collectibles / Reference Content protection This content is DRM free GooglePlay
Properties of SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph Front Cover Henry
Garrett Infinite Study, 27 Apr 2022 - Antiques & Collectibles - 30 pages GoogleBooks
Henry Garrett, “Properties of SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”,
Neutrosophic Sets and Systems 49 (2022) 531-561 (doi: 893 10.5281/zenodo.6456413).
(http://fs.unm.edu/NSS/NeutrosophicSuperHyperGraph34.pdf).
2022 0040 | Neutrosophic Connectivity Amazon
ASIN : B09YQJG2ZV Publisher : Independently published (April 26, 2022) Language :

: 8.5 x 0.29 x 11 inches
ASIN : B09YQJG2DZ Publisher : Independently published (April 26, 2022) Language :
: 8.25 x 0.48 x 11 inches
2022 0039 | Neutrosophic Cycles Amazon
ASIN : B09X4KVLQG Publisher : Independently published (April 8, 2022) Language

ASIN : B09X4LZ3HL Publisher : Independently published (April 8, 2022) Language : English
Hardcover : 169 pages ISBN-13 : 979-8449144157 Item Weight : 1.09 pounds Dimensions : 8.25
x 0.59 x 11 inches
2022 0038 | Girth in Neutrosophic Graphs Amazon
ASIN : B09WQ5PFV8 Publisher : Independently published (March 29, 2022) Language

ASIN : B09WQQGXPZ Publisher : Independently published (March 29, 2022) Language :
: 8.25 x 0.58 x 11 inches
2022 0037 | Matching Number in Neutrosophic Graphs Amazon
ASIN : B09W7FT8GM Publisher : Independently published (March 22, 2022) Language

ASIN : B09W4HF99L Publisher : Independently published (March 22, 2022) Language :
English Hardcover : 153 pages ISBN-13 : 979-8437539057 Item Weight : 1 pounds Dimensions
: 8.25 x 0.55 x 11 inches
5934
2022 0036 | Clique Number in Neutrosophic Graph Amazon
ASIN : B09TV82Q7T Publisher : Independently published (March 7, 2022) Language

ASIN : B09TZBPWJG Publisher : Independently published (March 7, 2022) Language :
: 8.25 x 0.56 x 11 inches
2022 0035 | Independence in Neutrosophic Graphs Amazon
ASIN : B09TF227GG Publisher : Independently published (February 27, 2022) Language :

English Paperback : 149 pages ISBN-13 : 979-8424231681 Item Weight : 1 pounds Dimensions
: 8.5 x 0.35 x 11 inches
ASIN : B09TL1LSKD Publisher : Independently published (February 27, 2022) Language :
: 8.25 x 0.54 x 11 inches
2022 0034 | Zero Forcing Number in Neutrosophic Graphs Amazon
ASIN : B09SW2YVKB Publisher : Independently published (February 18, 2022) Language :

: 8.5 x 0.35 x 11 inches
ASIN : B09SWLK7BG Publisher : Independently published (February 18, 2022) Language :
: 8.25 x 0.54 x 11 inches
2022 0033 | Neutrosophic Quasi-Order Amazon
ASIN : B09S3RXQ5C Publisher : Independently published (February 8, 2022) Language :

: 8.5 x 0.26 x 11 inches
ASIN : B09S232DQH Publisher : Independently published (February 8, 2022) Language :
: 8.25 x 0.43 x 11 inches
Jan 29, 2022 0032 | Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs E-

publishing&Amazon&Google
Scholar&UNM
Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs, E-publishing:
Educational Publisher 1091 West 1st Ave Grandview Heights, Ohio 43212 United States
ISBN 978-1-59973-725-6
Henry Garrett, (2022). “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs”, Ohio: E-publishing: Educational
Publisher 1091 West 1st Ave Grandview Heights, Ohio 43212 United States. ISBN: 978-1-
59973-725-6 (http://fs.unm.edu/BeyondNeutrosophicGraphs.pdf).
ASIN : B0BBCQJQG5 Publisher : Independently published (August 8, 2022) Language
ASIN : B0BBC4BJZ5 Publisher : Independently published (August 8, 2022) Language : English
Hardcover : 257 pages ISBN-13 : 979-8847567497 Item Weight : 1.61 pounds Dimensions : 8.25
x 0.8 x 11 inches
E-publishing: Educational Publisher: http://fs.unm.edu/BeyondNeutrosophicGraphs.pdf
UNM: http://fs.unm.edu/BeyondNeutrosophicGraphs.pdf
Google Scholar:https://books.google.com/books?id=cWWkEAAAQBAJ
Paperback: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0BBCQJQG5
Hardcover: https://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Neutrosophic-Graphs-Henry-
Garrett/dp/B0BBC4BJZ5
2022 0031 | Neutrosophic Alliances Amazon

5935
ASIN : B09RB5XLVB Publisher : Independently published (January 26, 2022) Language :
: 8.5 x 0.21 x 11 inches
ASIN : B09R39MTSW Publisher : Independently published (January 26, 2022) Language :

: 8.25 x 0.4 x 11 inches
2022 0030 | Neutrosophic Hypergraphs Amazon
ASIN : B09PMBKVD4 Publisher : Independently published (January 7, 2022) Language :

: 8.5 x 0.19 x 11 inches
ASIN : B09PP8VZ3D Publisher : Independently published (January 7, 2022) Language :
: 8.25 x 0.38 x 11 inches
2022 0029 | Collections of Articles Amazon
-
ASIN : B09PHHDDQK Publisher : Independently published (January 2, 2022) Language :
: 8.25 x 1.47 x 11 inches
2022 0028 | Collections of Math Amazon
-
ASIN : B09PHBWT5D Publisher : Independently published (January 1, 2022) Language :
: 8.25 x 1.28 x 11 inches
2022 0027 | Collections of US Amazon
-
ASIN : B09PHBT924 Publisher : Independently published (December 31, 2021) Language :
: 8.25 x 0.81 x 11 inches
2021 0026 | Neutrosophic Chromatic Number Amazon
ASIN : B09NRD25MG Publisher : Independently published (December 20, 2021) Language

: English Paperback : 67 pages ISBN-13 : 979-8787858174 Item Weight : 8.2 ounces Dimensions
: 8.5 x 0.16 x 11 inches Language : English
-
2021 0025 | Simple Ideas Amazon
ASIN : B09MYTN6NT Publisher : Independently published (December 9, 2021) Language :

: 8.5 x 0.11 x 11 inches
-
2021 0024 | Neutrosophic Graphs Amazon
ASIN : B09MYXVNF9 Publisher : Independently published (December 7, 2021) Language

: English Paperback : 55 pages ISBN-13 : 979-8780775652 Item Weight : 7 ounces Dimensions
: 8.5 x 0.13 x 11 inches
-
2021 0023 | List Amazon
ASIN : B09M554XCL Publisher : Independently published (November 20, 2021) Language :

: 8.5 x 0.12 x 11 inches
-
5936
2021 0022 | Theorems Amazon
ASIN : B09KDZXGPR Publisher : Independently published (October 28, 2021) Language :

: 8.5 x 0.12 x 11 inches
-
2021 0021 | Dimension Amazon
ASIN : B09K2BBQG7 Publisher : Independently published (October 25, 2021) Language :

English Paperback : 55 pages ISBN-13 : 979-8753577146 Item Weight : 7 ounces Dimensions :
8.5 x 0.13 x 11 inches
-
2021 0020 | Beyond The Graph Theory Amazon
ASIN : B09KDZXGPR Publisher : Independently published (October 28, 2021) Language :

: 8.5 x 0.12 x 11 inches
-
2021 0019 | Located Heart And Memories Amazon
ASIN : B09F14PL8T Publisher : Independently published (August 31, 2021) Language :

8.5 x 0.14 x 11 inches
-
2021 0018 | Number Graphs And Numbers Amazon
ASIN : B099BQRSF8 Publisher : Independently published (July 14, 2021) Language : English
Paperback : 32 pages ISBN-13 : 979-8537474135 Item Weight : 4.8 ounces Dimensions : 8.5 x
0.08 x 11 inches
-
2021 0017 | First Place Is Reserved Amazon
ASIN : B098CWD5PT Publisher : Independently published (June 30, 2021) Language :

8.5 x 0.13 x 11 inches
-
2021 0016 | Detail-oriented Groups And Ideas Amazon
ASIN : B098CYYG3Q Publisher : Independently published (June 30, 2021) Language :

: 8.5 x 0.17 x 11 inches
-
2021 0015 | Definition And Its Necessities Amazon
ASIN : B098DHRJFD Publisher : Independently published (June 30, 2021) Language :

: 8.5 x 0.19 x 11 inches
-
2021 0014 | Words And Their Directionss Amazon
ASIN : B098CYS8G2 Publisher : Independently published (June 30, 2021) Language :

8.5 x 0.16 x 11 inches
-
2021 0013 | Tattooed Heart But Forever Amazon

5937
ASIN : B098CR8HM6 Publisher : Independently published (June 30, 2021) Language :

: 8.5 x 0.11 x 11 inches
-
2021 0012 | Metric Number In Dimension Amazon
ASIN : B0913597TV Publication date : March 24, 2021 Language : English File size : 28445
KB Text-to-Speech : Enabled Enhanced typesetting : Enabled X-Ray : Not Enabled Word
Wise : Not Enabled Print length : 48 pages Lending : Not Enabled Kindle
-
2021 0011 | Domination Theory And Beyond Amazon
ASIN : B098DMMZ87 Publisher : Independently published (June 30, 2021) Language

-
2021 0010 | Vital Glory Amazon
ASIN : B08PVNJYRM Publication date : December 6, 2020 Language : English File size
: 1544 KB Simultaneous device usage : Unlimited Text-to-Speech : Enabled Screen Reader :
Supported Enhanced typesetting : Enabled X-Ray : Not Enabled Word Wise : Enabled Print
length : 24 pages Lending : Enabled Kindle
-
2021 0009 | Análisis de modelos y orientación más allá AmazonUK&MoreBooks
Análisis de modelos y orientación más allá Planteamiento y problemas en dos modelos

Ediciones Nuestro Conocimiento (2021-04-06) eligible for voucher ISBN-13: 978-620-3-59902-
2 ISBN-10:6203599026EAN:9786203599022Book language:Blurb/Shorttext:El enfoque para la
resolución de problemas es una selección obvia para hacer la investigación y el análisis de la
situación que puede provocar las perspectivas vagas que queremos no ser para extraer ideas
creativas y nuevas que queremos ser. Estudio simultáneamente dos modelos. Este estudio se
basa tanto en la investigación como en la discusión que el autor piensa que puede ser útil
para entender y hacer crecer nuestra fantası́a y la realidad juntas.Publishing house: Ediciones
Nuestro Conocimiento Website: https://sciencia-scripts.com By (author) : Henry Garrett
Number of pages:64Published on:2021-04-06Stock:Available Category: Mathematics Price:39.90
Keywords:Dos modelos, optimización de rutas y transporte, Two Models, Optimizing Routes
and Transportation
MoreBooks
https://www.morebooks.shop/store/gb/book/análisis-de-modelos-y-orientación-más-
allá/isbn/978-620-3-59902-2
Product details Publisher : Ediciones Nuestro Conocimiento (6 April 2021) Language :
Spanish ISBN-10 : 6203599026 ISBN-13 : 978-6203599022 Dimensions : 15 x 0.4 x 22 cm
Paperback:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Análisis-modelos-orientación-allá-Planteamiento/dp/6203599026
2021 0008 | Анализ моделей и руководство за пределами Amazon&MoreBooks

5938
Анализ моделей и руководство за пределами Подход и проблемы в двух моде-
лях Sciencia Scripts (2021-04-06) eligible for voucher ISBN-13: 978-620-3-59908-4 ISBN-
10:6203599085EAN:9786203599084Book language: Russian Blurb/Shorttext:Подход к реше-
нию проблем является очевидным выбором для проведения исследований и анализа си-
туации, которая может вызвать смутные перспективы, которыми мы не хотим быть для
извлечения творческих и новых идей, которыми мы хотим быть. Я одновременно изучаю
две модели. Это исследование основано как на исследовании, так и на обсуждении, кото-
рое, по мнению автора, может быть полезным для понимания и развития наших фантазий
и реальности вместе.Publishing house: Sciencia Scripts Website: https://sciencia-scripts.com
By (author) : Генри Гарретт Number of pages:68Published on:2021-04-06Stock:Available
Category: Mathematics Price:39.90 Keywords:Две модели, оптимизация маршрутов и
транспорта, Two Models, Optimizing Routes and Transportation
MoreBooks
https://www.morebooks.shop/store/gb/book/анализ-моделей-и-руководство-за-
пределами/isbn/978-620-3-59908-4
Анализ моделей и руководство за пределами: Подход и проблемы в двух моделях

(Russian Edition) Publisher : Sciencia Scripts (April 6, 2021) Language : Russian Paperback :
68 pages ISBN-10 : 6203599085 ISBN-13 : 978-6203599084 Item Weight : 5.3 ounces Dimensions
: 5.91 x 0.16 x 8.66 inches
2021 0007 | Análise e Orientação de Modelos Além Amazon | MoreBooks |

Walmart
Análise e Orientação de Modelos Além Abordagem e Problemas em Dois Modelos Edições
Nosso Conhecimento (2021-04-06 ) eligible for voucher ISBN-13: 978-620-3-59907-7 ISBN-
10:6203599077EAN:9786203599077Book language:Blurb/Shorttext:A abordagem para resolver
problemas é uma seleção óbvia para fazer pesquisa e análise da situação, que pode trazer
as perspectivas vagas que queremos não ser para extrair idéias criativas e novas idéias que
queremos ser. Eu estudo simultaneamente dois modelos. Este estudo é baseado tanto na
pesquisa como na discussão que o autor pensa que pode ser útil para compreender e fazer crescer
juntos a nossa fantasia e realidade.Publishing house: Edições Nosso Conhecimento Website:
https://sciencia-scripts.com By (author) : Henry Garrett Number of pages:64Published
on:2021-04-06Stock:Available Category: Mathematics Price:39.90 Keywords:Dois Modelos,
Otimização de Rotas e Transporte, Two Models, Optimizing Routes and Transportation
MoreBooks:
https://www.morebooks.shop/store/gb/book/análise-e-orientação-de-modelos-
além/isbn/978-620-3-59907-7
Henry Garrett Análise e Orientação de Modelos Além (Paperback) About this item
Product details
A abordagem para resolver problemas é uma seleção óbvia para fazer pesquisa e análise da
situação, que pode trazer as perspectivas vagas que queremos não ser para extrair idéias
criativas e novas idéias que queremos ser. Eu estudo simultaneamente dois modelos. Este
estudo é baseado tanto na pesquisa como na discussão que o autor pensa que pode ser útil
para compreender e fazer crescer juntos a nossa fantasia e realidade. Análise e Orientação de
Modelos Além (Paperback) We aim to show you accurate product information. Manufacturers,
suppliers and others provide what you see here, and we have not verified it. See our disclaimer
Specifications
Language Portuguese Publisher KS Omniscriptum Publishing Book Format Paperback Number
of Pages 64 Author Henry Garrett Title Análise e Orientação de Modelos Além ISBN-13
9786203599077 Publication Date April, 2021 Assembled Product Dimensions (L x W x H) 9.00
x 6.00 x 1.50 Inches ISBN-10 6203599077 Walmart
Análise e Orientação de Modelos Além: Abordagem e Problemas em Dois Modelos

(Portuguese Edition) Publisher : Edições Nosso Conhecimento (April 6, 2021) Language :
Portuguese Paperback : 64 pages ISBN-10 : 6203599077 ISBN-13 : 978-6203599077 Item Weight
: 3.67 ounces Dimensions : 5.91 x 0.15 x 8.66 inches
2021 0006 | Analizy modelowe i wytyczne wykraczaja˛ce poza Amazon&MoreBooks

5939
Analizy modelowe i wytyczne wykraczaja˛ce poza Podejście i problemy w dwóch
modelach Wydawnictwo Nasza Wiedza (2021-04-06 ) eligible for voucher ISBN-13: 978-620-3-
59906-0 ISBN-10:6203599069EAN:9786203599060Book language:Blurb/Shorttext:Podejście do
rozwia˛zywania problemów jest oczywistym wyborem do prowadzenia badań i analizowania
sytuacji, które moga˛ wywo lywać niejasne perspektywy, których nie chcemy dla wydobycia
kreatywnych i nowych pomys lów, które chcemy. I jednocześnie studiować dwa modele.
Badanie to oparte jest zarówno na badaniach jak i dyskusji, które zdaniem autora moga˛
być przydatne do zrozumienia i rozwoju naszych fantazji i rzeczywistości razem.Publishing
house: Wydawnictwo Nasza Wiedza Website: https://sciencia-scripts.com By (author) : Henry
Garrett Number of pages:64Published on:2021-04-06Stock:Available Category: Mathematics
Price:39.90 Keywords:Dwa modele, optymalizacja tras i transportu, Two Models, Optimizing
Routes and Transportation
MoreBooks:
https://www.morebooks.shop/store/gb/book/analizy-modelowe-i-wytyczne-wykraczaja˛ce-
poza/isbn/978-620-3-59906-0
Analizy modelowe i wytyczne wykraczaja˛ce poza: Podejście i problemy w dwóch modelach
(Polish Edition) Publisher : Wydawnictwo Nasza Wiedza (April 6, 2021) Language : Polish
Paperback : 64 pages ISBN-10 : 6203599069 ISBN-13 : 978-6203599060 Item Weight : 3.67
ounces Dimensions : 5.91 x 0.15 x 8.66 inches
2021 0005 | Modelanalyses en begeleiding daarna Amazon&MoreBooks
Modelanalyses en begeleiding daarna Aanpak en problemen in twee modellen

Uitgeverij Onze Kennis (2021-04-06 ) eligible for voucher ISBN-13: 978-620-3-59905-3
ISBN-10:6203599050EAN:9786203599053Book language:Blurb/Shorttext:De aanpak voor het
oplossen van problemen is een voor de hand liggende keuze voor het doen van onderzoek en het
analyseren van de situatie die de vage perspectieven kan oproepen die we niet willen zijn voor
het extraheren van creatieve en nieuwe ideeën die we willen zijn. Ik bestudeer tegelijkertijd twee
modellen. Deze studie is gebaseerd op zowel onderzoek als discussie waarvan de auteur denkt dat
ze nuttig kunnen zijn voor het begrijpen en laten groeien van onze fantasieën en de werkelijkheid
samen.Publishing house: Uitgeverij Onze Kennis Website: https://sciencia-scripts.com By
(author) : Henry Garrett Number of pages:64Published on:2021-04-06Stock:Available Category:
Mathematics Price:39.90 Keywords:Twee modellen, optimalisering van routes en transport,
Two Models, Optimizing Routes and Transportation
MoreBooks
Modelanalyses en begeleiding daarna: Aanpak en problemen in twee modellen (Dutch
Edition) Publisher : Uitgeverij Onze Kennis (April 6, 2021) Language : Dutch Paperback : 64
pages ISBN-10 : 6203599050 ISBN-13 : 978-6203599053 Item Weight : 3.99 ounces Dimensions
: 5.91 x 0.15 x 8.66 inches
2021 0004 | Analisi dei modelli e guida oltre Amazon | MoreBooks |

Walmart
5940
Analisi dei modelli e guida oltre Approccio e problemi in due modelli Edizioni
Sapienza (2021-04-06 ) eligible for voucher ISBN-13: 978-620-3-59904-6 ISBN-
10:6203599042EAN:9786203599046Book language:Blurb/Shorttext:L’approccio per risolvere
i problemi è una selezione ovvia per fare ricerca e analisi della situazione che può suscitare
le prospettive vaghe che non vogliamo essere per estrarre idee creative e nuove che vogliamo
essere. Studio contemporaneamente due modelli. Questo studio si basa sia sulla ricerca che
sulla discussione che l’autore pensa possa essere utile per capire e far crescere insieme la nostra
fantasia e la realtà.Publishing house: Edizioni Sapienza Website: https://sciencia-scripts.com
By (author) : Henry Garrett Number of pages:60Published on:2021-04-06Stock:Available
Category: Mathematics Price:39.90 Keywords:Due modelli, ottimizzazione dei percorsi e del
trasporto, Two Models, Optimizing Routes and Transportation
MoreBooks Henry Garrett Analisi dei modelli e guida oltre (Paperback) About this item
Product details
L’approccio per risolvere i problemi è una selezione ovvia per fare ricerca e analisi della
situazione che può suscitare le prospettive vaghe che non vogliamo essere per estrarre idee
creative e nuove che vogliamo essere. Studio contemporaneamente due modelli. Questo studio
si basa sia sulla ricerca che sulla discussione che l’autore pensa possa essere utile per capire e far
crescere insieme la nostra fantasia e la realtà. Analisi dei modelli e guida oltre (Paperback) We
aim to show you accurate product information. Manufacturers, suppliers and others provide
what you see here, and we have not verified it. See our disclaimer Specifications
Publisher KS Omniscriptum Publishing Book Format Paperback Number of Pages 60 Author
Henry Garrett Title Analisi dei modelli e guida oltre ISBN-13 9786203599046 Publication Date
April, 2021 Assembled Product Dimensions (L x W x H) 9.00 x 6.00 x 1.50 Inches ISBN-10
6203599042 Walmart
Analisi dei modelli e guida oltre: Approccio e problemi in due modelli (Italian Edition)
Publisher : Edizioni Sapienza (April 6, 2021) Language : Italian Paperback : 60 pages ISBN-10
: 6203599042 ISBN-13 : 978-6203599046 Item Weight : 3.53 ounces Dimensions : 5.91 x 0.14 x
8.66 inches
2021 0003 | Analyses de modèles et orientations au-delà Amazon | MoreBooks |

Walmart
Analyses de modèles et orientations au-delà Approche et problèmes dans deux
modèles Editions Notre Savoir (2021-04-06 ) eligible for voucher eligible for voucher
ISBN-13: 978-620-3-59903-9 ISBN-10:6203599034EAN:9786203599039Book language: French
Blurb/Shorttext:L’approche pour résoudre les problèmes est une sélection évidente pour faire
la recherche et l’analyse de la situation qui peut éliciter les perspectives vagues que nous ne
voulons pas être pour extraire des idées créatives et nouvelles que nous voulons être. J’étudie
simultanément deux modèles. Cette étude est basée à la fois sur la recherche et la discussion,
ce qui, selon l’auteur, peut être utile pour comprendre et développer nos fantasmes et la réalité
ensemble.Publishing house: Editions Notre Savoir Website: https://sciencia-scripts.com By
(author) : Henry Garrett Number of pages:64Published on:2021-04-06Stock:Available Category:
Mathematics Price:39.90 Keywords:Two Models, Optimizing Routes and Transportation, Deux
modèles, optimisation des itinéraires et des transports
MoreBooks:
https://www.morebooks.shop/store/gb/book/analyses-de-modèles-et-orientations-au-
delà/isbn/978-620-3-59903-9
Henry Garrett Analyses de modèles et orientations au-delà (Paperback) About this item
Product details
L’approche pour résoudre les problèmes est une sélection évidente pour faire la recherche et
l’analyse de la situation qui peut éliciter les perspectives vagues que nous ne voulons pas être
pour extraire des idées créatives et nouvelles que nous voulons être. J’étudie simultanément
deux modèles. Cette étude est basée à la fois sur la recherche et la discussion, ce qui, selon
l’auteur, peut être utile pour comprendre et développer nos fantasmes et la réalité ensemble.
Analyses de modèles et orientations au-delà (Paperback) We aim to show you accurate product
information. Manufacturers, suppliers and others provide what you see here, and we have not
verified it. See our disclaimer Specifications
Language French Publisher KS Omniscriptum Publishing Book Format Paperback Number of
Pages 64 Author Henry Garrett Title Analyses de modèles et orientations au-delà ISBN-13
9786203599039 Publication Date April, 2021 Assembled Product Dimensions (L x W x H) 9.00
x 6.00 x 1.50 Inches ISBN-10 6203599034 Walmart
Analyses de modèles et orientations au-delà: Approche et problèmes dans deux modèles

(French Edition) Publisher : Editions Notre Savoir (April 6, 2021) Language : French Paperback
: 64 pages ISBN-10 : 6203599034 ISBN-13 : 978-6203599039 Item Weight : 3.67 ounces
Dimensions : 5.91 x 0.15 x 8.66 inches
5941
2021 0002 | Modell-Analysen und Anleitungen darüber hinaus Amazon | MoreBooks |
Walmart | eBay
eligible for voucher ISBN-13: 978-620-3-59901-5 ISBN-
10:6203599018EAN:9786203599015Book language: German Blurb/Shorttext:Die
Herangehensweise zur Lösung von Problemen ist eine offensichtliche Auswahl für die
Forschung und Analyse der Situation, die die vagen Perspektiven, die wir nicht sein wollen,
für die Extraktion von kreativen und neuen Ideen, die wir sein wollen, hervorbringen kann.
Ich studiere gleichzeitig zwei Modelle. Diese Studie basiert sowohl auf der Forschung als
auch auf der Diskussion, von der der Autor denkt, dass sie für das Verständnis und das
Zusammenwachsen unserer Fantasie und Realität nützlich sein kann.Publishing house: Verlag
Unser Wissen Website: https://sciencia-scripts.com By (author) : Henry Garrett Number
of pages:68Published on:2021-04-06Stock:Available Category: Mathematics Price:39.90
Keywords:Zwei Modelle, Optimierung von Routen und Transport, Two Models, Optimizing
Routes and Transportation
MoreBooksHenry Garrett Modell-Analysen und Anleitungen darüber hinaus (Paperback)
About this item
Product details
Die Herangehensweise zur Lösung von Problemen ist eine offensichtliche Auswahl für die
Forschung und Analyse der Situation, die die vagen Perspektiven, die wir nicht sein wollen,
für die Extraktion von kreativen und neuen Ideen, die wir sein wollen, hervorbringen kann.
Ich studiere gleichzeitig zwei Modelle. Diese Studie basiert sowohl auf der Forschung als
auch auf der Diskussion, von der der Autor denkt, dass sie für das Verständnis und das
Zusammenwachsen unserer Fantasie und Realität nützlich sein kann. Modell-Analysen und
Anleitungen darüber hinaus (Paperback) We aim to show you accurate product information.
Manufacturers, suppliers and others provide what you see here, and we have not verified it.
See our disclaimer Specifications
Language German Publisher KS Omniscriptum Publishing Book Format Paperback Number
of Pages 68 Author Henry Garrett Title Modell-Analysen und Anleitungen darüber hinaus
ISBN-13 9786203599015 Publication Date April, 2021 Assembled Product Dimensions (L x W
x H) 9.00 x 6.00 x 1.50 Inches ISBN-10 6203599018
Walmart
Seller assumes all responsibility for this listing. Item specifics Condition: New: A new, unread,
unused book in perfect condition with no missing or damaged pages. See the ... Read
moreabout the condition ISBN: 9786203599015 EAN: 9786203599015 Publication Year: 2021
Type: Textbook Format: Paperback Language: German Publication Name: Modell-Analysen
Und Anleitungen Daruber Hinaus Item Height: 229mm Author: Henry Garrett Publisher:
Verlag Unser Wissen Item Width: 152mm Subject: Mathematics Item Weight: 113g Number of
Pages: 68 Pages About this product Product Information Die Herangehensweise zur Loesung
von Problemen ist eine offensichtliche Auswahl fur die Forschung und Analyse der Situation, die
die vagen Perspektiven, die wir nicht sein wollen, fur die Extraktion von kreativen und neuen
Ideen, die wir sein wollen, hervorbringen kann. Ich studiere gleichzeitig zwei Modelle. Diese
Studie basiert sowohl auf der Forschung als auch auf der Diskussion, von der der Autor denkt,
dass sie fur das Verstandnis und das Zusammenwachsen unserer Fantasie und Realitat nutzlich
sein kann. Product Identifiers Publisher Verlag Unser Wissen ISBN-13 9786203599015 eBay
Product ID (ePID) 11049032082 Product Key Features Publication Name Modell-Analysen
Und Anleitungen Daruber Hinaus Format Paperback Language German Subject Mathematics
Publication Year 2021 Type Textbook Author Henry Garrett Number of Pages 68 Pages
Dimensions Item Height 229mm Item Width 152mm Item Weight 113g Additional Product
Features Title_Author Henry Garrett
eBay
Modell-Analysen und Anleitungen darüber hinaus: Ansatz und Probleme in zwei Modellen
(German Edition) Publisher : Verlag Unser Wissen (April 6, 2021) Language : German
Paperback : 68 pages ISBN-10 : 6203599018 ISBN-13 : 978-6203599015 Item Weight : 3.99
ounces Dimensions : 5.91 x 0.16 x 8.66 inches Paperback
2021 0001 | Model Analyses and Guidance Beyond Amazon&MoreBooks

5942
Model Analyses and Guidance Beyond Approach and Problems in Two Models LAP
LAMBERT Academic Publishing (2020-12-02 ) eligible for voucher ISBN-13: 978-620-3-19506-
4 ISBN-10:6203195065EAN:9786203195064Book language: English Blurb/Shorttext:Approach
for solving problems is an obvious selection for doing research and analysis the situation
which may elicit the vague perspectives which we want not to be for extracting creative
and new ideas which we want to be. I simultaneously study two models. This study is based
both research and discussion which the author thinks that may be useful for understanding
and growing our fantasizing and reality together.Publishing house: LAP LAMBERT
Academic Publishing Website: https://www.lap-publishing.com/ By (author) : Henry Garrett
Number of pages:52Published on:2020-12-02Stock:Available Category: Mathematics Price:39.90
Keywords:Two Models, Optimizing Routes and Transportation
MoreBooks
Model Analyses and Guidance Beyond: Approach and Problems in Two Models Publisher :
LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing (December 2, 2020) Language : English Paperback : 52
pages ISBN-10 : 6203195065 ISBN-13 : 978-6203195064 Item Weight : 3.39 ounces Dimensions
: 5.91 x 0.12 x 8.66 inches
5943
Participating in Seminars
I’ve participated in all virtual conferences which are listed below [Some of them without selective process].
–https://web.math.princeton.edu/ pds/onlinetalks/talks.html
...
Also, I’ve participated in following events [Some of them without selective process]:
-The Hidden NORMS seminar

-Talk Math With Your Friends (TMWYF)
-MATHEMATICS COLLOQUIUM: https://www.csulb.edu/mathematics-statistics/mathematics-colloquium
-Lathisms: Cafe Con Leche
-Big Math network
...
I’m in mailing list in following [Some of them without selective process] organizations:
-[Algebraic-graph-theory] AGT Seminar (lists-uwaterloo-ca)

-Combinatorics Lectures Online (https://web.math.princeton.edu/ pds/onlinetalks/talks.html)
-Women in Combinatorics
-CMSA-Seminar (unsw-au)
-OURFA2M2 Online Undergraduate Resource Fair for the Advancement and Alliance of Marginalized Mathematicians
...
5944
Social Accounts
I’ve listed my accounts below.
-My website [Covering all my contributions containing articles and books as free access to download with PDF
extension and more]: https://drhenrygarrett.wordpress.com
-Amazon [Some of my all books, here]: https://www.amzn.com/author/drhenrygarrett
-Twitter: @DrHenryGarrett (www.twitter.com/DrHenryGarrett)
– ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Henry-Garrett-2
-Academia: https://independent.academia.edu/drhenrygarrett/
-Scribd: https://www.scribd.com/user/596815491/Henry-Garrett
-Scholar: https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=enuser=SUjFCmcAAAAJviewo p = listw orkssortby = pubdate
− LinkedIn : https : //www.linkedin.com/in/drhenrygarrett/

5945
References
2017-2022 Dr. Henry Garrett WEBSITE
Department of Mathematics, Independent Researcher, Manhattan, NY, USA.

E-mail address: DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com
2017-2022 Dr. Henry Garrett WEBSITE
Department of Mathematics, Independent Researcher, Manhattan, NY, USA.

E-mail address: HenryGarrettNY@gmail.com
DrHenryGarrett.wordpress.com · Twitter.com/DrHenryGarrett

Failed SuperHyperStable

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Failed SuperHyperStable

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics ·

DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com · Manhattan, NY, USA

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics ·

Vertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then an “δ−Failed 27

maximal neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable of SuperHyperVertices with maximum neutrosophic 33

be disciplinary to have the foundation of previous definition in the kind of SuperHyperClass. If 52

perWheel, are “neutrosophic SuperHyperPath”, “neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle”, “neutrosophic 69

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics ·

AMS Subject Classification: 05C17, 05C22, 05E45 114

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics ·

neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge in common. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then an “δ−Failed 137

maximal neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable of SuperHyperVertices with maximum neutrosophic 143

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics ·

Table holds. Thus SuperHyperPath, SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, 177

all SuperHyperVertices from a Failed SuperHyperStable.] Failed SuperHyperStable. A graph is 183

cells could be fantasized by a neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, 212

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics ·

Neutrosophic Recognition 224

AMS Subject Classification: 05C17, 05C22, 05E45 225

(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28945.92007). 231

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics ·

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics ·

Article #110 238

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics ·

@academia: https://www.academia.edu/94276865 251

in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition modeled in the Form of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs 256

@ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/366866983 262

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics ·

@Scribd: https://www.scribd.com/document/617915505 264

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics ·

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics ·

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics ·

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics ·

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics ·

SuperHyperModel Cancer’s Recognition Titled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. [HG9] 341

Garrett (2023), “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction To Use 346

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics ·

neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph. 357

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics ·

[1] Henry Garrett, “Properties of SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyper- 374

[4] Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions Featuring 384

[6] Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 391

[7] Henry Garrett, “Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on Neutrosophic 394

[8] Henry Garrett, “SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on Neutrosophic Super- 397

(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28945.92007). 402

[11] Henry Garrett, “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperStable on Cancer’s Recognition by Well- 406

SuperHyperModelled (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs”, ResearchGate 2023, (doi: 407

[12] Henry Garrett, “Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction To 409

[19] F. Smarandache, “Extension of HyperGraph to n-SuperHyperGraph and to Plithogenic n- 429

SuperHyperGraph, and Extension of HyperAlgebra to n-ary (Classical-/Neutro-/Anti-) Hyper- 430

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics ·

| Book #66 444

Henry Garrett · Independent Researcher · Department of Mathematics ·