On Neutro-LA-semihypergroups and Neutro-Hv-LA-

semigroups
Saeid Mirvakili 
Payame Noor University
Akbar Rezaei  (  rezaei@pnu.ac.ir )
Payame Noor University https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6003-3993
Omaima Al-Shanqiti 
Umm Al-Qura University
Florentin Smarandache 
University of New Mexico - Gallup
Bijan Davvaz 
Yazd University

Research Article

Keywords: Hyperoperation, Neutrohyperoperation, Antihyperoperation, LA-semihypergroup, Neutro-LA-

semihypergroup, Anti-LA-semihypergroup, Hv-LA-semigroup, Neutro-Hv-LA-semigroup, Anti-Hv-LA-
semigroup

Posted Date: March 28th, 2023

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-2553188/v1

License:   This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.  
Read Full License
 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14 On Neutro-LA-semihypergroups and
15
16 Neutro-Hv -LA-semigroups
17
18 S. Mirvakilia , A. Rezaeia,∗ , O. Al-Shanqitib , F. Smarandachec , B. Davvazd
19 a
20 Department of Mathematics, Payame Noor University,
21 P.O.Box 19395–4697 Tehran, Iran.
b
22 Department of Mathematics, Umm Al-Qura University Mecca,
23 P.O.Box 24341, Saudi Arabia.
24 c
Department of Mathematics and Science, University of New Mexico, Gallup,
25
NM 87301, USA.
26 d
27 Department of Mathematics, Yazd University, Yazd, Iran.
28 E-mail: saeed mirvakili@pnu.ac.ir
29
E-mail: rezaei@pnu.ac.ir
30
31 E-mail: omshanqiti@uqu.edu.sa
32 E-mail: smarand@unm.edu
33 E-mail: davvaz@yazd.ac.ir
34
35
36
Abstract. In this paper, we extend the notion of LA-semihypergroups
37
38 (resp. Hv -LA-semigroups) to neutro-LA-semihypergroups (respectively,
39 neutro-Hv -LA-semigroups). Anti-LA-semihypergroups (respectively, anti-
40 Hv -LA-semigroups) are studied and investigated some of their properties.
41 We show that these new concepts are different from classical concepts
42 by several examples. These are particular cases of the classical alge-
43
braic structures generalized to neutroalgebraic structures and antialge-
44
45 braic structures (Smarandache, 2019).
46
47
48 Keywords: Hyperoperation, Neutrohyperoperation, Antihyperoperation, LA-
49 semihypergroup, Neutro-LA-semihypergroup, Anti-LA-semihypergroup, Hv -
50 LA-semigroup, Neutro-Hv -LA-semigroup, Anti-Hv -LA-semigroup.
51
52 2000 Mathematics subject classification: 20N20, 20N99.
53
54
55
56 ∗ Corresponding Author
57 1
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6 2 S. Mirvakili, A. Rezaei, O, Al-Shanqiti, F. Smarandache, B. Davvaz
7
8 1. Introduction
9
10 Kazim and Naseeruddin [13] provided the concept of left almost semigroup
11 (abbreviated as LA-semigroup). They generalized some useful results of semi-
12 group theory. Later, Mushtaq [17] and others further investigated the struc-
13 ture and added many useful results to the theory of LA-semigroups; see also
14
[1, 3, 11, 14, 18, 19, 26].
15
16 A hypergroup as a generalization of the notion of a group, was introduced by
17 F. Marty [16] in 1934. Some valuable books in hyperstructures have published
18 [4, 5, 6, 7, 27]. In 1990, Vougiouklis introduced the concept of Hv -structures in
19 Fourth AHA Congress as a generalization of the well-known algebraic hyper-
20 structures. Two books on algebraic Hv -structure or weak hyperstructure have
21
been published [7, 27].
22
23 Hila and Dine [10] introduced the notion of LA-semihypergroups as a gener-
24 alization of semigroups, semihypergroups, and LA-semigroups. Yaqoob, Corsini
25 and Yousafzai [28] extended the work of Hila and Dine. Gulistan, Yaqoob and
26 Shahzad, [9] introduced the notion of Hv -LA-semigroups as LA-semihypergroups.
27 They showed that every LA-semihypergroup is an Hv -LA-semigroup and each
28
LA-semigroup endowed with an equivalence relation can induced an Hv -LA-
29
30 semigroup and they investigated isomorphism theorem with the help of regular
31 relations.
32 In 2019 and 2020, within the field of neutrosophy, Smarandache [21, 22, 23]
33 generalized the classical algebraic structures to neutroalgebraic structures (or
34 neutroalgebras) whose operations and axioms are partially true, partially in-
35 determinate, and partially false as extensions of partial algebra, and to antial-
36
37 gebraic structures (or antialgebras) {whose operations and axioms are totally
38 false}. And in general, he extended any classical structure, in no matter what
39 field of knowledge, to a neutrostructure and an antistructure. These are new
40 fields of research within neutrosophy.
41 Smarandache in [23] revisited the notions of neutroalgebras and antialge-
42 bras, where he studied partial algebras, Universal algebras, Effect algebras and
43
Boole′ s partial algebras, and showed that neutroalgebras are generalization
44
45 of partial algebras. Further, he extended the classical hyperalgebra to n-ary
46 hyperalgebra and its alternatives n-ary neutrohyperalgebra and n-ary antihy-
47 peralgebra [25].
48 The notion of neutrogroup was defined and studied by A.A.A. Agboola in
49 [2]. A. Rezaei et al. introduced the notions of neutrosemihypergroup and
50
antisemihypergroup [20]. Recently, S. Mirvakili et al. extend the notion of Hv -
51
52 semigroups to neutro-Hv -semigroups and anti-Hv -semigroups and investigated
53 many of their properties [15].
54 In this paper, the concept of neutro-LA-semihypergroups(resp. neutro-Hv -
55 LA-semigroup) and anti-LA-semihypergroups (resp. anti-Hv -LA-semigroup) is
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6 On [Neutro](Anti)LA-semihypergroups and [Neutro](Anti)Hv -LA-semigroups 3
7
8 formally presented. Moreover, We characterize LA-semihypergroups (resp. Hv -
9 LA-semigroup), neutro-LA-semihypergroups (resp. neutro-Hv -LA-semigroup)
10
and anti-LA-semihypergroups (resp. anti-Hv -LA-semigroup) of order 2.
11
12
13 2. Preliminaries
14
In this section we recall some basic notions and results regarding to LA-
15
16 semigroups, LA-semihypergroups and Hv -LA-semigroups.
17 A groupoid (H, ◦) is a non-empty set H together with a map ◦ : H ×H → H
18 called (binary) operation. The structure (H, ◦) is called a groupoid.
19
20 Definition 2.1. [13] A groupoid (H, ◦) is called an LA-semigroup, if (a◦b)◦c =
21 (c ◦ b) ◦ a, for all a, b, c ∈ H.
22
23 Example 2.2. [17] Let (Z, +) denote the commutative group of integers under
24 addition. Define a binary operation ◦ in Z as follows:
25
26 a ◦ b = b − a, ∀a, b ∈ Z,
27
where − denotes the ordinary subtraction of integers. Then (Z, ◦) is an LA-
28
29 semigroup.
30
Definition 2.3. ([4, 6]) A hypergroupoid (H, ◦) is a non-empty set H together
31
32 with a map ◦ : H × H → P ∗ (H) called (binary) hyperoperation, where P ∗ (H)
33 denotes the set of all non-empty subsets of H. The hyperstructure (H, ◦) is
34 called a hypergroupoid and image of the pair (x, y) is denoted by x ◦ y.
35 If A and B are non-empty subsets
[ of H and x ∈ H, then by A ◦ B, A ◦ x,
36 and x ◦ B we mean A ◦ B = a ◦ b, A ◦ x = A ◦ {x} and x ◦ B = {x} ◦ B.
37 a∈A,b∈B
38
39 Definition 2.4. ([4, 6]) (1) A hypergroupoid (H, ◦) is called a semihypergroup
40 if it satisfies the following:
41 (A) (∀a, b, c ∈ H)(a ◦ (b ◦ c) = (a ◦ b) ◦ c).
42
(2) A hypergroupoid (H, ◦) is called an Hv -semigroup if it satisfies the following:
43
44 (WA) (∀a, b, c ∈ H)(a ◦ (b ◦ c) ∩ (a ◦ b) ◦ c) ̸= ∅.
45
Definition 2.5. ([9, 10]) (1) A hypergroupoid (H, ◦) is called a Left Almost
46
47 semihypergroup or an LA-semihypergroup if it satisfies the following:
48 (LA) (∀a, b, c ∈ H)(a ◦ b) ◦ c = (c ◦ b) ◦ a.
49 (2) A hypergroupoid (H, ◦) is called a Left Almost Hv -semigroup or Hv -LA-
50 semigroup if it satisfies the following:
51 (WLA) (∀a, b, c ∈ H)(a ◦ b) ◦ c ∩ (c ◦ b) ◦ a ̸= ∅.
52
53 Example 2.6. ([4, 6]) Let H be a nonempty set and for all x, y ∈ H, we define
54 x ◦ y = H. Then (H, ◦) is a semihypergroup and an LA-semihypergroup.
55
56 We define the commutative law on (H, ◦) as follows:
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6 4 S. Mirvakili, A. Rezaei, O, Al-Shanqiti, F. Smarandache, B. Davvaz
7
8 (C) (∀a, b ∈ H)(a ◦ b = b ◦ a).
9 Also, we define the weak commutative law on (H, ◦) as follows:
10
(WC) (∀a, b ∈ H)(a ◦ b ∩ b ◦ a ̸= ∅).
11
12 Theorem 2.7. Let (H, ◦) be a commutative hypergroupoid. Then (H, ◦) is an
13 LA-semihypergroup if and only if (H, ◦) is a semihypergroup.
14
15 Proof. Let x, y, z ∈ H. Then by commutativity we have
16
17 (x ◦ y) ◦ z = x ◦ (y ◦ z) ⇔ (x ◦ y) ◦ z = (z ◦ y) ◦ x.
18 □
19
20 Example 2.8. Let H = {a, b}. Define the hyperoperation ◦ on H with the
21 following Cayley table.
22 ◦ a b
23 a H a
24
b H b
25
26 Then (H, ◦) is a semihypergroup, but is not an LA-semihypergroup.
27 Example 2.9. Let H = {a, b}. Define the hyperoperation ◦ on H with the
28
29 following Cayley table.
30 ◦ a b
31 a H H
32 b a a
33 Then (H, ◦) is an LA-semihypergroup, but is not a semihypergroup.
34
35 Theorem 2.10. Let (H, ◦) be a commutative hypergroupoid. Then (H, ◦) is
36 an Hv -LA-semigroup if and only if (H, ◦) is an Hv -semigroup
37
38 Proof. Let x, y, z ∈ H. Then by commutativity we have
39 (x ◦ y) ◦ z ∩ x ◦ (y ◦ z) ̸= ∅ ⇔ (x ◦ y) ◦ z ∩ (z ◦ y) ◦ x ̸= ∅.
40
41 □
42
43 Example 2.11. Let H = {a, b}. Define the hyperoperation ◦ on H with the
44 following Cayley table.
45 ◦ a b
46 a a a
47 b b H
48
Then (H, ◦) is an Hv -semigroup, but is not an Hv -LA-semigroup.
49
50 Example 2.12. Let H = {a, b}. Define the hyperoperation ◦ on H with the
51 following Cayley table.
52
◦ a b
53
54 a a b
55 b H a
56 Then (H, ◦) is an Hv -LA-semigroup, but is not an Hv -semigroup.
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6 On [Neutro](Anti)LA-semihypergroups and [Neutro](Anti)Hv -LA-semigroups 5
7
8 3. On Neutro-LA-semihypergroups, Neutro-Hv -LA-semigroups,
9 Anti-LA-semihypergroups and Anti-Hv -LA-semigroups
10
11 F. Smarandache generalized the classical algebraic structures to the neu-
12 troalgebraic structures and antialgebraic structures. neutro-sophication of
13 an item C (that may be a concept, a space, an idea, an operation, an axiom,
14
a theorem, a theory, etc.) means to split C into three parts (two parts opposite
15
16 to each other, and another part which is the neutral / indeterminacy between
17 the opposites), as pertinent to neutrosophy {(< A >, < neutA >, < antiA >),
18 or with other notation (T, I, F )}, meaning cases where C is partially true (T ),
19 partially indeterminate (I), and partially false (F ). While anti-sophication
20 of C means to totally deny C (meaning that C is made false on its whole
21
domain) (for detail see Smarandache [21, 22, 24, 25]).
22
23 Neutro-sophication of an axiom on a given set X, means to split the set
24 X into three regions such that: on one region the axiom is true (we say degree
25 of truth T of the axiom), on another region the axiom is indeterminate (we say
26 degree of indeterminacy I of the axiom), and on the third region the axiom
27 is false (we say degree of falsehood F of the axiom), such that the union of
28
the regions covers the whole set, while the regions may or may not be disjoint,
29
30 where (T, I, F ) is different from (1, 0, 0) and from (0, 0, 1). Anti-sophication of
31 an axiom on a given set X, means to have the axiom false on the whole set X
32 (we say total degree of falsehood F of the axiom), or (0, 0, 1).
33 Similarly for the neutro-sophication of an operation defined on a given
34 set X, means to split the set X into three regions such that on one region the
35 operation is well-defined (or inner-defined) (we say degree of truth T of the
36
37 operation), on another region the operation is indeterminate (we say degree
38 of indeterminacy I of the operation), and on the third region the operation is
39 outer-defined (we say degree of falsehood F of the operation), such that the
40 union of the regions covers the whole set, while the regions may or may not be
41 disjoint, where (T, I, F ) is different from (1, 0, 0) and from (0, 0, 1).
42 Anti-sophication of an operation on a given set X, means to have the
43
operation outer-defined on the whole set X (we say total degree of falsehood
44
45 F of the axiom), or (0, 0, 1).
46 In this section we will define the neutro-LA-semihypergroups and anti-
47 LA-semihypergroups.
48
49
50 Definition 3.1. Neutrohyperoperation (Neutrohyperlaw) A neutrohy-
51
peroperation is a map ◦ : H × H → P (U ) where U is a universe of discourse
52
53 that contains H that satisfies the below neutro-sophication process.
54 The neutro-sophication (degree of well-defined, degree of indeterminacy, de-
55 gree of outer-defined) of the hyperoperation is the following neutrohyperoper-
56 ation:
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6 6 S. Mirvakili, A. Rezaei, O, Al-Shanqiti, F. Smarandache, B. Davvaz
7
8 (NHA) (∃x, y ∈ H)(x ◦ y ∈ P ∗ (H)) and (∃x, y ∈ H)(x ◦ y is an indetermi-
9 nate subset, or x ◦ y ̸∈ P ∗ (H)).
10
The neutro-sophication (degree of truth, degree of indeterminacy, degree of
11
12 falsehood) of the LA-semihypergroup axiom is the following neutrohyperLA-
13 semihypergroup:
14 (NLA) (∃a, b, c ∈ H such that (a, b, c) ̸= (x, x, x) or (a, b, c) ̸= (x, y, x))
15 ((a ◦ b) ◦ c = (c ◦ b) ◦ a) and (∃d, e, f ∈ H such that (d, e, f ) ̸= (x, x, x) or
16 (d, e, f ) ̸= (x, y, x))((d ◦ e) ◦ f ̸= (f ◦ e) ◦ d or (d ◦ e) ◦ f = indeterminate, or
17
(f ◦ e) ◦ d = indeterminate).
18
19 Also, The neutro-sophication (degree of truth, degree of indeterminacy, degree
20 of falsehood) of the Hv -LA-semigroup axiom is the following neutrohyperHv -
21 LA-semigroup:
22 (NWLA) (∃a, b, c ∈ H such that (a, b, c) ̸= (x, x, x) or (a, b, c) ̸= (x, y, x))
23 ((a ◦ b) ◦ c ∩ (c ◦ b) ◦ a ̸= ∅) and (∃d, e, f ∈ H such that (d, e, f ) ̸= (x, x, x) or
24
(d, e, f ) ̸= (x, y, x))((d ◦ e) ◦ f ∩ (f ◦ e) ◦ d = ∅ or (d ◦ e) ◦ f = indeterminate,
25
26 or (f ◦ e) ◦ d = indeterminate).
27 We define the neutrohypercommutativity (NC) on (H, ◦) as follows:
28 (NC) (∃a, b ∈ H)(a ◦ b = b ◦ a) and (∃c, d ∈ H)(c ◦ d ̸= d ◦ c, or c ◦ d =
29 indeterminate, or d ◦ c = indeterminate).
30 Also, we define the neutrohyperweakcommutativity (NWC) on (H, ◦) as fol-
31 lows:
32
33 (NWC) (∃a, b ∈ H)(a ◦ b ∩ b ◦ a ̸= ∅) and (∃c, d ∈ H)(c ◦ d ∩ d ◦ c = ∅, or
34 c ◦ d = indeterminate, or d ◦ c = indeterminate).
35
36 Now, we define a neutrohyperalgebraic system S =< H, F, A >, where H is
37 a set or neutrosophic set, F is a set of the hyperoperations (hyperlaws), and A is
38 the set of hyperaxioms, such that there exists at least one neutrohyperoperation
39 (neutrohyperlaw) or at least one neutrohyperaxiom, and no antihyperoperation
40 (antihyperlaw) and no antihyperaxiom.
41
42 Definition 3.2. Antihyperoperation {Antihyperlaw (AHL)}
43 The antihyper-sophication (totally outer-defined) of the hyperoperation (hy-
44
perlaw) gives the definition of antihyperoperation antihyperlaw (AHL):
45
46 (AHL) (∀x, y ∈ H)(x ◦ y ̸∈ P ∗ (H)).
47 The antihyper-sophication (totally false) of the LA-semihypergroup:
48 (ALA) (∀a, b, c ∈ H such that (a, b, c) ̸= (x, x, x) or (a, b, c) ̸= (x, y, x))((a◦
49 b) ◦ c) ̸= (c ◦ b) ◦ a).
50 Also, the antihyper-sophication (totally false) of the Hv -LA-semigroup:
51
(AWLA) (∀a, b, c ∈ H such that (a, b, c) ̸= (x, x, x) or (a, b, c) ̸= (x, y, x))((a◦
52
53 b) ◦ c) ∩ (c ◦ b) ◦ a = ∅).
54 We define the anticommutativity (AC) on (H, ◦) as follows:
55 (AC) (∀a, b ∈ H with a ̸= b)(a ◦ b ̸= b ◦ a).
56 Also, we define the antiweakcommutativity (AWC) on (H, ◦) as follows:
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6 On [Neutro](Anti)LA-semihypergroups and [Neutro](Anti)Hv -LA-semigroups 7
7
8 (AWC) (∀a, b ∈ H with a ̸= b)(a ◦ b ∩ b ◦ a = ∅).
9
10 Definition 3.3. (1) A neutro-LA-semihypergroup is an alternative of LA-
11 semihypergroup that has at least one (NLA), with no antihyperoperation.
12 (2) A neutro-Hv -LA-semigroup is an alternative of Hv -LA-semigroup that
13 has at least one (WNLA), with no antihyperoperation.
14
(3) An anti-LA-semihypergroup is an alternative of LA-semihypergroup that
15
16 has at least one (ALA) or an (AHL) axiom.
17 (4) An anti-Hv -LA-semigroup is an alternative of Hv -LA-semigroup that
18 has at least one (WALA) or an (AHL) axiom.
19
20 Remark 3.4. If hyperoperation ◦ in Definition 3.3 is operation, then we have
21 neutro-LA-semigroup and anti-LA-semigroup.
22 Example 3.5. (i) Let H = {a, b, c} and U = {a, b, c, d} a universe of discourse
23
that contains H. Define the neutrohyperoperation ◦ on H with the following
24
25 Cayley table.
26 ◦ a b c
27 a a a a
28 b a a {a, b, d}
29 c c ? H
30
31 Then (H, ◦) is a neutrosemihypergroup.
32 Example 3.6. (i) Let N be the set of natural numbers except 0. Define hyper-
33 2
Low ◦ on N by x ◦ y = { x2x+1 , y}. Then (N, ◦) is an anti-LA-semihypergroup.
34
35 (AHL) is valid, since for all x, y ∈ N, x ◦ y ̸∈ P ∗ (N). Thus, (AHL) holds.
36 (ii) Let H = {a, b}. Define the hyperoperation ◦ on H with the following
37 Cayley table.
38 ◦ a b
39 a b a
40 b a a
41
42 Then (H, ◦) is a commutative anti-LA-semihypergroup.
43 (iii) Let H = {a, b}. Define the hyperoperation ◦ on H with the following
44 Cayley table.
45 ◦ a b
46 a a a
47 b b b
48
49 Then (H, ◦) is an anticommutative anti-LA-semihypergroup.
50 Theorem 3.7. (1) Every LA-semihypergroup is an Hv -LA-semigroup.
51
(2) Every anti-Hv -LA-semigroup is an anti-LA-semihypergroup.
52
53 (3) Every neutro-Hv -LA-semigroup is a neutro-LA-semihypergroup or an
54 anti-LA-semihypergroup.
55 (4) Every Hv -LA-semigroup is an LA-semihypergroup or a neutro-LA-
56 semihypergroup or an anti-LA-semihypergroup.
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6 8 S. Mirvakili, A. Rezaei, O, Al-Shanqiti, F. Smarandache, B. Davvaz
7
8 Example 3.8. [9] The Converse of part (1) of Theorem 3.7 is not true. Consider
9 H = {x, y, z} and define a hyperoperation ◦ on H by the following table:
10
11 ◦ x y z
12 x x {x, z} H
13 y {x, z} x x
14
z {x, y} x {x, z}
15
16 Then (H, ◦) is an Hv -LA-semigroup which is not an LA-semihypergroup and
17 not an Hv -semigroup. Indeed, we have
18
19 {x, y} = z ◦ (y ◦ y) & (z ◦ y) ◦ y = {z}.
20
Thus, z ◦ (y ◦ y) ∩ (z ◦ y) ◦ y ̸= ∅. Therefore (H, ◦) is not an Hv -semigroup.
21
22 Also,
23 {x, y, z} = (x ◦ y) ◦ z ̸= (z ◦ y) ◦ x = {x, y}
24 Thus, (H, ◦) is not an LA-semihypergroup.
25
26 Example 3.9. The Converse of part (2) of Theorem 3.7 is not true. Consider
27 H = {x, y, z} and define a hyperoperation ◦ on H by the following table:
28
29 ◦ a b
30 a a H
31 b a a
32
33 Then (H, ◦) is a commutative anti-LA-semihypergroup and is not anti-Hv -LA-
34 semigroup.
35
36 Let (H, ◦) is a hypergroupoid. Then the hyperoperation ∗ defined as follows:
37 x ∗ y = y ◦ x, ∀x, y ∈ H.
38
39 (H, ∗) in is called dual hypergroupoid of (H, ◦). It is easy to see that:
40
41 Theorem 3.10. (H, ◦) is a semihypergroup if and only if (H, ◦) is a semihy-
42 pergroup.
43
44 Theorem 3.10 for LA-semihypergroups is not true.
45 Example 3.11. Let (H = {a, b}, ◦) be an LA-semihypergroup of order 2 when
46
the hyperoperation ◦ defined on H with the following Cayley table.
47
48 ◦ a b
49 a H H
50
b a a
51
52 But (H, ∗) is not an LA-semihypergroup.
53
54 Proposition 3.12. Let (H, ◦H ) and (G, ◦G ) be two neutro-LA-semihypergroups
55 (resp. anti-LA-semihypergroups). Then (H×G, ∗) is a neutro-LA-semihypergroup
56 (resp. anti-LA-semihypergroups), where ∗ is defined on H × G by: for any
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6 On [Neutro](Anti)LA-semihypergroups and [Neutro](Anti)Hv -LA-semigroups 9
7
8 (x1 , y1 ), (x2 , y2 ) ∈ H × G
9
10
11 (x1 , y1 ) ∗ (x2 , y2 ) = (x1 ◦H x2 , y1 ◦G y2 ).
12
Note that if (H, ◦) is a neutro-LA-semihypergroup, then if there is a non-
13
14 empty set H1 ⊆ H, such that (H1 , ◦) is an LA-semihypergroup, we call it
15 Smarandache LA-semihypergroup.
16 Suppose (H, ◦H ) and (G, ◦G ) be two hypergroupoids. A function f : H → G
17 is called a homomorphism if, for all a, b ∈ H, f (a ◦H b) = f (a) ◦G f (b).
18
19 Proposition 3.13. Let (H, ◦H ) be an LA-semihypergroup(Hv -LA-semigroup),
20 (G, ◦G ) be a neutro-LA-semihypergroup (neutro-Hv -LA-semigroup) and f :
21 H → G be a homomorphism. Then (f (H), ◦G ) is an LA-semihypergroup (Hv -
22
LA-semigroup), where f (H) = {f (h) : h ∈ H}.
23
24 Proof. Assume that (H, ◦H ) is an LA-semihypergroup (Hv -LA-semigroup) and
25
x, y, z ∈ f (H). Then there exist h1 , h2 , h3 ∈ f (H) such that f (h1 ) = x, f (h2 ) =
26
27 y and f (h3 ) = z, and so we have
28 (x ◦G y) ◦G z) = (f (h1 ) ◦G f (h2 )) ◦G f (h3 )
29
= f (h1 ◦G h2 ) ◦H f (h3 )
30
31 = f ((h1 ◦H h2 ) ◦H h3 )
32 = f ((h3 ◦H h2 ) ◦H h1 )
33 = f (h3 ◦H h2 ) ◦G f (h1 )
34 = (f (h3 ) ◦G f (h2 )) ◦G f (h1 )
35 = (x ◦G y) ◦G z.
36
37 □
38
39 Definition 3.14. Let (H, ◦H ) and (G, ◦G ) be two hypergroupoids. A bijection
40 f : H → G is an isomorphism if it conserves the multiplication (i.e. f (a ◦H b) =
41 f (a) ◦G f (b)) and write H ∼ = G. A bijection f : H → G is an antiIsomorphism
42 if for all a, b ∈ H, f (a ◦H b) ̸= f (b) ◦G f (a). A bijection f : H → G is a
43
neutroIsomorphism if there exist a, b ∈ H, f (a ◦H b) = f (b) ◦G f (a), i.e. degree
44
45 of truth (T ), there exist c, d ∈ H, f (c◦H d) or f (c)◦G f (d) are indeterminate, i.e.
46 degree of Indeterminacy (I), and there exist e, h ∈ H, f (e ◦H h) ̸= f (e) ◦G f (h),
47 i.e. degree of falsehood (F ), where (T, I, F ) are different from (1, 0, 0) and
48 (0, 0, 1), and T, I, F ∈ [0, 1].
49
50 Proposition 3.15. Let (Hi , ◦), where\
i ∈ Λ, be a family of neutro-LA-semihypergroups
51 (neutro-Hv -LA-semigroups). Then ( Hi , ◦) is a neutro-LA-semihypergroup
52 i∈Λ
53 (neutro-Hv -LA-semigroup) or an anti-LA-semihyperGgroup (anti-Hv -LA-semigroup)
54 or an LA-semihypergroups (Hv -LA-semigroup).
55
56 Proof. It is trivial. □
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6 10 S. Mirvakili, A. Rezaei, O, Al-Shanqiti, F. Smarandache, B. Davvaz
7
8 Proposition 3.16. Let (Hi , ◦) be a family\of anti-LA-semihypergroupsn (anti-
9 Hv -LA-semigroups), where i ∈ Λ. Then ( Hi , ◦) is an anti-LA-semihypergroup
10
i∈Λ
11 (anti-Hv -LA-semigroup).
12
13 Proof. It is trivial. □
14
15 Note that if (H, ◦) is a neutro-LA-semihypergroup (neutro-Hv -LA-semigroup)
16 and (G, ◦) is an anti-LA-semihypergroup (anti-Hv -LA-semigroup), then (H ∩
17 G, ◦) is an anti-LA-semihypergroupb (anti-Hv -LA-semigroup). Also, let (H, ◦H )
18 be a neutro-LA-semihypergroup (neutro-Hv -LA-semigroup) and (G, ◦G ) be an
19
anti-LA-semihypergroup (anti-Hv -LA-semigroup) and H ∩ G = ∅. Define hy-
20 U
21 peroperation ◦ on H G by:
22 
23  x ◦H y if x, y ∈ H;
24 x◦y = x ◦G y if x, y ∈ G;
25 {x, y}

otherwise.
26 U
Then (H G, ◦) is a neutro-LA-semihypergroup (neutro-Hv -LA-semigroup),
27
28 but it is not an anti-LA-semihypergroup (anti-Hv -LA-semigroup).
29
Proposition 3.17. Let (H, ◦) be an anti-LA-semihypergroup (anti-Hv -LA-
30
31 semigroup) and e ∈ H. Then (H ∪ {e}, ∗) is a neutro-LA-semihypergroup
32 (neutro-Hv -LA-semigroup), where ∗ is defined on H ∪ {e} by:
33 
x ◦H y if x, y ∈ H;
34 x∗y =
{e, x, y} otherwise.
35
36 Proof. It is straightforward. □
37
38 4. Characterization of groupoids of order 2
39
40 In the next results we use the operation ◦ : H × H → H.
41 In this section, let ◦ be an operation on H = {a, b} and (A11 , A12 , A21 , A22 )
42 inside of the below Cayley table:
43
44 ◦ a b
45 a A11 A12
46 b A21 A22
47
48 Lemma 4.1. Let (H = {a, b}, ◦H ) and (G = {a′ , b′ }, ◦G ) be two groupoids with
49 the Cayley tables (h11 , h12 , h21 , h22 ) and (g11 , g12 , g21 , g22 ) respectively. Then
50 H∼ = G if and only if for all i, j ∈ {1, 2},
51
52 gij = h′ij
53
or
54 ′
55 gij = G \ kij ,
56 where k12 = h21 , k21 = h12 , k11 = h22 and k22 = h11 .
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6 On [Neutro](Anti)LA-semihypergroups and [Neutro](Anti)Hv -LA-semigroups 11
7
8 Lemma 4.2. Any commutative semigroup of order 2 is an LA-semiGrouop.
9
10 Theorem 4.3. Every LA-semigroup of order 2 is commutative.
11
12 Proof. Let (H = {a, b}, ◦) be an LA-semigroup. We have
13 (1) (a ◦ b) ◦ b = (b ◦ b) ◦ a,
14 (2) (a ◦ a) ◦ b = (b ◦ a) ◦ a.
15
16 Let a ◦ b = a. Then by (1), a = (b ◦ b) ◦ a. If b ◦ b = b, then we obtain b ◦ a = a,
17 and so (H, ◦) is commutative. So we have b ◦ b = a. Hence a ◦ a = a and by (2),
18 a = (b ◦ a) ◦ a. If b ◦ a = b, then we obtain a = b. and this is a contradiction.
19 Thus, b ◦ a = a, and so (H, ◦) is commutative.
20 Now, let a◦b = a. Then by the similar way we obtain (H, ◦) is commutative. □
21
22 Corollary 4.4. Any LA-semigroup of order 2 is commutative.
23
24 Corollary 4.5. Any LA-semigroup of order 2 is a semigroup.
25
26 Corollary 4.6. There is no Non-commutative LA-semigroup of order 2.
27
28 Theorem 4.7. [8] There exist 5 semigroups (H = {a, b}, ◦i ), i = 1, · · · , 5, of
29 order 2 by the following Cayley table (up to isomorphism).
30 ◦1 a b ◦2 a b ◦3 a b ◦4 a b ◦5 a b
31
32 a a a a a a a b a a a a a a b
33 b a a b a b b a b b b b b a b
34
Theorem 4.8. There exist 3 LA-semigroups of order 2 (up to isomorphism).
35
36 Proof. By Corollary 5.2, the only LA-semigroups of order 2 are commutative
37 semigroups of order 2, and so (H, ◦i ), for i = 1, · · · , 3, from Theorem 4.7 are
38
39 LA-semigroups of order 2 (up to isomorphism). □
40 Theorem 4.9. There exist 5 anti-LA-semigroups of order 2 (up to isomor-
41
phism).
42
43 Proof. Let (H = {a, b}, ◦) be an anti-LA-semigroup. Then We have
44
45 (1) (a ◦ b) ◦ b ̸= (b ◦ b) ◦ a,
46 (2) (a ◦ a) ◦ b ̸= (b ◦ a) ◦ a.
47 Also, Then we have one of the following Cases:
48
49 (3) (a ◦ b = a & b ◦ a = a),
50 (4) (a ◦ b = a & b ◦ a = b),
51 (5) (a ◦ b = b & b ◦ a = a),
52 (6) (a ◦ b = b & b ◦ a = b).
53
Case 3: By (1) and (2) we have
54
55 (7) a ̸= (b ◦ b) ◦ a,
56 (8) (a ◦ a) ◦ b ̸= a ◦ a.
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6 12 S. Mirvakili, A. Rezaei, O, Al-Shanqiti, F. Smarandache, B. Davvaz
7
8 If a ◦ a = a, then (8) implies that a ◦ b ̸= a, which is a contradiction. If a ◦ a = b,
9 then (8) implies that b ◦ b ̸= b, and so b ◦ b = a. We set ◦1 := ◦ and therefore
10
we we have an anti-LA-semigroup as follows:
11
12 ◦1 a b
13 a b a
14
15 b a a
16 Case 4: By (1) and (2) we have
17
18 (9) a ̸= (b ◦ b) ◦ a,
19 (10) (a ◦ a) ◦ b ̸= b.
20 If a ◦ a = b, then (8) implies that b ◦ b ̸= b, and so b ◦ b = a. We set ◦2 := ◦
21
and therefore we we have an anti-LA-semigroup as follows:
22
23 ◦2 a b
24
a b a
25
26 b b a
27 If a ◦ a = a, then by (9) b ◦ b ̸= a so b ◦ b = b. We set ◦3 := ◦ and therefore we
28
we have an anti-LA-semigroup as follows:
29
30 ◦3 a b
31 a a a
32
33 b b b
34 Case 5: By (1) and (2) we have
35
36 (11) b ◦ b ̸= (b ◦ b) ◦ a,
37 (12) (a ◦ a) ◦ b ̸= a ◦ a.
38 If a ◦ a = a, then b ◦ b = a or b ◦ b = b. Let b ◦ b = a. Then by (11) a ◦ a = b
39
and this is a contradiction. If b ◦ b = b, then we set ◦4 := ◦ and therefore we
40
41 have an anti-LA-semigroup as follows:
42 ◦4 a b
43
44 a a b
45 b a b
46
If a ◦ a = b, then (12) implies that b ◦ b = a. We set ◦5 := ◦ and therefore we
47
48 have an anti-LA-semigroup as follows:
49 ◦5 a b
50
51 a b b
52 b a a
53
Case 6: By (1) and (2) we have
54
55 (13) b ◦ b ̸= (b ◦ b) ◦ a,
56 (14) (a ◦ a) ◦ b ̸= b.
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6 On [Neutro](Anti)LA-semihypergroups and [Neutro](Anti)Hv -LA-semigroups 13
7
8 If a ◦ a = b, then (14) implies that b ◦ b = a. We set ◦6 := ◦ and therefore we
9 have an anti-LA-semigroup as follows:
10
11 ◦6 a b
12 a b b
13 b b a
14
15 If a ◦ a = a, then (14) implies that a ◦ b = a, which is a contradiction. (H, ◦1 ) ∼
=
16 (H, ◦6 ), and so we have anti-LA-semigroups (H, ◦i ), for i = 1, · · · , 5, of order
17 2. □
18
19 Corollary 4.10. There exists 1 commutative anti-LA-semigroup of order 2
20 (up to isomorphism).
21
22 Corollary 4.11. There exist 4 Non-commutative anti-LA-semigroups of order
23 2 (up to isomorphism).
24
25 Theorem 4.12. Every neutro-LA-semigroup of order 2 is Non-commutative.
26
Proof. Let (H = {a, b}, ◦) be a commutative neutro-LA-semigroup. Then We
27
28 have
29 (1) (a ◦ b) ◦ b ̸= (b ◦ b) ◦ a,
30 (2) (a ◦ a) ◦ b = (b ◦ a) ◦ a,
31 (3) a ◦ b = b ◦ a,
32
33 or
34 (4) (a ◦ b) ◦ b = (b ◦ b) ◦ a,
35 (5) (a ◦ a) ◦ b ̸= (b ◦ a) ◦ a,
36 (6) a ◦ b = b ◦ a.
37
38 Case 2: If a ◦ b = a = b ◦ a, then we have
39 (7) a ̸= (b ◦ b) ◦ a,
40 (8) (a ◦ a) ◦ b = a ◦ a,
41
42 or
43 (9) a = (b ◦ b) ◦ a,
44 (10) (a ◦ a) ◦ b ̸= a ◦ a.
45
46 Now, (7) implies that b ◦ b = a and a ◦ a = b, which is a contradiction with (8).
47 Also, (10) implies that a ◦ a = b and b ◦ b = a and this is a contradiction with
48 (9).
49 Case 2: If a ◦ b = b = b ◦ a, then by the similar way of Case 2 we prove that
50 there is no commutative neutro-LA-semigroup of order 2. □
51
52 Theorem 4.13. There exist 2 neutro-LA-semigroups of order 2 (up to iso-
53 morphism).
54
55 Proof. Let (H = {a, b}, ◦) be a neutro-LA-semigroup. Then by Theorem 4.12
56 (H = {a, b}, ◦) is a Non-commutative neutro-LA-semigroup. Now, we have
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6 14 S. Mirvakili, A. Rezaei, O, Al-Shanqiti, F. Smarandache, B. Davvaz
7
8 (1) (a ◦ b) ◦ b ̸= (b ◦ b) ◦ a,
9 (2) (a ◦ a) ◦ b = (b ◦ a) ◦ a,
10
11 or
12 (3) (a ◦ b) ◦ b = (b ◦ b) ◦ a,
13 (4) (a ◦ a) ◦ b ̸= (b ◦ a) ◦ a.
14
15 Case 1: If a ◦ b = a and b ◦ a = b, then by (1), (2), (3) and (4) we obtain
16 (5) a ̸= (b ◦ b) ◦ a,
17
(6) (a ◦ a) ◦ b = b,
18
19 or
20 (7) a = (b ◦ b) ◦ a,
21
22 (8) (a ◦ a) ◦ b ̸= b.
23 Let (5) and (6) be true. If a ◦ a = a, then a ◦ b = a and this is a contradiction.
24 If a ◦ a = b, then using (6), b ◦ b = b. We set ◦1 := ◦ and therefore we have a
25 neutro-LA-semigroup as follows:
26
27 ◦1 a b
28 a b a
29 b b b
30
31 Let (7) and (8) be true. If b ◦ b = b, then b ◦ a = a and this is a contradiction.
32 If b ◦ b = a by (7), a ◦ a = a. We set ◦2 := ◦ and therefore we have a neutro-
33
LA-semigroup as follows:
34
35 ◦2 a b
36 a a a
37 b b a
38
39 Case 2: If a ◦ b = b and b ◦ a = a, then by (1), (2), (3) and (4) we obtain
40 (9) b ◦ b ̸= (b ◦ b) ◦ a,
41 (10) (a ◦ a) ◦ b = a ◦ a,
42
43 or
44 (11) b ◦ b = (b ◦ b) ◦ a,
45 (12) (a ◦ a) ◦ b ̸= a ◦ a.
46
47 Let (9) and (10) be true. If a ◦ a = a, then a ◦ b = a and this is a contradiction.
48 If a ◦ a = b by (10), b ◦ b = b. We set ◦3 := ◦ and therefore we have a
49 neutro-LA-semigroup as follows:
50
51 ◦3 a b
52 a b b
53 b a b
54
55 Let (11) and (12) be true. If b ◦ b = b, then b ◦ a = b and this is a contradiction.
56 If b ◦ b = a by (11), a ◦ a = a. We set ◦4 := ◦ and therefore we have a
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6 On [Neutro](Anti)LA-semihypergroups and [Neutro](Anti)Hv -LA-semigroups 15
7
8 neutroLA-semigroup as follows:
9
10 ◦4 a b
11 a a b
12 b a a
13
14 It is not to difficult to see that (H, ◦1 ) ∼
= (H, ◦2 ) and (H, ◦3 ) ∼
= (H, ◦4 ). There-
15 fore there exist 2 neutro-LA-semigroups of order 2 up to isomorphism. □
16
17 Now, by the above results in this section, we obtain the number of anti-LA-
18 semigroups, neutro-LA-semigroups and LA-semigroups of order 2 (classes up
19 to isomorphism).
20
21 Table 1. Classification of the groupoids of order 2
22
23
24 C AC
25 LA-semigroups 3 0
26 neutro-LA-semigroups 0 2
27 Anti-LA-semigroup 1 4
28
29
30
5. Characterization of hypergroupoids of order 2
31
32 In the next results we use the hyperoperation instead of neutrohyperopera-
33 tion.
34
In this section, let ◦ be a hyperoperation on H = {a, b} and (A11 , A12 , A21 , A22 )
35
36 inside of the below Cayley table:
37 ◦ a b
38
a A11 A12
39
40 b A21 A22
41 Lemma 5.1. Let (H = {a, b}, ◦H ) and (G = {a′ , b′ }, ◦G ) be two hypergroupoids
42
43 with the Cayley tables (H11 , H12 , H21 , H22 ) and (G11 , G12 , G21 , G22 ) respec-
44 tively. Then H ∼
= G if and only if for all i, j ∈ {1, 2}, Gij = Hij′
or
45  ′
Kij if Kij = H;
46 Gij =
47 G \ Kij′
if Kij ̸= H.
48 where K11 = H22 , K12 = H12 , K21 = H21 and K22 = H11 .
49
50 Proof. It is straightforward. □
51
52 Lemma 5.2. Let (H, ◦) be a groupoid of order 2. (H, ◦) is an LA-semihypergroup
53 if and only if it is a commutative semigroup.
54
55 Theorem 5.3. If (H, ◦) is an anti-Hv -LA-semigroup of order 2, then ◦ is an
56 operation and (H, ◦) is anti-LA-semigroup.
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6 16 S. Mirvakili, A. Rezaei, O, Al-Shanqiti, F. Smarandache, B. Davvaz
7
8 Theorem 5.4. There exists one antiweakcommutative LA-semihypergroup of
9 order 2, up to isomorphism.
10
11 Proof. Let (H = {a, b}, ◦) be an antiweakcommutative LA-semihypergroup.
12 Then we have (a ◦ b = a & b ◦ a = b) or (a ◦ b = b & b ◦ a = a). Suppose a ◦ b = a
13 and b ◦ a = b. Since (H = {a, b}, ◦) is an LA-semihypergroup, we get
14
15 (1) (a ◦ b) ◦ b = (b ◦ b) ◦ a,
16 (2) (a ◦ a) ◦ b = (b ◦ a) ◦ a.
17 Thus, by (1) and (2) we obtain
18
19 (3) a = (b ◦ b) ◦ a,
20 (4) (a ◦ a) ◦ b = b.
21 Now, if b ◦ b = a, then (3) implies that a ◦ a = a. So (4) implies that a ◦ b = b
22 and this is a contradiction. If b ◦ b = b, then (3) implies that b ◦ a = a and this
23
is a contradiction. Finally, if b ◦ b = H, then (3) implies that a = H and this
24
25 is a contradiction.
26 Let a ◦ b = b and b ◦ a = a. Then using (1) and (2) we have
27 (5) b ◦ b = (b ◦ b) ◦ a,
28 (6) (a ◦ a) ◦ b = a ◦ a.
29
30 If a ◦ b = b and b ◦ a = a, then using (5) and (6), we get b ◦ b ̸= a, b ◦ b ̸= b,
31 a ◦ a ̸= a or a ◦ a ̸= a. Therefore b ◦ b = H = a ◦ a. □
32
33 Theorem 5.5. There exist 3 anticommutative LA-semihypergroups of order 2,
34 up to isomorphism.
35
36 Proof. Let (H = {a, b}, ◦) be an antiweakcommutative LA-semihypergroup.
37 Then we have (a ◦ b ̸= b ◦ a. Then we have
38 (1) (a ◦ b = a & b ◦ a = b),
39 (2) (a ◦ b = b & b ◦ a = a),
40
(3) (a ◦ b = a & b ◦ a = H),
41
42 (4) (a ◦ b = b & b ◦ a = H),
43 (5) (a ◦ b = H & b ◦ a = a),
44 (6) (a ◦ b = H & b ◦ a = b).
45 By proof of Theorem 5.4, case (1) can not admitting an LA-semihypergroup.
46
By proof of Theorem5.4, case (2) admitting a LA-semihypergroup (H, ◦1 ) with
47
48 the following Cayley table:
49 ◦1 a b
50 a H b
51 b a H
52 Case 3: Let a ◦ b = a and b ◦ a = H. Since (H = {a, b}, ◦) is an LA-
53
54 semihypergroup, so
55 (7) (a ◦ b) ◦ b = (b ◦ b) ◦ a,
56 (8) (a ◦ a) ◦ b = (b ◦ a) ◦ a.
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6 On [Neutro](Anti)LA-semihypergroups and [Neutro](Anti)Hv -LA-semigroups 17
7
8 Thus, by (3), (7) and (8) we obtain
9
10 (9) a = (b ◦ b) ◦ a,
11 (10) (a ◦ a) ◦ b = H.
12 Now, if b ◦ b = a, then (9) implies that a ◦ a = a. So (10) implies that a ◦ b = H,
13 which is a contradiction. If b ◦ b = b, then (9) implies that b ◦ a = a and this is
14
a contradiction. Finally, if b ◦ b = H, then (9) implies that a = H, which is a
15
16 contradiction.
17 Case 4: Let a ◦ b = b and b ◦ a = H. Thus by (4), (7) and (8) we obtain
18 (11) b ◦ b = (b ◦ b) ◦ a,
19 (12) (a ◦ a) ◦ b = H.
20
21 Now, if b◦b = a, then (11) implies that a◦a = a. So (12) implies that a◦b = H,
22 which is a contradiction. If b ◦ b = b, then (11) implies that b ◦ a = b and this
23 is a contradiction. So we have b ◦ b = H. By (4) and (12) we obtain a ◦ a = b
24 or a ◦ a = H. Therefore we obtain two hyperoperations and we call these two
25 hyperoperation ◦2 and ◦3 , respectively as follows:
26
27 ◦2 a b ◦3 a b
28 a H b a b b
29 b H H b H H
30
31 Case 5: Let a ◦ b = H and b ◦ a = a. Thus, by (4), (7) and (8) we obtain
32 (13) H = (b ◦ b) ◦ a,
33
(14) (a ◦ a) ◦ b = a ◦ a.
34
35 Now, if a ◦ a = b, then (14) implies that b ◦ b = b. So (13) implies that b ◦ a = H,
36 which is a contradiction. If a ◦ a = a, then (14) implies that a ◦ b = a and this
37 is a contradiction. So we have a ◦ a = H. By (5) and (13) we obtain (b ◦ b = a
38 or b ◦ b = H. Therefore we obtain two hyperoperations and we call these two
39
40 hyperoperation ◦4 and ◦5 , respectively as follows:
41 ◦4 a b ◦5 a b
42 a H H a H H
43
b a H b a a
44
45 Case 6: Let a ◦ b = H & b ◦ a = b. Thus by (4), (7) and (8) we obtain
46
47 (15) H = (b ◦ b) ◦ a,
48 (16) (a ◦ a) ◦ b = b.
49 Now, if a ◦ a = b, then (16) implies that b ◦ b = b. So (15) implies that b ◦ a = H
50 and this is a contradiction. If a ◦ a = a, then (16) implies that a ◦ b = a and this
51
is a contradiction. So we have a ◦ a = H. By (5) and (16) we obtain H = b,
52
53 which is a contradiction.
54 It is easy to see that (H, ◦2 ) ∼ = (H, ◦4 ) and (H, ◦3 ) ∼
= (H, ◦5 ). Therefore
55 (H, ◦1 ), (H, ◦2 ) and (H, ◦4 ) are anticommutative LA-semihypergroups of order
56 2. □
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6 18 S. Mirvakili, A. Rezaei, O, Al-Shanqiti, F. Smarandache, B. Davvaz
7
8 Corollary 5.6. There is no anticommutative LA-semigroup of order 2.
9
10 Theorem 5.7. There is no proper anti-Hv -LA-semigroup of order 2.
11
Proof. Let (H = {a, b}, ◦) be a proper anti-Hv -LA-semigroup. Then We have
12
13 (1) (a ◦ b) ◦ b ∩ (b ◦ b) ◦ a = ∅,
14 (2) (a ◦ a) ◦ b ∩ (b ◦ a) ◦ a = ∅.
15 Since anti-Hv -LA-semigroup (H = {a, b}, ◦) is proper, we have one of the
16
following cases:
17
18 (3) a ◦ a = H,
19 (4) a ◦ b = H,
20 (5) b ◦ a = H,
21 (6) b ◦ b = H.
22
23 Case 3: If b◦a = a or b◦a = H, then (b◦a)◦a = H and this is a contradiction
24 with (2). If b ◦ a = b, then (b ◦ a) ◦ a = b and (a ◦ a) ◦ b = H ◦ b. Thus, by (2)
25 we have a ◦ b = a and b ◦ b = a. Then (a ◦ b) ◦ b = a and (b ◦ b) ◦ a = H, which
26 is a contradiction with (1).
27 Case 4: Then (a ◦ b) ◦ b = H and this is a contradiction with (1).
28
Case 5: Then (b ◦ a) ◦ a = H, which is a contradiction with (2).
29
30 Case 6: If a◦b = b or a◦b = H, then (a◦b)◦b = H and this is a contradiction
31 with (2). If a ◦ b = a, then (a ◦ b) ◦ b = a and (b ◦ b) ◦ a = H ◦ a. So by (1) we
32 have a ◦ a = b and b ◦ a = b. Then (b ◦ a) ◦ a = b and (a ◦ a) ◦ b = H, which is
33 a contradiction with (2). □
34
35 Theorem 5.8. There exist 4 commutative anti-LA-semihypergroups of order
36 2.
37
38 Proof. Let (H = {a, b}, ◦) be a commutative anti-LA-semihypergroup. Then
39 We have
40 (1) (a ◦ b) ◦ b ̸= (b ◦ b) ◦ a,
41 (2) (a ◦ a) ◦ b ̸= (b ◦ a) ◦ a,
42 (3) a ◦ b = b ◦ a.
43
44 Now, we have 3 Cases:
45 Case 1: Let a ◦ b = a = b ◦ a. then
46 (4) (a ̸= (b ◦ b) ◦ a,
47
(5) (a ◦ a) ◦ b ̸= a ◦ a.
48
49 If a ◦ a = a, then (3) and (5) implies that a ̸= a and this is contradiction. If
50 a ◦ a = b, then (5) implies that b ̸∈ b ◦ b and so a ∈ b ◦ b. Then b ◦ b = a
51 or b ◦ b = H. Therefore we obtain two commutative anti-LA-semihypergroups
52 with two hyperoperations ◦1 and ◦2 as follows:
53
54 ◦1 a b ◦2 a b
55 a b a a b a
56 b a H b a a
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6 On [Neutro](Anti)LA-semihypergroups and [Neutro](Anti)Hv -LA-semigroups 19
7
8 If a ◦ a = H, then by (5) we have
9
10 (6) H ◦ b ̸= H,
11 since a ◦ b = a, using (6), we have H ◦ b = a. Thus, b ◦ b = b. Then we have a
12 commutative anti-LA-semihypergroup with the following Cayley table.
13
14 ◦3 a b
15 a H a
16 b a b
17
Case 2: Let a ◦ b = b = b ◦ a. In the similar way we obtain 3 commutative
18
19 anti-LA-semihypergroups isomorphism with anti-LA-semihypergroups in Case
20 1.
21 Case 3: Let a ◦ b = H = b ◦ a, by (1) and (2) we have
22 (7) H ̸= (b ◦ b) ◦ a,
23
(8) (a ◦ a) ◦ b ̸= H.
24
25 Thus, (7) and (8) imply that a◦a ̸= H ̸= b◦b, a◦a ̸= a and b◦b ̸= b. So a◦a = b
26 and b ◦ b = a. Therefore we have a commutative anti-LA-semihypergroup with
27 the following Cayley table.
28 ◦4 a b
29
30 a b H
31 b H a
32 Then we have 4 commutative anti-LA-semihypergroups of order 2 up to iso-
33 morphism. □
34
35 Now, we have a generalization of Theorem 4.12.
36
37 Theorem 5.9. There is no commutative neutro-Hv -LA-semigroups of order
38 2.
39
40 Proof. Let (H = {a, b}, ◦) be a weakcommutative neutro-Hv -LA-semigroup.
41 Then we have
42 (1) (a ◦ b) ◦ b ∩ (b ◦ b) ◦ a = ∅,
43 (2) (a ◦ a) ◦ b ∩ (b ◦ a) ◦ a ̸= ∅,
44
45 (3) a ◦ b = b ◦ a.
46 Or
47 (4) (a ◦ b) ◦ b ∩ (b ◦ b) ◦ a ̸= ∅,
48
(5) (a ◦ a) ◦ b ∩ (b ◦ a) ◦ a = ∅.
49
50 (6) a ◦ b = b ◦ a.
51 Case 1: If a ◦ b = H = b ◦ a, then it is a contradiction with (1) and (5).
52 Case 2: If a ◦ b = a = b ◦ a, then we have
53
54 (7) a ∩ (b ◦ b) ◦ a = ∅,
55 (8) (a ◦ a) ◦ b ∩ a ◦ a ̸= ∅,
56 or
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6 20 S. Mirvakili, A. Rezaei, O, Al-Shanqiti, F. Smarandache, B. Davvaz
7
8 (9) a ∩ (b ◦ b) ◦ a ̸= ∅,
9 (10) (a ◦ a) ◦ b ∩ a ◦ a = ∅.
10
11 Now, (7) implies that b ◦ b = a and a ◦ a = b and this is a contradiction with
12 (8). Also, (10) implies that a ◦ a = b and b ◦ b = a, which is a contradiction
13 with (9).
14 Case 3: If a ◦ b = b = b ◦ a, then by the similar way of Case 2 we can prove
15
that there is no a weakcommutative neutro-Hv -LA-semigroup of order 2. □
16
17 Theorem 5.10. There exist 2 weakcommutative neutro-Hv -LA-semigroups of
18
order 2.
19
20 Proof. Let (H = {a, b}, ◦) be a weakcommutative neutro-Hv -LA-semigroup.
21
22 Then we have
23 (1) (a ◦ b) ◦ b ∩ (b ◦ b) ◦ a = ∅,
24 (2) (a ◦ a) ◦ b ∩ (b ◦ a) ◦ a ̸= ∅,
25
26 or
27 (3) (a ◦ b) ◦ b ∩ (b ◦ b) ◦ a ̸= ∅,
28 (4) (a ◦ a) ◦ b ∩ (b ◦ a) ◦ a = ∅.
29
30 Theorem 5.9 and weakcommutativity imply that
31 (5) b ◦ a ̸= a ◦ b = H,
32
33 or
34 (6) a ◦ b ̸= b ◦ a = H.
35
36 Now, we have the following Cases:
37 Case 1: Let (1), (2) and (5) be true. Then H ∩ (b ◦ b) ◦ a = ∅ and this is a
38 contradiction.
39 Case 2: Let (1), (2) and (6) be true. By (6) and (1) we have b ◦ b = a.
40 Using (6) we have a ◦ b = a or a ◦ b = b. If a ◦ b = a, then by (1) we obtain
41
a ◦ a = b. Thus, we have a weakcommutative neutro-Hv -LA-semigroup with
42
43 the following Cayley table.
44 ◦ a b
45 a b a
46 b H a
47
48 If a ◦ b = b, then by (1) we obtain a ◦ a = b. So we have a weakcommutative
49 neutro-Hv -LA-semigroup with the following Cayley table.
50
51 ◦ a b
52 a b b
53 b H a
54
55 Case 3: Let (3), (4) and (5) are true. By (5) and (4) we have a ◦ a = b. by (5)
56 we have b ◦ a = a or b ◦ a = b. If b ◦ a = a, then by (4) we obtain b ◦ b = a. So we
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6 On [Neutro](Anti)LA-semihypergroups and [Neutro](Anti)Hv -LA-semigroups 21
7
8 have a weakcommutative neutro-Hv -LA-semigroup with the following Cayley
9 table.
10
◦ a b
11
12 a b H
13 b a a
14 If b ◦ a = b, then by (4) we obtain b ◦ b = a. Then we have a weakcommutative
15
neutro-Hv -LA-semigroup with the following Cayley table.
16
17 ◦ a b
18 a b H
19
b a a
20
21 Case 1: Let (3), (4) and (6) are true. Then (a ◦ a) ◦ H ◦ a = ∅. This is a
22 contradiction. □
23
24 Theorem 5.11. There exists one antiweakcommutative LA-semihypergroup of
25 order 2, up to isomorphism.
26
27 Proof. Let (H = {a, b}, ◦) be an antiweakcommutative LA-semihypergroup.
28
Then We have
29
30 (1) (a ◦ b) ◦ b = (b ◦ b) ◦ a, or (2) (a ◦ a) ◦ b = (b ◦ a) ◦ a, or (3) a ◦ b ∩ b ◦ a = ∅,
31 Using (3) we get a ◦ b ̸= H and b ◦ a ̸= H. Then
32 (4) a ◦ b = a, b ◦ a = b,
33
34 or
35 (5) a ◦ b = b, b ◦ a = a.
36
If (4) is true, then
37
38 (6) a = (b ◦ b) ◦ a,
39 (7) (a ◦ a) ◦ b = b.
40
41 If b ◦ b = a or b ◦ b = b or b ◦ b = H, then we have a contradiction.
42 So, let (5) be true. Then
43 (8) b ◦ b = (b ◦ b) ◦ a,
44 (9) (a ◦ a) ◦ b = a ◦ a.
45
46 So, if b ◦ b = a, then a ◦ a = b. By (9) we have b = a, which is a contradiction. If
47 b ◦ b = b, then b ◦ a = b this is a contradiction with (5). If a ◦ a = b or a ◦ a = a,
48 then by the similar way we have a contradiction. Thus, b ◦ b = H, and so
49 a ◦ a = H. Therefore we have an antiweakcommutative LA-semihypergroup
50 with the following Cayley table.
51
52 ◦ a b
53 a H b
54
b a H
55
56 □
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6 22 S. Mirvakili, A. Rezaei, O, Al-Shanqiti, F. Smarandache, B. Davvaz
7
8 Using the above results in the sections 4 and 5, we can characterize 45
9 non-isomorphic classes hypergroupoids of the order 2. We obtain anti-LA-
10
semihypergroups, neutro-LA-semihypergroups, LA-semihypergroups, anti-Hv -
11
12 LA-semigroups, neutro-Hv -LA-semigroups, Hv -LA-semigroups of order 2 (classes
13 up to isomorphism).
14
15 Table 2. Classification of the hypergroupoids of order 2
16
17 C WC AC AWC
18
LA-semihypergroups 9 11 3 1
19 Hv -LA-semigroups 13 30 20 3
20 Neutro-LA-semihypergroup 2 9 10 3
21 Neutro-Hv -LA-semigroup 0 2 7 5
22 Anti-LA-semihypergroup 3 13 18 8
Anti-Hv -LA-semigroup 1 1 4 4
23
24
25
26 Compliance with ethical standards
27
Conflict of interest The authors declare that they have no conflict of
28
29 interest.
30 Human participants and/or animals This article does not contain any
31
studies with human participants or animals performed by the authors.
32
33 Authors’ contributions All authors read and approved the final manu-
34 script.
35
36 References
37
38 1. M. Akram, N. Yaqoob and M. Khan, On (m, n)-ideals in LA-semigroups, Applied Math-
39 ematical Sciences, 7(44) (2013) 2187–2191.
40 2. A.A.A. Agboola, Introduction to neutrogroups, International Journal of Neutrosophic
Science, 6(1) (2020) 41–47.
41
3. J.R. Cho, J. Jezek and T. Kepka, Paramedial groupoids, Czechoslovak Mathematical
42
Journal, 49(2) (1999) 277–290.
43
4. P. Corsini, Prolegomena of hypergroup theory, Aviani Editor, (1993).
44
5. P. Corsini, V. Leoreanu-Fotea, Applications of hyperstruture theory, Kluwer Academic
45
Publishers, (2003).
46 6. B. Davvaz, Semihypergroup theory, Elsevier, (2016).
47 7. B. Davvaz and T. Vougiouklis, A walk through weak hyperstructures; Hv -structure, World
48 Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., Hackensack, NJ, (2019).
49 8. A. Distler, Classification and eumeration of finite semigroups, Ph.D. Thesis, University
50 of St Andrews, (2010).
51 9. M. Gulistan, N. Yaqoob and M. Shahzad, A note on Hv -LA-semigroups, U.P.B. Sci.
52 Bull., Series A, 77(33) (2015) 93–106.
53 10. K. Hila and J. Dine, On hyperideals in left almost semihypergroups, ISRN Algebra,
54 Article ID 953124 (2011) 8 pages.
55 11. P. Holgate, Groupoids satisfying a simple invertive law, The Mathematics Student, 61(1-
56 4) (1992) 101–106.
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6 On [Neutro](Anti)LA-semihypergroups and [Neutro](Anti)Hv -LA-semigroups 23
7
8 12. J. Jantosciak, Transposition hypergroups: Noncommutative join spaces, J. Algebra, 187
9 (1997) 97–119.
10 13. M.A. Kazim and M. Naseeruddin, On almost semigroups, The Aligarh Bulletin of Math-
11 ematics, 2 (1972) 1–7.
12 14. M. Khan and N. Ahmad, Characterizations of left almost semigroups by their ideals,
13 Journal of Advanced Research in Pure Mathematics, 2(3) (2010) 61–73.
14 15. S. Mirvakili, F. Smarandache and A. Rezaei, On neutro-Hv -semigroups, Journal of In-
15 telligent & Fuzzy Systems, 42 (2022) 1289–299.
16 16. F. Marty, Sur une generalization de la notion de groupe, Huitieme congress de Mathe-
17 maticiens, Scandinaves, Stockholm, (1934) 45–49.
18 17. Q. Mushtaq and S.M. Yusuf, On LA-semigroups, The Aligarh Bulletin of Mathematics,
19 8 (1978) 65–70.
20 18. Q. Mushtaq and S.M. Yusuf, On locally associative LA-semigroups, The Journal of Nat-
21 ural Sciences and Mathematics, 19(1) (1979) 57–62.
22 19. P.V. Protic and N. Stevanovic, AG-test and some general properties of Abel-Grassmann’s
23 groupoids, Pure Mathematics and Applications, 6(4) (1995) 371–383.
24 20. A. Rezaei, F. Smarandache, S. Mirvakili, Applications of (neutro/anti) sophications to
semihypergroups, Journal of Mathematics Volume 2021, Article ID 6649349, 7 pages.
25
21. F. Smarandache, Neutroalgebra is a generalization of partial algebra, International Jour-
26
nal of Neutrosophic Science (IJNS), 2(1) (2020) 8–17.
27
22. F. Smarandache, Introduction to neutroalgebraic structures and antialgebraic structures,
28
in Advances of Standard and Nonstandard Neutrosophic Theories, Pons Publishing
29
House Brussels, Belgium, Ch. 6, (2019) 240–265.
30
23. F. Smarandache, Introduction to neutroalgebraic structures and antialgebraic structures
31 (revisited), Neutrosophic Sets and Systems, 31 (2020) 1–16.
32 24. F. Smarandache, Neutrosophy / Neutrosophic probability, set, and logic, American Re-
33 search Press, (1998).
34 25. F. Smarandache, Extension of hypergraph to n-superhypergraph and to plithogenic n-
35 superhypergraph, and extension of hyperalgebra to n-ary (classical- / neutro- / anti-)
36 hyperalgebra, neutrosophic sets and systems, 33 (2020) 290–296.
37 26. N. Stevanovic and P.V. Protic, Composition of Abel-Grassmann’s 3-bands, Novi Sad
38 Journal of Mathematics, 34(2) (2004) 175–182.
39 27. T. Vougiouklis, Hyperstructures and their representations, Hadronic Press, Inc. (1994)
40 (see page 31).
41 28. N. Yaqoob, P. Corsini and F. Yousafzai, On intra-regular left almost semihypergroups
42 with pure left identity, Journal of Mathematics, Article ID 510790 (2013) 10 pages.
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65