ISSN: 2834-7706

Research Article Journal of Mathematical Techniques and Computational Mathematics

Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction to Use
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition and
Beyond

Henry Garrett*
Department of Mathematics, University of New York, USA. Corresponding Author
*

Henry Garrett, Department of Mathematics, University of New York, USA.

Submitted: 2023, Jan 27 ; Accepted: 2023, Jun 12 ; Published: 2023, Jun 21

Citation: Garrett, H. (2023). Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing in the SuperHyperFunction To Use Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraphs on Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition And Beyond. J Math Techniques Comput Math, 2(6), 221-307.

Abstract
In this research, new setting is introduced for new SuperHyperNotion, namely, Neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForc-
ing. Two different types of SuperHyperDefinitions are debut for them but the research goes further and the SuperHyper-
Notion, SuperHyperUniform, and SuperHyperClass based on that are well-defined and well-reviewed. The literature
review is implemented in the whole of this research. For shining the elegancy and the significancy of this research, the
comparison between this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions and fundamental SuperHyperNumbers are
featured. The definitions are followed by the examples and the instances thus the clarifications are driven with different
tools. The applications are figured out to make sense about the theoretical aspect of this ongoing research. The “Can-
cer’s Neutrosophic Recognition” are the under research to figure out the challenges make sense about ongoing and
upcoming research. The special case is up. The cells are viewed in the deemed ways. There are different types of them.
Some of them are individuals and some of them are well-modeled by the group of cells. These types are all officially
called “SuperHyperVertex” but the relations amid them all officially called “SuperHyperEdge”. The frameworks “Su-
perHyperGraph” and “neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” are chosen and elected to research about “Cancer’s Neutro-
sophic Recognition”. Thus these complex and dense SuperHyperModels open up some avenues to research on theoreti-
cal segments and “Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition”. Some avenues are posed to pursue this research. It’s also
officially collected in the form of some questions and some problems. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then a “1-failed
SuperHyperForcing” Z(NSHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph is the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S
of black SuperHyperVertices (whereas SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white) such that V (G) isn’t turned
black after finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: a white SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black
SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white SuperHyperNeighbor of a black SuperHyperVertex. The additional condition is
referred by “1-” about the usage of any black SuperHyperVertex only once to act on white SuperHyperVertex to be black
SuperHyperVertex; a “neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing” Zn(NSHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph is
the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of black SuperHyperVertices (whereas SuperHyperVertices
in V (G) \ S are colored white) such that V (G) isn’t turned black after finitely many applications of “the color-change
rule”:a white SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white SuperHyperNeighbor
of a black SuperHyperVertex. The additional condition is referred by “1-” about the usage of any black SuperHyperVer-
tex only once to act on white SuperHyperVertex to be black SuperHyperVertex. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then an
“δ−1-failed SuperHyperForcing” is a maximal 1-failed SuperHyperForcing of SuperHyperVertices with maximum car-
dinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the (neutrosophic) cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors
of |S ∩N(s)| > |S ∩(V \N(s))|+δ, |S ∩N(s)| < |S ∩(V \N(s))|+δ. The first Expression, holds if S is an “δ−SuperHyperOf-
fensive”. And the second Expression, holds if S is an “δ−SuperHyperDefensive”; a“neutrosophic δ−1-failed SuperHy-
perForcing” is a maxim neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing of SuperHyperVertices with maximum neutrosophic
cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors
of s ∈ S : |S ∩ N(s)|neutrosophic > S ∩(V \N(s))|neutrosophic +δ, |S ∩N(s)|neutrosophic < |S ∩(V \N(s))|neutrosophic +δ. The first Expres-
sion, holds if S is a “neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive”. And the second Expression, holds if S is a “neutrosophic
δ−SuperHyperDefensive”. It’s useful to define “neutrosophic” version of 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Since there’s
more ways to get type-results to make 1-failed SuperHyperForcing more understandable. For the sake of having neutro-
sophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of “1-failed SuperHyperForcing”. The Su-
perHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this proce-
dure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. Assume a 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. It’s
redefined neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing if the mentioned Table holds, concerning, “The Values of Vertices,

J Math Techniques Comput Math, 2023 Volume 2 | Issue 6 | 221

 SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyperEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” with the key
points, “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 get structural examples and instances, I’m going to introduce the next SuperHyperClass of SuperHyper-
Graph based on 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. It’s the main. It’ll be disciplinary to have the foundation of previous defi-
nition in the kind of SuperHyperClass. If there’s a need to have all SuperHyperConnectivities until the 1-failed Super-
HyperForcing, then it’s officially called “1-failed SuperHyperForcing” but otherwise, it isn’t 1-failed
SuperHyperForcing. There are some instances about the clarifications for the main definition titled “1-failed SuperHy-
perForcing”. These two examples get more scrutiny and discernment since there are characterized in the disciplinary
ways of the SuperHyperClass based on 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. For the sake of having neutrosophic 1-failed Supe-
rHyperForcing, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of “neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing” and “neutro-
sophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels
from the letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values.
Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s redefined “neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” if the intended Table holds.
And 1-failed SuperHyperForcing are redefined “neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing” if the intended Table holds.
It’s useful to define “neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s more ways to get neutrosophic type-re-
sults to make neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing more understandable. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Graph. There are some neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the intended Table holds. Thus SuperHyperPath, SuperHy-
perCycle, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and SuperHyperWheel, are “neutrosophic
SuperHyperPath”, “neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle”, “neutrosophic SuperHyperStar”, “neutrosophic SuperHyperBi-
partite”, “neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite”, and “neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel” if the intended Table holds.
A SuperHyperGraph has “neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing” where it’s the strongest [the maximum neutro-
sophic value from all 1-failed SuperHyperForcing amid the maximum value amid all SuperHyperVertices from a 1-failed
SuperHyperForcing.] 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. A graph is SuperHyperUniform if it’s SuperHyperGraph and the
number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some Su-
perHyperClasses as follows. It’s SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyp-
erEdges with two exceptions; it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHy-
perEdges; it’s SuperHyperStar it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all SuperHyperEdges; it’s
SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVerti-
ces, forming two separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVer-
tex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi separate sets, has no Supe-
rHyperEdge in common; it’s SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given
SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any common SuperVertex. The SuperHyperMod-
el proposes the specific designs and the specific architectures. The SuperHyperModel is officially called “SuperHyper-
Graph” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. In this SuperHyperModel, The “specific” cells and “specific group”
of cells are SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperVertices” and the common and intended properties between “specific”
cells and “specific group” of cells are SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperEdges”. Sometimes, it’s useful to have some
degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy, and neutrality to have more precise SuperHyperModel which in this case the
SuperHyperModel is called “neutrosophic”. In the future research, the foundation will be based on the “Cancer’s Neu-
trosophic Recognition” and the results and the definitions will be introduced in redeemed ways. The neutrosophic rec-
ognition of the cancer in the long-term function. The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s called Super-
HyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is identified by this research. Sometimes the move of the
cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and
the effects of the cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to be neutrosophic Super-
HyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s happened and what’s done. There are some specific models,
which are well-known and they’ve got the names, and some SuperHyperGeneral SuperHyperModels. The moves and the
traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a neutrosoph-
ic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyper-
Wheel). The aim is to find either the longest 1-failed SuperHyperForcing or the strongest 1-failed SuperHyperForcing
in those neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. For the longest 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, called 1-failed SuperHyper-
Forcing, and the strongest SuperHyperCycle, called neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, some general results are
introduced. Beyond that in SuperHyperStar, all possible SuperHyperPaths have only two SuperHyperEdges but it’s not
enough since it’s essential to have at least three SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a SuperHyperCycle. There isn’t
any formation of any SuperHyperCycle but literarily, it’s the deformation of any SuperHyperCycle. It, literarily, deforms
and it doesn’t form. A basic familiarity with SuperHyperGraph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory are
proposed.
Keywords: Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing, Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition.
AMS Subject Classification: 05C17, 05C22, 05E4.

J Math Techniques Comput Math, 2023 Volume 2 | Issue 6 | 222

1. Background
There are some researches covering the topic of this research. In
what follows, there are some discussion and literature reviews
about them.
First article is titled “properties of SuperHyperGraph and neu-
trosophic SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. by Henry Garrett (2022).
It’s first step toward the research on neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Graphs. This research article is published on the journal “Neu-
trosophic Sets and Systems” in issue 49 and the pages 531-561.
In this research article, different types of notions like dominat-
ing, resolving, coloring, Eulerian(Hamiltonian) neutrosophic
path, n-Eulerian(Hamiltonian) neutrosophic path, zero forcing
number, zero forcing neutrosophic- number, independent num-
ber, independent neutrosophic-number, clique number, clique
neutrosophic-number, matching number, matching neutrosoph-
ic-number, girth, neutrosophic girth, 1-zero-forcing number,
1-zero- forcing neutrosophic-number, failed 1-zero-forcing
number, failed 1-zero-forcing neutrosophic-number, global- of-
fensive alliance, t-offensive alliance, t-defensive alliance, t-pow-
erful alliance, and global-powerful alliance are defined in Super-
HyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Some Classes
of SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are
cases of research. Some results are applied in family of Supe-
rHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Thus this
research article has concentrated on the vast notions and intro-
ducing the majority of notions [1]. is indexed by Google Scholar and has more than 3048 readers
The seminal paper and groundbreaking article is titled “neutro-
sophic co-degree and neutrosophic degree alongside chromatic
numbers in the setting of some classes related to neutrosophic
hypergraphs” in Ref. by Henry Garrett (2022). In this research
article, a novel approach is implemented on SuperHyperGraph
and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph based on general forms
without using neutrosophic classes of neutrosophic SuperHy-
perGraph. It’s published in prestigious and fancy journal is enti-
tled “Journal of Current Trends in Computer Science Research
(JCTCSR)” with abbreviation “J Curr Trends Comp Sci Res”
in volume 1 and issue 1 with pages 06-14. The research article
studies deeply with choosing neutrosophic hypergraphs instead
of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s the breakthrough toward
independent results based on initial background [2]. of motivations. I try to bring the motivations in the narrative
In some articles are titled “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModel-
ing of Cancer’s Recognitions Featuring (Neutrosophic) Super-
HyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances” Ref. by Henry Garrett
(2022), “(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAlliances With SuperHy-
perDefensive SuperHyperOffensive Type-SuperHyperSet On
(Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph With (Neutrosophic) Super-
HyperModeling of Cancer’s Recognitions And Related (Neutro-
sophic) SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. by Henry Garrett (2022),
“SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s
Recognitions” in Ref. by Henry Garrett (2022), “Some Supe-
rHyperDegrees and Co-SuperHyperDegrees on Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraphs and SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applica-
tions in Cancer’s Treatments” in Ref. by Henry Garrett (2022),
“SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving on Neutro-
J Math Techniques Comput Math, 2023
sophic SuperHyperGraphs And Their Directions inGame Theory
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses” in Ref. by Henry Garrett
(2022), “Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperForcing
And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling in Cancer’s Rec-
ognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs” in Ref. by
Henry Garrett (2022), “Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concern-
ing SuperHyperDominating and Neutrosophic SuperHyperRe-
solving in SuperHyperGraph” in Ref. by Henry Garrett (2022),
“Initial Material of Neutrosophic Preliminaries to Study Some
Neutrosophic Notions Based on Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge
(NSHE) in Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)” in Ref. by
Henry Garrett (2022), there are some endeavors to formalize the
basic SuperHyperNotions about neutrosophic [3-10].
SuperHyperGraph and SuperHyperGraph.
Some studies and researches about neutrosophic graphs, are pro-
posed as book in Ref. by Henry Garrett (2022) which is indexed
by Google Scholar and has more than 2347 readers in Scribd. It’s
titled “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs” and published by Ohio:
E-publishing: Educational Publisher 1091 West 1st Ave Grand-
view Heights, Ohio 43212 United State. This research book cov-
ers different types of notions and settings in neutrosophic graph
theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory [11].
Also, some studies and researches about neutrosophic graphs,
are proposed as book in Ref. by Henry Garrett (2022) which
in Scribd. It’s titled “Neutrosophic Duality” and published by
Florida: GLOBAL KNOWLEDGE - Publishing House 848
Brickell Ave Ste 950 Miami, Florida 33131 United States. This
research book presents different types of notions SuperHyperRe-
solving and SuperHyperDominating in the setting of duality in
neutrosophic graph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph
theory. This research book has scrutiny on the complement of
the intended set and the intended set, simultaneously. It’s smart
to consider a set but acting on its complement that what’s done in
this research book which is popular in the terms of high readers
in Scribd [12].
1.1 Motivation and Contributions
In this research, there are some ideas in the featured frameworks
ways. Some cells have been faced with some attacks from the
situation which is caused by the cancer’s attacks. In this case,
there are some embedded analysis on the ongoing situations
which in that, the cells could be labelled as some groups and
some groups or individuals have excessive labels which all are
raised from the behaviors to overcome the cancer’s attacks. In
the embedded situations, the individuals of cells and the groups
of cells could be considered as “new groups”. Thus it motivates
us to find the proper SuperHyperModels for getting more proper
analysis on this messy story. I’ve found the SuperHyperModels
which are officially called “SuperHyperGraphs” and “Neutro-
sophic SuperHyperGraphs”. In this SuperHyperModel, the cells
and the groups of cells are defined as “SuperHyperVertices” and
the relations between the individuals of cells and the groups of
cells are defined as “SuperHyperEdges”.
Volume 2 | Issue 6 | 223
Thus it’s another motivation for us to do research on this Su-
perHyperModel based on the “Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recog-
nition”. Sometimes, the situations get worst. The situation is
passed from the certainty and precise style. Thus it’s the beyond
them. There are three descriptions, namely, the degrees of de-
terminacy, indeterminacy and neutrality, for any object based
on vague forms, namely, incomplete data, imprecise data, and
uncertain analysis. The latter model could be considered on the
previous SuperHyperModel. It’s SuperHyperModel. It’s Supe-
rHyperGraph but it’s officially called “Neutrosophic SuperHy-
perGraphs”. The cancer is the disease but the model is going to
figure out what’s going on this phenomenon. The special case of
this disease is considered and as the consequences of the model,
some parameters are used. more motivations to define SuperHyperClasses and to find some
The cells are under attack of this disease but the moves of the
cancer in the special region are the matter of mind. The neutro-
sophic recognition of the cancer could help to find some treat-
ments for this disease. The SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph are the SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s
Neutrosophic Recognition” and both bases are the background
of this research. Sometimes the cancer has been happened on
the region, full of cells, groups of cells and embedded styles.
In this segment, the SuperHyperModel proposes some Super-
HyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of the
cancer in the forms of alliances’ styles with the formation of the
design and the architecture are formally called “1-failed Supe-
rHyperForcing” in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. The
prefix “SuperHyper”refers to the theme of the embedded styles
to figure out the background for the SuperHyperNotions. The
neutrosophic recognition of the cancer in the long-term func-
tion. The specific region has been assigned by the model [it’s
called SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from
the cancer is identified by this research. Sometimes the move of
the cancer hasn’t be easily identified since there are some deter-
minacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and the
effects of the cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose
another model [it’s said to be neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph]
to have convenient perception on what’s happened and what’s
done. There are some specific models, which are well-known
and they’ve got the names, and some general models. The moves
and the traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and between
complicated groups of cells could be fantasized by a neutrosoph-
ic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, Supe-
rHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel).
The aim is to find either the optimal 1-failed SuperHyperForcing
or the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing in those neutro-
sophic SuperHyperModels. Some general results are introduced.
Beyond that in SuperHyperStar, all possible SuperHyperPaths
have only two SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough since it’s
essential to have at least three SuperHyperEdges to form any
style of a SuperHyperCycle. There isn’t any formation of any
SuperHyperCycle but literarily, it’s the deformation of any Su-
perHyperCycle. It, literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form.
Question 2.1. How to define the SuperHyperNotions and to do
research on them to find the “ amount of 1-failed SuperHyper-
Forcing” of either individual of cells or the groups of cells
J Math Techniques Comput Math, 2023
based on the fixed cell or the fixed group of cells, extensively,
the “amount of 1-failed SuperHyperForcing” based on the fixed
groups of cells or the fixed groups of group of cells?
Question 2.2. What are the best descriptions for the “Cancer’s
Neutrosophic Recognition” in terms of these messy and dense
SuperHyperModels where embedded notions are illustrated?
It’s motivation to find notions to use in this dense model is ti-
tled “SuperHyperGraphs”. Thus it motivates us to define dif-
ferent types of “1-failed SuperHyperForcing” and “neutrosoph-
ic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing” on “SuperHyperGraph” and
“Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. Then the research has taken
connections amid this SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHy-
perNotions. It motivates us to get some instances and examples
to make clarifications about the framework of this research.
The general results and some results about some connections
are some avenues to make key point of this research, “Cancer’s
Neutrosophic Recognition”, more understandable and more
clear.
The framework of this research is as follows. In the beginning,
I introduce basic definitions to clarify about preliminaries. In
the subsection “Preliminaries”, initial definitions about Supe-
rHyperGraphs and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are deep-
ly-introduced and in-depth-discussed. The elementary co cepts
are clarified and illustrated completely and sometimes review
literature are applied to make sense about what’s going to figure
out about the upcoming sections. The main definitions and their
clarifications alongside some results about new notions, 1-failed
SuperHyperForcing and neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForc-
ing, are figured out in sections “1-failed SuperHyperForcing”
and “Neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing”. In the sense
of tackling on getting results and in order to make sense about
continuing the research, the ideas of SuperHyperUniform and
Neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform are introduced and as their
consequences, corresponded SuperHyperClasses are figured out
to debut what’s done in this section, titled “Results on SuperHy-
perClasses” and “Results on Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”.
As going back to origin of the notions, there are some smart
steps toward the common notions to extend the new notions in
new frameworks, SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic Super-
HyperGraph, in the sections “Results on SuperHyperClasses”
and “Results on Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses”.
The starter research about the general SuperHyperRelations
and as concluding and closing section of theoretical research
are contained in the section “General Results”. Some general
SuperHyperRelations are fundamental and they are well-known
as fundamental SuperHyperNotions as elicited and discussed in
the sections, “General Results”, “1-failed SuperHyperForcing”,
“Neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing”, “Results on Su-
perHyperClasses” and “Results on Neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Classes”. There are curious questions about what’s done about
the SuperHyperNotions to make sense about excellency of this
research and going to figure out the word “best” as the descrip-
tion and adjective for this research as presented in section,
Volume 2 | Issue 6 | 224
“1-failed SuperHyperForcing”. The keyword of this research de-
but in the section “Applications in Cancer’s Neutrosophic Rec-
ognition” with two cases and subsections “Case 1: The Initial
Steps Toward SuperHyperBipartite as SuperHyperModel” and
“Case 2: The Increasing Steps Toward SuperHyperMultipartite
as SuperHyperModel”. In the section, “Open Problems”, there
are some scrutiny and discernment on what’s done and what’s
happened in this research in the terms of “questions” and “prob-
lems” to make sense to figure out this research in featured style.
The advantages and the limitations of this research alongside
about what’s done in this research to make sense and to get sense
about what’s figured out are included in the section, “Conclusion
and Closing Remarks”. 0}, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n);
1.2 Preliminaries
In this subsection, the basic material which is used in this re-
search, is presented. Also, the new ideas and their clarifications
are elicited.
Definition 2.3 (Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [14],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 nonstan-
dard subsets of ]−0,1+[.
Definition 2.4 (Single Valued Neutrosophic Set). (Ref. [17],Defi-
nition 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 indeter-
minacy-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 2.5. The degree of truth-membership, indetermina-
cy-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.
J Math Techniques Comput Math, 2023
Definition 2.6. The support of X ⊂ A of the single valued neutro-
sophic set A = {< x : TA (x), IA(x), FA(x) >, x ∈ X}:
supp(X) = {x ∈ X : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) > 0}.
Definition 2.7 (Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)). (Ref.
[16],Definition 3,p.291).
Assume V ' is a given set. A neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph
(NSHG) S is an ordered pair S = (V, E), where
(i) V = {V1, V2, . . . , Vn} a finite set of finite single valued neutro-
sophic subsets of V ′;
(ii) V = {(Vi, TV ' (Vi), IV ' (Vi), FV ' (Vi)) : TV ' (Vi), IV ' (Vi), FV ' (Vi) ≥
(iii) E = {E1, E2, . . . , En' } a finite set of finite single valued neu-
trosophic subsets of V ;
(iv) E = {(Ei' , TV′ (Ei' ), IV′ (Ei' ), FV′ (Ei' )) : TV′ (Ei' ), IV′ (Ei' ), FV
′ (Ei' ) ≥ 0}, (i′ = 1, 2, . . . , n′);
(v) Vi /= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n);
(vi) Ei' /= ∅, (i′ = 1, 2, . . . , n′);
(vii) Σi supp (Vi) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n);
(viii) Σi' supp(Ei' ) = V, (i′ = 1, 2, . . . , n′);
(ix) and the following conditions hold:
TV′ (Ei') ≤ min [TV' (Vi), TV' (Vj)] Vi,Vj ∈ Ei' ,
IV′ (Ei' ) ≤ min [IV ' (Vi), IV ' (Vj)] Vi,Vj ∈ Ei' ,
and FV′ (Ei' ) ≤ min[FV ' (Vi), FV' (Vj)] Vi,Vj ∈ Ei'
where i′ = 1, 2, . . . , n′.
Here the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej′ and the
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued
neutrosophic sets. TV′ (Vi), IV′ (Vi), and FV′ (Vi) denote the degree
of truth-membership, the degree of indeterminacy-membership
and the degree of falsity-membership the neutrosophic Super-
HyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex
(NSHV)V. TV′ (Ei′ ), TV′ (Ei′ ), and TV′ (Ei′ ) denote the degree
of truth-membership, the degree of indeterminacy-membership
and the degree of falsity-membership of the neutrosophic Supe-
rHyperEdge (NSHE) Ei′ to the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge
(NSHE) E. Thus, the ii′ th element of the incidence matrix of
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG)
are of the form ( Vi, TV′ (Ei' ), IV′ (Ei'), FV′ (Ei' )), the sets V and E
are crisp sets.
Definition 2.8 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHy-
perGraph (NSHG)).
(Ref. [16],Section 4,pp.291-292).
Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an or-
dered pair S = (V, E).
The neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ei′ and the neu-
trosophic SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vi of neutrosophic Su-
perHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E). could be characterized as
follow-up items.
(i) If |Vi| = 1, then Vi is called vertex;
(ii) if |Vi| ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex;
(iii) if for all Vis are incident in Ei', |Vi| = 1, and |Ei'| = 2, then Ei'
is called edge;
(iv) if for all Vis are incident in Ei', |Vi| = 1, and |Ei'| ≥ 2, then Ei' is
Volume 2 | Issue 6 | 225
called HyperEdge; Thus, the ii'th element of the incidence matrix of neutrosophic
(v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei' such that |Vi| ≥ 1, and |Ei'| = 2, SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) are of the form (Vi,TV' (Ei'),IV' (Ei'),FV'
then Ei' is called SuperEdge; (Ei')), the sets V and E are crisp sets.
(vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei' such that |Vi| ≥ 1, and |Ei'| ≥ 2,
then Ei' is called SuperHyperEdge. Definition 2.13 (Characterization of the Neutrosophic SuperHy-
If we choose different types of binary operations, then we could perGraph (NSHG)). (Ref. [16],Section 4,pp.291-292).
get hugely diverse 372 types of general forms of neutrosophic Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an
SuperHyperGraph (NSHG). ordered pair S = (V, E). The neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges
(NSHE) Ei' and the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (NSHV)
Definition 2.9 (t-norm). (Ref. [15], Definition 5.1.1, pp.82-83). Vi of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S = (V, E) could
A binary operation ⊗ : [0,1] × [0,1] → [0,1] is a t-norm if it be characterized as follow-up items.
satisfies the following for x,y,z,w ∈ [0,1]: (i) If |Vi| = 1, then Vi is called vertex;
(i) 1 ⊗ x = x; (ii)i f |Vi| ≥ 1, then Vi is called SuperVertex;
(ii) x ⊗ = y ⊗ x; (iii) if for all Vis are incident in Ei', |Vi| = 1, and |Ei'| = 2, then Ei'
(iii) x ⊗ (y ⊗ z) = (x ⊗ y) ⊗ z; is called edge;
(iv) If w ≤ x and y ≤ z then w ⊗ y ≤ x ⊗ z. (iv) if for all Vis are incident in Ei', |Vi| = 1, and |Ei'| ≥ 2, then Ei' is
called
Definition 2.10. The degree of truth-membership, indetermina- HyperEdge;
cy-membership and falsity-membership of the subset X ⊂ A of (v) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei' such that |Vi| ≥ 1, and |Ei'| = 2,
the single valued neutrosophic set A = {< x : TA(x),IA(x),FA(x) >,x then Ei' is called
∈ X} (with respect to t-norm Tnorm): SuperEdge;
TA(X) = Tnorm[TA(vi),TA(vj)]vi,vj ∈ X, (vi) if there’s a Vi is incident in Ei' such that |Vi| ≥ 1, and |Ei'| ≥ 2,
IA(X) = Tnorm[IA(vi),IA(vj)] vi,vj∈ X, then Ei' is called
and FA (X) = Tnorm[FA(vi),FA(vj)]vi,vj∈ X. SuperHyperEdge.
This SuperHyperModel is too messy and too dense. Thus there’s
Definition 2.11. The support of X ⊂ A of the single valued neu- a need to have some restrictions and conditions on SuperHy-
trosophic set A = {< x : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) >, x ∈ X}: perGraph. The special case of this SuperHyperGraph makes the
supp(X) = {x ∈ X : TA (x), IA (x), FA (x) > 0}. patterns and regularities.

Definition 2.12. (General Forms of Neutrosophic SuperHyper- Definition 2.14. A graph is SuperHyperUniform if it’s Super-
Graph (NSHG)). HyperGraph and the number of elements of SuperHyperEdges
Assume V' is a given set. A neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are the same.
(NSHG) S is an ordered pair S = (V, E), where To get more visions on 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, the some
(i) V = {V1, V2, . . . , Vn} a finite set of finite single valued neutro- SuperHyperClasses areintroduced. It makes to have 1-failed Su-
sophic subsets of V ′; perHyperForcing more understandable.
(ii) V = {(Vi, TV ' (Vi), IV ' (Vi), FV ' (Vi)) : TV ' (Vi), IV ' (Vi), FV ' (Vi) ≥
0}, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); Definition 2.15. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph.
(iii) E = {E1, E2, . . . , En' } a finite set of finite single valued neu- There are some SuperHyperClasses as follows.
trosophic subsets of V ; (i). It's SuperHyperPath if it's only one SuperVertex as intersec-
(iv) E = {(Ei' , TV ′ (Ei' ), I V′ (Ei' ), FV ′ (Ei' )) : TV ′ (Ei' ), IV′ (Ei' ), F tion amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions;
V′
(Ei' ) ≥ 0}, (i′ = 388 1, 2, . . . , n′); (ii). it's SuperHyperCycle if it's only one SuperVertex as inter-
(v) Vi /= ∅, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); section amid two given SuperHyperEdges;
(vi) Ei' /= ∅, (i′ = 1, 2, . . . , n′); (iii). it's SuperHyperStar it's only one SuperVertex as intersec-
(vii) Σi' supp(Vi) = V, (i = 1, 2, . . . , n); tion amid all SuperHyperEdges;
(viii) Σi' supp(Ei' ) = V, (i′ = 1, 2, . . . , n′). (iv). it's SuperHyper Bipartite it's only one SuperVertex as in-
tersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these Super-
Here the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges (NSHE) Ej' and the Vertices, forming two separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge in
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) Vj are single valued common;
neutrosophic sets. TV' (Vi),IV' (Vi), and FV' (Vi) denote the degree (v). it's SuperHyperMultiPartite it's only one SuperVertex as in-
of truth-membership, the degree of indeterminacy-membership tersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these Super-
and the degree of falsity-membership the neutrosophic Super- Vertices, forming multi separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge
HyperVertex (NSHV) Vi to the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in common;
(NSHV) V. (vi). it's SuperHyperWheel if it's only one SuperVertex as inter-
section amid two given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex
TV' (Ei'),TV' (Ei'), and TV' (Ei') denote the degree of truth-member- has one SuperHyperEdge with any common SuperVertex.
ship, the degree of indeterminacy-membership and the degree
of falsity-membership of the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge
(NSHE) Ei' to the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) E.

J Math Techniques Comput Math, 2023 Volume 2 | Issue 6 | 226

Definition 2.16. Let an ordered pair S = (V;E) be a neutrosophic (ii) a neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing ᵶn(NSHG) for
SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S: Then a sequence of neutrosoph- a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph NSHG : (V , E) is the max-
ic SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) and neutrosophic SuperHyper- imum neutrosophic cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of black
Edges (NSHE) SuperHyperVertices (whereas SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S
are colored white) such that V (G) is turned black after finitely
V1,E1,V2,E2,V3,...,Vs−1,Es−1,Vs many applications of “the color-change rule”: a white SuperHy-
perVertex is converted to a black SuperHyperVertex if it is the
is called a neutrosophic SuperHyperPath (NSHP) from neutro- only white SuperHyperNeighbor of a black SuperHyperVertex.
sophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V1 to neutrosophic SuperHy- The additional condition is referred by “1-” about the usage of
perVertex (NSHV) Vs if either of following conditions hold: any black SuperHyperVertex only once to act on white Super-
(i) Vi,Vi+1 ∈ Ei'; HyperVertex to be black SuperHyperVertex.
(ii) there’s a vertex vi ∈ Vi such that vi,Vi+1 ∈ Ei';
(iii) there’s a SuperVertex Vi' ∈ Vi such that Vi',Vi+1 ∈ Ei'; Definition 2.19. ((neutrosophic) δ −1-failed SuperHyperForc-
(iv) there’s a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi,vi+1 ∈ Ei'; ing).
(v) there's a SuperVertex V 'i+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that Vi; V 'i+1 ∈ Ei' ; Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then
(vi) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such that vi,vi+1 (i) a δ −1-failed SuperHyperForcing is a maximal 1-failed Su-
∈ Ei'; perHyperForcing of SuperHyperVertices with maximum cardi-
(vii) there are a vertex vi ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex V'i+1 ∈ Vi+1 such nality such that either of the following expressions hold for the
that vi; V'i+1 ∈ Ei' ; (neutrosophic) cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S :
( ) there are a SuperVertex Vi' ∈ Vi and a vertex vi+1 ∈ Vi+1 such
that Vi'; vi+1 ∈ Ei' ; |S ∩ N(s)| > |S ∩ (V \ N(s))| + δ; (2.1)
(ix) there are a SuperVertex Vi' ∈ Vi and a SuperVertex V'i+1 ∈ Vi+1 |S ∩ N(s)| < |S ∩ (V \ N(s))| + δ. (2.2)
such that Vi' ; V'i+1 ∈ Ei' :
The Expression (2.1), holds if S is an δ −SuperHyperOffensive.
Definition 2.17. (Characterization of the Neutrosophic Super- And the Expression (2.2), holds if S is an δ −SuperHyperDefen-
HyperPaths). sive;
Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (NSHG) S is an or-
dered pair S = (V , E): A neutrosophic SuperHyperPath (NSHP) (ii) a neutrosophic δ−1-failed SuperHyperForcing is a maximal
from neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) V1 to neutro- neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing of SuperHyperVerti-
sophic SuperHyperVertex (NSHV) Vs is sequence of neutro- ces with maximum neutrosophic cardinality such that either of
sophic SuperHyperVertices (NSHV) and neutrosophic Super- the following expressions hold for the neutrosophic cardinalities
HyperEdges (NSHE) of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S :

V1;E1; V2;E2; V3; .... ; Vs-1;Es-1; Vs;
could be characterized as follow-up items.
(i) If for all Vi , Ej' , |Vi| = 1; |Ej'| = 2; then NSHP is called path;
(ii) if for all Ej' ; |Ej'| = 2; and there's Vi; |Vi| ≥ 1; then NSHP is
called SuperPath;
(iii) if for all Vi; Ej' ; |Vi| = 1; |Ej'| ≥ 2; then NSHP is called Hy-
perPath;
(iv) if there are Vi; Ej' ; |Vi| 1; |Ej'| ≥ 2; then NSHP is called Su-
perHyperPath.
Definition 2.18. ((neutrosophic) 1-failed SuperHyperForcing).
Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then
(i) a 1-failed SuperHyperForcing ᵶ(NSHG) for a neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph NSHG : (V , E) is the maximum cardinali-
ty of a SuperHyperSet S of black SuperHyperVertices (whereas
SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white) such that V
(G) isn’t turned black after finitely many applications of “the
color-change rule”: a white SuperHyperVertex is converted to
a black SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white SuperHyper-
Neighbor of a black SuperHyperVertex. The additional condi-
tion is referred by “1-” about the usage of any black SuperHy-
perVertex only once to act on white SuperHyperVertex to be
black SuperHyperVertex;
|S ∩ N(s)|neutrosophic > |S ∩ (V \ N(s))|neutrosophic + δ; (2.3)
|S ∩ N(s)|neutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N(s))|neutrosophic + δ. (2.4)
The Expression (2.3), holds if S is a neutrosophic δ−SuperHy-
perOffensive.
And the Expression (2.4), holds if S is a neutrosophic δ−Super-
HyperDefensive.
For the sake of having neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForc-
ing, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of “neutrosophic Su-
perHyperGraph”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyper-
Edges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets.
In this procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to
assign to the values.
Definition 2.20. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. It’s
redefined neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph if the Table (1) holds.
It’s useful to define “neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClass-
es. Since there’s more ways to get neutrosophic type-results to
make neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing more under-
standable.

J Math Techniques Comput Math, 2023 Volume 2 | Issue 6 | 227

 The Values of The Vertices
The Values of The SuperVertices
The Values of The Edges
The Values of The HyperEdges
The Values of The SuperHyperEdges
Table 1: The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHy-perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition (2.20)
The Values of The Vertices
The Values of The SuperVertices
The Values of The Edges
The Values of The HyperEdges
The Values of The SuperHyperEdges
Table 2: The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHy-perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph, Mentioned in the Definition (2.21)
Definition 2.21. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph.
There are some neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the Table (2)
holds. Thus SuperHyperPath, SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyper-
Star, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and Supe-
rHyperWheel, are neutrosophic SuperHyperPath, neutrosophic
SuperHyperCycle, neutrosophic SuperHyperStar, neutrosophic
SuperHyperBipartite, neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite,
and neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel if the Table (2) holds.
It’s useful to define “neutrosophic” version of 1-failed SuperHy-
perForcing. Since there’s more ways to get type-results to make
1-failed SuperHyperForcing more understandable. For the sake
of having neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, there’s a
need to “redefine” the notion of “1-failed SuperHyperForcing”.
The Values of The Vertices
The Values of The SuperVertices
The Values of The Edges
The Values of The HyperEdges
The Values of The SuperHyperEdges
Table 3. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHy-perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph Mentioned in the Definition (2.22)
• On the Figure (1), the neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion,
namely, neutrosophic
1-failed SuperHyperForcing, is up. E1 and E3 are some empty
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges but E2 is a loop neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge and E4 is an neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge.
Thus in the terms of neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s
only one neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, namely, The neu-
trosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3 is isolated means that there’s
no neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has it as an endpoint. Thus
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3, is contained in every giv-
en neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. All the following
neutrosophic SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVer-
tices are the simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the
neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcin
J Math Techniques Comput Math, 2023
The Number of Position in Alphabet
The maximum Values of Its Vertices
The maximum Values of Its Vertices
The maximum Values of Its Vertices
The maximum Values of Its Endpoints
The Number of Position in Alphabet
The maximum Values of Its Vertices
The maximum Values of Its Vertices
The maximum Values of Its Vertices
The maximum Values of Its Endpoints
The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned
by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this procedure,
there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the val-
ues.
Definition 2.22. Assume a 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. It’s
redefined neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing if the Table
(3) holds.
2. Neutrosophic 1-Failed SuperHyperForcing
Example 3.1. Assume the neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs in
the Figures (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), (10), (11), (12),
(13), (14), (15), (16), (17), (18), (19), and (20).
The Number of Position in Alphabet
The maximum Values of Its Vertices
The maximum Values of Its Vertices
The maximum Values of Its Vertices
The maximum Values of Its Endpoints
{V3,V1}
{V3,V2}
{V3,V4}
The neutrosophic SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Vertices, {V3,V1},{V3,V2},{V3,V4}, are the simple type-neutro-
sophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyper-
Forcing. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices, {V3,V1},{V3,V2},{V3,V4}, are the maximum
neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of
black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (whereas neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white) such that V
(G) isn’t turned black after finitely many applications of “the
Volume 2 | Issue 6 | 228
color-change rule”: a white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex
is converted to a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex if it is
the only white neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor of a black
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex with the additional condition
is referred by “1-” about the usage of any black neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex only once to act on white neutrosophic Su-
perHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex.
There’re only two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices outside the
intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious
neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing aren’t up. The obvi-
ous simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosoph-
ic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
excludes only two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are titled to
neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected neutrosoph-
ic SuperHyperNotion SuperHyperGraph NSHG : (V,E). But the
neutrosophic SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVer-
tices, {V3,V1},{V3,V2},{V3,V4}, don’t have more than two neu-
trosophic SuperHyperVertices outside the intended neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple type-neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing
aren’t up. To sum them up, the neutrosophic SuperHyperSets of
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V3,V1},{V3,V2},{V3,V4}, ar-
en’t the non-obvious simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
of the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing.
Since the neutrosophic SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic Su-
perHyperVertices, {V3,V1},{V3,V2},{V3,V4}, are the neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet Ss of black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
(whereas neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are
colored white) such that V (G) isn’t turned black after finitely
many applications of “the color-change rule”: a white neutro-
sophic SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white neutrosophic SuperHy-
perNeighbor of a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex with
the additional condition is referred by “1-” about the usage of
any black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex only once to act on
white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex and they are neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHy-
perForcing. Since it’s the maximum neutrosophic cardinality
of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of black neutrosophic Supe-
rHyperVertices (whereas neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in
V (G) \ S are colored white) such that V (G) isn’t turned black
after finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: a
white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white neutro-
sophic SuperHyperNeighbor of a black neutrosophic Super-
HyperVertex with the additional condition is referred by “1-”
about the usage of any black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex
only once to act on white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to
be black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex. There aren’t only
more than two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices outside the in-
tended neutrosophic SuperHyperSets, {V3,V1},{V3,V2},{V3,V4}.
Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForc-
ing, {V3,V1},{V3,V2},{V3,V4}, aren’t up. The obvious simple
type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic 1-failed
SuperHyperForcing, {V3,V1},{V3,V2},{V3,V4}, are a neutrosophic
SuperHyperSets, {V3,V1},{V3,V2},{V3,V4}, doesn’t exclude only
more than two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in a connect-
J Math Techniques Comput Math, 2023
ed neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion SuperHyperGraph NSHG :
(V,E). It’s interesting to mention that the only obvious simple
type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic 1-failed
SuperHyperForcing amid those obvious simple type-neutro-
sophic SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHy-
perForcing, is only {V3,V2}.
• On the Figure (2), the neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion, name-
ly, neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, is up. E1,E2 and
E3 are some empty neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges but E4 is an
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of neutrosoph-
ic SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one neutrosophic Super-
HyperEdge, namely, E4. The neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3
is isolated means that there’s no neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge
has it as an endpoint. Thus neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, V3,
is contained in every given neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyper-
Forcing. All the following neutrosophic SuperHyperSets of neu-
trosophic SuperHyperVertices are the simple type-neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing
{V3,V1}
{V3,V2}
{V3,V4}
The neutrosophic SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHy-
perVertices {V3,V1},{V3,V2},{V3,V4}, are the simple type-neutro-
sophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyper-
Forcing. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices, {V3,V1},{V3,V2},{V3,V4, are the maximum
neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of
black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (whereas neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white) such that V
(G) isn’t turned black after finitely many applications of “the
color-change rule”: a white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex
is converted to a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex if it is
the only white neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor of a black
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex with the additional condition
is referred by “1-” about the usage of any black neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex only once to act on white neutrosophic Su-
perHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex.
There’re only two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices outside the
intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious
neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing aren’t up. The obvi-
ous simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosoph-
ic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
excludes only two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are titled to
neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected neutrosoph-
ic SuperHyperNotion SuperHyperGraph NSHG : (V,E). But the
neutrosophic SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVer-
tices,{V3,V1},{V3,V2},{V3,V4}, don’t have more than two neutro-
sophic SuperHyperVertices outside the intended neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple type-neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing
aren’t up. To sum them up, the neutrosophic SuperHyperSets
of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V3,V1},{V3,V2},{V3,V4},
aren’t the non-obvious simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyp-
Volume 2 | Issue 6 | 229
erSet of the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Since
the neutrosophic SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic Super-
HyperVertices, {V3,V1},{V3,V2},{V3,V4}, are the neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet Ss of black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
(whereas neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are
colored white) such that V (G) isn’t turned black after finitely
many applications of “the color-change rule”: a white neutro-
sophic SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white neutrosophic SuperHy-
perNeighbor of a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex with
the additional condition is referred by “1-” about the usage of
any black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex only once to act on
white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex and they are neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHy-
perForcing. Since it’s the maximum neutrosophic cardinality
of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of black neutrosophic Supe-
rHyperVertices (whereas neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in
V (G) \ S are colored white) such that V (G) isn’t turned black
after finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: a
white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white neutro-
sophic SuperHyperNeighbor of a black neutrosophic Super-
HyperVertex with the additional condition is referred by “1-”
about the usage of any black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex
only once to act on white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to
be black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex. There aren’t only
more than two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices outside the in-
tended neutrosophic SuperHyperSets, {V3,V1},{V3,V2},{V3,V4}.
Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForc-
ing, {V3,V1},{V3,V2},{V3,V4}, aren’t up. The obvious simple
type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic 1-failed
SuperHyperForcing, {V3,V1},{V3,V2},{V3,V4}, are a neutrosophic
SuperHyperSets, {V3,V1},{V3,V2},{V3,V4}, doesn’t exclude only
more than two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in a connect-
ed neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion SuperHyperGraph NSHG :
(V,E). It’s interesting to mention that the only obvious simple
type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic 1-failed
SuperHyperForcing amid those obvious simple type-neutro-
sophic SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHy-
perForcing, is only {V3,V2}.
• On the Figure (3), the neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion, name-
ly, neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, is up. E1,E2 and
E3 are some empty neutrosophic. SuperHyperEdges but E4 is
an neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of neutro-
sophic SuperHyperNeighbor, there’s only one neutrosophic Su-
perHyperEdge, namely, E4. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSets
of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V1},{V2},{V3}, are the
simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic
1-failed SuperHyperForcing. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSets
of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V1},{V2},{V3}, are the
maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHy-
perSet S of black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (whereas
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white)
such that V (G) isn’t turned black after finitely many applications
of “the color-change rule”: a whitebneutrosophic SuperHyper-
Vertex is converted to a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex
if it is the only white neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor of a
black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex with the additional con-
J Math Techniques Comput Math, 2023
dition is referred by “1-” about the usage of any black neutro-
sophic SuperHyperVertex only once to acton white neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex.
There’re only two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices outside the
intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious
neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing aren’t up. The obvi-
ous simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosoph-
ic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
excludes only two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are titled to
neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected neutrosoph-
ic SuperHyperNotion SuperHyperGraph NSHG : (V,E). But the
neutrosophic SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVer-
tices, {V1},{V2},{V3}, don’t have more than two neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices outside the intended neutrosophic Super-
HyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple type-neutrosophic Su-
perHyperSet of the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing
aren’t up. To sum them up, the neutrosophic SuperHyperSets
of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V1},{V2},{V3}, aren’t the
non-obvious simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the
neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing.
Since the neutrosophic SuperHyperSets of the neutrosoph-
ic SuperHyperVertices, {V1},{V2},{V3}, are the neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet Ss of black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
(whereas neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are col-
ored white) such that V (G) isn’t turned black after finitely many
applications of “the color-change rule”: a white neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black neutrosophic Supe-
rHyperVertex if it is the only white neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Neighbor of a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex with the
additional condition is referred by “1-” about the usage of any
black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex only once to act on white
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic Supe-
rHyperVertex and they are neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyper-
Forcing. Since they’ve the maximum neutrosophic cardinality
of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of black neutrosophic Super-
HyperVertices (whereas neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in V
(G) \ S are colored white) such that V (G) isn’t turned black after
finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: a white
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black neutro-
sophic SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white neutrosophic Su-
perHyperNeighbor of a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex
with the additional condition is referred by “1-” about the usage
of any black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex only once to act on
white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex. There aren’t only more than two neutrosoph-
ic SuperHyperVertices outside the intended neutrosophic Super-
HyperSets, {V1},{V2},{V3}.
Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing,
{V1},{V2},{V3}, aren’t up. The obvious simple type-neutrosoph-
ic SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyper-
Forcing, are the neutrosophic SuperHyperSets, {V1},{V2},{V3},
don’t exclude only more than two neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Vertices in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion Supe-
rHyperGraph NSHG : (V,E). It’s interesting to mention that the
only obvious simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSets of the
neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing amid those obvious
Volume 2 | Issue 6 | 230
simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSets of the neutrosophic
1-failed SuperHyperForcing, is only {V1}. neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black neutro-
• On the Figure (4), the neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion, name-
ly, an neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, is up. There’s
no empty neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge but E3 are a loop neu-
trosophic SuperHyperEdge on {F}, and there are some neutro-
sophic SuperHyperEdges, namely, E1 on {H,V1,V3}, alongside
E2 on {O,H,V4,V3} and E4,E5 on {N,V1,V2,V3,F}. The neutro-
sophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
{V1,V2,V3,V4,O,H}, is the simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Set of the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. The neutro-
sophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
{V1,V2,V3,V4,O,H}, is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of
a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of black neutrosophic SuperHy-
perVertices (whereas neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in V (G)
\ S are colored white) such that V (G) isn’t turned black after
finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: a white
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black neutro-
sophic SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white neutrosophic Su-
perHyperNeighbor of a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex
with the additional condition is referred by “1-” about the usage
of any black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex only once to act on
white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex. There’re only two neutrosophic SuperHy-
perVertices outside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet.
Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing
isn’t up. The obvious simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
of the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing is a neutro-
sophic SuperHyperSet excludes only two neutrosophic Super-
HyperVertices are titled to neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors
in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion SuperHyper-
Graph NSHG : (V,E). But the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V1,V2,V3,V4,O,H}, doesn’t
have more than two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices outside
the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-ob-
vious simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutro-
sophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing isn’t up. To sum them up,
the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHy-
perVertices, {V1,V2,V3,V4,O,H}, isn’t the non-obvious simple
type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 1-failed
SuperHyperForcing. Since the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of
the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V1,V2,V3,V4,O,H}, is the
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet Ss of black neutrosophic SuperHy-
perVertices (whereas neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in V (G)
\ S are colored white) such that V (G) isn’t turned black after
finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: a white
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black neutro-
sophic SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white neutrosophic Su-
perHyperNeighbor of a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex
with the additional condition is referred by “1-” about the usage
of any black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex only once to act on
white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex and they are neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHy-
perForcing. Since it’s the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of
a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of black neutrosophic SuperHy-
perVertices (whereas neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in V (G)
\ S are colored white) such that V (G) isn’t turned black after
J Math Techniques Comput Math, 2023
finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: a white
sophic SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white neutrosophic Su-
perHyperNeighbor of a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex
with the additional condition is referred by “1-” about the usage
of any black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex only once to act on
white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to be black neutrosoph-
ic SuperHyperVertex. There aren’t only more than two neutro-
sophic SuperHyperVertices outside the intended neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet, {V1,V2,V3,V4,O,H}. Thus the non-obvious neu-
trosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, {V1,V2,V3,V4,O,H}, isn’t
up. The obvious simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the
neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, {V1,V2,V3,V4,O,H}, is
a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, {V1,V2,V3,V4,O,H}, doesn’t ex-
clude only more than two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in
a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion SuperHyperGraph
NSHG : (V,E).
• On the Figure (5), the neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion, name-
ly, SuperHyperForcing, is up. There’s neither empty neutrosoph-
ic SuperHyperEdge nor loop neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge.
The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHy-
perVertices,{V2,V4,V5,V6,V7,V8,V9,V10,V11,V12,V13,V14,V15}, is the
simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic
1-failed SuperHyperForcing. The neutrosophic SuperHyper Set
of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V2,V4,V5,V6,V7,V8,V9,V
,V ,V ,V ,V ,V }, is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality
10 11 12 13 14 15
of a neutrosophic SuperHyper Set S of black neutrosophic Supe-
rHyperVertices (whereas neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in V
(G) \ S are colored white) such that V (G) isn’t turned black after
finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: a white
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black neutro-
sophic SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white neutrosophic Su-
perHyperNeighbor of a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex
with the additional condition is referred by “1-” about the usage
of any black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex only once to act on
white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex. There’re only two neutrosophic SuperHy-
perVertices outside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet.
Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing
isn’t up. The obvious simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
of the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing is a neutrosoph-
ic SuperHyperSet excludes only two neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Vertices are titled to neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in a
connected neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion SuperHyperGraph
NSHG : (V,E). But the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutro-
sophic SuperHyperVertices, {V2,V4,V5,V6,V7,V8,V9,V10,V11,V12,V
,V , , doesn’t have more than two neutrosophic SuperHy-
13 14 V15}
perVertices outside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet.
Thus the non-obvious simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
of the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing isn’t up. To
sum them up, the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosoph-
ic SuperHyperVertices,{V2,V4,V5,V6,V7,V8,V9,V10,V11,V12,V13,V14,
V15},isn’t the non-obvious simple type-neutrosophic SuperHy-
perSet of the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Since
the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHy-
perVertices, {V2,V4,V5,V6,V7,V8,V9,V10,V11,V12,V13,V14,V15}, is the
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet Ss of black neutrosophic SuperHy-
Volume 2 | Issue 6 | 231
perVertices (whereas neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in V (G)
\ S are colored white) such that V (G) isn’t turned black after
finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: a white
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black neutro-
sophic SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white neutrosophic Su-
perHyperNeighbor of a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex
with the additional condition is referred by “1-” about the usage
of any black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex only once to act on
white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex and they are neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHy-
perForcing. Since it’s the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of
a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of black neutrosophic Super-
HyperVertices (whereas neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in V
(G) \ S are colored white) such that V (G) isn’t turned black after
finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: a white
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black neutro-
sophic SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white neutrosophic Su-
perHyperNeighbor of a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex
with the additional condition is referred by “1-” about the usage
of any black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex only once to act on
white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex. There aren’t only more than two neutrosoph-
ic SuperHyperVertices outside the intended neutrosophic Supe-
rHyperSet, {V2,V4,V5,V6,V7,V8,V9,V10,V11,V12,V13,V14,V15}. Thus
the non-obvious neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, {V2
,V4,V5,V6,V7,V8,V9,V10,V11,V12,V13,V14,V15}, isn’t up. The obvious
simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic
1-failed SuperHyperForcing, {V2,V4,V5,V6,V7,V8,V9,V10,V11,V12,V
,V ,V }, is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, { 2,V4,V5,V6,V7,V8
13 14 15
,V9,V10,V11,V12,V13,V14,V15}, doesn’t exclude only more than two
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic
SuperHyperNotion SuperHyperGraph NSHG : (V,E) is men-
tioned as the SuperHyperModel NSHG : (V,E) in the Figure (5).
• On the Figure (6), the neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion, name-
ly, neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, is up. There’s
neither empty neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge nor loop neu-
trosophic SuperHyperEdge. The neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Set of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V2,V3,V4,V5,V6,V7,V
,V ,V ,V ,V ,V ,V ,V ,V ,V ,V ,V ,V ,V }, is the simple
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22
type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 1-failed
SuperHyperForcing. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V2,V3,V4,V5,V6,V7,V8,V9,V10,
V11,V12,V13,V14,V15,V16,V17,V18,V19,V20,V22}, is the maximum neu-
trosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyper Set S of
black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (whereas neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white) such that V
(G) isn’t turned black after finitely many applications of “the
color-change rule”: a white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex
is converted to a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex if it is
the only white neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor of a black
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex with the additional condition
is referred by “1-” about the usage of any black neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex only once to act on white neutrosophic Su-
perHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex.
There’re only two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices outside the
intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious
neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing isn’t up. The obvious
J Math Techniques Comput Math, 2023
simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic
1-failed SuperHyperForcing is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
excludes only two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are titled to
neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected neutrosoph-
ic SuperHyperNotion SuperHyperGraph NSHG : (V,E). But the
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVerti-
ces,{V2,V3,V4,V5,V6,V7,V8,V9,V10,V11,V12,V13,V14,V15,V16,V17,V18,V19
,V20,V22}, doesn’t have more than two neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Vertices outside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus
the non-obvious simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the
neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing isn’t up. To sum them
up, the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHy-
perVertices, {V2,V3,V4,V5,V6,V7,V8,V9,V10,V11,V12,V13,V14,V15,V16,V
,V ,V ,V ,V }, isn’t the non-obvious simple type-neutrosoph-
17 18 19 20 22
ic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForc-
ing. Since the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices, {V2,V3,V4,V5,V6,V7,V8,V9,V10,V11,V12,V13,V14
,V15,V16,V17,V18,V19,V20,V22}, is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
Ss of black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (whereas neutro-
sophic SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white) such
that V (G) isn’t turned black after finitely many applications of
“the color-change rule”: a white neutrosophic SuperHyperVer-
tex is converted to a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex if it
is the only white neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor of a black
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex with the additional condition
is referred by “1-” about the usage of any black neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex only once to act on white neutrosophic Supe-
rHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex and
they are neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Since it’s the
maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHy-
perSet S of black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (whereas
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white)
such that V (G) isn’t turned black after finitely many applications
of “the color-change rule”: a white neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Vertex is converted to a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex if
it is the only white neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor of a black
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex with the additional condition is
referred by “1-” about the usage of any black neutrosophic Su-
perHyperVertex only once to act on white neutrosophic Super-
HyperVertex to be black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex. There
aren’t only more than two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
outside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, {V2,V3,V4,V
,V ,V ,V ,V ,V ,V ,V ,V ,V ,V ,V ,V ,V ,V ,V ,V }. Thus
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22
the non-obvious neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, {V2
,V 3,V 4,V 5,V 6,V 7,V 8,V 9,V 10,V 11,V 12,V 13,V 14,V 15,V 16,V 17,V 18,V 19,V 20
,V22}, isn’t up. The obvious simple type-neutrosophic SuperHy-
perSet of the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, {V2,V
3
,V4,V5,V6,V7,V8,V9,V10,V11,V12,V13,V14,V15,V16,V17,V18,V19,V20,V22},
is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, {V2,V3,V4,V5,V6,V7,V8,V9,V10,
V11,V12,V13,V14,V15,V16,V17,V18,V19,V20,V22}, doesn’t exclude only
more than two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in a connect-
ed neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion SuperHyperGraph :
(V,E) with a illustrated SuperHyperModeling of the Figure (6).
• On the Figure (7), the neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion, name-
ly, neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, is up. There’s
neither empty neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge nor loop neutro-
sophic SuperHyperEdge. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of
Volume 2 | Issue 6 | 232
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V2,V4,V5,V6,V7,V8,V9,V10,V11,
V12,V13,V14}, is the simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of
the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. The neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V2,V4,
V5,V6,V7,V8,V9,V10,V11,V12,V13,V14}, is the maximum neutrosophic
cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyper Set S of black neu-
trosophic SuperHyperVertices (whereas neutrosophic SuperHy-
perVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white) such that V (G) isn’t
turned black after finitely many applications of “the color-change
rule”: a white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is converted to
a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white
neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor of a black neutrosophic Su-
perHyperVertex with the additional condition is referred by “1-”
about the usage of any black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex
only once to act on white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to be
black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex. There’re only two neu-
trosophic SuperHyperVertices outside the intended neutrosoph-
ic SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic 1-failed
SuperHyperForcing isn’t up. The obvious simple type-neutro-
sophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHy-
perForcing is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet excludes only two
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are titled to neutrosophic Su-
perHyperNeighbors in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Notion SuperHyperGraph NSHG : (V,E). But the neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V2,V4,V5,
V6,V7,V8,V9,V10,V11,V12,V13,V14}, doesn’t have more than two neu-
trosophic SuperHyperVertices outside the intended neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple type-neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing
isn’t up. To sum them up, the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V2,V4,V5,V6,V7,V8,V9,V10,V11,
V12,V13,V14}, isn’t the non-obvious simple type-neutrosophic Su-
perHyperSet of the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing.
Since the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Su-
perHyperVertices, {V2,V4,V5,V6,V7,V8,V9,V10,V11,V12,V13,V14}, is
the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet Ss of black neutrosophic Supe-
rHyperVertices (whereas neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in V
(G) \ S are colored white) such that V (G) isn’t turned black after
finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: a white
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black neutro-
sophic SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white neutrosophic Su-
perHyperNeighbor of a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex
with the additional condition is referred by “1-” about the usage
of any black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex only once to act on
white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex and they are neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHy-
perForcing. Since it’s the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of
a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of black neutrosophic Super-
HyperVertices (whereas neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in V
(G) \ S are colored white) such that V (G) isn’t turned black after
finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: a white
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black neutro-
sophic SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white neutrosophic Su-
perHyperNeighbor of a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex
with the additional condition is referred by “1-” about the usage
of any black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex only once to act on
white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex. There aren’t only more than two neutroso-
J Math Techniques Comput Math, 2023
pic SuperHyperVertices outside the intended neutrosophic Su-
perHyperSet, {V2,V4,V5,V6,V7,V8,V9,V10,V11,V12,V13,V14}. Thus the
non-obvious neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, {V2,V4,
V5,V6,V7,V8,V9,V10,V11,V12,V13,V14}, isn’t up. The obvious simple
type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 1-failed
SuperHyperForcing,{V2,V4,V5,V6,V7,V8,V9,V10,V11,V12,V13,V14}, is
a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, {V2,V4,V5,V6,V7,V8,V9,V10,V11,V12,
V13,V14}, doesn’t exclude only more than two neutrosophic Supe-
rHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion
SuperHyperGraph NSHG : (V,E) of depicted SuperHyperModel
as the Figure (7).
• On the Figure (8), the neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion, namely,
neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, is up. There’s neither
empty neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge nor loop neutrosophic Su-
perHyperEdge. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosoph-
ic SuperHyperVertices,{V2,V4, 5,V6,V7,V8,V9,V10,V11,V12,V13,V14},
is the simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutro-
sophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. The neutrosophic SuperHy-
perSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V2,V4,V5,V6,V7
,V8,V9,V10,V11,V12,V13,V14}, is the maximum neutrosophic cardi-
nality of a neutrosophic SuperHyper Set S of black neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices (whereas neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
in V (G) \ S are colored white) such that V (G) isn’t turned black af-
ter finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: a white
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black neutro-
sophic SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white neutrosophic Su-
perHyperNeighbor of a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex
with the additional condition is referred by “1-” about the usage
of any black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex only once to act on
white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex. There’re only two neutrosophic SuperHy-
perVertices outside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet.
Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing
isn’t up. The obvious simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
of the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing is a neutrosoph-
ic SuperHyperSet excludes only two neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Vertices are titled to neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in a
connected neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion SuperHyperGraph
NSHG : (V,E). But the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutro-
sophic SuperHyperVertices, {V2,V4,V5,V6,V7,V8,V9,V10,V11,V12,V1
,V }, doesn’t have more than two neutrosophic SuperHyper-
3 14
Vertices outside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus
the non-obvious simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the
neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing isn’t up. To sum them
up, the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHy-
perVertices, {V2,V4,V5,V6,V7, 8,V9,V10,V11,V12,V13,V14}, isn’t the
non-obvious simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the
neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Since the neutro-
sophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
{V2,V4,V5,V6,V7,V8,V9,V10, 11,V12,V13,V14}, is the neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet Ss of black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
(whereas neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are
colored white) such that V (G) isn’t turned black after finitely
many applications of “the color-change rule”: a white neutro-
sophic SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white neutrosophic SuperHy-
perNeighbor of a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex with
Volume 2 | Issue 6 | 233
the additional condition is referred by “1-” about the usage of
any black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex only once to act on
white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex and they are neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHy-
perForcing. Since it’s the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of
a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of black neutrosophic Super-
HyperVertices (whereas neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in V
(G) \ S are colored white) such that V (G) isn’t turned black after
finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: a white
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black neutro-
sophic SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white neutrosophic Su-
perHyperNeighbor of a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex
with the additional condition is referred by “1-” about the usage
of any black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex only once to act on
white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex. There aren’t only more than two neutrosoph-
ic SuperHyperVertices outside the intended neutrosophic Supe-
rHyperSet, {V2,V4,V5,V6,V7,V8,V9,V10,V11,V12,V13,V14}. Thus the
non-obvious neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, {V2,V4
,V5,V6,V7,V8,V9,V10,V11,V12,V13,V14}, isn’t up. The obvious simple
type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 1-failed
SuperHyperForcing,{V2,V4,V5,V6,V7, 8,V9,V10,V11,V12,V13,V14}, is
a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, {V2,V4,V5,V6,V7,V8,V9,V10,V11,
,V ,V }, doesn’t exclude only more than two neutrosophic Su-
12 13 14
perHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperNot-
ion SuperHyperGraph NSHG : (V,E) of dense SuperHyperModel
as the Figure (8).
• On the Figure (9), the neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion, namely,
neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, is up. There’s neither
empty neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge nor loop neutrosophic Su-
perHyperEdge. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosoph-
ic SuperHyperVertices, {V2,V3,V4,V5,V6,V7,V8,V9,V10,V11,V12,V13
,V14,V15,V16,V17,V18,V19,V20,V22}, is the simple type-neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForc-
ing. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Supe-
rHyperVertices, {V2,V3,V4,V5,V6,V7,V8,V9,V10,V11,V12,V13,V14,V15,V
,V ,V ,V ,V ,V }, is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality
16 17 18 19 20 22
of a neutrosophic SuperHyper Set S of black neutrosophic Supe-
rHyperVertices (whereas neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in V
(G) \ S are colored white) such that V (G) isn’t turned black after
finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: a white
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black neutro-
sophic SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white neutrosophic Su-
perHyperNeighbor of a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex
with the additional condition is referred by “1-” about the usage
of any black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex only once to act on
white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex. There’re only two neutrosophic SuperHy-
perVertices outside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet.
Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing
isn’t up. The obvious simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
of the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing is a neutro-
sophic SuperHyperSet excludes only two neutrosophic Super-
HyperVertices are titled to neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors
in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion SuperHyper-
Graph NSHG : (V,E). But the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V2,V3,V4,V5,V6,V7,V8,V9,V1
J Math Techniques Comput Math, 2023
0
,V11,V12,V13,V14,V15,V16,V17,V18,V19,V20,V22}, doesn’t have more
than two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices outside the intend-
ed neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple
type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 1-failed
SuperHyperForcing isn’t up. To sum them up, the neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V2,V3,V4,
V5,V6,V7,V8,V9,V10,V11,V12,V13,V14,V15,V16,V17,V18,V19,V20,V22}, isn’t
the non-obvious simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the
neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing.
Since the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Su-
perHyperVertices,{V2,V3,V4,V5,V6,V7,V8,V9,V10,V11,V12,V13,V14,
V15,V16,V17,V18,V19,V20,V22}, is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
Ss of black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (whereas neutro-
sophic SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white) such
that V (G) isn’t turned black after finitely many applications of
“the color-change rule”: a white neutrosophic SuperHyperVer-
tex is converted to a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex if it
is the only white neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor of a black
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex with the additional condition
is referred by “1-” about the usage of any black neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex only once to act on white neutrosophic Supe-
rHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex and
they are neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Since it’s the
maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHy-
perSet S of black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (whereas
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white)
such that V (G) isn’t turned black after finitely many applications
of “the color-change rule”: a white neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Vertex is converted to a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex if
it is the only white neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor of a black
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex with the additional condition is
referred by “1-” about the usage of any black neutrosophic Su-
perHyperVertex only once to act on white neutrosophic Super-
HyperVertex to be black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex. There
aren’t only more than two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
outside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, {V2,V3,V4,V5,
V6,V7,V8,V9,V10,V11,V12,V13,V14,V15,V16,V17,V18,V19,V20,V22}.
Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForc-
ing, {V2,V3,V4,V5,V6,V7,V8,V9,V10,V11,V12,V13,V14,V15,V16,V17,V18,V1
,V ,V }, isn’t up. The obvious simple type-neutrosophic Su-
9 20 22
perHyperSet of the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing,
{V2,V3,V4,V5,V6,V7,V8,V9,V10,V11,V12,V13,V14,V15,V16,V17,V18,V19,V
,V }, is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, {V2,V3,V4,V5,V6,V7,V
20 22
,V ,V ,V ,V ,V ,V ,V ,V ,V ,V ,V ,V ,V }, doesn’t ex-
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22
clude only more than two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in
a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion SuperHyperGraph
NSHG : (V,E) with a messy SuperHyperModeling of the Figure
(9).
• On the Figure (10), the neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion,
namely, neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, is up.
There’s neither empty neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge nor loop
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. The neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Set of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V2,V4,V5,V6,V7,V8,V9,
V10,V11,V12,V13,V14}, is the simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyp-
erSet of the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. The neu-
Volume 2 | Issue 6 | 234
trosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVer-
tices, {V2,V4,V5,V6, 7,V8,V9,V10,V11,V12,V13,V14}, is the maximum
neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyper Set S of
black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (whereas neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white) such that V
(G) isn’t turned black after finitely many applications of “the
color-change rule”: a white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex
is converted to a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex if it is
the only white neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor of a black
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex with the additional condition
is referred by “1-” about the usage of any black neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex only once to act on white neutrosophic Su-
perHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex.
There’re only two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices outside the
intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious
neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing isn’t up. The obvious
simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic
1-failed SuperHyperForcing is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
excludes only two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are titled to
neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected neutrosoph-
ic SuperHyperNotion SuperHyperGraph NSHG : (V,E). But the
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVerti-
ces, {V2,V4,V5,V6,V7,V8,V9,V10,V11,V12,V13,V14}, doesn’t have more
than two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices outside the intend-
ed neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple
type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 1-failed
SuperHyperForcing isn’t up. To sum them up, the neutrosoph-
ic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V2,V4
,V5,V6,V7,V8,V9,V10,V11,V12,V13,V14}, isn’t the non-obvious simple
type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 1-failed
SuperHyperForcing. Since the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of
the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V2,V4,V5,V6,V7,V8,V9,V10,
V11,V12,V13,V14}, is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet Ss of black
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (whereas neutrosophic Su-
perHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white) such that V
(G) isn’t turned black after finitely many applications of “the
color-change rule”: a white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex
is converted to a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex if it is
the only white neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor of a black
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex with the additional condition
is referred by “1-” about the usage of any black neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex only once to act on white neutrosophic Supe-
rHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex and
they are neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Since it’s the
maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHy-
per Set S of black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (whereas
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white)
such that V (G) isn’t turned black after finitely many applications
of “the color-change rule”: a white neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Vertex is converted to a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex if
it is the only white neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor of a black
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex with the additional condition is
referred by “1-” about the usage of any black neutrosophic Su-
perHyperVertex only once to act on white neutrosophic Super-
HyperVertex to be black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex. There
aren’t only more than two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
outside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, {V2,V4,V5,V6,
V7,V8,V9,V10,V11,V12,V13,V14}.
J Math Techniques Comput Math, 2023
Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForc-
ing, {V2,V4,V5,V6,V7,V8,V9,V10,V11,V12,V13,V14}, isn’t up. The ob-
vious simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutro-
sophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, {V2,V4, 5,V6,V7,V8,V9,V10,V
,V ,V ,V }, is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, {V2,V4, 5,V6,V
11 12 13 14
,V ,V ,V ,V ,V ,V ,V }, doesn’t exclude only more than two
7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic
SuperHyperNotion SuperHyperGraph NSHG : (V,E) of high-
ly-embedding-connected SuperHyperModel as the Figure (10).
• On the Figure (11), the neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion,
namely, neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, is up.
There’s neither empty neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge nor loop
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. The neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Set of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V2,V4,V5,V6}, is the
simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic
1-failed SuperHyperForcing. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V2,V4,V5,V6}, is the
maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHy-
perSet S of black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (whereas
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white)
such that isn’t turned black after finitely many applications of
“the color-change rule”: a white neutrosophic SuperHyperVer-
tex is converted to a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex if it
is the only white neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor of a black
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex with the additional condition
is referred by “1-” about the usage of any black neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex only once to act on white neutrosophic Su-
perHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex.
There’re only two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices outside the
intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious
neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing isn’t up. The obvious
simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic
1-failed SuperHyperForcing is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
excludes only two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are titled to
neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected neutrosoph-
ic SuperHyperNotion SuperHyperGraph NSHG : (V,E). But the
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVer-
tices, {V2,V4,V5,V6}, doesn’t have more than two neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices outside the intended neutrosophic Super-
HyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple type-neutrosophi Supe-
rHyperSet of the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing isn’t
up. To sum them up, the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutro-
sophic SuperHyperVertices, {V2,V4,V5,V6}, isn’t the non-obvious
simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic
1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Since the neutrosophic SuperHyp-
erSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V2,V4,V5,V6}, is
the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet Ss of black neutrosophic Supe-
rHyperVertices (whereas neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in V
(G) \ S are colored white) such that V (G) isn’t turned black after
finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: a white
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black neutro-
sophic SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white neutrosophic Su-
perHyperNeighbor of a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex
with the additional condition is referred by “1-” about the usage
of any black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex only once to act on
white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex and they are neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHy-
Volume 2 | Issue 6 | 235
perForcing. Since it’s the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of
a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of black neutrosophic SuperHy-
perVertices (whereas neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in V (G)
\ S are colored white) such that V (G) isn’t turned black after
finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: a white
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black neutro-
sophic SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white neutrosophic Su-
perHyperNeighbor of a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex
with the additional condition is referred by “1-” about the usage
of any black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex only once to act on
white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex. There aren’t only more than two neutrosoph-
ic SuperHyperVertices outside the intended neutrosophic Supe-
rHyperSet, {V2,V4,V5,V6}. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic
1-failed SuperHyperForcing, {V2,V4,V5,V6}, isn’t up. The obvi-
ous simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosoph-
ic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, {V2,V4,V5,V6}, is a neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet, {V2,V4,V5,V6}, doesn’t exclude only more than
two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutro-
sophic SuperHyperNotion SuperHyperGraph NSHG : (V,E). ic SuperHyperVertex with the additional condition is referred by
• On the Figure (12), the neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion, namely,
neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, is up. There’s neither
empty neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge nor loop neutrosophic Su-
perHyperEdge. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosoph-
ic SuperHyperVertices, {V2,V4,V5,V6,V7,V8,V9,V10}, is the simple
type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 1-failed
SuperHyperForcing. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V2,V4,V5,V6,V7,V8,V9,V10}, is
the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic Supe-
rHyperSet of black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (whereas
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white)
such that V (G) isn’t turned black after finitely many applications
of “the color-change rule”: a white neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Vertex is converted to a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex if
it is the only white neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor of a black
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex with the additional condition
is referred by “1-” about the usage of any black neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex only once to act on white neutrosophic Su-
perHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex.
There’re only two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices outside the
intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious
neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing isn’t up. The obvious
simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic
1-failed SuperHyperForcing is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
excludes only two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are titled to
neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected neutrosoph-
ic SuperHyperNotion SuperHyperGraph NSHG : (V,E). But the
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVerti-
ces, {V2,V4,V5,V6,V7,V8,V9,V10}, doesn’t have more than two neu-
trosophic SuperHyperVertices outside the intended neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple type-neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing
isn’t up. To sum them up, the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V2,V4,V5,V6,V7,V8,V9,V10},
isn’t the non-obvious simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
of the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Since the neu-
trosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVer-
J Math Techniques Comput Math, 2023
tices, {V2,V4,V5,V6,V7,V8,V9,V10}, is the neutrosophic SuperHy-
perSet Ss of black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (whereas
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white)
such that isn’t turned black after finitely many applications of
“the color-change rule”: a white neutrosophic SuperHyperVer-
tex is converted to a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex if it
is the only white neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor of a black
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex with the additional condition is
referred by “1-” about the usage of any black neutrosophic Supe-
rHyperVertex only once to act on white neutrosophic SuperHy-
perVertex to be black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex and they
are neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Since it’s the max-
imum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
S of black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (whereas neutro-
sophic SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white) such
that isn’t turned black after finitely many applications of “the col-
or-change rule”: a white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is con-
verted to a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex if it is the only
white neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor of a black neutrosoph-
“1-” about the usage of any black neutrosophic SuperHyperVer-
tex only once to act on white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex
to be black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex. There aren’t only
more than two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices outside the in-
tended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, {V2,V4,V5,V6,V7,V8,V9,V10}.
Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForc-
ing, {V2,V4,V5,V6,V7,V8,V9,V10}, isn’t up. The obvious simple
type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 1-failed
SuperHyperForcing, {V2,V4,V5,V6,V7,V8,V9,V10}, is a neutro-
sophic SuperHyperSet, {V2,V4,V5,V6,V7,V8,V9,V10}, doesn’t ex-
clude only more than two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in
a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion SuperHyperGraph
NSHG : (V,E) in highly-multiple-connected-style SuperHyper-
Model On the Figure (12).
• On the Figure (13), the neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion,
namely, neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, is up.
There’s neither empty neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge nor loop
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. The neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Set of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V2,V4,V5,V6}, is the
simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic
1-failed SuperHyperForcing. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V2,V4,V5,V6}, is the
maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHy-
perSet S of black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (whereas
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white)
such that isn’t turned black after finitely many applications of
“the color-change rule”: a white neutrosophic SuperHyperVer-
tex is converted to a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex if it
is the only white neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor of a black
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex with the additional condition is
referred by “1-” about the usage of any black neutrosophic Supe-
rHyperVertex only once to act on white neutrosophic SuperHy-
perVertex to be black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex. There’re
only two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices outside the intend-
ed neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious neutro-
sophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing isn’t up. The obvious simple
type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 1-failed
Volume 2 | Issue 6 | 236
SuperHyperForcing is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet excludes
only two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are titled to neutro-
sophic SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected neutrosophic Su-
perHyperNotion SuperHyperGraph NSHG : (V,E). But the neu-
trosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
{V2,V4,V5,V6}, doesn’t have more than two neutrosophic Supe-
rHyperVertices outside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Set. Thus the non-obvious simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyp-
erSet of the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing isn’t up.
To sum them up, the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutro-
sophic SuperHyperVertices, {V2,V4,V5,V6}, isn’t the non-obvious
simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic
1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Since the neutrosophic SuperHyp-
erSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V2,V4,V5,V6}}, is
the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet Ss of black neutrosophic Supe-
rHyperVertices (whereas neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in V
(G) \ S are colored white) such that V (G) isn’t turned black after
finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: a white
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black neutro-
sophic SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white neutrosophic Su-
perHyperNeighbor of a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex
with the additional condition is referred by “1-” about the usage
of any black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex only once to act on
white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex and they are neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHy-
perForcing. Since it’s the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of
a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of black neutrosophic SuperHy-
perVertices (whereas neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in V (G)
\ S are colored white) such that V (G) isn’t turned black after
finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: a white
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black neutro-
sophic SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white neutrosophic Su-
perHyperNeighbor of a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex
with the additional condition is referred by “1-” about the usage
of any black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex only once to act on
white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex. There aren’t only more than two neutrosoph-
ic SuperHyperVertices outside the intended neutrosophic Supe-
rHyperSet, {V2,V4,V5,V6}. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic
1-failed SuperHyperForcing, {V2,V4,V5,V6}, isn’t up. The obvi-
ous simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosoph-
ic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, {V2,V4,V5,V6}, is a neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet, {V2,V4,V5,V6}, doesn’t exclude only more than
two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutro-
sophic SuperHyperNotion SuperHyperGraph NSHG : (V,E). referred by “1-” about the usage of any black neutrosophic Su-
• On the Figure (14), the neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion,
namely, neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, is up.
There’s neither empty neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge nor loop
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. The neutrosophic SuperHyp-
erSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V2}, is the simple
type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 1-failed
SuperHyperForcing. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V2}, is the maximum neu-
trosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of
black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (whereas neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices in V ( ) \ S are colored white) such that V
(G) isn’t turned black after finitely many applications of “the
J Math Techniques Comput Math, 2023
color-change rule”: a white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex
is converted to a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex if it is
the only white neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor of a black
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex with the additional condition
is referred by “1-” about the usage of any black neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex only once to act on white neutrosophic Su-
perHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex.
There’re only two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices outside the
intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious
neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing isn’t up. The obvious
simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic
1-failed SuperHyperForcing is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
excludes only two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are titled to
neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected neutrosoph-
ic SuperHyperNotion SuperHyperGraph NSHG : (V,E). But the
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVerti-
ces, {V2}, doesn’t have more than two neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Vertices outside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus
the non-obvious simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the
neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing isn’t up. To sum them
up, the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHy-
perVertices, {V2}, isn’t the non-obvious simple type-neutrosoph-
ic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForc-
ing. Since the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices, {V2}, is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
Ss of black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (whereas neutro-
sophic SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white) such
that V (G) isn’t turned black after finitely many applications of
“the color-change rule”: a white neutrosophic SuperHyperVer-
tex is converted to a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex if it
is the only white neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor of a black
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex with the additional condition
is referred by “1-” about the usage of any black neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex only once to act on white neutrosophic Supe-
rHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex and
they are neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Since it’s
the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic Supe-
rHyperSet of black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (whereas
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white)
such that V (G) isn’t turned black after finitely many applications
of “the color-change rule”: a white neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Vertex is converted to a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex if
it is the only white neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor of a black
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex with the additional condition is
perHyperVertex only once to act on white neutrosophic Super-
HyperVertex to be black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex. There
aren’t only more than two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
outside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, {V2}. Thus
the non-obvious neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing,
{V2}, isn’t up. The obvious simple type-neutrosophic SuperHy-
perSet of the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, {V2}, is
a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, {V2}, doesn’t exclude only more
than two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in a connected neu-
trosophic SuperHyperNotion SuperHyperGraph NSHG : (V,E).
• On the Figure (15), the neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion,
namely, neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, is up.
Volume 2 | Issue 6 | 237
There’s neither empty neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge nor loop
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. The neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Set of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V1,V4,V5,V6}, is the
simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic
1-failed SuperHyper Forcing. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V1,V4,V5,V6}, is the
maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHy-
perSet S of black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (whereas
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white)
such that isn’t turned black after finitely many applications of
“the color-change rule”: a white neutrosophic SuperHyperVer-
tex is converted to a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex if it
is the only white neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor of a black
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex with the additional condition
is referred by “1-” about the usage of any black neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex only once to act on white neutrosophic Su-
perHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex.
There’re only two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices outside the
intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious
neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing isn’t up. The obvious
simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic
1-failed SuperHyperForcing is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
excludes only two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are titled to
neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected neutrosoph-
ic SuperHyperNotion SuperHyperGraph NSHG : (V,E). But the
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVer-
tices, {V1,V4,V5,V6}, doesn’t have more than two neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices outside the intended neutrosophic Super-
HyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple type-neutrosophic Supe-
rHyperSet of the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing isn’t
up. To sum them up, the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutro-
sophic SuperHyperVertices, {V1,V4,V5,V6}, isn’t the non-obvious
simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic
1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Since the neutrosophic SuperHyp-
erSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V1,V4,V5,V6}, is
the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet Ss of black neutrosophic Supe-
rHyperVertices (whereas neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in V
(G) \ S are colored white) such that V (G) isn’t turned black after
finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: a white
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black neutro-
sophic SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white neutrosophic Su-
perHyperNeighbor of a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex
with the additional condition is referred by “1-” about the usage
of any black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex only once to act on
white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex and they are neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHy-
perForcing. Since it’s the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of
a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of black neutrosophic SuperHy-
perVertices (whereas neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in V (G)
\ S are colored white) such that V (G) isn’t turned black after
finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: a white
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black neutro-
sophic SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white neutrosophic Su-
perHyperNeighbor of a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex
with the additional condition is referred by “1-” about the usage
of any black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex only once to act on
white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex. There aren’t only more than two neutrosoph-
J Math Techniques Comput Math, 2023
ic SuperHyperVertices outside the intended neutrosophic Supe-
rHyperSet, {V1,V4,V5,V6}. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic
1-failed SuperHyperForcing, {V1,V4,V5,V6}, isn’t up. The obvi-
ous simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosoph-
ic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, {V1,V4,V5,V6}, is a neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet, {V1,V4,V5,V6}, doesn’t exclude only more than
two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutro-
sophic SuperHyperNotion SuperHyperGraph NSHG : (V,E). as
Linearly-Connected SuperHyperModel On the Figure (15).
• On the Figure (16), the neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion,
namely, neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, is up.
There’s neither empty neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge nor loop
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. The neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Set of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V1,V2,V5,V6,V7,V8,V9
,V10,V11,V12,V13,V14,V15,V16,V17,V18,V19,V20,V21,V22}, is the simple
type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 1-failed
SuperHyperForcing. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V1,V2,V5,V6,V7,V8,V9,V10,
V11,V12,V13,V14,V15,V16,V17,V18,V19,V20,V21,V22}, is the maximum
neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyper Set S of
black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (whereas neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white) such that V
(G) isn’t turned black after finitely many applications of “the
color-change rule”: a white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex
is converted to a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex if it is
the only white neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor of a black
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex with the additional condition
is referred by “1-” about the usage of any black neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex only once to act on white neutrosophic Su-
perHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex.
There’re only two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices outside the
intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious
neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing isn’t up. The obvious
simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic
1-failed SuperHyperForcing is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
excludes only two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are titled to
neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected neutrosoph-
ic SuperHyperNotion SuperHyperGraph NSHG : (V,E). But the
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVerti-
ces, {V1,V2,V5,V6,V7,V8,V9,V10,V11,V12,V13,V14,V15,V16,V17,V18,V19,V
,V ,V }, doesn’t have more than two neutrosophic SuperHy-
20 21 22
perVertices outside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet.
Thus the non-obvious simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
of the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing isn’t up. To
sum them up, the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosoph-
ic SuperHyperVertices, {V1,V2,V5,V6,V7,V8,V9,V10,V11,V12,V13,V
,V ,V ,V ,V ,V ,V ,V ,V }, isn’t the non-obvious simple
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 1-failed
SuperHyperForcing. Since the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of
the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V1,V2,V5,V6,V7,V8,V9,V10
,V11,V12,V13,V14,V15,V16,V17,V18,V19,V20,V21,V22}, is the neutrosoph-
ic SuperHyperSet Ss of black neutrosophic SuperHyperVerti-
ces (whereas neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are
colored white) such that V (G) isn’t turned black after finitely
many applications of “the color-change rule”: a white neutro-
sophic SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white neutrosophic SuperHy-
Volume 2 | Issue 6 | 238
perNeighbor of a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex with
the additional condition is referred by “1-” about the usage of
any black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex only once to act on
white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex and they are neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHy-
perForcing. Since it’s the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of
a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of black neutrosophic SuperHy-
perVertices (whereas neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in V (G)
\ S are colored white) such that V (G) isn’t turned black after
finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: a white
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black neutro-
sophic SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white neutrosophic Su-
perHyperNeighbor of a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex
with the additional condition is referred by “1-” about the usage
of any black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex only once to act on
white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to be black neutrosoph-
ic SuperHyperVertex. There aren’t only more than two neutro-
sophic SuperHyperVertices outside the intended neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet, {V1,V2,V5,V6,V7,V8,V9,V10,V11,V12,V13,V14,V15,V
,V ,V ,V ,V ,V ,V }. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
1-failed SuperHyperForcing, {V1,V2,V5,V6,V7,V8,V9,V10,V11,V12,V1
,V ,V ,V ,V ,V ,V ,V ,V ,V }, isn’t up. The obvious simple
3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 1-failed
SuperHyperForcing, {V1,V2,V5,V6,V7,V8,V9,V10,V11,V12,V13,V14,V
,V ,V ,V ,V ,V ,V ,V }, is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet,
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
{V1,V2,V5,V6,V7,V8,V9,V10,V11,V12,V13,V14,V15,V16,V17,V18,V19,V20,V2
,V }, doesn’t exclude only more than two neutrosophic Supe-
1 22
rHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion
SuperHyperGraph NSHG : (V,E).
• On the Figure (17), the neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion,
namely, neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, is up.
There’s neither empty neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge nor loop
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. The neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Set of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V1,V2,V5,V6,V7,V8,V9,
V10,V11,V12,V13,V14,V15,V16,V17,V18,V19,V20,V21,V22,V23,V24,V25,V26,V2
,V ,V }, is the simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the
7 28 29
neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. The neutrosophic Su-
perHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V1,V2,V5,
V6,V7,V8,V9,V10,V11,V12,V13,V14,V15,V16,V17,V18,V19,V20,V21,V22,V23,V
,V ,V ,V ,V ,V }, is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality
24 25 26 27 28 29
of a neutrosophic SuperHyper Set S of black neutrosophic Supe-
rHyperVertices (whereas neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in V
(G) \ S are colored white) such that V (G) isn’t turned black after
finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: a white
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black neutro-
sophic SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white neutrosophic Su-
perHyperNeighbor of a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex
with the additional condition is referred by “1-” about the usage
of any black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex only once to act on
white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex. There’re only two neutrosophic SuperHy-
perVertices outside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet.
Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing
isn’t up. The obvious simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
of the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing is a neutro-
sophic SuperHyperSet excludes only two neutrosophic Super-
HyperVertices are titled to neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors
J Math Techniques Comput Math, 2023
in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion SuperHyper-
Graph NSHG : (V,E). But the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V1,V2,V5,V6,V7,V8,V9,V10,V
11
,V12,V13,V14,V15,V16,V17,V18,V19,V20,V21,V22,V23,V24,V25,V26,V27,V2
,V
8 29
}, doesn’t have more than two neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Vertices outside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus
the non-obvious simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the
neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing isn’t up. To sum them
up, the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHy-
perVertices, {V1,V2,V5,V6,V7,V8,V9,V10,V11,V12,V13,V14,V15,V16,V17
,V18,V19,V20,V21,V22,V23,V24,V25,V26,V27,V28,V29}, isn’t the non-ob-
vious simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutro-
sophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Since the neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V1,V
2
,V5,V6,V7,V8,V9,V10,V11,V12,V13,V14,V15,V16,V17,V18,V19,V20,V21,V22
,V23,V24,V25,V26,V27,V28,V29}, is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
Ss of black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (whereas neutro-
sophic SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white) such
that V (G) isn’t turned black after finitely many applications of
“the color-change rule”: a white neutrosophic SuperHyperVer-
tex is converted to a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex if it
is the only white neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor of a black
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex with the additional condition
is referred by “1-” about the usage of any black neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex only once to act on white neutrosophic Supe-
rHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex and
they are neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Since it’s
the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic Supe-
rHyperSet of black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (whereas
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white)
such that V (G) isn’t turned black after finitely many applications
of “the color-change rule”: a white neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Vertex is converted to a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex if
it is the only white neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor of a black
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex with the additional condition is
referred by “1-” about the usage of any black neutrosophic Su-
perHyperVertex only once to act on white neutrosophic Super-
HyperVertex to be black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex. There
aren’t only more than two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
outside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, {V1,V2,V5,V
,V ,V ,V ,V ,V ,V ,V ,V ,V ,V ,V ,V ,V ,V ,V ,V ,V ,V
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
,V25,V26,V27,V28,V29}. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic 1-failed
SuperHyperForcing, {V1,V2,V5,V6,V7,V8,V9,V10,V11,V12,V13,V14,V
,V ,V ,V ,V ,V ,V ,V ,V ,V ,V ,V ,V ,V ,V }, isn’t up.
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29
The obvious simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the
neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, {V1,V2,V5,V6,V7,V8,V
9
,V10,V11,V12,V13,V14,V15,V16,V17,V18,V19,V20,V21,V22,V23,V24,V25,V26,
V27,V28,V29}, is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, {V1,V2,V5,V6,V7,V
,V ,V ,V ,V ,V ,V ,V ,V ,V ,V ,V ,V ,V ,V ,V ,V ,V ,V
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
,V ,V ,V }, doesn’t exclude only more than two neutrosophic
26 27 28 29
SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Notion SuperHyperGraph NSHG : (V,E) as Lnearly-over-packed
SuperHyperModel is featured On the Figure (17).
• On the Figure (18), the neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion, name-
ly, neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, is up. There’s nei-
ther empty neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge nor loop neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutro-
Volume 2 | Issue 6 | 239
sophic SuperHyperVertices, {V2,R,M6,L6,F,P,J,M}, is the simple
type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 1-failed
SuperHyperForcing. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V2,R,M6,L6,F,P,J,M}, is the
maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHy-
perSet of black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (whereas neu-
trosophic SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white)
such that V (G) isn’t turned black after finitely many applications
of “the color-change rule”: a white neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Vertex is converted to a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex if
it is the only white neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor of a black
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex with the additional condition
is referred by “1-” about the usage of any black neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex only once to act on white neutrosophic Su-
perHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex.
There’re only two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices outside the
intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious
neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing isn’t up. The obvious
simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic
1-failed SuperHyperForcing is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
excludes only two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are titled to
neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected neutrosoph-
ic SuperHyperNotion SuperHyperGraph NSHG : (V,E). But the
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVerti-
ces, {V2,R,M6,L6,F,P,J,M}, doesn’t have more than two neutro-
sophic SuperHyperVertices outside the intended neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple type-neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing
isn’t up. To sum them up, the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V2,R,M6,L6,F,P,J,M}, isn’t
the non-obvious simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of
the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Since the neutro-
sophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
{V2,R,M6,L6,F,P,J,M}, is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet Ss of
black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (whereas neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white) such that V
(G) isn’t turned black after finitely many applications of “the
color-change rule”: a white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex
is converted to a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex if it is
the only white neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor of a black
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex with the additional condition
is referred by “1-” about the usage of any black neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex only once to act on white neutrosophic Supe-
rHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex and
they are neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Since it’s
the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic Supe-
rHyperSet of black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (whereas
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white)
such that V (G) isn’t turned black after finitely many applications
of “the color-change rule”: a white neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Vertex is converted to a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex if
it is the only white neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor of a black
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex with the additional condition is
referred by “1-” about the usage of any black neutrosophic Su-
perHyperVertex only once to act on white neutrosophic Super-
HyperVertex to be black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex. There
aren’t only more than two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices out-
side the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, {V2,R,M6,L6,F,P,-
J Math Techniques Comput Math, 2023
J,M}. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyper-
Forcing, {V2,R,M6,L6,F,P,J,M}, isn’t up. The obvious simple
type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 1-failed
SuperHyperForcing, {V2,R,M6,L6,F,P,J,M}, is a neutrosophic Su-
perHyperSet, {V2,R,M6,L6,F,P,J,M}}, doesn’t exclude only more
than two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in a connected neu-
trosophic SuperHyperNotion SuperHyperGraph NSHG : (V,E).
• On the Figure (19), the neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion, name-
ly, neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, is up. There’s
neither empty neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge nor loop neutro-
sophic SuperHyperEdge. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {T3,S3,U3,V4,V5,V6,V7,V8,V9,V
,R ,S ,Z ,W5,T6,H6,O6,E6,C6,V2,R,M6,L6,F,P,J,M}, is the simple
10 6 6 5
type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 1-failed
SuperHyperForcing. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {T3,S3,U3,V4,V5,V6,V7,V8,V9,
V10,R6,S6,Z5,W5,T6,H6,O6,E6,C6,V2,R,M6,L6,F,P,J,M}, is the maxi-
mum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
S of black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (whereas neutro-
sophic SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white) such
that V ( ) isn’t turned black after finitely many applications of
“the color-change rule”: a white neutrosophic SuperHyperVer-
tex is converted to a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex if it
is the only white neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor of a black
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex with the additional condition is
referred by “1-” about the usage of any black neutrosophic Supe-
rHyperVertex only once to act on white neutrosophic SuperHy-
perVertex to be black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex. There’re
only two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices outside the intend-
ed neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious neutro-
sophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing isn’t up. The obvious simple
type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 1-failed
SuperHyperForcing is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet excludes
only two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are titled to neutro-
sophic SuperHyperNeighbors in a connected neutrosophic Su-
perHyperNotion SuperHyperGraph NSHG : (V,E). But the neu-
trosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,{
T3,S3,U3,V4,V5,V6,V7,V8,V9,V10,R6,S6,Z5,W5,T6,H6,O6,E6,C6,V2,R,M6
,L6,F,P,J,M},doesn’t have more than two neutrosophic SuperHy-
perVertices outside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet.
Thus the non-obvious simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
of the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing isn’t up. To
sum them up, the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices, {T3,S3,U3,V4,V5,V6,V7,V8,V9,V10,R6,S6,Z5,W5,
T6,H6,O6,E6,C6,V2,R,M6,L6,F,P,J,M},isn’t the non-obvious simple
type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 1-failed
SuperHyperForcing. Since the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of
the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {T3,S3,U3,V4,V5,V6,V7,V
,V ,V ,R ,S ,Z ,W5,T6,H6,O6,E6,C6,V2,R,M6,L6,F,P,J,M}, is the
8 9 10 6 6 5
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet Ss of black neutrosophic SuperHy-
perVertices (whereas neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in V (G)
\ S are colored white) such that V (G) isn’t turned black after
finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: a white
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black neutro-
sophic SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white neutrosophic Su-
perHyperNeighbor of a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex
with the additional condition is referred by “1-” about the usage
Volume 2 | Issue 6 | 240
of any black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex only once to act on
white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex and they are neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHy-
perForcing. Since it’s the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of
a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of black neutrosophic SuperHy-
perVertices (whereas neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in V (G)
\ S are colored white) such that V (G) isn’t turned black after
finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: a white
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black neutro-
sophic SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white neutrosophic
SuperHyperNeighbor of a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVer-
tex with the additional condition is referred by “1-” about the
usage of any black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex only once to
act] on white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to be black neu-
trosophic SuperHyperVertex. There aren’t only more than two
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices outside the intended neutro-
sophic SuperHyperSet, {{T3,S3,U3,V4,V5,V6,V7,V8,V9,V10,R6,S6,Z
5
,W5,T6,H6,O6,E6,C6,V2,R,M6,L6,F,P,J,M}. Thus the non-obvious
neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, {T3,S3,U3,V4,V5,V6,V
7
,V8,V9,V10,R6,S6,Z5,W5,T6,H6,O6,E6,C6,V2,R,M6,L6,F,P,J,M},isn’t
up. The obvious simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of
the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, {T3,S3,U3,V4,V5,
V6,V7,V8,V9,V10,R6,S6,Z5,W5,T6,H6,O6,E6,C6,V2,R,M6,L6,F,P,J,M},
is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, {T3,S3,U3,V4,V5,V6,V7,V8,V9,
V10,R6,S6,Z5,W5,T6,H6,O6,E6,C6,V2,R,M6,L6,F,P,J,M}, doesn’t ex-
clude only more than two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in
a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion SuperHyperGraph
NSHG : (V,E). neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black neutro-
• On the Figure (20), the neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion,
namely, neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, is up.
There’s neither empty neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge nor loop
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. The neutrosophic SuperHyp-
erSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V2,V3,V4,T6,U6,H7
,V5,R9,V6,V7,V8,V9,v8,W8,U8,S8,T8,C9,Z8,S9,K9,O9,L9,O4,V10,P4,R4
,T4,S4}, is the simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the
neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. The neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V2,V
3
,V4,T6,U6,H7,V5,R9,V6,V7,V8,V9,v8,W8,U8,S8,T8,C9,Z8,S9,K9,O9,L9,
O4,V10,P4,R4,T4,S4}, is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of
a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of black neutrosophic Super-
HyperVertices (whereas neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in V
(G) \ S are colored white) such that V (G) isn’t turned black after
finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: a white
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black neutro-
sophic SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white neutrosophic Su-
perHyperNeighbor of a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex
with the additional condition is referred by “1-” about the usage
of any black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex only once to act on
J Math Techniques Comput Math, 2023
white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex. There’re only two neutrosophic SuperHy-
perVertices outside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet.
Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing
isn’t up. The obvious simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
of the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing is a neutrosoph-
ic SuperHyperSet excludes only two neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Vertices are titled to neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in a
connected neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion SuperHyperGraph
NSHG : (V,E). But the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutro-
sophic SuperHyperVertices,{V2,V3,V4,T6,U6,H7,V5,R9,V6,V7,V8,
V9,v8,W8,U8,S8,T8,C9,Z8,S9,K9,O9,L9,O4,V10,P4,R4,T4,S4}, doesn’t
have more than two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices outside
the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-ob-
vious simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutro-
sophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing isn’t up. To sum them up,
the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Vertices, {V2,V3,V4,T6,U6,H7,V5,R9,V6,V7,V8,V9,v8,W8,U8,S8,T8,C9,
Z8,S9,K9,O9,L9,O4,V10,P4,R4,T4,S4}, isn’t the non-obvious simple
type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 1-failed
SuperHyperForcing. Since the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of
the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, {V2,V3,V4,T6,U6,H7,V5,R9
,V6,V7,V8,V9,v8,W8,U8,S8,T8,C9,Z8,S9,K9,O9,L9,O4,V10,P4,R4,T4,S4},
is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet Ss of black neutrosophic Su-
perHyperVertices (whereas neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in
V (G) \ S are colored white) such that V (G) isn’t turned black af-
ter finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: a white
sophic SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white neutrosophic Su-
perHyperNeighbor of a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex
with the additional condition is referred by “1-” about the usage
of any black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex only once to act on
white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex and they are neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHy-
perForcing. Since it’s the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of
a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of black neutrosophic SuperHy-
perVertices (whereas neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in V (G)
\ S are colored white) such that V ( ) isn’t turned black after
finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: a white
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black neutro-
sophic SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white neutrosophic Su-
perHyperNeighbor of a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex
with the additional condition is referred by “1-” about the usage
of any black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex only once to act on
white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex. There aren’t only more than two neutrosoph-
ic SuperHyperVertices outside the intended neutrosophic Supe-
rHyperSet, {V2,V3,V4,T6,U6,H7,V5,R9,V6,V7,V8,V9,v8,W8,U8,S8,T8,C
,Z ,S ,K9,O9,L9,O4,V10,P4,R4,T4,S4},
9 8 9
Volume 2 | Issue 6 | 241
 Figure 1. The neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Notions of neutro-
Figure 1: The neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Notions of neutro-sophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing in the
sophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing in the Examples (??) and (3.1)
Examples (??) and (3.1)

Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcin case, literally, V \ {x,z} is an neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyper-
g,{V2,V3,V4,T6,U6,H7,V5,R9,V6,V7,V8,V9,v8,WThus
8
,U8,Sthe
8 8
non-obvious
,T ,C ,Z ,S ,K9, neutrosophic
9 8 9
Forcing. In other 1-failed
words,SuperHyperForcing,
the most neutrosophic cardinality, the 1383

O9,L9,O4,V10,P4,R4,T4,S4}, isn’t up. The obvious simple type-neu- {V upper sharp bound for neutrosophic cardinality, of neutrosophic
2 , V3 , V4 , T6 , U6 , H7 , V5 , R9 ,
trosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHy- 1-failed SuperHyperForcing is the neutrosophic cardinality of V
perForcing, {V2,V3,V4,T6,U6,H7,V5,R9,V6,V7,V8,V9,v8,W8,U8,S8,T8 V\6{x,z}. , V7 , V8 , V9 , v8 , W8 , U8 , S8 , T8 , C9 , Z8 , S9
,C9,Z8,S9,K9,O9,L9,O4,V10,P4,R4,T4,S4}, is a neutrosophic Super- K9 , O9 , L9 , O4 , V10 , P4 , R4 , T4 , S4 },
HyperSet, {V2,V3,V4,T6,U6,H7,V5,R9,V6,V7,V8,V9,v8,W8,U8,S8,T8,C Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion
isn’t
,Z ,S ,K9,O9,L9,O4,V10,P4,R4,T4,S4}, doesn’t up. The
exclude onlyobvious
more simple type-neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph NSHG :SuperHyperSet of the SuperHyp-
(V,E). The neutrosophic 1384
9 8 9
neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing,
than two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in a connected neu- erSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices V \ {x,y,z} is a 1385

trosophic SuperHyperNotion SuperHyperGraph NSHG : (V,E). neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of black neutrosophic SuperHy-
{V2 , V3 , V4 , T6 , U6 , H7 , V5 , R9 ,
perVertices (whereas neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in V (G)
Proposition 3.2. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHy- V\6S, Vare 7 , Vcolored
8 , V9 , v8 white)
, W8 , Usuch
8 , S8 ,that
T8 , C , Z8 ,isn’t
V9(G) S9 turned black after
perNotion SuperHyperGraph NSHG : (V,E). Then in the worst Kfinitely 9 , O9 , Lmany
9 , O4 , V10 , P4 , R4 , T4 , S4 },

is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, 1386

{V2 , V3 , V4 , T6 , U6 , H7 , V5 , R9 ,
V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , v8 , W8 , U8 , S8 , T8 , C9 , Z8 , S9
K9 , O9 , L9 , O4 , V10 , P4 , R4 , T4 , S4 },

doesn’t exclude only more than two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in a 1387

connected neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). 1388

Proposition 3.2. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion 1389

SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E). Then in the worst case, literally, V \ {x, z} is an 1390

neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. In other words, the most neutrosophic 1391

cardinality, the upper sharp bound for neutrosophic cardinality, of neutrosophic 1-failed 1392

SuperHyperForcing is the neutrosophic cardinality of V \ {x, z}. 1393

Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion SuperHyperGraph 1394

N SHG : (V, E). The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 1395

SuperHyperVertices V \ {x, y, z} is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of black 1396

neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (whereas neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in 1397

V (G)2.\ The
S areneutrosophic
colored white) such that V (G) isn’t turned black after finitely many
Figure 2: The neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs
Figure Associated to SuperHyperGraphs
the Notions of neutro-sophic 1-failed
Associated to theSuperHyperForcing
Notions in the
of neutro- 1398

Examples (??) and (3.1) sophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing in the Examples (??) and (3.1)

42/128
J Math Techniques Comput Math, 2023 Volume 2 | Issue 6 | 242
Figure 3: The neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Associated to SuperHyperGraphs
Figure 3. The neutrosophic the Notions of neutro-sophic 1-failed
Associated to theSuperHyperForcing in the
Notions of neutro-
Examples (??) and (3.1) sophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing in the Examples (??) and (3.1)

43/128

Figure 4. The neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Notions of neutro-

sophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing in the Examples (??) and (3.1)

Figure 4: The neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Associated toSuperHyperGraphs

Figure 4. The neutrosophic the Notions of neutro-sophic
Associated1-failed
to theSuperHyperForcing
Notions of neutro-in the
Examples (??) and (3.1) sophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing in the Examples (??) and (3.1)

Figure 5: The neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs

Figure 5. TheAssociated to the
neutrosophic Notions of neutro-sophic
SuperHyperGraphs 1-failed
Associated to SuperHyperForcing in the
the Notions of neutro-
Examples (??) and (3.1) sophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing in the Examples (??) and (3.1)
J Math Techniques Comput Math, 2023 Volume 2 | Issue 6 | 243

Figure 5. The neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Notions of neutro-

 Figure 6. The neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Notions of neutro-
sophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing in the Examples (??) and (3.1)

Figure 6: The neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs

Examples (??) and (3.1)
Figure 6. The Associated to theSuperHyperGraphs
neutrosophic Notions of neutro-sophic 1-failed
Associated toSuperHyperForcing in the
the Notions of neutro-
sophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing in the Examples (??) and (3.1)

Figure 7: The neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Associated toSuperHyperGraphs

Figure 7. The neutrosophic the Notions of neutro-sophic 1-failed
Associated to theSuperHyperForcing in the
Notions of neutro-
Examples (??) and (3.1) sophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing in the Examples (??) and (3.1)

Figure 7. The neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Notions of neutro-

sophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing in the Examples (??) and (3.1)

45/128

45/128

J Math Techniques Comput Math, 2023 Volume 2 | Issue 6 | 244

 Figure 8. The neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Notions of neutro-
sophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing in the Examples (??) and (3.1)

Figure 8: The neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs

Examples (??) and (3.1)
Figure 8. The Associated to theSuperHyperGraphs
neutrosophic Notions of neutro-sophic 1-failed
Associated to SuperHyperForcing in the
the Notions of neutro-
sophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing in the Examples (??) and (3.1)

Figure 9: The neutrosophicFigure 9. The neutrosophic

SuperHyperGraphs AssociatedSuperHyperGraphs Associated to
to the Notions of neutro-sophic the Notions
1-failed of neutro- in the
SuperHyperForcing
Examples (??) and (3.1) sophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing in the Examples (??) and (3.1)

Figure 9. The neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Notions of neutro-

sophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing in the Examples (??) and (3.1)

46/128

46/128

J Math Techniques Comput Math, 2023 Volume 2 | Issue 6 | 245

 Figure 10. The neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Notions of neutro-
sophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing in the Examples (??) and (3.1)

Figure 10: The neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs

Examples (??) and (3.1)
Figure 10. Associated to the Notions
The neutrosophic of neutro-sophicAssociated
SuperHyperGraphs 1-failed SuperHyperForcing
to the Notions of in the
neutro-
sophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing in the Examples (??) and (3.1)

Figure 11. The neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Notions of neutro-

Figure 11: The neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Notions
sophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing in theofExamples
neutro-sophic
(??)1-failed SuperHyperForcing in the
and (3.1)
Examples (??) and (3.1)

Figure 11. The neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Notions of neutro-

sophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing in the Examples (??) and (3.1)

47/128

47/128

J Math Techniques Comput Math, 2023 Volume 2 | Issue 6 | 246

 Figure 12. The neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Notions of neutro-
sophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing in the Examples (??) and (3.1)

Figure 12: The neutrosophic Figure

SuperHyperGraphs Associated toSuperHyperGraphs
12. The neutrosophic the Notions of neutro-sophic
Associated1-failed
to theSuperHyperForcing
Notions of neutro-in the
Examples (??) and (3.1) sophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing in the Examples (??) and (3.1)

Figure 13. The neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Notions of neutro-

Figure 13: The neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Notions of neutro-sophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing in the
sophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing in the Examples (??) and (3.1)
Examples (??) and (3.1)

Figure 13. The neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Notions of neutro-

sophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing in the Examples (??) and (3.1)

48/128

48/128

J Math Techniques Comput Math, 2023 Volume 2 | Issue 6 | 247

 Figure 14. The neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Notions of neutro-
Figure 14: The neutrosophicsophic
SuperHyperGraphs
1-failed
Figure TheAssociated to theSuperHyperGraphs
14.SuperHyperForcing
neutrosophic inNotions of neutro-sophic
the Examples (??) and 1-failed
(3.1)to SuperHyperForcing
Associated in the
the Notions of neutro-
Examples (??) and (3.1) sophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing in the Examples (??) and (3.1)

Figure 15. The neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Notions of neutro-

Figure 15: The neutrosophicsophic
SuperHyperGraphs
1-failed
Figure TheAssociated to theSuperHyperGraphs
15.SuperHyperForcing
neutrosophic inNotions of neutro-sophic
the Examples (??) and1-failed
(3.1)to SuperHyperForcing
Associated in the
the Notions of neutro-
Examples (??) and (3.1) sophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing in the Examples (??) and (3.1)

49/128
49/128

J Math Techniques Comput Math, 2023 Volume 2 | Issue 6 | 248

 Figure 16. The neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Notions of neutro-
sophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing in the Examples (??) and (3.1)

Figure 16. The neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Notions of neutro-

Figure 16: The neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Notions of neutro-sophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing in the
sophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing in the Examples (??) and (3.1)
Examples (??) and (3.1)

Figure 17: The neutrosophic Figure

SuperHyperGraphs Associated toSuperHyperGraphs
17. The neutrosophic the Notions of neutro-sophic
Associated1-failed
to theSuperHyperForcing
Notions of neutro-in the
Examples (??) and (3.1) sophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing in the Examples (??) and (3.1)

Figure 17. The neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Notions of neutro-

sophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing in the Examples (??) and (3.1)

50/128

50/128

J Math Techniques Comput Math, 2023 Volume 2 | Issue 6 | 249

 Figure 18. The neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Notions of neutro-
Figure 18: The neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs
sophic 1-failed
Figure Associated to the Notions
SuperHyperForcing
18. The neutrosophic in the of neutro-sophic
Examples
SuperHyperGraphs 1-failed
(3.1)SuperHyperForcing
(??)Associated
and to the Notions of in the
neutro-
Examples (??) and (3.1) sophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing in the Examples (??) and (3.1)

Figure 19. The neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs Associated to the Notions of neutro-

Figure 19: The neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs
sophic 1-failed Associated to the Notions
SuperHyperForcing the of neutro-sophic 1-failed
(3.1)SuperHyperForcing in the
Figure 19. The neutrosophic in Examples
SuperHyperGraphs (??)Associated
and to the Notions of neutro-
Examples (??) and (3.1)
sophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing in the Examples (??) and (3.1)

51/128
51/128

J Math Techniques Comput Math, 2023 Volume 2 | Issue 6 | 250

Figure 20: The neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs
Figure 20. The Associated to the Notions
neutrosophic of neutro-sophic
SuperHyperGraphs 1-failedto
Associated SuperHyperForcing in the
the Notions of neutro-
Examples (??) and (3.1) sophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing in the Examples (??) and (3.1)
applications of “the color-change rule”: a white neutrosophic Notion SuperHyperGraph NSHG : (V,E), a neutrosophic Super-
SuperHyperVertex is converted to applications
a black neutrosophic Supe- HyperVertex,
of “the color-change rule”: a titledwhiteitsneutrosophic
neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor,
SuperHyperVertex isto the 1399
rHyperVertex if it is the only whiteconverted
neutrosophic SuperHyper- neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
to a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex if it is the only S does thewhite
“the neutrosophic
color-change 1400
Neighbor of a black neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor
SuperHyperVertex withofthe rule”.]. There’re only two neutrosophic
a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex with the additional SuperHyperVertices 1401
additional condition is referred by condition
“1-” about isthereferred
usage of byany“1-” outside
about the the usage
intended neutrosophic
of any SuperHyperSet, V \ {x,z}.
black neutrosophic 1402
black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex only once to act on white Thus the obvious neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex only once to act on white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 1-failed SuperHyperForcing,
to be 1403
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic Supe- V \ {x,z}, is up. The
black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex but it isn’t an neutrosophic 1-failedobvious simple type-neutrosophic Super- 1404
rHyperVertex but it isn’t an neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyper- HyperSet of the neutrosophic
SuperHyperForcing. Since it doesn’t have the maximum neutrosophic cardinality 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, V\ 1405
Forcing. Since it doesn’t have the maximum neutrosophic cardi- {x,z}, is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet,
of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (whereas only two neutrosoph- 1406
nality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of blackSuperHyperVertices
neutrosophic neutrosophic ic SuperHyperVertices
in V (G) \ S are colored are titled in a connected
white) such that V neutrosophic
(G) isn’t 1407
SuperHyperVertices (where as neutrosophic SuperHyperVerti- neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors
turned black after finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: a white neutrosophic SuperHyper- 1408
ces in V (G) \ S are colored white) neutrosophic
such that V (G) isn’t turned Graph
SuperHyperVertex NSHG : (V,E).
is converted to a Since
black the neutrosophic
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of
SuperHyperVertex 1409
black after finitely many applications of “the color-change the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
if it is the only white neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor of a black neutrosophic V \ {x,z} is the maximum 1410
rule”: a white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is converted to neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex with the additional condition is referred by “1-” about the usageSof SuperHyperSet of 1411
a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
any black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex only once to act on white neutrosophic (whereas neutrosophic 1412
neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor SuperHyperVertex
of a black neutrosophic to beSu-black
SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex. white) such that V
The neutrosophic 1413
perHyperVertex with the additional SuperHyperSet
condition is referred by “1-”
of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices V \ {x} is the maximumof “the
(G) isn’t turned black after finitely many applications 1414
about the usage of any black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex
neutrosophic cardinality of a color-change neutrosophicrule”: a white neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet S of blackSuperHyperVertex
neutrosophic is 1415
only once to act on white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to be converted to a black neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices (whereas neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored SuperHyperVertex if it is the 1416
black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex. Thebut
white) neutrosophic
it isn’t anSuper- only white
neutrosophic 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor
SuperHyperForcing. of a black
Since it doesn’t do neu-
the 1417
HyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices V \ {x} is the
procedure such that V (G) isn’t turned black after finitely many applications of “the is
trosophic SuperHyperVertex with the additional condition 1418
maximum neutrosophic cardinality color-change
of a neutrosophic rule”: SuperHy- referred by “1-”
a white neutrosophic about the usage ofisany
SuperHyperVertex black neutrosophic
converted to a black Su- 1419
perSet S of black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (whereas perHyperVertex
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white neutrosophiconly once to act on white neutrosophic Super- 1420

neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inSuperHyperNeighbor

V (G) \ S are colored white) HyperVertex to be black neutrosophic
of a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex with the additional SuperHyperVertex. 1421

but it isn’t an neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing.

condition is referredSince it about
by “1-” the usage of any black neutrosophic 1422

doesn’t do the procedure such that VSuperHyperVertex

(G) isn’t turned black after Proposition
only once to act on white 3.3. Assume a connected
neutrosophic neutrosophic to
SuperHyperVertex SuperHy-
be 1423

finitely many applications of “the black

color-change rule”: a white perNotion SuperHyperGraph
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex [there’s at least one white without any white NSHG : (V,E). Then the extreme 1424

neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is converted

neutrosophic to a SuperHyperNeighbor
black neutro- number of neutrosophic
outside 1-failedby
implying there’s, SuperHyperForcing
the connectednesshas, the
of the 1425

sophic SuperHyperVertex if it is the connected

only white neutrosophic Su- most neutrosophic cardinality,
neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion SuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E), a the upper sharp bound for neu- 1426

perHyperNeighbor of a black neutrosophic

neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex
SuperHyperVertex, trosophic
titledcardinality, is the extreme
its neutrosophic neutrosophic cardinality
SuperHyperNeighbor, to the of 1427

with the additional condition is referred by “1-” about the usage V \ {x,z} if there’s an neutrosophic
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S does the “the color-change rule”.]. There’re only two 1-failed SuperHyperForcing 1428

of any black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex only once to act on with the most neutrosophic cardinality, the upper sharp bound
white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic for neutrosophic cardinality.
SuperHyperVertex [there’s at least one white without any white
neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor outside implying there’s, by Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion Su-
the connectedness of the connected neutrosophic SuperHyper- perHyperGraph NSHG : (V,E). Consider there’s an neutrosophic
52/128
J Math Techniques Comput Math, 2023 Volume 2 | Issue 6 | 251
1-failed SuperHyperForcing with the most neutrosophic cardi-
nality, the upper sharp bound for neutrosophic cardinality. The
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Vertices V \ {x,y,z} is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of black
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (whereas neutrosophic Supe-
rHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white) such that V (G)
isn’t turned black after finitely many applications of “the col-
or-change rule”: a white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is con-
verted to a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex if it is the only
white neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor of a black neutrosoph-
ic SuperHyperVertex with the additional condition is referred
by “1-” about the usage of any black neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Vertex only once to act on white neutrosophic SuperHyperVer-
tex to be black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex but it isn’t an
neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Since it doesn’t have
the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic Super-
HyperSet S of black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (whereas
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white)
such that V (G) isn’t turned black after finitely many applications
of “the color-change rule”: a white neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Vertex is converted to a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex if
it is the only white neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor of a black
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex with the additional condition
is referred by “1-” about the usage of any black neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex only once to act on white neutrosophic Su-
perHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex.
The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHy-
perVertices V \ {x} is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of
a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of black neutrosophic Super-
HyperVertices (whereas neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in V
(G) \ S are colored white) but it isn’t an neutrosophic 1-failed
SuperHyperForcing. Since it doesn’t do the procedure such that
V (G) isn’t turned black after finitely many applications of “the
color-change rule”: a white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is
converted to a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex if it is
the only white neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor of a black
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex with the additional condition is
referred by “1-” about the usage of any black neutrosophic Supe-
rHyperVertex only once to act on white neutrosophic SuperHy-
perVertex to be black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex [there’s
at least one white without any white neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Neighbor outside implying there’s, by the connectedness of the
connected neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion SuperHyperGraph
NSHG : (V,E), a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, titled its neu-
trosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, to the neutrosophic SuperHy-
perSet S does the “the color-change rule”.]. There’re only two
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices outside the intended neutro-
sophic SuperHyperSet, V \ {x,z}. Thus the obvious neutrosophic
1-failed SuperHyperForcing, V \ {x,z}, is up. The obvious simple
type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic 1-failed
SuperHyperForcing, V \ {x,z}, is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet,
V \ {x,z}, excludes only two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
are titled in a connected neutrosophic neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Neighbors neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph NSHG : (V,E). Since
the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHy-
perVertices V \ {x,z} is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of
a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of black neutrosophic Super-
HyperVertices (whereas neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in V
J Math Techniques Comput Math, 2023
(G) \ S are colored white) such that V (G) isn’t turned black after
finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: a white
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black neutro-
sophic SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white neutrosophic Su-
perHyperNeighbor of a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex
with the additional condition is referred by “1-” about the usage
of any black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex only once to act on
white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex. It implies that extreme number of neutro-
sophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing has, the most neutrosophic
cardinality, the upper sharp bound for neutrosophic cardinality,
is |V | − 2. Thus it induces that the extreme number of neutro-
sophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing has, the most neutrosophic
cardinality, the upper sharp bound for neutrosophic cardinality,
is the extreme neutrosophic cardinality of V \ {x,z} if there’s an
neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing with the most neutro-
sophic cardinality, the upper sharp bound for neutrosophic car-
dinality.
Proposition 3.4. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHy-
perNotion SuperHyperGraph NSHG : (V,E). If a neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge has z neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, then
z − 2 number of those neutrosophic SuperHyperVerticesfrom
that neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge belong to any neutrosophic
1-failed SuperHyperForcing.
Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion
SuperHyperGraph NSHG: (V,E). Let a neutrosophic Super-
HyperEdge has z neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Consider
z − 3 number of those neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from
that neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge belong to any given neutro-
sophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices.
Consider there’s an neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing
with the most neutrosophic cardinality, the upper sharp bound
for neutrosophic cardinality. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices V \ {x,y,z} is a neutro-
sophic SuperHyperSet S of black neutrosophic SuperHyperVer-
tices (whereas neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are
colored white) such that V (G) isn’t turned black after finitely
many applications of “the color-change rule”: a white neutro-
sophic SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white neutrosophic SuperHy-
perNeighbor of a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex with the
additional condition is referred by “1-” about the usage of any
black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex only once to act on white
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic Supe-
rHyperVertex but it isn’t an neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyper-
Forcing. Since it doesn’t have the maximum neutrosophic cardi-
nality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of black neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices (whereas neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
in V (G) \ S are colored white) such that V (G) isn’t turned black
after finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: a
white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white neutro-
sophic SuperHyperNeighbor of a black neutrosophic Super-
HyperVertex with the additional condition is referred by “1-”
about the usage of any black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex
only once to act on white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to be
Volume 2 | Issue 6 | 252
black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex. The neutrosophic Super-
HyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices V \ {x} is the
maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHy-
perSet S of black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (whereas
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colore white)
but it isn’t an neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Since it
doesn’t do the procedure such that V (G) isn’t turned black after
finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: a white
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black neutro-
sophic SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white neutrosophic Su-
perHyperNeighbor of a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex
with the additional condition is referred by “1-” about the usage
of any black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex only once to act on
white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex [there’s at least one white without any white
neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor outside implying there’s, by
the connectedness of the connected neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Notion SuperHyperGraph NSHG : (V,E), a neutrosophic Su-
perHyperVertex, titled its neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, to
the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S does the “the color-change
rule”.]. There’re only two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
outside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, V \ {x,z}.
Thus the obvious neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing,
V \ {x,z}, is up. The obvious simple type-neutrosophic Super-
HyperSet of the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, V \
{x,z}, is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, only two neutrosoph-
ic SuperHyperVertices are titled in a connected neutrosophic
neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Graph NSHG : (V,E). Since the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of
the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices V \ {x,z} is the maximum
neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of
black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (whereas neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white) such that V
(G) isn’t turned black after finitely many applications of “the
color-change rule”: a white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex
is converted to a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex if it is
the only white neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor of a black
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex with the additional condition
is referred by “1-” about the usage of any black neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex only once to act on white neutrosophic Su-
perHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex. It
implies that ex number of neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyper-
Forcing has, the most neutrosophic cardinality, the upper sharp
bound for neutrosophic cardinality, is |V | − 2. Thus it induces
that the extreme number of neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyper-
Forcing has, the most neutrosophic cardinality, the upper sharp
bound for neutrosophic cardinality, is the extreme neutrosophic
cardinality of V \ {x,z} if there’s an neutrosophic 1-failed Super-
HyperForcing with the most neutrosophic cardinality, the upper
sharp bound for neutrosophic cardinality. Thus all the following
neutrosophic SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVer-
tices are the simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the
neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. It’s the contradiction
to the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet either S = V \ {x,y,z} or S = V
\ {x} is an neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Thus any
given neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Super-
HyperVertices contains the number of those neutrosophic Supe-
rHyperVertices from that neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge with z
J Math Techniques Comput Math, 2023
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices less than z − 2 isn’t an neu-
trosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Thus if a neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge has z neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, then
z − 2 number of those neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from
that neutrosophic Sup rHyperEdge belong to any neutrosophic
1-failed SuperHyperForcing.
Proposition 3.5. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Notion SuperHyperGraph NSHG : (V,E). There’s a neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge has only distinct neutrosophic SuperHyperVer-
tices outside of an neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. In
other words, there’s an unique neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge
has only two distinct white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices.
Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion
SuperHyperGraph NSHG : (V,E). Let a neutrosophic SuperHy-
perEdge has some neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Consider
some numbers of those neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from
that neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge excluding three distinct
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, belong to any given neutro-
sophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices.
Consider there’s an neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing
with the most neutrosophic cardinality, the upper sharp bound
for neutrosophic cardinality. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices V \ {x,y,z} is a neutro-
sophic SuperHyperSet S of black neutrosophic SuperHyperVer-
tices (whereas neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are
colored white) such that V (G) isn’t turned black after finitely
many applications of “the color-change rule”: a white neutro-
sophic SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white neutrosophic SuperHy-
perNeighbor of a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex with the
additional condition is referred by “1-” about the usage of any
black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex only once to act on white
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic Supe-
rHyperVertex but it isn’t an neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyper-
Forcing. Since it doesn’t have the maximum neutrosophic cardi-
nality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of black neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices (whereas neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
in V (G) \ S are colored white) such that V (G) isn’t turned black
after finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: a
white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white neutro-
sophic SuperHyperNeighbor of a black neutrosophic Super-
HyperVertex with the additional condition is referred by “1-”
about the usage of any black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex
only once to act on white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to be
black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex. The neutrosophic Super-
HyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices V \ {x} is the
maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHy-
perSet S of black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (whereas
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white)
but it isn’t an neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Since it
doesn’t do the procedure such that V (G) isn’t turned black after
finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: a white
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black neutro-
sophic SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white neutrosophic Su-
perHyperNeighbor of a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex
Volume 2 | Issue 6 | 253
with the additional condition is referred by “1-” about the usage
of any black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex only once to act on
white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex [there’s at least one white without any white
neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor outside implying there’s, by
the connectedness of the connected neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Notion SuperHyperGraph NSHG : (V,E), a neutrosophic Super-
HyperVertex, titled its neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, to the
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S does the “the color-change
rule”.]. There’re only two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
outside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, V \ {x,z}.
Thus the obvious neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing,
V \ {x,z}, is up. The obvious simple type-neutrosophic Super-
HyperSet of the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, V \
{x,z}, is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, V \ {x,z}, excludes only
two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are titled in a connected
neutrosophic neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph NSHG : (V,E). Since the neutrosophic Supe-
rHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices V \ {x,z} is
the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic Super-
HyperSet S of black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (whereas
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white)
such that V (G) isn’t turned black after finitely many applications
of “the color-change rule”: a white neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Vertex is converted to a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex if
it is the only white neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor of a black
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex with the additional condition
is referred by “1-” about the usage of any black neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex only once to act on white neutrosophic Su-
perHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex.
It implies that extreme number of neutrosophic 1-failed Supe-
rHyper Forcing has, the most neutrosophic cardinality, the up-
per sharp bound for neutrosophic cardinality, is |V| − 2. Thus
it induces that the extreme number of neutrosophic 1-failed
SuperHyperForcing has, the most neutrosophic cardinality, the
upper sharp bound for neutrosophic cardinality, is the extreme
neutrosophic cardinality of V \ {x,z} if there’s an neutrosophic
1-failed SuperHyperForcing with the most neutrosophic cardi-
nality, the upper sharp bound for neutrosophic cardinality. Thus
if a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has some neutrosophic Su-
perHyperVertices, then, with excluding two distinct neutrosoph-
ic SuperHyperVertices, the all number of those neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices from that neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge
belong to any neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Thus,
in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion SuperHyper-
Graph NSHG : (V,E), there’s a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge
has only two distinct neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices outside
of neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. In other words,
there’s a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has only two distinct
white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices which are neutrosophic
SuperHyperNeighbors. Notion SuperHyperGraph NSHG : (V,E), a neutrosophic Supe-
Proposition 3.6. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Notion SuperHyperGraph NSHG : (V,E). The all exterior neutro-
sophic SuperHyperVertices belong to any neutrosophic 1-failed
SuperHyperForcing if there’s one of them such that there are
only two interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are mutually
neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors.
J Math Techniques Comput Math, 2023
Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion
SuperHyperGraph NSHG : (V,E). Let a neutrosophic SuperHy-
perEdge has some neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Consider
some numbers of those neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from
that neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge excluding three distinct
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, belong to any given neutro-
sophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices.
Consider there’s an neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing
with the most neutrosophic cardinality, the upper sharp bound
for neutrosophic cardinality. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices V \ {x,y,z} is a neutro-
sophic SuperHyperSet S of black neutrosophic SuperHyperVer-
tices (whereas neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are
colored white) such that V (G) isn’t turned black after finitely
many applications of “the color-change rule”: a white neutro-
sophic SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white neutrosophic SuperHy-
perNeighbor of a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex with the
additional condition is referred by “1-” about the usage of any
black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex only once to act on white
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic Supe-
rHyperVertex but it isn’t an neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyper-
Forcing. Since it doesn’t have the maximum neutrosophic cardi-
nality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of black neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices (whereas neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
in V (G) \ S are colored white) such that V (G) isn’t turned black
after finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: a
white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white neutro-
sophic SuperHyperNeighbor of a black neutrosophic Super-
HyperVertex with the additional condition is referred by “1-”
about the usage of any black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex
only once to act on white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to be
black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex. The neutrosophic Super-
HyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices V \ {x} is the
maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHy-
perSet S of black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (whereas
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white)
but it isn’t an neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Since it
doesn’t do the procedure such that V (G) isn’t turned black after
finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: a white
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black neutro-
sophic SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white neutrosophic Su-
perHyperNeighbor of a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex
with the additional condition is referred by “1-” about the usage
of any black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex only once to act on
white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex [there’s at least one white without any white
neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor outside implying there’s, by
the connectedness of the connected neutrosophic SuperHyper-
rHyperVertex, titled its neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, to
the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S does the “the color-change
rule”.]. There’re only two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
outside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, V \ {x,z}.
Thus the obvious neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing,
V \ {x,z}, is up. The obvious simple type-neutrosophic Super-
HyperSet of the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, V \
Volume 2 | Issue 6 | 254
{x,z}, is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, only two neutrosoph-
ic SuperHyperVertices are titled in a connected neutrosophic
neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Graph NSHG : (V,E). Since the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of
the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices V \ {x,z} is the maximum
neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of
black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (whereas neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white) such that V
(G) isn’t turned black after finitely many applications of “the
color-change rule”: a white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is
converted to a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex if it is the
only white neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor of a black neu-
trosophic SuperHyperVertex with the additional condition
is referred by “1-” about the usage of any black neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex only once to act on white neutrosophic Su-
perHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex.
It implies that extreme number of neutrosophic 1-failed Super-
HyperForcing has, the most neutrosophic cardinality, the upper
sharp bound for neutrosophic cardinality, is |V | − 2. Thus it in-
duces that the extreme number of neutrosophic 1-failed Super-
HyperForcing has, the most neutrosophic cardinality, the upper
sharp bound for neutrosophic cardinality, is the extreme neutro-
sophic cardinality of V \ {x,z} if there’s an neutrosophic 1-failed
SuperHyperForcing with the most neutrosophic cardinality,
the upper sharp bound for neutrosophic cardinality. Thus if a
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has some neutrosophic Super-
HyperVertices, then, with excluding two distinct neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices, the all number of those neutrosophic Su-
perHyperVertices from that neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge be-
long to any neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Thus, in
a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion SuperHyperGraph
NSHG : (V,E), there’s a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has only
two distinct neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices outside of neu-
trosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. In other words, here’s
a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has only two distinct white
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. In a connected neutrosoph-
ic SuperHyperNotion SuperHyperGraph NSHG : (V,E), the all
exterior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong to any neutro-
sophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing if there’s one of them such
that there are only two interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
are mutually neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors. the connectedness of the connected neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Proposition 3.7. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Notion SuperHyperGraph NSHG : (V,E). The any neutrosophic
1-failed SuperHyperForcing only contains all interior neutro-
sophic SuperHyperVertices and all exterior neutrosophic Supe-
rHyperVertices where there’s any of them has two neutrosophic Thus the obvious neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing,
SuperHyperNeighbors out. V \ {x,z}, is up. The obvious simple type-neutrosophic Super-
Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion
SuperHyperGraph NSHG : (V,E). Let a neutrosophic SuperHy-
perEdge has some neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Consider
some numbers of those neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from
that neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge excluding three distinct
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, belong to any given neutro-
sophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices.
Consider there’s an neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing
with the most neutrosophic cardinality, the upper sharp bound
J Math Techniques Comput Math, 2023
for neutrosophic cardinality. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices V \ { } is a neutro-
sophic SuperHyperSet S of black neutrosophic SuperHyperVer-
tices (whereas neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are
colored white) such that V (G) isn’t turned black after finitely
many applications of “the color-change rule”: a white neutro-
sophic SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white neutrosophic SuperHy-
perNeighbor of a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex with the
additional condition is referred by “1-” about the usage of any
black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex only once to act on white
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic Supe-
rHyperVertex but it isn’t an neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyper-
Forcing. Since it doesn’t have the maximum neutrosophic cardi-
nality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of black neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices (whereas neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
in V (G) \ S are colored white) such that V (G) isn’t turned black
after finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: a
white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white neutro-
sophic SuperHyperNeighbor of a black neutrosophic Super-
HyperVertex with the additional condition is referred by “1-”
about the usage of any black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex
only once to act on white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to be
black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex. The neutrosophic Super-
HyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices V \ {x} is the
maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHy-
perSet S of black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (whereas
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white)
but it isn’t an neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Since it
doesn’t do the procedure such that V (G) isn’t turned black after
finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: a white
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black neutro-
sophic SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white neutrosophic Su-
perHyperNeighbor of a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex
with the additional condition is referred by “1-” about the usage
of any black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex only once to act on
white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex [there’s at least one white without any white
neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor outside implying there’s, by
Notion SuperHyperGraph NSHG : (V,E), a neutrosophic Super-
HyperVertex, titled its neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, to the
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S does the “the color-change
rule”.]. There’re only two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
outside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, V \ {x,z}.
HyperSet of the neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, V \
{x,z}, is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, only two neutrosoph-
ic SuperHyperVertices are titled in a connected neutrosophic
neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Graph NSHG : (V,E). Since the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of
the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices V \ {x,z} is the maximum
neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of
black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (whereas neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white) such that V
(G) isn’t turned black after finitely many applications of “the
Volume 2 | Issue 6 | 255
color-change rule”: a white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is
converted to a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex if it is the
only white neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor of a black neu-
trosophic SuperHyperVertex with the additional condition
is referred by “1-” about the usage of any black neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex only once to act on white neutrosophic Su-
perHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex.
It implies that extreme number of neutrosophic 1-failed Super-
HyperForcing has, the most neutrosophic cardinality, the upper
sharp bound for neutrosophic cardinality, is |V | − 2. Thus it in-
duces that the extreme number of neutrosophic 1-failed Super-
HyperForcing has, the most neutrosophic cardinality, the upper
sharp bound for neutrosophic cardinality, is the extreme neutro-
sophic cardinality of V \ {x,z} if there’s an neutrosophic 1-failed
SuperHyperForcing with the most neutrosophic cardinality,
the upper sharp bound for neutrosophic cardinality. Thus if a
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has some neutrosophic Super-
HyperVertices, then, with excluding two distinct neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices, the all number of those neutrosophic Su-
perHyperVertices from that neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge be-
long to any neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Thus, in
a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion SuperHyperGraph
NSHG : (V,E), there’s a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has only
two distinct neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices outside of neu-
trosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. In other words, here’s a
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has only two distinct white neu-
trosophic SuperHyperVertices. In a connected neutrosophic Su-
perHyperNotion SuperHyperGraph NSHG : (V,E), the all exteri-
or neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong to any neutrosophic
1-failed SuperHyperForcing if there’s one of them such that
there are only two interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are
mutually neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors. Thus in a con-
nected neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion SuperHyperGraph
NSHG : (V,E), any neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing
only contains all interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and
all exterior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices where there’s any
of them has two neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors out.
Remark 3.8. The words “neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyper-
Forcing” and “neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating” refer to
the maximum type-style and the minimum type-style. In other
words, they refer to both the maximum[minimum] number and
the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet with the maximum[minimum]
neutrosophic cardinality.
Proposition 3.9. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHy-
perNotion SuperHyperGraph NSHG : (V,E). An neutrosophic
1-failed SuperHyperForcing contains the neutrosophic Super-
HyperDominating.
Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion
SuperHyperGraph NSHG : (V,E). By applying the Proposition
(3.7), the results are up. Thus in a connected neutrosophic Supe-
rHyperNotion SuperHyperGraph NSHG : (V,E), an neutrosophic
1-failed SuperHyperForcing contains the neutrosophic Super-
HyperDominating. nality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of black neutrosophic
J Math Techniques Comput Math, 2023
4. Results on Neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses
Proposition 4.1. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Path NSHP : (V,E). Then an 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyp-
Forcing-style with the maximum neutrosophic cardinality is a
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the exterior neutrosophic Super-
HyperVertices.
Proposition 4.2. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Path NSHP : (V,E). Then an 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Forcing is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the exterior neu-
trosophic SuperHyperVertices and the interior neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices with only two exceptions in the form of
interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from the same neu-
trosophic SuperHyperEdge. An 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHy-
perForcing has the neutrosophic number of all the neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices minus two. Thus,
Neutrosophic 1 - failedSuperHyperForcing = fThe number-of-
all
-the-SuperHyperVertices
-minus-on-two-numbers-of-interior-SuperHyperNeighbors
SuperHyperSets of the
SuperHyperVertices j min jthe
SuperHyperSets of the SuperHyperVertices with only
two exceptions in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices from
any same
SuperHyperEdge.jneutrosophic cardinality amid those Super-
HyperSets.g
Where σi is the unary operation on the SuperHyperVertices of the
SuperHyperGraph to assign the determinacy, the indeterminacy
and the neutrality, for i = 1,2,3, respectively.
Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperPath
NSHP : (V,E). Let a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has some
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Consider some neutrosophic
numbers of those neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from that
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge excluding three distinct neutro-
sophic SuperHyperVertices, belong to any given neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Con-
sider there’s an 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing with
the most neutrosophic cardinality, the upper sharp bound for
neutrosophic cardinality. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of
the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices V \ {x,y,z} is a neutro-
sophic SuperHyperSet S of black neutrosophic SuperHyperVer-
tices (whereas neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are
colored white) such that V (G) isn’t turned black after finitely
many applications of “the color-change rule”: a white neutro-
sophic SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white neutrosophic SuperHy-
perNeighbor of a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex with the
additional condition is referred by “1-” about the usage of any
black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex only once to act on white
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic Supe-
rHyperVertex but it isn’t an 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Forcing. Since it doesn’t have the maximum neutrosophic cardi-
SuperHyperVertices (whereas neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
in V (G) \ S are colored white) such that V (G) isn’t turned black
Volume 2 | Issue 6 | 256
after finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: a
white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white neutro-
sophic SuperHyperNeighbor of a black neutrosophic Super-
HyperVertex with the additional condition is referred by “1-”
about the usage of any black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex
only once to act on white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to be
black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex. The neutrosophic Super-
HyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices V \ {x} is the
maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHy-
perSet S of black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (whereas
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white)
but it isn’t an 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Since it
doesn’t do the procedure such that V (G) isn’t turned black after
finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: a white
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black neutro-
sophic SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white neutrosophic Su-
perHyperNeighbor of a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex
with the additional condition is referred by “1-” about the usage
of any black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex only once to act on
white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex [there’s at least one white without any white
neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor outside implying there’s, by
the connectedness of the connected neutrosophic neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph NSHG : (V,E), a neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Vertex, titled its neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, to the neu-
trosophic SuperHyperSet S does the “the color-change rule”.].
There’re only two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices outside
the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, V \ {x,z}. Thus the
obvious 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing, V \ {x,z},
is up. The obvious simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
of the 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing, V \ {x,z}, is a
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, only two neutrosophic SuperHy-
perVertices are titled in a connected neutrosophic neutrosophic
SuperHyperNeighbors neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph NSHG :
(V,E). Since the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosoph-
ic SuperHyperVertices 1905 V \ {x,z} is the maximum neutro-
sophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of black
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (whereas neutrosophic Su-
J Math Techniques Comput Math, 2023
perHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white) such that V
(G) isn’t turned black after finitely many applications of “the
color-change rule”: a white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex
is converted to a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex if it is
the only white neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor of a black
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex with the additional condition
is referred by “1-” about the usage of any black neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex only once to act on white neutrosophic Su-
perHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex. It
implies that neutrosophic number of 1-failed neutrosophic Supe-
rHyperForcing has, the most neutrosophic cardinality, the upper
sharp bound for neutrosophic cardinality, is Thus it induces that
the neutrosophic number of 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Forcing has, the most neutrosophic cardinality, the upper sharp
bound for neutrosophic cardinality, is the neutrosophic cardinal-
ity of V \ {x,z} if there’s an 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Forcing with the most neutrosophic cardinality, the upper sharp
bound for neutrosophic cardinality. Thus if a neutrosophic Supe-
rHyperEdge has some neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, then,
with excluding two distinct neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
the all neutrosophic number of those neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Vertices from that neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge belong to any
1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Thus, in a connect-
ed neutrosophic neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph NSHG : (V,E),
there’s a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has only two distinct
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices outside of 1-failed neutro-
sophic SuperHyperForcing. In other words, here’s a neutrosoph-
ic SuperHyperEdge has only two distinct white neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices. In a connected neutrosophic neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph NSHG : (V,E), the all exterior neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices belong to any 1-failed neutrosophic Supe-
rHyperForcing if there’s one of them such that there are only
two interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are mutually neu-
trosophic SuperHyperNeighbors. Then an 1-failed neutrosophic
SuperHyperForcing is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the ex-
terior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and the interior neutro-
sophic SuperHyperVertices with only two exceptions in the form
of interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from the same
Volume 2 | Issue 6 | 257
Figure 21: A neutrosophic SuperHyperPath
Figure Associated to the NotionsSuperHyperPath
21. A neutrosophic of 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing
Associated in the
to the Notions of Example
1-failed
(4.3) neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing in the Example (4.3)

neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. An 1-failed neutrosophic Supe- Example 4.3. In the Figure (21), the connected neutrosophic
rHyperForcing has the neutrosophicneutrosophic number of all SuperHyperEdge. An 1-failed neutrosophic
the neutro- SuperHyperPath NSHP : (V,E),SuperHyperForcing has theBy
is highlighted and featured. 1937

sophic SuperHyperVertices minus two. Thus, neutrosophic number of all the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices minus two.
using the Figure (21) and the Table (4), the neutrosophicThus,
Super- 1938

_
Neutrosophic 1 failedSuperHyperForcing =N{The number-of- HyperPath is obtained.
eutrosophic 1 − f ailedSuperHyperF orcing = {The number-of-all
all The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet,
-the-SuperHyperVertices -the-SuperHyperVertices {V1,V2,V5,V6,V7,V8,V9,V10,V11,V12,V13,V14,V15,V16,V17,V18,V19,V20,
-minus-on-two-numbers-of-interior-SuperHyperNeighbors V21,V22,V23,V24,V25,V26,V27,V28,V29}, of the neutrosophic Super-
-minus-on-two-numbers-of-interior-SuperHyperNeighbors
SuperHyperSets of the SuperHyperSets of the HyperVertices of the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperPath
SuperHyperVertices | min|the SuperHyperVerticesNSHP (V,E), in the neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (21), is the
| min:|the
SuperHyperSets of the SuperHyperVertices with only 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing.
two exceptions in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices SuperHyperSets fromof the SuperHyperVertices with only
any same two exceptions in the Proposition 4.4. Assume
form of interior a connected neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices from anySuperHyper-
same
SuperHyperEdge.|neutrosophic cardinality amid those SuperHyperSets.}
SuperHyperEdge.| Cycle NSHC : (V,E).
neutrosophic cardinality amid those SuperHyperSets. }
Where σi is the unary operation on the SuperHyperVertices of Then an 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing is a neutro-
the SuperHyperGraph to Where σi is the unary operation sophic
on SuperHyperSet of
the SuperHyperVertices of the SuperHyperGraph to 1939

assign the determinacy, the indeterminacy and the neutrality, for

assign the determinacy, the indeterminacy and the neutrality, for i = 1, 2, 3, 1940

i = 1,2,3, respectively. 1941

respectively. Example 4.3. In the Figure (21), the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperPath 1942

N SHP : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. By using the Figure (21) and the Table 1943
The Values of The Vertices The Number ofisPosition
(4), the neutrosophic SuperHyperPath obtained. in Alphabet 1944

The Values of The SuperVertices The maximum Values of Its Vertices

The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, 1945

The Values of The Edges The maximum Values of Its Vertices

{V1 , V2 , V5 , V6 , V7 , V8 , V9 , V10 , V11 , V12 , V13 , V14 , V15 , V16 , V17 , V18 ,
The Values of The HyperEdges The maximum Values of Its Vertices
V19 , V20 , V21 , V22 , V23 , V24 , V25 , V26 , V27 , V28 , V29 },
The Values of The SuperHyperEdges The maximum Values of Its Endpoints
of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperPath
Table 4: The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHy-perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic
1946

N SHP : (V, E), in the neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (21), is the 1-failed neutrosophic
SuperHyperPath Mentioned in the Example (4.3)
1947

SuperHyperForcing. 1948
the exterior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and the interior Part. Thus,
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with only two exceptions
Proposition 4.4. Assume in aNeutrosophic 1 _ failedSuperHyperForcing
connected neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle=N{The SHCnumber-of-
: (V, E). 1949

the form of interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from the allSuperHyperForcing is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of
Then an 1-failed neutrosophic 1950

same neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. An 1-failed neutrosoph- -the-SuperHyperVertices

ic SuperHyperForcing has the neutrosophic number of all the -minus-on-2-numbers-of-same-exterior-SuperHyperPart
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices minus on the 2 neutrosophic SuperHyperSets of the
numbers excerpt the same exterior neutrosophic SuperHyper- SuperHyperVertices j min jthe SuperHyperSets of the
63/128
J Math Techniques Comput Math, 2023 Volume 2 | Issue 6 | 258
SuperHyperVertices with only
two exceptions in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices
from same
neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge.|neutrosophic cardinality amid those Super-
HyperSets.}
Where σi is the unary operation on the SuperHyperVertices of the
SuperHyperGraph to assign the determinacy, the indeterminacy
and the neutrality, for i = 1,2,3, respectively.
Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle
NSHC : (V,E). Let a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has some
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Consider some neutrosophic
numbers of those neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from that
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge excluding three distinct neutro-
sophic SuperHyperVertices, belong to any given neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Con-
sider there’s an 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing with
the most neutrosophic cardinality, the upper sharp bound for
neutrosophic cardinality. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of
the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices V \ {x,y,z} is a neutro-
sophic SuperHyperSet S of black neutrosophic SuperHyperVer-
tices (whereas neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are
colored white) such that V (G) isn’t turned black after finitely
many applications of “the color-change rule”: a white neutro-
sophic SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white neutrosophic SuperHy-
perNeighbor of a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex with the
additional condition is referred by “1-” about the usage of any
black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex only once to act on white
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic Supe-
rHyperVertex but it isn’t an 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Forcing. Since it doesn’t have the maximum neutrosophic cardi-
nality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of black neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices (whereas neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
in V (G) \ S are colored white) such that V (G) isn’t turned black
after finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: a
white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white neutro-
sophic SuperHyperNeighbor of a black neutrosophic Super-
HyperVertex with the additional condition is referred by “1-”
about the usage of any black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex
only once to act on white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to be
black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex. The neutrosophic Super-
HyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices V \ {x} is the
maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHy-
perSet S of black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (whereas
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white)
but it isn’t an 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Since it
doesn’t do the procedure such that V (G) isn’t turned black after
finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: a white
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black neutro-
sophic SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white neutrosophic Su-
J Math Techniques Comput Math, 2023
perHyperNeighbor of a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex
with the additional condition is referred by “1-” about the usage
of any black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex only once to act on
white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex [there’s at least one white without any white
neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor outside implying there’s, by
the connectedness of the connected neutrosophic neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph NSHG : (V,E), a neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Vertex, titled its neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, to the neu-
trosophic SuperHyperSet S does the “the color-change rule”.].
There’re only two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices outside
the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, V \ {x,z}. Thus the
obvious 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing, V \ {x,z},
is up. The obvious simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
of the 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing, V \ {x,z}, is
a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, only two neutrosophic Supe-
rHyperVertices are titled in a connected neutrosophic neutro-
sophic SuperHyperNeighbors neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph
NSHG : (V,E). Since the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 2006 V \ {x,z} is the maxi-
mum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
S of black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (whereas neutro-
sophic SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white) such
that V (G) isn’t turned black after finitely many applications of
“the color-change rule”: a white neutrosophic SuperHyperVer-
tex is converted to a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex if it
is the only white neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor of a black
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex with the additional condition
is referred by “1-” about the usage of any black neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex only once to act on white neutrosophic Su-
perHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex. It
implies that neutrosophic number of 1-failed neutrosophic Supe-
rHyperForcing has, the most neutrosophic cardinality, the upper
sharp bound for neutrosophic cardinality, is Thus it induces that
the neutrosophic number of 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Forcing has, the most neutrosophic cardinality, the upper sharp
bound for neutrosophic cardinality, is the neutrosophic cardinal-
ity of V \ {x,z} if there’s an 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Forcing with the most neutrosophic cardinality, the upper sharp
bound for neutrosophic cardinality. Thus if a neutrosophic Supe-
rHyperEdge has some neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, then,
with excluding two distinct neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
the all neutrosophic number of those neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Vertices from that neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge belong to any
1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Thus, in a connect-
ed neutrosophic neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph NSHG : (V,E),
there’s a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has only two distinct
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices outside of 1-failed neutro-
sophic SuperHyperForcing. In other words, here’s a neutrosoph-
ic SuperHyperEdge has only two distinct white neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices. In a connected neutrosophic neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph NSHG : (V,E), the all exterior neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices belong to any 1-failed neutrosophic Super-
HyperForcing if there’s
Volume 2 | Issue 6 | 259
Figure 22: A neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle
Figure 22.Associated to the Notions
A neutrosophic of 1-failed neutrosophic
SuperHyperCycle AssociatedSuperHyperForcing
to the Notions in
of the Example
1-failed
(4.5) neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing in the Example (4.5)

one of them such that there are only two interior neutrosophic two exceptions in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices
SuperHyperVertices are mutually one neutrosophic that there arefrom
of them suchSuperHyper- onlysame
two interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are 2033
Neighbors. Then an 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing neutrosophic
mutually neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors. Then an 1-failed neutrosophic 2034

is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the exterior neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge.|neutrosophic cardinality amid those SuperHyperSets.}
SuperHyperForcing is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the exterior neutrosophic 2035

SuperHyperVertices and the interior neutrosophic SuperHy-

SuperHyperVertices and the interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with only two 2036

perVertices with only two exceptions in the form of interior Where σi is the unary operation on the SuperHyperVertices of
exceptions in the form of interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from the same 2037

neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from the same neutrosophic the SuperHyperGraph to assign the determinacy, the indetermi-
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. An 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing has the 2038

SuperHyperEdge. An 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing nacy and the neutrality, for i = 1,2,3,
neutrosophic number of all the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices minus on the 2 2039

has the neutrosophic number of all the neutrosophic SuperHy- respectively.

neutrosophic numbers excerpt the same exterior neutrosophic SuperHyperPart. Thus, 2040

perVertices minus on the 2 neutrosophic numbers excerpt the

N eutrosophic 1 − f ailedSuperHyperF orcing = {The number-of-all
same exterior neutrosophic SuperHyperPart. Thus, Example 4.5. In the Figure (22), the connected neutrosophic
Neutrosophic 1 − failedSuperHyperForcing =-the-SuperHyperVertices
{The number-of- SuperHyperCycle NSHC : (V,E), is highlighted and featured. By
all using the Figure (22) and the Table (5), the neutrosophic Super-
-minus-on-2-numbers-of-same-exterior-SuperHyperPart
-the-SuperHyperVertices SuperHyperSets of the HyperCycle is obtained.
-minus-on-2-numbers-of-same-exterior-SuperHyperPart
SuperHyperVertices | min |the SuperHyperSets of the
SuperHyperSets of the The obtained neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in
SuperHyperVertices | min|the SuperHyperSetsSuperHyperVertices
of the SuperHy- previous with only
result, of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the
perVertices with only two exceptions in the connected
form ofneutrosophic SuperHyperCycle
interior SuperHyperVertices
from same
The Values of The Vertices The Number of Position in Alphabet
neutrosophic
The Values of The SuperVertices The maximum Values of Its Vertices
SuperHyperEdge.|neutrosophic cardinality amid those SuperHyperSets. }
The Values of The Edges The maximum Values of Its Vertices
The Values of The HyperEdges
Where σ i is the unary The maximum
operation Values of Its Vertices
on the SuperHyperVertices of the SuperHyperGraph to 2041
assign the determinacy, the indeterminacy and the neutrality, for i = 1, 2, 3,
The Values of The SuperHyperEdges The maximum Values of Its Endpoints
2042

respectively. 2043

Table 5: The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHy-perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic
SuperHyperCycle Mentioned in the Example
Example 4.5.(4.5)
In the Figure (22), the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle 2044

N SHC : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. By using the Figure (22) and the Table
NSHC : (V;E); in the neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (22), is the SuperHyperVertices, excluding the neutrosophic SuperHyper-
2045

(5), the neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle is obtained.

1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Center, with only one exception in the form of interior neutro-
2046

The obtained neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of 2047

sophic SuperHyperVertices from any given neutrosophic Supe-
the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle 2048
Proposition 4.6. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyper- rHyperEdge. An 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing has
Star NSHS : (V,E). = Then an 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHy- the neutrosophic number of the neutrosophic cardinality of the
perForcing is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of= the exterior second neutrosophic SuperHyperPart minus one. Thus,
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and the interior neutrosophic
66/128
J Math Techniques Comput Math, 2023 Volume 2 | Issue 6 | 260
Neutrosophic 1 − failedSuperHyperForcing = {The number-of-
all
-the-SuperHyperVertices
-of-the-cardinality-of-second-SuperHyperPart-minus-one
SuperHyperSets of the
SuperHyperVertices | min|the SuperHyperSets of the SuperHy-
perVertices with only
two exceptions in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices from
any given SuperHyperEdge.|neutrosophic cardinality amid those SuperHyperSets.}
Where σi is the unary operation on the SuperHyperVertices of the
SuperHyperGraph to assign the determinacy, the indeterminacy
and the neutrality, for i = 1,2,3, respectively.
Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperStar NSHS
: (V,E). Let a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has some neutro-
sophic SuperHyperVertices. Consider some neutrosophic num-
bers of those neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from that neutro-
sophic SuperHyperEdge excluding three distinct neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices, belong to any given neutrosophic Supe-
rHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Consider
there’s an 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing with the
most neutrosophic cardinality, the upper sharp bound for neutro-
sophic cardinality. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neu-
trosophic SuperHyperVertices V \ {x,y,z} is a neutrosophic Supe-
rHyperSet S of black neutrosophicSuperHyperVertices (whereas
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white)
such that V (G) isn’t turned black after finitely many applications
of “the color-change rule”: a white neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Vertex is 2 converted to a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex
if it is the only white neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor of a
black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex with the additional condi-
tion is referred by “1-” about the usage of any black neutrosoph-
ic SuperHyperVertex only once to act on white neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex
but it isn’t an 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Since
it doesn’t have the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neu-
trosophic SuperHyperSet S of black neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Vertices (where as neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in V (G)
\ S are colored white) such that V (G) isn’t turned black after
finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: a white
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black neutro-
sophic SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white neutrosophic
SuperHyperNeighbor of a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVer-
tex with the additional condition is referred by “1-” about the
usage of any black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex only once to
act on white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to be black neutro-
sophic SuperHyperVertex. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of
the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices V \ {x} is the maximum
neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of
black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (whereas neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white) but it isn’t
an 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Since it doesn’t do
the procedure such that V (G) isn’t turned black after finitely
J Math Techniques Comput Math, 2023
many applications of “the color-change rule”: a white neutro-
sophic SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white neutrosophic SuperHy-
perNeighbor of a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex with
the additional condition is referred by “1-” about the usage of
any black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex only once to act on
white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex [there’s at least one white without any white
neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor outside implying there’s, by
the connectedness of the connected neutrosophic neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph NSHG : (V,E), a neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Vertex, titled its neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, to the neu-
trosophic SuperHyperSet S does the “the color-change rule”.].
There’re only two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices outside
the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, V \ {x,z}. Thus the
obvious 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing, V \ {x,z}, is
up. The obvious simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the
1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing, V \ {x,z}, is a neutro-
sophic SuperHyperSet, only two neutrosophic SuperHyperVer-
tices are titled in a connected neutrosophic neutrosophic Super-
HyperNeighbors neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph NSHG : (V,E).
Since the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Su-
perHyperVertices V \ {x,z} is the maximum neutrosophic card-
nality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of black neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices (whereas neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
in V (G) \ S are colored white) such that V (G) isn’t turned black
after finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: a
white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white neutro-
sophic SuperHyperNeighbor of a black neutrosophic Super-
HyperVertex with the additional condition is referred by “1-”
about the usage of any black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex
only once to act on white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to
be black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex. It implies that neu-
trosophic number of 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing
has, the most neutrosophic cardinality, the upper sharp bound
for neutrosophic cardinality, is Thus it induces that the neutro-
sophic number of 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing
has, the most neutrosophic cardinality, the upper sharp bound
for neutrosophic cardinality, is the neutrosophic cardinality of
V \ {x,z} if there’s an 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing
with the most neutrosophic cardinality, the upper sharp bound
for neutrosophic cardinality. Thus if a neutrosophic SuperHyp-
erEdge has some neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, then, with
excluding two distinct neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, the all
neutrosophic number of those neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
from that neutrosophic SuperHyperEdgebelong to any 1-failed
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Thus, in a connected neutro-
sophic neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph NSHG : (V,E), there’s
a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has only two distinct neutro-
sophic SuperHyperVertices outside of 1-failed neutrosophic
SuperHyperForcing. In other words, here’s a neutrosophic Su-
perHyperEdge has only two distinct white neutrosophic Super-
HyperVertices. In a connected neutrosophic
Volume 2 | Issue 6 | 261
Figure 23: A neutrosophic SuperHyperStar
Figure Associated to the Notions
23. A neutrosophic of 1-failed neutrosophic
SuperHyperStar SuperHyperForcing
Associated to the Notionsin of
the1-failed
Example
(4.7) neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing in the Example (4.7)
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph NSHG : (V,E), the all exterior -the-SuperHyperVertices
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices neutrosophic 1-failed neu- -of-the-cardinality-of-second-SuperHyperPart-minus-one
belong to anySuperHyperGraph N SHG : (V, E), the all exterior neutrosophic 2133
trosophic SuperHyperForcing if there’s one of them such
SuperHyperVertices that toSuperHyperSets
belong of the
any 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing if there’s 2134
there are only two interior neutrosophic
one ofSuperHyperVertices
them such that there are areSuperHyperVertices
only two interior| neutrosophic
min|the SuperHyperSets
SuperHyperVertices of the SuperHy- are 2135
mutually neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors. Then an 1-failed
mutually neutrosophic perVertices with only
SuperHyperNeighbors. Then an 1-failed neutrosophic 2136
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing is a neutrosophic SuperHyp-
SuperHyperForcing two exceptions
is a neutrosophic in the formofofthe
SuperHyperSet interior
exteriorSuperHyperVertices
neutrosophic from 2137
erSet of the exterior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
SuperHyperVertices and andthe any given
the interior SuperHyperEdge.|
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
neutrosophic cardinality amidexcluding the} 2138
those SuperHyperSets.
interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, excluding
neutrosophic the neutro- with only one exception in the form of interior
SuperHyperCenter, 2139
sophic SuperHyperCenter, with only one exception
neutrosophic in the form Where
SuperHyperVertices σi isany
from the unary
given operation
neutrosophicon theSuperHyperEdge.
SuperHyperVerticesAn of the 2140
of interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices given SuperHyperGraph
from any SuperHyperForcing
1-failed neutrosophic has theto neutrosophic
assign the determinacy,
number of thethe indeterminacy 2141
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Anneutrosophic
1-failed neutrosophic of theand
Super-
cardinality the neutrality,
second for i =SuperHyperPart
neutrosophic 1,2,3, respectively.minus one. Thus, 2142
HyperForcing has the neutrosophic number of the neutrosophic
cardinality of the second neutrosophic SuperHyperPart
N eutrosophicminus1 −Example 4.7. In the Figure
f ailedSuperHyperF orcing(23),
= {The the number-of-all
connected neutrosophic
one. Thus, -the-SuperHyperVerticesSuperHyperStar : (V,E), is highlighted and featured. By
using the Figure (23) and the Table (6), the neutrosophic Supe-
-of-the-cardinality-of-second-SuperHyperPart-minus-one
Neutrosophic 1 − failedSuperHyperForcing = {The number-of- rHyperStar is obtained.
all SuperHyperSets of the
SuperHyperVertices | min |the SuperHyperSets of the
The Values of The Vertices The Number of Position in Alphabet
SuperHyperVertices with only
The Values of The SuperVertices The maximum Values of Its Vertices
two exceptions in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices from any
The Values of The Edges The maximum Values of Its Vertices
given SuperHyperEdge.|neutrosophic cardinality amid those SuperHyperSets. }
The Values of The HyperEdges The maximum Values of Its Vertices
The Values of The SuperHyperEdges
Where σ i is the unary Theon
operation maximum Values of Its Endpoints
the SuperHyperVertices of the SuperHyperGraph to 2143
assign the determinacy, the indeterminacy and the neutrality, for i = 1, 2, 3, 2144
Table 6: The Values of Vertices, respectively.
SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHy-perEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic 2145
SuperHyperStar Mentioned in the Example (4.7)
Example 4.7. In the Figure (23), the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperStar
The obtained neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in HyperForcing is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the exterior
2146

N SHS : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. By using the Figure (23) and the Table
previous result, of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and the interior neutrosophic
2147

(6), the neutrosophic SuperHyperStar is obtained.

connected neutrosophic SuperHyperStar NSHS : (V,E), in the SuperHyperVertices with only two exceptions in the form of in-
2148

neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (23), is the 1-failed neutrosoph- terior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from same neutrosophic
ic SuperHyperForcing. SuperHyperEdge. An 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing
has the neutrosophic number of the neutrosophic cardinality of
Proposition 4.8. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyper- the first neutrosophic SuperHyperPart minus one plus the sec-
Bipartite NSHB : (V,E). Then an 1-failed neutrosophic Super- ond neutrosophic SuperHyperPart minus one. Thus, 69/128
J Math Techniques Comput Math, 2023 Volume 2 | Issue 6 | 262
Neutrosophic 1 − failedSuperHyperForcing = {The number-of-
all
-the-SuperHyperVertices
-minus-on-the-cardinality-of-first-SuperHyperPart-minus-1
-plus-second-SuperHyperPart-minus-1
SuperHyperSets of the SuperHyperVertices | min| the SuperHy-
perSets of the
SuperHyperVertices with only two exceptions in the form of inte-
rior SuperHyperVertices from same SuperHyperEdge.
|neutrosophic cardinality amid those SuperHyperSets.}
Where σi is the unary operation on the SuperHyperVertices of the
SuperHyperGraph to assign the determinacy, the indeterminacy
and the neutrality, for i = 1,2,3, respectively.
Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite
NSHB : (V,E). Let a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has some
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Consider some neutrosoph-
ic numbers of those neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from that
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge excluding three distinct neutro-
sophic SuperHyperVertices, belong to any given neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Con-
sider there’s an 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing with
the most neutrosophic cardinality, the upper sharp bound for
neutrosophic cardinality. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of
the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices V \ {x,y,z} is a neutro-
sophic SuperHyperSet S of black neutrosophic SuperHyperVer-
tices (whereas neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are
colored white) such that V (G) isn’t turned black after finitely
many applications of “the color-change rule”: a white neutro-
sophic SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white neutrosophic SuperHy-
perNeighbor of a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex with the
additional condition is referred by “1-” about the usage of any
black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex only once to act on white
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic Supe-
rHyperVertex but it isn’t an 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Forcing. Since it doesn’t have the maximum neutrosophic cardi-
nality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of black neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices (whereas neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
in V (G) \ S are colored white) such that V (G) isn’t turned black
after finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: a
white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white neutro-
sophic SuperHyperNeighbor of a black neutrosophic Super-
HyperVertex with the additional condition is referred by “1-”
about the usage of any black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex
only once to act on white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to be
black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex. The neutrosophic Supe-
rHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices V \ {x} is
the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic Super-
HyperSet S of black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (whereas
J Math Techniques Comput Math, 2023
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white)
but it isn’t an 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Since it
doesn’t do the procedure such that V (G) isn’t turned black after
finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: a white
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black neutro-
sophic SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white neutrosophic
SuperHyperNeighbor of a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVer-
tex with the additional condition is referred by “1-” about the
usage of any black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex only once
to act on white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to be black neu-
trosophic SuperHyperVertex [there’s at least one white without
any white neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor outside implying
there’s, by the connectedness of the connected neutrosophic
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph NSHG : (V,E), a neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex, titled its neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor,
to the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S does the “the color-change
rule”.]. There’re only two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
outside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, V \ {x,z}.
Thus the obvious 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing,
V \ {x,z}, is up. The obvious simple type-neutrosophic Super-
HyperSet of the 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing, V \
{x,z}, is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, only two neutrosoph-
ic SuperHyperVertices are titled in a connected neutrosophic
neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Graph NSHG : (V,E). Since the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of
the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices V \ {x,z} is the maximum
neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of
black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (whereas neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white) such that V
(G) isn’t turned black after finitely many applications of “the
color-change rule”: a white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is
converted to a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex if it is the
only white neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor of a black neu-
trosophic SuperHyperVertex with the additional condition is
referred by “1-” about the usage of any black neutrosophic Su-
perHyperVertex only once to act on white neutrosophic Supe-
rHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex. It
implies that neutrosophic number of 1-failed neutrosophic Supe-
rHyperForcing has, the most neutrosophic cardinality, the upper
sharp bound for neutrosophic cardinality, is Thus it induces that
the neutrosophic number of 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Forcing has, the most neutrosophic cardinality, the upper sharp
bound for neutrosophic cardinality, is the neutrosophic cardinal-
ity of V \ {x,z} if there’s an 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Forcing with the most neutrosophic cardinality, the upper sharp
bound for neutrosophic cardinality. Thus if a neutrosophic Supe-
rHyperEdge has some neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, then,
with excluding two distinct neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices,
the all neutrosophic number of those neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Vertices from that neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge belong to any
1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Thus, in a connected
neutrosophic
Volume 2 | Issue 6 | 263
 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
Table 7: The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyper-Edges Belong to The Neutrosophic
SuperHyperBipartite Mentioned in the Example (4.9)

neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph NSHG : (V,E), there’s a neutro-
sophic SuperHyperEdge has only two distinct neutrosophic Su-
perHyperVertices outside of 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Forcing. In other words, here’s a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge
has only two distinct white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices.
In a connected neutrosophic neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph
NSHG : (V,E), the all exterior neutrosophic SuperHyperVerti-
ces belong to any 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing if
there’s one of them such that there are only two interior neu-
trosophic SuperHyperVertices are mutually neutrosophic Su-
perHyperNeighbors. Then an 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHy-
perForcing is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the exterior
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and the interior neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices with only two exceptions in the form of in-
terior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from same neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge. An 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing
has the neutrosophic number of the neutrosophic cardinality of
the first neutrosophic SuperHyperPart minus one plus the second
neutrosophic SuperHyperPart minus one. Thus,
Neutrosophic 1 − failedSuperHyperForcing = {The number-of-
all
-the-SuperHyperVertices
-minus-on-the-cardinality-of-first-SuperHyperPart-minus-1
-plus-second-SuperHyperPart-minus-1
SuperHyperSets of the SuperHyperVertices | min| the SuperHy-
perSets of the
SuperHyperVertices with only two exceptions in the form of in-
terior SuperHyperVertices from same SuperHyperEdge.
|neutrosophic cardinality amid those SuperHyperSets.}
Where σi is the unary operation on the SuperHyperVertices of
the SuperHyperGraph to assign the determinacy, the indetermi-
nacy and the neutrality, for i = 1,2,3, respectively.
Example 4.9. In the Figure (24), the connected neutrosophic Su-
perHyperBipartite NSHB : (V,E), is highlighted and featured. By
using the Figure (24) and the Table (7), the neutrosophic Supe-
rHyperBipartite NSHB : (V,E), is obtained. The obtained neutro-
sophic SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of
the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the connected neutro-
sophic SuperHyperBipartite NSHB : (V,E), in the neutrosophic
SuperHyperModel (24), is the 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHy-
perForcing.
Proposition 4.10. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHy-
perMultipartite NSHM : (V,E). Then an 1-failed neutrosophic
SuperHyperForcing is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the ex-
terior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and the interior neutro-
sophic SuperHyperVertices with only one exception in the form
of interior

Figure 24. A neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of 1-failed

Figure 24: A neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite Associated to the Notions of 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing in the
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing in the Example (4.9)
Example (4.9)
J Math Techniques Comput Math, 2023 Volume 2 | Issue 6 | 264
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from a neutrosophic SuperHyperPart and only one 2260

exception in the form of interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from another 2261

neutrosophic SuperHyperPart. An 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing has the 2262

neutrosophic number of all the summation on the neutrosophic cardinality of the all 2263

neutrosophic SuperHyperParts minus two excerpt distinct neutrosophic SuperHyperParts. 2264

neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from a neutrosophic Super-
HyperPart and only one exception in the form of interior neu-
trosophic SuperHyperVertices from another neutrosophic Supe-
rHyperPart. An 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing has
the neutrosophic number of all the summation on the neutro-
sophic cardinality of the all neutrosophic SuperHyperParts mi-
nus two excerpt distinct neutrosophic SuperHyperParts. Thus,
Neutrosophic 1 − failedSuperHyperForcing = {The number-of-
all
-the-summation
-on-cardinalities-of-SuperHyperParts-minus-two-excerpt-Supe-
rHyperParts
SuperHyperSets of the SuperHyperVertices | min|the SuperHy-
perSets of the
SuperHyperVertices with only one exception in the form of inte-
rior SuperHyperVertices from a SuperHyperPart and only one
exception in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices from an-
other SuperHyperPart. |neutrosophic cardinality amid those SuperHyperSets.}
Where σi is the unary operation on the SuperHyperVertices of the
SuperHyperGraph to assign the determinacy, the indeterminacy
and the neutrality, for i = 1,2,3, respectively.
Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperMulti-
partite NSHM : (V,E). Let a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has
some neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Consider some neutro-
sophic numbers of those neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from
that neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge excluding three distinct
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, belong to any given neutro-
sophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices.
Consider there’s an 1-failed neutrosophicSuperHyperForcing
with the most neutrosophic cardinality, the upper sharp bound
for neutrosophic cardinality. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices V \ {x,y,z} is a neutro-
sophic SuperHyperSet S of black neutrosophic SuperHyperVer-
tices (whereas neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are
colored white) such that V (G) isn’t turned black after finitely
many applications of “the color-change rule”: a white neutro-
sophic SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white neutrosophic SuperHy-
perNeighbor of a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex with the
additional condition is referred by “1-” about the usage of any
black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex only once to act on white
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic Supe-
rHyperVertex but it isn’t an 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Forcing. Since it doesn’t have the maximum neutrosophic cardi-
nality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of black neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices (whereas neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
in V (G) \ S are colored white) such that V (G) isn’t turned black
after finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: a
white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white neutro-
sophic SuperHyperNeighbor of a black neutrosophic Super-
HyperVertex with the additional condition is referred by “1-”
about the usage of any black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex
only once to act on white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to be
black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex. The neutrosophic Super-
J Math Techniques Comput Math, 2023
HyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices V \ {x} is the
maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHy-
perSet S of black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (whereas
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white)
but it isn’t an 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Since it
doesn’t do the procedure such that V (G) isn’t turned black after
finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: a white
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black neutro-
sophic SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white neutrosophic Su-
perHyperNeighbor of a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex
with the additional condition is referred by “1-” about the usage
of any black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex only once to act on
white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex [there’s at least one white without any white
neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor outside implying there’s, by
the connectedness of the connected neutrosophic neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph NSHG : (V,E), a neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Vertex, titled its neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, to the neu-
trosophic SuperHyperSet S does the “the color-change rule”.].
There’re only two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices outside the
intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, V \ {I}. Thus the obvious
1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing, V \ {x,z}, is up. The
obvious simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the 1-failed
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing, V \ {x,z}, is a neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet, only two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are
titled in a connected neutrosophic neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Neighbors neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph NSHG : (V,E). Since
the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHy-
perVertices V \ {x,z} is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of
a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of black neutrosophic Super-
HyperVertices (whereas neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in V
(G) \ S are colored white) such that V (G) isn’t turned black after
finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: a white
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black neutro-
sophic SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white neutrosophic Su-
perHyperNeighbor of a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex
with the additional condition is referred by “1-” about the usage
of any black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex only once to act on
white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to be black neutrosoph-
ic SuperHyperVertex. It implies that neutrosophic number of
1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing has, the most neutro-
sophic cardinality, the upper sharp bound for neutrosophic cardi-
nality, is Thus it induces that the neutrosophic number of 1-failed
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing has, the most neutrosophic
cardinality, the upper sharp bound for neutrosophic cardinality,
is the neutrosophic cardinality of V \ {x,z} if there’s an1-failed
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing with the most neutrosophic
cardinality, the upper sharp bound for neutrosophic cardinality.
Thus if a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has some neutrosoph-
ic SuperHyperVertices, then, with excluding two distinct neu-
trosophic SuperHyperVertices, the all neutrosophic number of
those neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from that neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge belong to any 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHy-
perForcing. Thus, in a connected neutrosophic neutrosophic Su-
perHyperGraph NSHG : (V,E), there’s a neutrosophic SuperHy-
perEdge has only two distinct neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
outside of 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. In other
words, here’s a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has only two
Volume 2 | Issue 6 | 265
distinct white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. In a connect-
ed neutrosophic neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph NSHG : (V,E),
the all exterior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices belong to any
1-failed neutrosophi SuperHyperForcing if there’s one of them
such that there are only two interior neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Vertices are mutually neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors. Then
an 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing is a neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet of the exterior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
and the interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices with only one
exception in the form of interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVerti-
ces from a neutrosophic SuperHyperPart and only one exception
in the form of interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from
another neutrosophic SuperHyperPart. An 1-failed neutrosophic
SuperHyperForcing has the neutrosophic number of all the sum-
mation on the neutrosophic cardinality of the all neutrosophic
SuperHyperParts minus two excerpt distinct neutrosophic Supe-
rHyperParts. Thus,
Neutrosophic 1 − failedSuperHyperForcing = {The number-of-
all
-the-summation
-on-cardinalities-of-SuperHyperParts-minus-two-excerpt-Supe-
rHyperParts
SuperHyperSets of the SuperHyperVertices | min|the SuperHy-
perSets of the
SuperHyperVertices with only one exception in the form of in-
terior SuperHyperVertices from a SuperHyperPart and only one
exception in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices from an-
other SuperHyperPart.| neutrosophic cardinality amid those SuperHyperSets.}
Where σi is the unary operation on the SuperHyperVertices of
the SuperHyperGraph to assign the determinacy, the indetermi-
nacy and the neutrality, for i = 1,2,3, respectively.
Example 4.11. In the Figure (25), the connected neutrosophic
SuperHyperMultipartite NSHM : (V,E), is highlighted and fea-
tured. By using the Figure (25) and the Table (8), the neutro-
sophic SuperHyperMultipartite NSHM : (V,E), is obtained.
The obtained neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in
previous result, of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the
connected neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite NSHM : (V,E),
in the neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (25), is the 1-failed neu-
trosophic SuperHyperForcing.
Proposition 4.12. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHy-
perWheel NSHW : (V,E). Then an 1-failed neutrosophic Super-
HyperForcing is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the exterior
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and the interior neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices, excluding the neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Center, with only one exception in the form of interior neutro-
sophic SuperHyperVertices from any given neutrosophic Supe-
rHyperEdge. An 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing has
the neutrosophic number of all the neutrosophic number of all
the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges minus two neutrosophic
numbers excerpt two neutrosophic

Figure 25: A neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to

Figure 25. A neutrosophic the Notions of 1-failed neutrosophic
SuperHyperMultipartite Associated SuperHyperForcing
to the Notions ofin the
Example (4.11) 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing in the Example (4.11)

J Math Techniques Comput Math, 2023 Volume 2 | Issue 6 | 266

Table 8. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyper-

 The Values of The Vertices
The Values of The SuperVertices
The Values of The Edges
The Values of The HyperEdges
The Values of The SuperHyperEdges
Table 8: The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyper-Edges Belong to The Neutrosophic
SuperHyperMultipartite NSHM : (V;E); Mentioned in the Example (4.11)
SuperHyperNeighbors. Thus,
Neutrosophic 1 − failed SuperHyperForcing =
{The number-of-all-the-SuperHyperVertices
-minus-the-number-of-all-the-SuperHyperEdges
-minus-two-numbers-excerpt-two-
SuperHyperNeighbors SuperHyperSets of the
SuperHyperVertices | min|the SuperHyperSets of the SuperHy-
perVertices, excluding the SuperHyperCenter with only
one exception in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices from
any given
SuperHyperEdge.|neutrosophic cardinality amid those SuperHyperSets.}
Where σi is the unary operation on the SuperHyperVertices of the
SuperHyperGraph to assign the determinacy, the indeterminacy
and the neutrality, for i = 1,2,3, respectively.
Proof. Assume a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel
NSHW : (V,E). Let a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has some
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Consider some neutrosophic
numbers of those neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from that
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge excluding three distinct neutro-
sophic SuperHyperVertices, belong to any given neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Con-
sider there’s an 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing with
the most neutrosophic cardinality, the upper sharp bound forneu-
trosophic cardinality. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices V \ {x,y,z} is a neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet S of black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
(whereas neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices V (G) \ S are colored
white) such that V (G) isn’t turned black after finitely many ap-
plications of “the color-change rule”: a white neutrosophic Supe-
rHyperVertex is converted to a black neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Vertex if it is the only white neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor
of a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex with the additional
condition is referred by “1-” about the usage of any black neu-
trosophic SuperHyperVertex only once to act on white neutro-
sophic SuperHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Vertex but it isn’t an 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing.
Since it doesn’t have the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of
a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of black neutrosophic Super-
HyperVertices (whereas neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in V
(G) \ S are colored white) such that V (G) isn't turned black after
finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: a white
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black neutro-
sophic SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white neutrosophic
SuperHyperNeighbor of a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVer-
tex with the additional condition is referred by “1-” about the
usage of any black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex only once to
act on white neutrosophicSuperHyperVertex to be black neutro-
J Math Techniques Comput Math, 2023
The Number of Position in Alphabet
The maximum Values of Its Vertices
The maximum Values of Its Vertices
The maximum Values of Its Vertices
The maximum Values of Its Endpoints
sophic SuperHyperVertex. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of
the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices V \ {x} is the maximum
neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of
black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (whereas neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white) but it isn’t
an 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Since it doesn’t do
the procedure such that V (G) isn’t turned black after finitely
many applications of “the color-change rule”: a white neutro-
sophic SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white neutrosophic SuperHy-
perNeighbor of a black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex with
the additional condition is referred by “1-” about the usage of
any black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex only once to act on
white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to be black neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex [there’s at least one white without any white
neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor outside implying there’s, by
the connectedness of the connected neutrosophic neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph NSHG : (V,E), a neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Vertex, titled its neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, to the neu-
trosophic SuperHyperSet S does the “the color-change rule”.].
There’re only two neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices outside
the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, V \ {x,z}. Thus the
obvious 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing, V \ {x,z}, is
up. The obvious simple type-neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the
1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing, V \ {x,z}, is a neutro-
sophic SuperHyperSet, only two neutrosophic SuperHyperVer-
tices are titled in a connected neutrosophic neutrosophic Super-
HyperNeighbors neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph NSHG : (V,E).
Since the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic Su-
perHyperVertices V \ {x,z} is the maximum neutrosophic cardi-
nality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of black neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices (whereas neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
in V (G) \ S are colored white) such that V (G) isn’t turned black
after finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: a
white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white neutro-
sophic SuperHyperNeighbor of a black neutrosophic Super-
HyperVertex with the additional condition is referred by “1-”
about the usage of any black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex
only once to act on white neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to
be black neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex. It implies that neu-
trosophic number of 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing
has, the most neutrosophic cardinality, the upper sharp bound
for neutrosophic cardinality, is Thus it induces that the neutro-
sophic number of 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing
has, the most neutrosophic cardinality, the upper sharp bound
for neutrosophic cardinality, is the neutrosophic cardinality of
V \ {x,z} if there’s an 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing
with the most neutrosophic cardinality, the upper sharp bound
Volume 2 | Issue 6 | 267
for neutrosophic cardinality. Thus if a neutrosophic SuperHyp-
erEdge has some neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, then, with
excluding two distinct neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices, the
all neutrosophic number of those neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Vertices from that neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge belong to any
1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Thus, in a connect-
ed neutrosophic neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph NSHG : (V,E),
there’s a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has only two distinct
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices outside of 1-failed neutro-
sophic SuperHyperForcing. In other words, here’s a neutrosoph-
ic SuperHyperEdge has only two distinct white neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices. In a connected neutrosophic neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph NSHG : (V,E), the all exterior neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices belong to any 1-failed neutrosophic Supe-
rHyperForcing if there’s one of them such that there are only
two interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are mutually neu-
trosophic SuperHyperNeighbors. Then an 1-failed neutrosoph-
ic SuperHyperForcing is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the
exterior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and the interior neu-
trosophic SuperHyperVertices, excluding the neutrosophic Su-
perHyperCenter, with only one exception in the form of interior
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices from any given neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdge. An 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing
has the neutrosophic number of all the neutrosophic number of
all the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges minus two neutrosophic

Figure 26: A neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel

Figure 26.Associated to the Notions
A neutrosophic of 1-failed neutrosophic
SuperHyperWheel SuperHyperForcing
Associated to the Notionsinofthe1-failed
Example
(4.13) neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing in the Example (4.13)

Table
The Values of The 9. The Values of Vertices,
Vertices SuperVertices,
The Number Edges,
of Position HyperEdges, and SuperHyper-
in Alphabet
Edges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E), Mentioned in
The Values of The SuperVertices
the Example (4.13) The maximum Values of Its Vertices
The Values of The EdgesThe Values of The Vertices
The maximum Values of Its Vertices
The Number of Position in Alphabet
The Values of The HyperEdges The maximum Values
The Values of The SuperVertices of Its Vertices
The maximum Values of Its Vertices
The Values of The SuperHyperEdges
The Values of The The maximum Values of Its Endpoints
Edges The maximum Values of Its Vertices
The Values of The HyperEdges The maximum Values of Its Vertices
Table 9: The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and SuperHyper-Edges Belong to The Neutrosophic
The Values of The SuperHyperEdges The maximum Values of Its Endpoints
SuperHyperWheel NSHW : (V;E); Mentioned in the Example (4.13)

numbers excerpt two neutrosophicnumbers

SuperHyperNeighbors. Thus, By using
excerpt two neutrosophic the Figure (26) and the
SuperHyperNeighbors. Table (9), the neutrosophic Su-2456
Thus,
Neutrosophic 1 − failed SuperHyperForcing = perHyperWheel NSHW : (V,E), is obtained.
{The number-of-all-the-SuperHyperVerticesN eutrosophic 1 − f ailed SuperHyperF orcing =
-minus-the-number-of-all-the-SuperHyperEdges The obtained neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in
{The number-of-all-the-SuperHyperVertices
-minus-two-numbers-excerpt-two- previous result, of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices of the
SuperHyperNeighbors SuperHyperSets of the -minus-the-number-of-all-the-SuperHyperEdges
connected neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel NSHW : (V,E), in the
SuperHyperVertices | min|the SuperHyperSets of the SuperHy- neutrosophic SuperHyperModel (26), is the 1-failed neutrosoph-
-minus-two-numbers-excerpt-two-
perVertices, excluding the SuperHyperCenter with only
SuperHyperNeighbors icSuperHyperSets
SuperHyperForcing. of the
one exception in the form of interior SuperHyperVertices from
SuperHyperVertices | min |the SuperHyperSets of the
any given SuperHyperEdge.|neutrosophic cardinality amid those SuperHyperSets.} 5. General Results
SuperHyperVertices, For excluding the SuperHyperCenter
the 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing, and the neu-
Where σi is the unary operation on the SuperHyperVertices
with only of trosophic 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing, some gen-
the SuperHyperGraph to assign the determinacy, the indetermi-
one exception in the eral
formresults are introduced.
of interior SuperHyperVertices from any given
nacy and the neutrality, for i = 1,2,3, respectively.
SuperHyperEdge.|neutrosophic cardinality amid those SuperHyperSets. }
Remark 5.1. Let remind that the neutrosophic 1-failed neutro-
Example 4.13. In the Figure (26), the connected neutrosophic
Where σi is the unary operation sophic SuperHyperForcingis
on the SuperHyperVertices “redefined” on the positions oftothe2457
of the SuperHyperGraph
SuperHyperWheel NSHW : (V,E),assign is highlighted and featured. alphabets.
the determinacy, the indeterminacy and the neutrality, for i = 1, 2, 3, 2458

respectively. Volume 2 | Issue 6 | 268

J Math Techniques Comput Math, 2023
2459

Example 4.13. In the Figure (26), the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel 2460

N SHW : (V, E), is highlighted and featured. By using the Figure (26) and the Table 2461

(9), the neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel N SHW : (V, E), is obtained. 2462

The obtained neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, by the Algorithm in previous result, of 2463

Corollary 5.2. Assume 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForc- partite, neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel). Then its neutrosophic
ing. Then 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing isn’t well-defined if
and only if its1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing isn’t
Neutrosophic 1 − failedneutrosophicSuperHyperForcing = well-defined.
{the1 − failedneutrosophicSuperHyperForcingoftheneutrosoph-
icSuperHyperV ertices max|neutrosophicSuperHyperDefensive- Corollary 5.11. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then
neutrosophicSuperHyper its neutrosophic 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing is
Alliances|neutrosophiccardinalityamidthose1−failedneutrosophicSuperHyperForcing.}
well-defined if and only if its 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyper-
Forcing is well-defined.
Where σi is the unary operation on the neutrosophic SuperHy-
perVertices of the neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph to assign the Corollary 5.12. Assume neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of a
determinacy, the indeterminacy and the neutrality,Corollary
for i = 1,2,3,5.11.neutrosophic
Assume aSuperHyperGraph. Then its neutrosophic
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then 1-failed
its neutrosophic
respectively. 1-failed neutrosophicneutrosophic SuperHyperForcing
SuperHyperForcing is well-defined
is well-defined if and ifonly
and ifonly
its if
1-failed
its 1-failed neutrosophic
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing SuperHyperForcing is well-defined.
is well-defined.
Corollary 5.3. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the
Corollary 5.12. Assume neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of a neutrosophic
same identical letter of the alphabet. Then the notion of neutro- Corollary 5.13. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/neu-
SuperHyperGraph. Then its neutrosophic 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing
sophic 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing and 1-failed trosophic SuperHyperCycle, neutrosophic SuperHyperStar, neu-
well-defined if and only if its 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing is well-defin
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing coincide. trosophic SuperHyperBipartite, neutrosophic SuperHyperMulti-
Corollary 5.13. Assume
partite, a neutrosophic
neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/neutrosophic
SuperHyperWheel). Then its neutrosophic
Corollary 5.4. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph SuperHyperCycle,
on 1-failedneutrosophic SuperHyperStar,
neutrosophic neutrosophic
SuperHyperForcing SuperHyperBipartite,
is well-defined if and
neutrosophic
the same identical letter of the alphabet. Then a consecutive se- SuperHyperMultipartite, neutrosophic
only if its 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel).
SuperHyperForcing Then its
is well-de-
quence of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is neutrosophic
a neutrosoph- 1-failed
fined. neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing is well-defined if and only if
ic 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing if and1-failed neutrosophic
only if it’s an SuperHyperForcing is well-defined.
1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Proposition 5.14. Proposition
Let N SHG 5.14. Let NSHG
: (V, E) be: (V,E) be a neutrosophic
a neutrosophic SuperHy-
SuperHyperGraph. Then
is perGraph. Then V is
Corollary 5.5. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on (i) : the dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neu-
(i) : the dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic
the same identical letter of the alphabet. Then a consecutive se- trosophic SuperHyperForcing;
SuperHyperForcing;
quence of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is a strongest (ii) : the strong dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed
neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle if and only if it’s a(ii) longest
: theneu-
strongneutrosophic
dual neutrosophicSuperHyperForcing;
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic
trosophic SuperHyperCycle. (iii) : the connected dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperForcing;
1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing;
(iii) : the connected dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic
Corollary 5.6. Assume neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of a (iv) : the δ-dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed
SuperHyperForcing;
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph on the same identical letter of neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing;
the alphabet. Then its neutrosophic1-failed neutrosophic
(iv) : the Supe-
δ-dual(v) : the strong
neutrosophic δ-dual neutrosophic1-failed
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDefensive
neutrosophic
rHyperForcing is its 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing;
SuperHyperForcing;
and reversely. (vi) : the connected δ-dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive
(v) : the strong δ-dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic
1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing.
SuperHyperForcing;
Corollary 5.7. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/neu-
trosophic SuperHyperCycle, neutrosophic SuperHyperStar,
(vi) : theneu- Proof.
connected Suppose
δ-dual NSHG : (V,E)
neutrosophic is a neutrosophic 1-failed
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyper-neutrosophic
trosophic SuperHyperBipartite, neutrosophic SuperHyperMulti- Graph. Consider V. All neutrosophic SuperHyperMembers of V
SuperHyperForcing.
partite, neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel) on the same Proof. Suppose have
identical N SHG at least
: (V,one
E) neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor
is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. insideConsider
the V.
letter of the alphabet. Then its neutrosophic 1-failed neutrosoph- neutrosophic SuperHyperSet more than
neutrosophic SuperHyperMembers of V have at least one neutrosophic neutrosophic SuperHy-
SuperHyper- perNeighbor
ic SuperHyperForcing is its 1-failed neutrosophicSuperHyperNeighbor inside out
theofneutrosophic
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
SuperHyperSet. Thus,
more than neutrosop
Forcing and reversely. SuperHyperNeighbor out of neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus, 1-failed
(i). V is the dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive
(i). V is the neutrosophic
dual neutrosophicSuperHyperForcing since the following
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed statements
neutrosophic
Corollary 5.8. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then are equivalent.
SuperHyperForcing since the following statements are equivalent.
its neutrosophic 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing isn’t
well-defined if and only if its 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyper- ∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
Forcing isn’t well-defined. ∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > |N (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > |N (a) ∩ ∅| ≡
Corollary 5.9. Assume neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of a
∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then its neutrosophic 1-failed
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing isn’t well-defined if and only if ∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡
its 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing isn’t well-defined. ∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
(ii). V is the
(ii). V is the strong dual neutrosophicstrong dual SuperHyperDefensive
neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive
1-failed neutrosophic
Corollary 5.10. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/neu- 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing
SuperHyperForcing since the following statements are equivalent. since the follow-
trosophic SuperHyperCycle, neutrosophic SuperHyperStar, neu- ing statements are equivalent.
trosophic SuperHyperBipartite, neutrosophic SuperHyperMulti- ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡
J Math Techniques Comput Math, 2023 Volume 2 | Issue 6 | 269
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |Ns (a) ∩ ∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
 ∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
strong dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 2538

Forcing since the following statements are equivalent. 2539

sive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing;
∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡ (iv) : the δ-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutro-
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡ sophic SuperHyperForcing;
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |Ns (a) ∩ ∅| ≡ (v) : the strong δ-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing;
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡
(v) : the strong (vi) : the connected
δ-neutrosophic δ-neutrosophic 1-failed
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDefensive
neutrosophic
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡ the strong1-failed
(v) : SuperHyperForcing; neutrosophic
δ-neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing.
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0. (v) : the strong δ-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic
SuperHyperForcing;
(v): :the
the strong δ-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic
(vi) SuperHyperForcing;
connected δ-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic
(iii). V is the connected dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive Proof.
SuperHyperForcing; Suppose NSHG : (V,E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyper-
1-failed (vi) : SuperHyperForcing.
the connected δ-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic
e connected dual neutrosophic
neutrosophicSuperHyperForcing
SuperHyperDefensive since1-failed
the
(vi)following
: neutrosophic Graph.δ-neutrosophic
the connected Consider ∅. All
2540
neutrosophic SuperHyperMembers
SuperHyperDefensive of
1-failed neutrosophic
s the connected
statements dual are neutrosophic
equivalent. SuperHyperDefensive (vi)1-failed
: the neutrosophic
SuperHyperForcing.
∅
connected have no neutrosophic
2540
δ-neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor
SuperHyperDefensive inside
1-failed the neu-
neutrosophic
Forcing
the since the
connected dualfollowing statements are equivalent. Proof. SuperHyperForcing.
Suppose N SHG 2541: (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider ∅. A
perForcing since theneutrosophic
following statements SuperHyperDefensiveare equivalent. 1-failed neutrosophic
trosophic :SuperHyperSet less than neutrosophic SuperHyper-
the connected dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic
SuperHyperForcing.
25402541
2540
erForcing since the following statements are equivalent. neutrosophic
Proof. SupposeSuperHyperMembers
N
81/128 SHG (V, E) is of ∅ have
a neutrosophic no neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph. SuperHyperNeighbor
Consider ∅. A
erForcing since ∀a ∈the S, following
|Nc (a) ∩ statements
S| > |Nc (a)are ∩ (Vequivalent.
\ S)| ≡ inside Proof. SupposeNeighbor N SHG2541 out
: (V,
2541 of neutrosophic
E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus,
SuperHyperGraph. Consider ∅.
∀a ∈ S, |Nc (a) ∩ S| > |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| Proof. the
neutrosophic
≡ neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
SuperHyperMembers of ∅less
have thanno neutrosophic
neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor
SuperHyperNeighbor
Suppose
neutrosophic N SHG
(i). is the
SuperHyperMembers
∅ : (V, E) is aof
neutrosophic neutrosophic
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGraph.
∅ have no neutrosophic 1-failed Consider ∅.
neutro-
SuperHyperNeighbo
∀a∀a ∈∈ S,|N
V,S, c (a) ∩∩ V |S|
S|>V>>|N c (a) ∩∩ (V(V \V )| ≡≡ of neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus, less than neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor
∀a ∀a∈ ∈ V,|N
|N c
|N (a)
c (a) ∩
c (a) ∩ |> |N
|N c
|N(a)
c (a) ∩
c (a) (V
∩ (V \
\ S)|
\ V≡
S)| )|inside
≡ the
neutrosophic
inside
neutrosophic
sophic
the neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet
SuperHyperMembers
SuperHyperForcing
SuperHyperSet of ∅ have since
less nothe
than neutrosophic
following
neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbo
statements are
SuperHyperNeighbo
∀a∀a ∈ V,
∈ V, |N |N (a) ∩
(a) V
∩ |
V >| |N
> |N (a) (a)∩ ∅|
∩ ≡
(V \ V )| ≡of (i). ∅ is
neutrosophic the neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet. SuperHyperDefensive
Thus, less 1-failed neutrosophic
∀a∀a ∈∈ V,V,|N|N c c (a)
c ∩
(a) V
∩ |V >| > c
|N c (a)
|N
c ∩
(a) (V
∩ ∅| \≡V )| ≡ inside
of the neutrosophic
neutrosophic equivalent. SuperHyperSet
SuperHyperSet. Thus, than neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbo
c c SuperHyperForcing since the SuperHyperDefensive
(i). ∅ is the neutrosophic following statements are equivalent.
1-failed neutrosophic
∀a∀a ∈∈ of neutrosophic SuperHyperSet.
(i). ∅ is the neutrosophic Thus,
∀a ∀a∈ V,|N
V,V,
∈ V,|Nc (a)
|N ∩V
(a)
c (a)
c
|N ∩ |∩
∩
c (a) V>||V>
V |∅||N
>|> |N≡c (a)
c (a)
|∅| ≡∩ ∩ ∅|∅| ≡≡ SuperHyperForcing since the
SuperHyperDefensive
following statements
1-failed neutrosophic
are equivalent.
∀a∀a ∈∈ (i). ∅ is the neutrosophic
SuperHyperForcing since∀athe ∈ SuperHyperDefensive
S,following
|N (a) ∩statementsS| < |N (a)1-failed are neutrosophic
equivalent.
∀a ∀a V,|N
V,V,
∈ ∈ V,|Nc (a)
|N ∩V
(a)
c (a)
c
|N ∩ |∩
∩ V>||V>
V 0≡
>|> |∅|0≡
|∅| ≡≡ ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
c (a) SuperHyperForcing since the following statements are equivalent.
∀a∀a ∈∈ V,V, ∀a∀a∈∈∅,S, |N |N(a) (a)∩∩∅|S|<<|N|N(a) (a)∩∩(V(V\ \∅)| S)|≡≡
∀a ∀a∈ V,δV,>
∈ |Nδ0.
|N > 0.∩
(a)
c (a)
c ∩V V || >>0 0≡ ≡ ∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0. ∀a∀a
∀a ∈∈∈ ∅,
∅,S, |N
|∅||N (a)
< (a)|N ∩∩ ∅|
S|
(a) <
∩< |N
(V|N (a)
\(a) ∩
∅)|∩ (V
≡ (V \ \∅)|
S)| ≡≡
(iv). V∀ais∈the
δ-dual neutrosophic V,δ-dualδ > 0.neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 1-failed 2542
∀a ∈ ∅, |N (a) ∩ ∅| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
the δ-dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic ∀a
∀a ∈ ∅, 0|∅| << |N∩(a) ∩ |(V \ ∅)| ≡ \ ∅)| ≡
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing since the following statements ∀a ∀a∈∈∈∅,∅, ∅, |N (a)
|N
< (a) ∅|∩< V∩|N ≡(a) ∩ (V
2542
Forcing
he δ-dualsince
δ-dual the following
neutrosophic statements are equivalent.
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 2543 |∅| |N (a) (V \ ∅)| ≡
perForcing
he since the following
neutrosophic statements are 1-failed
SuperHyperDefensive equivalent. neutrosophic 25422543
are equivalent. ∀a
2542
∀a ∀a
∀a ∈∈∈∅,∅,
∈ ∅,∅, 00|∅|
<
0
<<
<|N|N|N
|N
(a)
(a) (a)
(a)∩∩V∩
∩
V|(V
V
|≡≡\ ∅)| ≡
| ≡
erForcing since
erForcing since thethe following
following statements are are equivalent.
|(N (a) ∩ S)statements − (N (a) ∩ (V \equivalent.
2543
∀a ∈ S, S))| > δ ≡ 2543
∀a
∀a ∈ ∅, δ00> < 0. |N (a) ∩V|≡
∀a ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ S))| > δ ≡ ∀a ∀a∈∈∈V,∅, ∅, 0< <|N |N(a)(a)∩∩VV||≡ ≡
∀a∀a ∈
∀a∀a V,
∈
∈∈ S,|(N |(N
S,V,|(N (a) ∩
(a) V
∩
∩∩
(a)(a) )
S)− (N
−
S)V−) (N (N (a) (a)∩
(a)(a) (V
∩
∩ (V(V \ V
\ ))|
S))|
\ S))| > > δ ≡
δ
> δ>≡δ ≡ ≡ ∀a
∀a ∈∈ V,∅, δ0 >< 0.
|N (a) ∩ V | ≡
|(N − (N ∩ (V \ V ))| (ii). neutrosophic
∅ is the∀a strong neutrosophic
∈ V,SuperHyperDefensive
δ > 0. SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed
∀a∀a ∈∈ ≡ >(ii). ∅ is the strong 1-failed neutrosophic
∀a ∀a∈ V,|(N
V,V,
∈ V,|(N
|(N (a)(a)
|(N
∩V
(a) ∩ )∩
∩
(a) V−))V−
V (N(N
−)− (N(a)(a)
(N(a)∩ (∅))|
(a)∩
∩∩ (V >
\
\V
(V(∅))| Vδ ))|
> δ>
))| ≡ δδ ≡≡
SuperHyperForcing neutrosophic ∀a ∈ V, δ
SuperHyperForcing> 0. since the following statements
(ii). ∅ is the strong since the following
neutrosophic statements are equivalent.
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic
∀a∀a∀a∈∈
∀a∈ V,|(N
V,V,
∈ |(N
V,|(N
(a)(a)
|(N
∩V
(a) ∩ )∩
∩
(a) V−))V−
V (∅)|
−)−
>(a)
(N(∅)|
(N (a) δ≡ ∩ (∅))|
∩
> (∅))|
δ≡ > > δδ ≡ ≡ (ii). ∅ is the strong neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic
are equivalent.
SuperHyperForcing
(ii). since
∅ is the strong neutrosophic the following statements are equivalent.
∀a∀a ∈∈ V,|(N
V,V, (a)(a) ∩V ∩ )| >− δ.(∅)| > SuperHyperForcing since
∀a the |NSuperHyperDefensive
∈ S,following statements are equivalent.
s (a) ∩ S| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
1-failed neutrosophic
∀a ∀a∈ ∈ V,|(N
|(N |(N (a) ∩
(a) V
V ))V
∩ − > δ.> δδ ≡
)| (∅)| ≡ SuperHyperForcing since the following statements are equivalent.
∀a ∀a∈∈∅,S, |N
∀a |Ns s(a)(a)∩∩∅|S|<<|N|N s (a)
s (a) ∩∩(V(V\ \∅)| S)|≡≡
∀a ∈ ∈ V, |(N
V, |(N (a) (a) ∩ V
V )|
)| >> δ.
∩SuperHyperDefensive
δ. ∀a ∈ S, |N s (a) ∩ S| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
(v).
strong δ-dual V is the
neutrosophic strong δ-dual neutrosophic
the strong δ-dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive
1-failed neutrosophic 2544
∀a 2544∈
Forcing ∀a∀a ∈∈∅,∅, S,|∅| |N
|N< ss(a)|N∩∩(a)
(a) ∅|S|< |N
∩<(V
2545 ∀a ∈ ∅, |Ns (a)s∩ ∅| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
|Ns\(a) ∅)|∩∩
s (a) ≡(V(V\\∅)| S)|≡≡
strong 1-failed
since the neutrosophic
following statements
the followingSuperHyperForcing
he strong δ-dual are equivalent. since the following
perForcing
he sinceneutrosophic
δ-dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive
statements are equivalent.
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed
1-failed neutrosophic
neutrosophic 25442545
∀a ∈ ∅, 0|∅| |N(a) ∩ \ ∅)|∩≡
statementsthe are equivalent. ∀a
2544
∀a ∀a∈∈∈∅,∅, ∅, |N <s<
|∅| (a)
|N
< s|N ∩s (a)
∅|∩< |(V≡s (a)
V |N (V \ ∅)| ≡
erForcing
erForcing∀a since
since following statements
statements are are equivalent. s (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∈ S,the |(Nfollowing equivalent. 2545
s (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S))| > δ ≡
2545
∀a
∀a ∈ ∅, 00|∅| <|N |N|N (a) ∩∩V∩V|(V|≡≡\ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S))| > δ ≡ ∀a ∀a∈∈∈∅,∅, ∅, 0<<< |N s (a)
ss(a)
s (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a∀a ∈ V,
∈ S,|(N|(N (a) ∩
(a) V
∩ )
S)− (N
− (N (a) (a) ∩ ∩(V (V \ V\ ))|
S))| > >δ ≡
δ ≡ ∀a
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |N (a) ∩ V |≡
∀a∈∈∈V,∅, ∅,δ00>< <0.|N (a)∩∩VV||≡
|Nsss(a)
∀a∀a ∈∈ S,V,|(N s ∩∩ S)V−) (N s ∩ (V \ S))| > δ>≡δ ≡ ∀a
|(Ns (a)
s
s (a) − (N s (a)
s
s (a) ∩ (V \ V ))| ≡
∀a∀a ∈
∀a∀a V,
∈∈
∈ |(N|(N
V,V,|(N
V, (a)
s s (a) ∩
(a) ∩V
∩∩ ) −
V ))V−
V (N
− (N (a)
s s (a)
(N ∩
(a) ∩ (∅))|
∩∩ >
\V
(V(∅))|
(V \ δ ≡
V ))|
))| >≡δδ ≡ ≡ ∀a
∀a ∈∈ V,∅, δ0 > <>0. |N s (a) ∩ V | ≡
|(Ns s (a) )− (Ns s (a) > δ> ∀a ∈ V, δ 0.
∀a∀a ∈∈ (iii). ∅ is the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic
∀a ∀a∈ V,|(N
V,V,
∈ |(Ns (a)
V,|(N |(Ns (a)
s ∩V
(a) ∩ )∩
∩
s (a) V−))V−
V (∅)|
−)− (N >
(N(∅)| δ ≡∩ (∅))| >
(a)
s (a)>∩δ(∅))|
s ≡ > δδ ≡ ≡SuperHyperForcing (iii). since ∀a the∈following
∅ isneutrosophic
the V, δ > 0.statements
connected neutrosophic are SuperHyperDefensive
equivalent.
(iii). ∅ is the connected SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic
∀a∀a ∈ V,
∈ V,|(N|(N (a) ∩
(a) V
∩ )|
V )> − δ.(∅)| > δ ≡ (iii). ∅ is the connected neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic
∀a∀a ∈∈ V,V,|(N s
|(Ns (a)
s s ∩
(a) V
∩ )V −)| (∅)|
> δ. > δ ≡ SuperHyperForcing 1-failedsince neutrosophic
the following SuperHyperForcing
statements are since
equivalent.the following
(iii). ∅ is the connected
SuperHyperForcing since neutrosophic
the following SuperHyperDefensive
statements are 1-failed
equivalent. ≡ neutrosophic
nnected δ-dual
∀a ∈ V,
∀a ∈1-failed |(N (a)
V, |(Nsneutrosophic
s ∩ V )| > δ.
(a) ∩ V )| > δ.SuperHyperForcing SuperHyperForcing statements
since the following since
∀a are
∈ equivalent.
S, |N c (a) ∩ S| < |N c (a) ∩ (V \ S)|
connected δ-dual 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing since the following ∀a
2546 the following statements are equivalent.
∀a 2546∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∈ ∅, |Nc (a) c ∩ ∅| < |Nc (a) c ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
re equivalent. 2547 ∀a ∈ S, |N c (a) ∩ S| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
onnected δ-dual
(vi).
ts are equivalent.
onnected δ-dual V is1-failed
connected
1-failed neutrosophic
δ-dual 1-failed
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing
neutrosophic SuperHyper-
SuperHyperForcing since
since thethe following
following 2546 2547
∀a∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| |N< (a)|N∩ ∅|S|< |N|Nc\(a) ∅)|∩∩≡(V(V\\∅)| S)|≡≡
∀a∈∈∈∅,S, ∅, |N |Nccc(a) c∩ <(V c (a)
2546
∀a ∩(a)∅|∩< |N
are
are equivalent.
Forcing (a) c (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∈ S, since
equivalent. the∩following
S) − (Ncstatements
(a) ∩ (V \are equivalent. 2547
∀a |(Nc (a) S))| >δ≡ 2547
∀a∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, |(Nc (a) ∩ S) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S))| > δ ≡ ∀a ∀a∈∈∈∅,∅, ∅,0|N <c|N
|∅| (a)
< c|N ∩c ∅|
(a) ∩<V |N| ≡c (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
c (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡
∀a∀a ∈
∀a∀a V,
∈
∈∈ S,|(N|(N
S,V,|(N c (a) ∩
(a) V
∩
∩∩ )
S)− (N
−
S)V−) (N (Nc (a) (a) ∩ ∩(V
∩ (V(V \ V
\ ))|
S))|
\ S))| >> δ ≡
δ
> δ>≡δ ≡ ≡ ∀a∀a ∈∈ ∅,
∅, 0
∀a∀a∈ ∈∅,∅,0 0<<|N|N|∅|< <|N |N (a) ∩ V
∩
c ∩ V |(V
(a) |≡≡\ ∅)| ≡
|(Nc (a)
c
c (a) − (N c (a)
c
c (a) ∩ (V \ V ))| cc(a)
c (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a∀a ∈
∀a∀a V,
∈∈ |(N|(N
V,V,|(N (a) ∩
(a) ∩V
∩∩ ) −
V ))V−(N
− (N (a) ∩
(a) ∩ (∅))|
∩∩ >
\V
(V(∅))| δ ≡
V ))|
))| >≡δδ ≡ ≡ ∀a∀a ∈ ∅, δ00> < 0. |Ncc(a) ∩V|≡
∀a∈∈∈V,∅, ∅, 0< <|N |Nc(a) (a)∩∩VV||≡
∈ V, c c (a) V c c (a)
(N (V \ ∀a
|(N c c (a) )− (Nc c (a) > δ> ≡
∀a∀a ∈
∀a∀a V,
∈
∈∈ V,|(N|(N
V,V,|(N c (a) ∩
(a)
c (a) V
∩
∩ )
V
V −)
) (∅)|
−
− (N
(N > δ
(a) ≡ ∩
c (a)>∩δ(∅))|(∅))| >
> δ
δ ≡
≡ ∀a∀a ∈∈ V,
∅, δ
0 >
< 0.
|N (a) ∩ V | ≡
|(N c c (a) ∩ V ) − (∅)|
c ≡ ∀aSuperHyperDefensive
∈ V, δ > 0. c
∀a∀a ∈∈ (iv). ∅ is the δ-neutrosophic 1-failed neutrosophic
∀a ∀a∈ V,|(N
V,V,
∈ V,|(N
|(N c (a)
|(N
∩V
(a)
c (a)
c ∩ )|
∩
c (a)
V
∩
>−
V ))V − δ.(∅)| >
> δ.> δδ ≡
)| (∅)| ≡ ∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.statements are equivalent.
SuperHyperForcing (iv). since
(iv). ∅ is the δ-neutrosophic ∅ is the the δ-neutrosophic
following
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neu-
1-failed neutrosophic
∀a
∀a ∈ V, |(N
∈ V, |(Ncc (a) (a) ∩∩V V )|
)| >> δ. (iv). ∅ is the δ-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic
δ. SuperHyperForcing
(iv). trosophic 2548 SuperHyperForcing
since
∅ is the δ-neutrosophic the following since
statements the following
are statements
equivalent. are
SuperHyperForcing since
∀a ∈2548 theSuperHyperDefensive
S, following
|(N (a) ∩ S)statements
− (N (a) ∩ 1-failed
are neutrosophic
(V equivalent.
\ S))| <δ≡
SuperHyperForcing equivalent.
since 2548 the following statements are equivalent.
n 5.15. Let N T G : (V,
Proposition 5.15. E, σ, µ) be a (V,E,σ,µ)
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Super- ThenThen ∀a2548∈∅,S, |(N |(N(a) (a)∩∩∅)S)−−(N (a)∩∩(V(V\ \∅))| S))|<<δ δ≡≡
: (V,Let E,NTGσ, µ): be be a neutrosophic ∀a ∀a∈2549
(N(a)
2549
tion 5.15. Let N T G a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. ∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ S))| <δ≡
on 5.15. HyperGraph.
Let N T G : Then
(V, E, ∅ is
σ, µ) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then 2550
∀a
∀a ∈∈ ∅, |(N
|(N (a) ∩ ∩ ∅) − − (N (a) ∩ ∩ (V \\∅))| < δ ≡≡
on 5.15. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then ∀a ∀a ∈ ∅, |(N (a) ∩ ∅) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ ∅))| < δδ ≡
∈ ∅,S, |(N (a)(a) ∩ ∅) S)− (N(N(a) (a) ∩ (V(V))| <S))|
δ ≡ <
25492550
2549
(i) : the neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosoph- ∀a2550∈∈∅,∅, |(N ∩∩ ∅) − (N (a) ∩∩ (V ≡
<(a) ))| < δ <
2550
trosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing; ∀a
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing; ∀a ∈∅,
∀a∈2551 |(N
∅,|∅| (a)
δ≡ ∩∅)∅)− −(N (N(a) (a) ∩(V (V \))|∅))|
< δ ≡δ ≡
2551
ic SuperHyperForcing;
neutrosophic |(N (a)
eutrosophic ∀a
∀a ∈∈∈V,∅,∅, 0|∅|
|(N<<δ. (a) δ≡ ∩ ∅) − (N (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
eutrosophic
ong (ii) :SuperHyperDefensive
neutrosophicthe strong
SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic1-failed
SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic
SuperHyperDefensive
1-failed neutrosophic
1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing;
1-failed neu-
SuperHyperForcing; ∀a
2552
2551
∀a
2551 ∈ ∅, |∅| < δ ≡
strong neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic ∀a 2552
∈∈ V, 0 <<δ.δ ≡
trosophic SuperHyperForcing; 1-failed neutrosophic
yperForcing;
trong
∀a
∀a
2553
∈∅, V, |∅| 0 < δ.
trong neutrosophic
neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive
perHyperForcing; SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 25522553
(iii) : the connected defensive neutrosophic SuperHyperDefen-
2552
rHyperForcing; ∀a2553∈ V, 0 < δ.
rHyperForcing;
nected defensive neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 25542553
connected defensive neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 2554
yperForcing; Volume 2 | Issue 6 | 270
onnected Jdefensive
Math Techniques ComputSuperHyperDefensive
Math, 2023 2555
onnected
perHyperForcing;
defensive neutrosophic
neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed
1-failed neutrosophic
neutrosophic 25542555
2554
rHyperForcing;
rHyperForcing;
eutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing; 25562555 2555
δ-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing; 2556
-neutrosophic
-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 1-failed neutrosophic
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing;
SuperHyperForcing; 2556 2556
83/
83/
83
 (ii). An independent neutrosophic SuperHyperSet is the strong neutrosophic
(ii). SuperHyperDefensive
(ii). AnAnindependent
independentneutrosophic 1-failed neutrosophic
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
SuperHyperSet SuperHyperForcing
is isthe thestrong
strongneutrosophicsince the followin
neutrosophic
statements
(ii). An
SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperDefensive are
independent equivalent.
neutrosophic
1-failed SuperHyperSet
neutrosophic
1-failed neutrosophic is
SuperHyperForcing
SuperHyperForcing the strong neutrosophic
since
since the thefollowing
following
(v). ∅ is the strong δ-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive (ii). An 1-failed
independent neutrosophic SuperHyperSet is the strong neutrosophic
SuperHyperDefensive
statements
statements are equivalent.
are equivalent. 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing since the following
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing since the SuperHyperDefensive
following statements 1-failed ∀aneutrosophic
∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ SuperHyperForcing
S| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \since S)| ≡the following
ethestrong δ-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive
strong δ-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 1-failed statements
neutrosophic
neutrosophic are equivalent. 2573 2573
strongare equivalent. statements are equivalent. ∀a∈
∀a2574 ∈S,∈S,|NS,|N s (a) ∩
S|S| <|N<|N s (a) ∩
(V(V \ S)| ≡≡
he
rForcing
yperForcing δ-neutrosophic
since
sincethethefollowing SuperHyperDefensive
following statements
statements areare 1-failed
equivalent.
equivalent. neutrosophic ∀a
2573
2574
s (a)
|N s∩(a) ∩<S| s (a)
|N s∩ (a) ∩\(VS)| \≡ S)|
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)|≡≡≡
\ S)|
perForcing since the following statements are equivalent. ∀a∀a∈ ∀a∈S,∈
2574 S,|NS,|N s (a)
s
|∅|
s (a) <∩∩ |NS|
S| <|N|N
<(a)
s s (a)
∩s (a)
(Vs
∩\∩ (V(V\≡S)|
S)|
∀a ∀a∈ S,∈ S,|(N|(N
s (a) ∩ S)
s (a) ∩ S)− (N− (Ns (a) ∩ (V
s (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ<≡δ ≡
\ S))| ∀a∈∈S, S, |∅| |N< (a) ∩(a)
S| ∩ < (V |Ns\(a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡ ∀a∀a∈∀a S,∈|N |∅|
S,s< 0s|N
(a) <∩ |N
|N
s (a) ∩ |N
ss (a)
S| < (V \|S)|
∩ sV(a) ≡S)|
∩≡ (V≡\ S)| ≡
∀a ∀a∈ ∅, |(N|(N
∈ ∅, s (a) ∩ ∅)
s (a) ∩− ∅) (N
− (Ns (a) ∩ (V
s (a) ∩ (V \ ∅))| < δ<≡δ ≡
\ ∅))| ∀a ∈ S, |∅| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a∀a∈∀a ∈S,∈S,0|∅|
S,0<< <
0|N <|N
|N s (a)
|N
s
s ∩V|≡
(a)
s∩
s(a) ∩V(V
(a)| |≡ ≡\ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |(Ns (a) ∩ ∅) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ ∅))| < δ ≡ ∀a∈∈S, |Ns(a)|(a) ∩
∀a ∀a∈ ∅, |(N|(N
∈ ∅, s (a) ∩ ∅)
s (a) ∩− ∅) (N
− (Ns (a) ∩ (V
s (a) ∩ (V < δ<≡δ ≡
))| ))| ∀a∀a∈∀a
S, 0 <|N
S,∈0V,0<< δ|N>s (a)|
0.s ∩≡V
(a) ≡|V≡| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |(Ns (a) ∩ ∅) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡ ∀a∈∈V, S, 0><0.|Ns (a)| ≡
∀a ∀a∈ ∅, |∅| |∅|
∈ ∅, < δ<≡δ ≡ ∀a
(iii). An independent ∈ V,S, 0δ δ<
∀aneutrosophic > |N 0. SuperHyperSet
s (a)| ≡ is the connected
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∀a∈ V,∈ V,0 <0 δ.< δ. (iii). An independent
∀a ∈ V, δ >neutrosophic 0. SuperHyperSet is the neutrosophic
con-
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ. (iii). SuperHyperDefensive
(iii).An Anindependent nected
independent ∀a ∈ V,
1-failed δ > 0.
neutrosophic
neutrosophicSuperHyperSet
neutrosophic
neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperSetis istheSuperHyperForcing 1-failed
theconnected
connected since
neutrosoph- the followin
neutrosophic
neutrosophic
statements
(iii). An
SuperHyperDefensive are
independentequivalent.
neutrosophic
1-failed
ic SuperHyperForcing neutrosophic SuperHyperSet SuperHyperForcing
since SuperHyperForcing
the following is the connected since neutrosophic
the following
hethe connected(vi). δ-neutrosophic
connected is the connected
∅ δ-neutrosophic δ-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDefensive
1-failed
1-failed
(iii). neutrosophic
An neutrosophic
independent 1-failed
neutrosophic neutrosophic
2575 2575
SuperHyperSet is the statements
connected since are equiv-
the following
neutrosophic
the connected
rForcing
yperForcing 1-failed
since
sinceδ-neutrosophic
theneutrosophic
following
the following SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperForcing
statements
statements areare since
equivalent.
equivalent. SuperHyperDefensive
statements
1-failed
the following
statements are
neutrosophic equivalent.
are equivalent. 1-failed
alent.1-failed 2575 neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing since the following
SuperHyperDefensive ∀aneutrosophic
2576 2576
∈ S, |Nc (a) ∩ SuperHyperForcing
S| < |Nc (a) ∩ (V \since S)| ≡the following
perForcing since thearefollowing
statements equivalent. statements are equivalent. statements are equivalent. 2576
statements are equivalent. ∀a∀a∈∀a ∈S,∈S,|NS,|N c (a) ∩
S|S| <|N<|N c (a) ∩
(V(V \ S)| ≡≡
∀a ∀a∈ S,∈ S,|(N|(N
c (a) ∩ S)∩ S)− (N− (Nc (a) ∩ (V∩ (V \ S))| < δ<≡δ ≡
\ S))| c (a)
|N c∩(a) ∩<S| c (a)
|N c∩ (a) ∩\(VS)| \≡ S)|
c (a) c (a)
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)|≡≡≡
\ S)|
∀a ∈ S, |(Nc (a) ∩ S) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡
∀a ∀a∈ ∅, |(N|(N
∈ ∅, c (a) ∩ ∅)
c (a) ∩− ∅) (N
− (Nc (a) ∩ (V
c (a) ∩ (V \ ∅))| < δ<≡δ ≡
\ ∅))| ∀a∀a∈∀a ∈S,∈S,|NS,|N c (a)
|∅|
c (a)
c
<∩∩ S| <|N|N
|NS|c<(a) c (a)
∩c (a)
(Vc
∩\∩ (V(V\≡S)|
S)|
∀a∈∈S, S, |∅| |N< (a) ∩(a)
S| ∩ < (V |Nc\(a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |(Nc (a) ∩ ∅) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ ∅))| < δ ≡
∀a ∀a∈ ∅, |(N|(N ∩ ∅)∩− ∩ (V < δ<≡δ ≡ ∀a∀a∈∀a S,∈|∅| S,c<
|N 0c|N
(a) <∩ |N
c|N(a) ∩ |N
cc (a)
S| < (V \|S)|
∩ cV(a) ≡S)|
∩≡ (V≡\ S)| ≡
∈ ∅, c (a)
c (a) ∅) (N
− (Nc (a)c (a) ∩ (V))| ))|
∀a∈∈S, S, 0|∅| < |N(a)c (a) ∩ |(V \ S)| ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |(Nc (a) ∩ ∅) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∀a∈ ∅, |∅| |∅|
∈ ∅, < δ<≡δ ≡ ∀a∀a∈∀a S,∈0|∅|S,<< <
0|N <|N
|N c (a)
c|N
c(a)c∩ ∩∩
V(V
(a)| V
|≡ ≡ \≡S)| ≡
∀a ∈ S, 0 < |N (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < δ ≡
∀a ∀a∈ V,∈ V,0 <0 δ.< δ. ∀a∀a∈∀a ∈S,∈S,0V,0<< δ|N> |Nc (a)|
0.
(a) ∩≡V≡| ≡
c (a)|
c
∀a
∀a∈ ∈V,∈ S, 0 < |N (a)| ≡
∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
(iv). An independent∀a S,V,0δ δ<
neutrosophic >>|N 0.0. c
c (a)| ≡
SuperHyperSet is the δ-neutrosophic
∀a2577∈ V, δ > 0.
(iv).
(iv). SuperHyperDefensive
An Anindependent
independent(iv). neutrosophic
An ∀aindependent
2577
∈ V,
1-failed
neutrosophic δ > neutrosophic
0.
neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet
SuperHyperSet SuperHyperSet
SuperHyperForcing
is is
the theδ-neutrosophicis the
δ-neutrosophic δ-neu-
since the followin
2577

on
ition 5.16. Proposition
5.16.LetLet N SHG
N SHG5.16.
: (V, Let
E)E)
: (V, NSHG
be be : (V,E)
a neutrosophic be
a neutrosophic a neutrosophic
(iv).
SuperHyperGraph. Super-
statements
An independent
SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperGraph.
SuperHyperDefensive Thentrosophic
areThen
equivalent.
an an
1-failedSuperHyperDefensive
neutrosophic
1-failed neutrosophic
neutrosophic
2578 2578 SuperHyperSet 1-failed
SuperHyperForcing
SuperHyperForcing neutrosophic
is the δ-neutrosophic sincethe
since Super-
thefollowing
following
tion HyperGraph.
5.16. Then
Let SuperHyperSet
N SuperHyperSet
SHG : (V,anE)independent neutrosophic (iv). An independent
SuperHyperSet neutrosophic
HyperForcing 2578 since
SuperHyperSet
the following is the δ-neutrosophic
statements are equivalent.
t neutrosophic
dent neutrosophic isbeis a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph.
SuperHyperDefensive
statements
statements are Then
areequivalent.
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed
an1-failed
equivalent. 2579 2579 neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing since the following
is
ent neutrosophic SuperHyperSet is statements are equivalent. ∀a2579∈neutrosophic
S, |(N (a) ∩ S) SuperHyperForcing
− (N (a) ∩ (V \ S))| since < δthe ≡ following
eeutrosophic (i) :SuperHyperDefensive
neutrosophic theSuperHyperDefensive
neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive
1-failed
1-failed neutrosophic
neutrosophicstatements are
1-failedSuperHyperForcing;
neutrosoph- equivalent.
SuperHyperForcing; ∀a∀a∈2580
∀a∈S,2580
∈ S,|(N
S,|(N (a)
|(N (a)∩(a)∩S)S)∩−S) −(N (N
− (a)
(N(a) ∩(a)∩(V(V \ S))|
∩\(VS))| <<δ <
\ S))| δ≡≡ δ≡
neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing;∀a
ic SuperHyperForcing; ∀a∈∈ 2580S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡
S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ S))| < δ ≡
etrong
strongneutrosophic
neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed
1-failed neutrosophic
neutrosophic ∀aS,2581
∀a ∈2581 ∈|(N |(N∩
S, (a) (a) S)∩−S)(N −(a)(N∩ (a) (V∩\(VS))| ))| < δ ≡
strong (ii) : the strong
neutrosophic neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 1-failed neu-
neutrosophic ∀a∈∈
∀a S, |(N
S, |(N(a) (a)∩∩S) S)−−(N (N(a) (a)∩∩(V (V))|\ S))|
<<δ < δ≡≡ <δ≡
rHyperForcing;
perHyperForcing; ∀aS,2582
∀a ∈2582 ∈|(N
2581 |∅| <
S, (a) ∩ S) δ ≡− (N (a) ∩ (V ))| \ S))| δ≡
trosophic
erHyperForcing; SuperHyperForcing; ∀a∈∈ S, |∅||(N<(a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a∀a∈∀a S, S,
2582
∈ |∅|
V, <0 δ
< δ
≡ δ.≡
|(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
eonnected
connected (iii) : the connected
neutrosophic
neutrosophic neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed
1-failedneutrosophic1-failed
neutrosophic ∀a2583
∀a ∈2583
∈V, S, 0|∅|
V, <δ.< δ≡
connected
rHyperForcing; neutrosophic
perHyperForcing; neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing;
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic
(v). An independent ∀a ∀a ∈ 0 <<
2583 |∅|
S,
neutrosophic
2584 2584
δδ.≡SuperHyperSet is the strong δ-neutrosophic
(iv) : the δ-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed
erHyperForcing; neutro- ∈ V, 0 < δ.
(v).
(v). SuperHyperDefensive
An Anindependent ∀a
independentneutrosophic ∈1-failed
V,
2584
neutrosophic 0 <neutrosophic
δ.SuperHyperSet
SuperHyperSet SuperHyperForcing
is isthe thestrong since the followin
strongδ-neutrosophic
δ-neutrosophic
e-neutrosophic sophicSuperHyperDefensive
δ-neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing;
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed
1-failedneutrosophic
neutrosophic(v).
SuperHyperForcing;
SuperHyperForcing;
statements
An
SuperHyperDefensive are
independent (v). An independent
2585 2585
equivalent.
neutrosophic
1-failed neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
is
SuperHyperForcing the strong issince
the strong
δ-neutrosophic
thefollowing
following
δ-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed2585 neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing since the
(v) : theSuperHyperDefensive
strong δ-neutrosophic1-failed neutrosophic
SuperHyperDefensive (v). AnSuperHyperForcing;
1-failed
independent
SuperHyperDefensive
statements are δ-neutrosophic
neutrosophic
equivalent.1-failed SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperSet
neutrosophic
is the 1-failed
SuperHyperForcing
strong neutrosophic
δ-neutrosophic
since Su-following
the
etrong
strongδ-neutrosophic
δ-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed
1-failed statements
neutrosophic
neutrosophic are equivalent.
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing; statements are perHyperForcing since the∩following − (Ns statements
(a) ∩ (V \ are equivalent.
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed ∈ neutrosophic
2586 2586
∀a S, |(N s (a) SuperHyperForcing
S) since
S))| < theδ ≡ following
strong δ-neutrosophic
rHyperForcing;
perHyperForcing; SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic equivalent. 2586
(vi) : the connected δ-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive
statements are equivalent. 2587 2587
erHyperForcing; ∀a ∈
∀a ∈∀aS,2587S,
∈|(N |(N
S, s|(N (a)
s s∩
(a) (a)∩ S)
S)∩−S)(N − (N
−s (a)
(N (a)
s s∩ (a) ∩ (V \
(V∩\(VS))| S))| <
< δ<
\ S))| δ ≡
≡δ ≡
eonnected
connected 1-failed neutrosophic
δ-neutrosophic
δ-neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing.
SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed
1-failedneutrosophic
neutrosophic ∀a2588
∀a ∈∈S, |(Ns(a)
S, |(N (a)∩∩S) S)−−(N (Ns(a) (a)∩∩(V (V \\S))|
S))|<<δδ≡≡
∀a ∈∀aS,∈|(N S, s|(N
2588
(a)s∩
s (a) S)∩−S)(N −s (a)
(Ns∩
s (a) (V∩\(VS))| ))| < δ ≡
connected δ-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic
rHyperForcing.
perHyperForcing. ∀a2589
∈2588 |(Ns(a)
S, |(N (a)∩∩S) S)−−(N (Ns(a) (a)∩∩(V (V))|\ S))| <δ≡
∀a ∀a∈∀a∈S,∈S,
2589
|(N
S, (a)
|∅| < ∩ δ S)≡ − (N (a) ∩ (V ))| <
\ S))| <δ <δ≡≡δ≡
Proof. Suppose NSHG : (V,E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyper-
s s
erHyperForcing. 2589 s s
∀a∈∈S,
∀a |(N<s (a)
S, |∅| δ ≡ ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
pose
uppose NGraph.
N SHG SHG Consider
: (V, E)E)
: (V, is aisS. a All neutrosophic
neutrosophic
neutrosophic SuperHyperMembers
SuperHyperGraph.
SuperHyperGraph. Consider of S. S.
Consider All∀aAll∈∀a S,∈
2590 |∅|
V, <
|(N
2590 s0 δ
(a) < ≡∩δ. S) − (N s (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
uppose
ic
phic NSSHG have: no
SuperHyperMembers
SuperHyperMembers(V,neutrosophic
E) isofa S neutrosophic
of have
S have no no SuperHyperGraph.
SuperHyperNeighbor
neutrosophic
neutrosophic inside theConsider
SuperHyperNeighbor neu- S. All
SuperHyperNeighbor ∀a2591
∀a ∈2590
∈S, S, |∅| < δ ≡
V,
2591 0 < δ.
(vi). An independent ∀a ∈ V, 0
|∅|< < δ.δ ≡
phic SuperHyperMembers
neutrosophic trosophic
e neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
SuperHyperSet
SuperHyperSet of less
S less
have
less
than no
than thanneutrosophic
neutrosophic
neutrosophic
neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor
SuperHyper-
SuperHyperNeighbor
SuperHyperNeighbor ∀aneutrosophic
outout V, 0 < δ. SuperHyperSet is the connected δ-neutrosophi
∈2591
2592 2592
eosophic
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet less than neutrosophic (vi).SuperHyperDefensive
An independent
SuperHyperNeighbor ∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
1-failed
neutrosophic
out neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet SuperHyperForcing
isthetheconnected
connected since the followin
δ-neutrosophic
Neighbor out of
phic SuperHyperSet.
SuperHyperSet. neutrosophic
Thus,
Thus, SuperHyperSet. Thus, (vi). An independent (vi). neutrosophic
An 2593
independent
2592
2593 neutrosophic is
SuperHyperSet SuperHyperSet is δ-neutrosophic
the con-
sophic SuperHyperSet. Thus, statements
(vi). An
SuperHyperDefensive are
independent equivalent.
neutrosophic
1-failed neutrosophicSuperHyperSet SuperHyperForcingis the connected since δ-neutrosophic
the following
Anindependent (i). An
independent independent
neutrosophic
neutrosophic neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet
SuperHyperSet SuperHyperSet
is the
is the SuperHyperDefensive
is the
neutrosophic An neutro-
neutrosophic
(vi). independent nected δ-neutrosophic
1-failed2593
neutrosophic neutrosophic
2594 2594 SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperSet SuperHyperForcing
is the connected 1-failed neutro-
sinceδ-neutrosophic
the following
n independent neutrosophic SuperHyperSet is the SuperHyperDefensive
statements
neutrosophic are equivalent.1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing since the following
rDefensive
yperDefensive sophic SuperHyperDefensive
1-failed
1-failedneutrosophic
neutrosophic 1-failed neutrosophic
SuperHyperForcing
SuperHyperForcing statements
since SuperHy-
thethe
since are
following
SuperHyperDefensive sophic
equivalent.
following SuperHyperForcing
1-failed
∀a
2594
∈ neutrosophic
S, |(Nc (a) ∩ S)
2595 2595 since thec (a)
SuperHyperForcing
− (N following
∩ (V \ S))| statements
since < the are
δ ≡ following
perDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing statements
since the are equivalent.
following
ntsareare perForcing since the following statements are equivalent.
equivalent.
equivalent. statements are equivalent. equivalent.
∀a∀a∈∀a
2595
2596 2596
∈S,∈
ts are equivalent. 2596
S,|(N
S,|(N c (a)
(a)
c|(N c∩(a)∩S)S)∩−S) −(N (N
− c (a)
c (a)
(N c∩(a)∩(V(V \ S))|
∩\(VS))| <<δ <
\ S))| δ≡≡δ≡
∀a
∀a ∈∈ S,
S, |(N
|(N c (a)
(a) ∩ ∩ S)
S) −− (N
(N c (a)
(a) ∩ ∩ (V
(V \\ S))|
S))| << δ δ≡≡
∀a ∀a∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩
∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡ (V \ S)| ≡ ∀a ∈∀a S, ∈ S,
|(N c|(N
(a)
c c∩(a) S) ∩ − S)(N − c (N
(a)
c c∩(a) (V ∩ (V
\ ))|
S))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡ ∀a∈∈S, |(Nc(a)
S, |(N (a)∩∩S) S) −(N (Nc(a) (a) ∩(V (V))|\ S))| <δ≡
∀a ∀a∈ S,∈ S,|N |N ∩ S|
(a)(a) < |N
∩ S| < |N (a)(a)∩ (V∩ (V \ S)| ≡≡
\ S)| ∀a∀a∈∀a S,∈|(NS, c|∅| c <
(a) ∩δS) ≡−− (Nc (a) c ∩∩ (V ))| <<δ <
\ S))| δ≡≡ δ≡
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡ ∀a
∀a ∈∈ S,
S, |(N
|∅| < (a)
cδ ≡ ∩ S) − (N c (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∀a∈ S,∈ S,|∅| |∅|
< |N< |N ∩ (V
(a)(a) ∩ (V \ S)|
\ S)|≡≡ ∀a ∈∀aS,∈|(N |∅|
V, < c0(a)δ<≡ ∩δ. S) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V ))| < δ ≡
∀a ∈ S, |∅| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡ ∀a ∈V, S, 0|∅| <δ.< δ≡
∀a ∀a∈ S,∈ S,0 <0 |N < |N ∩ V∩| V≡| ≡
(a)(a) ∀a∀a∈ ∈V, 0 <<
S, |∅| δδ.≡
∀a ∈ S, 0 < |N (a) ∩ V | ≡ ∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
∀a ∀a∈ S,∈ S,0 <0 |N < |N ≡≡
(a)|(a)| ∀a ∈ V, 0 < δ.
∀a ∈ S, 0 < |N (a)| ≡
∀a ∀a∈ V,∈ V,δ >δ 0. > 0. Proposition 5.17. Let NSHG : (V,E) be a neutrosophic SuperHy-
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0. perUniform neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a neutro- 8
(ii). An independent neutrosophic SuperHyperSet is the strong sophic SuperHyperCycle/neutrosophic SuperHyperPath. Then V 85/
85/12
neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic Su- is a maximal 85/
85/12
perHyperForcing since the following statements are equivalent. (i) : neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic
84/128
84/128
J Math Techniques Comput Math, 2023 84/128 Volume 2 | Issue 6 | 271
 2612

2612 2612
Proposition 5.17. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform 2613

.ion Let5.17.
N SHG Let: N (V,SHG E) be: (V, a neutrosophic
E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph
SuperHyperUniform which is a neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle/neutrosophic
(xi ∈ N).
2614
yi 2613
, zyiii=1,2,...,t
i=1,2,...,t ∈ iN
2613 , z i=1,2,...,t (xBy it’s the
ii=1,2,...,t ). By it’s the
exterior exterior neutrosophic
neutrosophic
HyperGraph
hic SuperHyperGraph which is awhich neutrosophicis a neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle/neutrosophic SuperHyperPath. i=1,2,...,t
SuperHyperCycle/neutrosophic Then is a2614maximal2612 i=1,2,...,t
2614 V SuperHyperVertices and the
2612
interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 2615
SuperHyperVertices and the interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices coincide anc
hen
rPath. V isThen a Proposition
maximal
V is a maximal neutrosophic
2615 neutrosophic
SuperHyperUniform
2615 SuperHyperUniform neutrosophic neutrosophic
SuperHyperPath, SuperHyperPath,
Proposition 5.17. Let N5.17.
SuperHyperForcing; SHG Let : (V,NE) SHG be a: (V, E)(i)
neutrosophic be: aneutrosophic
neutrosophic
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperUniform
yii=1,2,...,t
SuperHyperDefensive
|N)| (x=
, zii=1,2,...,t
2613
1-failed
)| = |N)|(y
∈N (xii=1,2,...,t ).SuperHyperForcing;
neutrosophic
2613 By it’s the exterior neutrosoph
)| = |N)|(zneutrosophic )| = 2t. Thus
2616

neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a neutrosophic |N (x

SuperHyperCycle/neutrosophic |N
ii=1,2,...,t
SuperHyperVertices (y and= |N (z
ii=1,2,...,t
the interior = 2t.
ii=1,2,...,tThus SuperHyperVerti
(ii) SuperHyperGraph
: strong neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutro-
SuperHyperDefensive
rosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing; i i i
neutrosophic which isneutrosophic
a neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing;
SuperHyperCycle/neutrosophic 2616i=1,2,...,t 2616 i=1,2,...,t
2614
2614 i=1,2,...,t

SuperHyperPath. Then V is aThen V is a maximal(ii) : strong neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive

2612 neutrosophic2615 SuperHyperUniform 1-failed neutrosophic neutrosophic SuperHyperPath, 2617
sophic SuperHyperForcing;
2615
SuperHyperPath. maximal ∀a ∈ S, |N∀a (a)∈∩S,S||N < (a) |N (a) ∩ S|∩ < (V|N S)| ∩
\ (a) ≡(V \ S)| ≡ 2618
sophic
ng SuperHyperDefensive
neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing; 2617
|N (xii=1,2,...,t )| = |N (yii=1,2,...,t
2617
)| = |N (zi )| = 2t. Thus
rcing;
rHyperForcing;
17.
(i) : Let N(iii)
SHG
neutrosophic (i):: :connected(V, E) be aneutrosophic
neutrosophic
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDefensive
neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperUniform
1-failed 1-failed neutrosophic
neutrosophic
1-failed
SuperHyperForcing;
2618 2613
SuperHyperForcing;
2618 ∀a ∀a2616 ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| <i=1,2,...,t
2616∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
|N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
erHyperGraph neutrosophic isSuperHyperForcing;
(iii) : connected neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed tneutrosophic t 2619

(ii) :whichstrong a neutrosophic

neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle/neutrosophic
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic
SuperHyperForcing;
2614
∃yii=1,2,...,t ∃y ∈ 2617
∀a iV ∈\S, {xi|N }∈ V, \|N
(a) ∩{xS|
(yi }ii=1,2,...,t
< |N
i=1 , |N (a))(y∩∩ (V<\ S)|
S|
ii=1,2,...,t ) ∩2620
≡S| <
(iv) : O(NSHG)-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed i=1
i=1,2,...,t
utrosophic
nected
ii) : strong SuperHyperDefensive
neutrosophic
Then V is a maximal neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed
SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic
1-failed neutrosophic
1-failed neutrosophic 2619
2615
2619 2617
SuperHyperForcing; |N (y |N )(y∩
∀a2618 S, \|N
(V
∈ii=1,2,...,t (V(a) ) \∩{x (V
∩iS| \ (V < |N \ {x}))|
(a) ≡∩ (V }))| \ S)|≡≡
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing;
rcing;SuperHyperForcing;
rHyperForcing; 2620
(iv) : O(N SHG)-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive
2620 2618 ii=1,2,...,t
1-failed neutrosophic
i=1,2,...,t
t
ii=1,2,...,t
2621
∃y ∈t V \ {x } |N
(v)
ic SuperHyperDefensive
(iii) : : connected
strong O(NSHG)-neutrosophic
1-failed
neutrosophic neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperForcing; 1-failed 2616
neutrosophic ∃yii=1,2,...,t ∃y ∈ 2619
iV \ {xi }i=1
i=1,2,...,t ∈ ,V|N\ (y {x i=1 t , (y
) ∩i (yS|i < ) ∩ S|
i }i=1 , |N i=1,2,...,t
i ii=1,2,...,t ) ∩<S|
eutrosophic
SHG)-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDefensive
ii) : connected neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 1-failed neutrosophic
1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing; 2621 2621
ii=1,2,...,t i=1,2,...,t2622

1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing;

2619
|N (yii=1,2,...,t |N2620(y∩ii=1,2,...,t
{xii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ {x ≡ \ (V })| ≡
rcing;SuperHyperForcing;
rHyperForcing;
rosophic SuperHyperForcing;
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 2622 2617 2622 2620 |N) (y ii=1,2,...,t ) ∩})|(V ii=1,2,...,t
\ {xii=1,2,...,t }))| ≡
(vi) : connected O(NSHG)-neutrosophic
rForcing; (iv) : O(N SHG)-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive
(v) : strong O(N SHG)-neutrosophic ∃y SuperHyperDefensive
ii=1,2,...,t ∃y∈ iV \ {x } ∈
i i=1
t 1-failed
V , \ {x
|{z ,
i
neutrosophic
}
1 i=1z
t
,
2 t. ,. .|{z
, z 1 , z}|
t−1 2 , .< }| <
. . , zt−12623
SuperHyperForcing;
2618
∃y2621
ii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ {xi }i=1 , |N (yii=1,2,...,t
i=1,2,...,t
) ∩ S|
ngiv)O(N
HG)-neutrosophic
: O(N 1-failed
SHG)-neutrosophic
SHG)-neutrosophic neutrosophic
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing;
SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 1-failed
1-failed neutrosophic
neutrosophic 2623 2623
|{x1 , x2 , . . |{x
2621
.,x , x2})|
1t−1 , . .≡ . , xt−1 })| ≡
2624

rcing;
rHyperForcing;
neutrosophicSuperHyperForcing; SuperHyperForcing;
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 2624 2619 2624 2622 |N (y
2622
ii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ {x i })| ≡
(vi) : connected O(N SHG)-neutrosophic ∃y ∈SuperHyperDefensive
S, t − ∃y1 ∈ <S, t −t 1. − 1 <1-failed t − 1.i=1,2,...,t
neutrosophic 2625
rForcing; Where (v) : the
strong exterior O(N neutrosophic
SHG)-neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices SuperHyperDefensive and the in- 2620
1-failed neutrosophic ∃y ∈ V \ {x t
i }i=1 , |{z1 , z2 , . . . ,2626 zt−1 }| <
N
nected O(N
SHG)-neutrosophic SHG)-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive
(v) : strong O(N SHG)-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophicSuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing;
neutrosophic
1-failed neutrosophic 2625 2625 2623
ii=1,2,...,t
2623

terior neutrosophic
SuperHyperForcing; SuperHyperVertices coincide. Thus it’s Thus
Thus
contradiction.it’s
it’s contradiction.
contradiction.
It implies ItIt
everyimplies
impliesV \ every
every
{x V
V \\ }{x
{x
})| ≡ iii=1,2,...,t
isn’t ,...,t}
} isn’t
isn’t
neutrosophic neutrosop
rcing;SuperHyperForcing;
rHyperForcing;
-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic |{x1 , x2 , . . . , xit−1 i=1,2
2624
2626 2621 2626 2624 i=1,2,...,t

rForcing; (vi) : connected O(N SHG)-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive

Where the exterior neutrosophic
SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperVertices
1-failed 1-failed
neutrosophic andneutrosophic
the 1-failedSuperHyperForcing
interior
SuperHyperForcing neutrosophic
neutrosophic in a given Su- 2627
in a giv
neutros
SuperHyperVertices
2622
coincide. 1-failed neutrosophic ∃y ∈ S, t − 1 < t − 1.
neutrosophic
exterior Proof. Suppose
SuperHyperVertices
neutrosophic NSHG :and
SuperHyperVertices (V,E) theis a neutrosophic
interior
and interior SuperHyper-
theneutrosophic neutrosophic perHyperForcing in a neutrosophic
given neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform 2628
2625
vi) : connected O(N SHG)-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic
SuperHyperUniform
2627 SuperHyperUniform
2627 neutrosophic
2625 SuperHyperPath. SuperHyperPath.
SuperHyperForcing;
coincide.
NrVertices Graph
SHG)-neutrosophic coincide.
SuperHyperForcing; whichSuperHyperDefensive
is a neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform 1-failed neutrosophic
Proof. Suppose neutrosoph- N SHG (ii),
2628 2623
neutrosophic
(iii)
(V,are
:Thus
2628
E)it’s
(iii)SuperHyperPath.
(ii),obvious are
2626
is acontradiction. byobvious
neutrosophic (i). 2626 by (i).
SuperHyperGraph
It implies every Vwhich \ {xiis a } isn’t 2629neutr
rForcing; icWhere SuperHyperCycle/neutrosophic
the SuperHyperPath. (iv). 2624By(ii), (i),(iv).
(iii) |Vare By (i),
isobvious |V
maximalbyand
|neutrosophic | is maximal
(i). and it’s a neutrosophic
it’s a neutrosophic SuperHyperDefe
i=1,2,...,t
SuperHyperDefensive 1-fai
SHG
ppose: N
Where (V,SHG
the E)
exterior E)exterior
is: a(V,neutrosophic is a neutrosophic
neutrosophic neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph
SuperHyperVertices SuperHyperVertices
SuperHyperGraph neutrosophic
whichand the is awhich and
interior is athe
SuperHyperUniforminterior
neutrosophic
2629 2629
neutrosophic
SuperHyperDefensive
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing.
2627
SuperHyperCycle/neutrosophic
1-failed
2627
neutrosophic
Thus SuperHyperForcing
it’s |V |-neutrosophic
2630 in a
SuperHyp
SuperHyperVertices coincide. neutrosophic (iv). SuperHyperForcing.
By (i), |V | is maximal Thus and it’s
it’s |V
a |-neutrosophic
neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensiv
SuperHyper-
O(NHyperUniform
hic SuperHyperUniform
SHG)-neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices neutrosophic
coincide. SuperHyperCycle/neutrosophic
neutrosophic
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperCycle/neutrosophic SuperHyperPath.
1-failed neutrosophic 2630 2625 SuperHyperUniform
2630 neutrosophic SuperHyperPath.
2628 2631
1-failed 1-failed
neutrosophic neutrosophic
2628
SuperHyperForcing. SuperHyperForcing.
erPath. (i).
rForcing; Consider one segment is out of S which is (i). neutrosophic
Consider one Su-
2631 2626 Defensive
segment is out
(ii),
2631
(v), (iii)1-failed
of are
(vi)isare
S which
abyobvious
neutrosophic
obvious is neutrosophic
by (i). SuperHyperForcing.
SuperHyperDefensive Thus it’s 2632
Proof. Suppose N SHG is a: neutrosophic
(V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph (v), (vi) is are which
obvious (iv). by 2629 (iv).
Proof.
ensider
segment oneperHyperDefensive
Suppose is outNof
segment
neutrosophic
SHG S
is which
out : (V, of E) S1-failed
is neutrosophic
which
SuperHyperUniform isneutrosophic SuperHyperForcing.
SuperHyperGraph
1-failed
SuperHyperDefensive
neutrosophic neutrosophic
neutrosophic
SuperHyperDefensive which
2632
SuperHyperCycle/neutrosophic
|V a|-neutrosophic
SuperHyperForcing.
(iv).
2632 By (i), 2629 This
|VSuperHyperDefensive
| issegment
maximal has and it’s1-failed
2t neutrosophica neutrosophic neutrosophic SuperHyper
2633
or neutrosophic This segment
SuperHyperVertices has 2t neutrosophic and the SuperHyperNeighbors
interior neutrosophic in S, SuperHyperForcing.
2630
neutrosophic
ic SuperHyperForcing.
utrosophic SuperHyperUniform
SuperHyperForcing. This segment This neutrosophic
has
segment 2t SuperHyperCycle/neutrosophic
neutrosophic
has SuperHyperNeighbors
2t neutrosophic Proposition in
2627 S, i.e,
Proposition Suppose
5.18. LetSuperHyperForcing.x
5.18.
N SHG Let : (V,∈
N V
SHG \ S : such
(V,
E) be a neutrosophic E) thatbe a neutrosophic SuperHyperG
Thus it’s |VSuperHyperGraph which
2630

ces coincide. SuperHyperPath. 2633

neutrosophic
2633 i i=1,2,...,t
2631 |-neutrosophic2634Super
SuperHyperPath.
ors in S, i.e,
erNeighbors i.e, in Suppose
Suppose
S,
(i). i.e,
Consider xSuppose
i one
i=1,2,...,t x ∈ i
segmentV \ S such∈
such V that
\
that S y
such
i that
i=1,2,...,t is out of S which is neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive
i=1,2,...,t
, z i ∈
2634N (x
neutrosophic
i=1,2,...,t
2628
(v),(vi)
neutrosophic
i are ).
SuperHyperUniform
i=1,2,...,t obvious
By 2631 it’s
1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing.
2634 by
the
SuperHyperUniform (iv).
exterior
neutrosophic
2632
neutrosophic
neutrosophic
SuperHyperWheel. SuperHyperWheel.Then V 2635 is Then
a ma
(i).
N (xConsider
z∈iSHG ∈1-failed
N ).isoneBy segment
it’s ).the By isit’soutthe
it’s
exterior theofneutrosophic
S whichneutrosophic
exterior is neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyper- and the interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s 2636
E)(x By exterior neutrosophic 2635 2632
N i:i=1,2,...,t
i=1,2,...,t (V, ii=1,2,...,t
aneutrosophic
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph
SuperHyperForcing. which
This is a
segment has 2t
2629neutrosophic
2635
(v), (vi)neutrosophic
are obvious SuperHyperDefensive
by (iv). 1-failed neutrosophic
1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. This segment
neutrosophic has 2t (i)
neutrosophic : dual
SuperHyperUniform (i) :
neutrosophic dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 2633
SuperHyperCycle, 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperFor Supe
s and
erVertices the
perHyperUniform Vertices
interior
and the and
neutrosophic
SuperHyperNeighbors interior the interior
neutrosophic
neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle/neutrosophicin neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices
S, SuperHyperVertices
i.e, Suppose SuperHyperVertices
coincide
x i
and
coincide
∈ Vit’s
\ Sco-
and
2636 it’s
such Proposition
2630 that
2636 5.18.
2633
Let NSHG 2634 : (V,E) be a neutrosophic SuperHy-
2637

SuperHyperNeighbors in neutrosophic
S, i.e, Suppose xii=1,2,...,t |N ∈V (x \i=1,2,...,t
S such)|that
i=1,2,...,t
= |N (y )| = |N (z )| = 2t. Thus
HyperUniform
hic incide
SuperHyperUniform and ,it’s
neutrosophic neutrosophic
SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperUniform
SuperHyperCycle, neutrosophic 2631 perGraph which isneutrosophic
a neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform neutro-neutrosoph
2634
. yii=1,2,...,t zNii=1,2,...,t ∈ N).(x ii=1,2,...,t ). exterior
By it’s the i
exterior (ii) 2637 i
: strong
neutrosophic Proposition
(ii)dual
i=1,2,...,t : strong
2637
neutrosophic i
dual5.18.
i=1,2,...,t Let2635N SHG
SuperHyperDefensive : (V, E) 1-failed
SuperHyperDefensive be a neutrosophic 1-failed
neutrosophic SuperHy
2638

yi(y
N one
...,t
)| = |N , z(y
ii=1,2,...,t
i=1,2,...,t
segment
i)| = out
i=1,2,...,t|N (z∈
SuperHyperCycle,
ii=1,2,...,t
is
SuperHyperVertices of)|
(x|N
S= which
ii=1,2,...,t )|ii=1,2,...,t
(z
ii=1,2,...,t=isand 2t. By )| it’s
Thus
neutrosophic
the = 2t.
interior
the ThusSuperHyperDefensive
neutrosophic
neutrosophic 2638
SuperHyperVertices sophic
2632neutrosophic
SuperHyperForcing;2638
SuperHyperWheel.
coincide
2635
SuperHyperUniform
SuperHyperForcing; and it’s Then V is a maximal
neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel. T
SuperHyperVertices and the interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices coincide ∀a ∈ S,and |N (a) it’s ∩ 2636 S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡ 2636

phic SuperHyperForcing.neutrosophic This segment has 2tneutrosophic

SuperHyperUniform neutrosophicSuperHyperCycle, 2633 (i) : dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 2637 1-failed neutro-
neutrosophic
∀a ∈ S, |N ∀a SuperHyperUniform
∈ S,
(a) ∩ S| |N<(a) |N∩(a) S| ∩<(V neutrosophic
|N \(a)S)|∩≡ (V \ S)| SuperHyperCycle,
≡ (iii) ∀a
: connected ∈(iii)
(i)S, : :|N connected
dual
dual ∩ S| <dual
(a) neutrosophic
neutrosophic
2637 |N (a)neutrosophic(V \ S)| SuperHyperDefensive
∩SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperDefensive ≡ 1-failed
1-failed 1-failed
neutrosophic
neutrosophic neutros
hbors in S,|N i.e,(xSuppose
i x
)| i= |N (y i ∈ V \ S )| such
= |N that
(z i )| = 2t. Thus 2634 sophic SuperHyperForcing; 2638
N (x ∀a ∈ S,
ii=1,2,...,t |N )|(a)
∀a =∈ |N
S, (y
i=1,2,...,t
∩ S||N i< (a) |N ∩(a)S| )|∩<
i=1,2,...,t
=(V |N|N\(a) (z
i=1,2,...,t
S)| ∩ ≡ (V
ii=1,2,...,t \ )| =≡
S)| 2t. Thus
i=1,2,...,t
SuperHyperForcing; SuperHyperForcing;
2638 t
i=1,2,...,t
∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By it’s the exterior neutrosophic ∃y
2635 ∈
(ii) : strong duali i=1
ii=1,2,...,t V \ {x } , |N
neutrosophic (y ) ∩ S| <
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed
ii=1,2,...,t
t ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡ (ii) : strong dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutro
..,t
ces∃y and the ∃y
ii=1,2,...,t ∈ii=1,2,...,t
interiorV \ {x i∈}ti=1
∈V S,
neutrosophic
∀a |N
,\ {x |Ni(y ∀a
}(a) ∩, S| |N<
SuperHyperVertices
ii=1,2,...,t
i=1 (y ∩i=1,2,...,t
) i|N S|(a)<∩ )(V ∩ coincide
S|
\ S)| < ≡ and(iv) it’s: O(N |N
2636(y
neutrosophic
(iv)
SHG)-dual
ii=1,2,...,t O(N SuperHyperForcing;
) ∩SHG)-dual
(V
: SuperHyperForcing; \ (V \ {x
neutrosophic neutrosophic }))| SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperDefensive
ii=1,2,...,t ≡ 1-failed neutr
1-failed neutrosophic
perHyperUniform
|N (yii=1,2,...,t |N (y neutrosophic
) i∩i=1,2,...,t
(V ∀a \ (V )∈ ∩S, \(V{x SuperHyperCycle,
\ ∀a
(V ∈\ S,
{x }))| |N ≡(a) ∩ S|
}))| <≡ |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡ (iii)
SuperHyperForcing;
2637
∃y : ∈connected
SuperHyperForcing;
V \ {x } t
dual
, |N (yneutrosophic ) ∩ S| SuperHyperDefensive
<
|N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
i i=1,2,...,t i i=1,2,...,t ii=1,2,...,t i i=1 ii=1,2,...,t
|N (yii=1,2,...,t )| = |N (zii=1,2,...,t )| ∃y =t 2t. Thus t
1-failed
∩(iii)
S|i <: connected neutrosophic dualSuperHyperForcing;
neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neu
∃yii=1,2,...,t∃y∈ii=1,2,...,t
V \ {x∃y i∈}ti=1V |Ni(y
,\ {x }
∈ iV
i=1 , |N
ii=1,2,...,t
\ {x (y} ∈S| V |N
) ti∩i=1,2,...,t
, \ {x
< )
(y i }i=1
∩ S| <, |N ) ∩(yS|ii=1,2,...,t
< )2638
|N (y (v) : strong) ∩ {x
O(N i SHG)-dual })| ≡ neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed
ii=1,2,...,t i=1,2,...,t
i i=1 ii=1,2,...,t (v) : strong O(N SHG)-dual neutrosophic
i=1,2,...,t i=1,2,...,t SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosop
|N∀a ∈ S,|N|N
(yii=1,2,...,t (y)(a)i∩ {x∩|NiS| )
< ∩ |N{x })|
(a) ≡|N∩ (y
(V i })|
\ S)| ≡ ≡ ) ∩ (V \ (V \ {x i }))| ∃y ≡ (iv) : ∈ O(NSHG)-dual
SuperHyperForcing;
V \ {x
SuperHyperForcing; } t
, |{z neutrosophic
, z , . . . , z }| SuperHyperDefensive
<
i=1,2,...,t (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ (V \ (V \ {xii=1,2,...,t }))| ≡
i=1,2,...,t i i=1,2,...,t i=1,2,...,t i=1,2,...,t SuperHyperForcing;
ii=1,2,...,t i i=1 1 2 t−1
∃yi∀a ∈ii=1,2,...,t
V(a)\ ∩ {x∃y }ti=1 |{z ∃yt tz∈ }| \,{x
V. .|N t
i }i=1 , |N (yS| ) ∩(iv)1-failed
S| < neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing;
∈ S,∃y|N S|i∈ <V ,\ {x
|N (a) i1}
∈ ,∩ ,,\. .|{z
zV2i(V . ,S)|
\
{x z},t−1
1 ≡
2 , , <. z
(yt−1 }| < ) ∩ ii=1,2,...,t
< |{x , x ,
: . O(N
. . , x })|
SHG)-dual ≡ neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed n
i=1
(v)
(vi): strong O(NSHG)-dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive
i=1,2,...,t 1 2 t−1
i=1,2,...,t
ii=1,2,...,t i i=1 ii=1,2,...,t (vi) : connected : O(N
connected SHG)-dual O(N SHG)-dual neutrosophic neutrosophic
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 1-fa
|{x∃y1 , ix , . |{x
. . , x ,∈ x V ,})|
.\ . .≡
{x, x } t })| ≡
, |N |N (y (y ) )∩ ∩S| {x < })| ≡ ∃y ∈ S, t SuperHyperForcing;
− 1 < t − 1.
1-failedneutrosophicneutrosophic SuperHyperForcing;
2 1 t−1 2 |N (yi ii=1,2,...,t
t−1 i
) ∩ii=1,2,...,t
{xii=1,2,...,t })| ≡ i SuperHyperForcing;
i=1,2,...,t i=1 i=1,2,...,t i=1,2,...,t
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing;
∃y |N∈ (y t∃y− 1∈<
S,ii=1,2,...,t S,) t∩− −1.i1\<
t ∃y
(V (V t− \ 1.
{x ∈ ∃y i V ii=1,2,...,t
\ {x t∈ ≡
}))|
} V |{z
, \ {x, iz}ti=1 , . . ,. ,|{z
z 1 , }|
z2 ,<. . . , zt−1(vi) }| <: connected O(NSHG)-dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDe-
i=1,2,...,t i=1,2,...,t i i=1 1 2
Thus t−1
it’s contradiction. Where theIt(v) Where
implies
exterior: strongthe every O(N
exterior
neutrosophic V \SHG)-dual
neutrosophic
{x } neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices
ii=1,2,...,t SuperHyperVertices
isn’t neutrosophic andSuperHyperDefensive
and the
the interior interior
neutrosophic
2639 1-f
ne
∃yii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \|{x {x1i,}xti=1 , , . |N
. . |{x
, x (y 1i, x })|2 , .≡ . . ,) x∩t−1 S|})| <≡
SuperHyperDefensive fensive
1-failed
SuperHyperVertices 1-failed
SuperHyperForcing;
SuperHyperVertices
neutrosophic coincide. neutrosophic coincide.
SuperHyperForcing SuperHyperForcing; in a given neutrosophic
tion. It impliesItevery
contradiction. implies V \every {xii=1,2,...,t
2 V \ {x t−1}ii=1,2,...,t
isn’t neutrosophic
i=1,2,...,t
} isn’t neutrosophic 2639 2639 2640

|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩neutrosophic
{xi∈
∃y S, t −})| ∃y ≡∈ tS, − 1.
1SuperHyperForcing
< t − 1 < t SuperHyperUniform
− 1. neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle.
ve 1-failed
erDefensive neutrosophic
1-failed SuperHyperForcing
i=1,2,...,t in a giveninneutrosophic a given neutrosophic 2640 2640 2641

merUniform
neutrosophic
∃yii=1,2,...,t SuperHyperCycle.
neutrosophic ∈ V \ {x } t
SuperHyperCycle.
, |{z , z , . . . , z }| < Consider one Proof.
segment,
2641
Where
Proof.
(vi)
Suppose with 2641
the
NSuppose
: connected
two SHG exterior
segments : (V,NO(Nneutrosophic
SHG
E) is a: (V,
SHG)-dual
related toE) SuperHyperVertices
neutrosophic
the is neutrosophic
a neutrosophic
neutrosophicSuperHyperUniform and the in-
SuperHyperUniform
SuperHyperDefensive neutrosoph
2642
Thusit’s it’scontradiction. i i=1
contradiction. 1It 2impliest−1 every VV \\}{x {x } isn’t
isn’t neutrosophic
Thus
er oneit’s
gment, with Thus
contradiction.
two segments It segments
implies
related It
every
to implies
the \to every
{x
Vneutrosophic SuperHyperLeavesisn’t
i ,...,t}SuperHyperGraph
ii=1,2,...,t
neutrosophic as
2642exceptions,
SuperHyperGraph
terior neutrosophic
neutrosophic
iswhich
out ofis Sa which
which
is a neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices
SuperHyperForcing;
neutrosophic
2639
is neutrosophic coincide.
SuperHyperWheel. SuperHyperWheel.
segment, with two related the neutrosophic i
ii=1,2,...,t 2639
|{x1 , xSuperHyperDefensive =1,2 2643
2 , . . . , xt−1 })| ≡
2642
1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing in a given (i).one neutrosophic
Consider oneissegment
out2640of Siswhich out ofisSneutrosophic
which is neutrosophic SuperHy
SuperHyperDefensive
as exceptions,
erLeaves neutrosophicis out of
asSuperHyperUniform
exceptions, SuperHyperDefensive
1-failed
S outneutrosophic
is which is which isSuperHyperForcing
S neutrosophic
ofneutrosophic 1-failed
neutrosophic neutrosophic
SuperHyperDefensive in a given Su-
(i).1-failed
Consider
2643 neutrosophic neutrosophic
2643
segment
2640 SuperHyperForcing. This segment SuperHyperDefenshas 2t 2644
∃y ∈perHyperForcing
S, t − 1 <neutrosophic t − 1. in a given SuperHyperCycle. 1-failed neutrosophic Where
1-failedthe exterior
neutrosophic
SuperHyperForcing. neutrosophic
SuperHyperForcing. ThisSuperHyperVertices
segment Thishas segment
3t that and
has the
neutrosophic interio
3t neutroso
neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform Proof. Suppose NSHG : (V,E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperUni-
2641
SuperHyperUniform
ve 1-failed neutrosophic
erDefensive 1-failed neutrosophicSuperHyperForcing. SuperHyperCycle.
SuperHyperForcing. This neutrosophic
segment This has
segment SuperHyperNeighbors
2t has
2644 2t 2644 in S,
2641 i.e, Suppose x ii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S such 2645
Consider one segment, with two segments related to the neutrosophic
SuperHyperNeighbors SuperHyperVertices
SuperHyperNeighbors in S, i.e, coincide.
in
Suppose S, i.e,x Suppose ∈x V \ S such∈ V \
that S such that
Itneutrosophic S, SuperHyperCycle. form2645neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a neutrosophic
2642 i
Consider one segment, with two segments related Stosuch ∈the \neutrosophic i i=1,2,...,t
HyperNeighbors
hic SuperHyperNeighbors inevery i.e,
V in \Suppose
S,as i.e, x
Suppose } isn’txis∈ V \ of V that S is such that 2642 i=1,2,...,t
ii=1,2,...,t ii=1,2,...,t 2645
diction. implies
SuperHyperLeaves {x exceptions,
ii=1,2,...,t neutrosophic
out S which neutrosophic
y 2639 , z y ,, z
s ,∈s N (x
2643 ∈ N (x
). By it’s ).
the By it’s
exterior the exterior
neutrosophic neut
SuperHyperWheel.
SuperHyperLeaves as exceptions, is out of S which is neutrosophic i i=1,2,...,t ii i=1,2,...,t
i=1,2,...,t i
i i=1,2,...,t
i=1,2,...,t
2643
i i
i=1,2,...,ti=1,2,...,t i i=1,2,...,t
nsive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic in a given neutrosophic
SuperHyperForcing. 2640 Proof.
SuperHyperVertices This Suppose
segment
SuperHyperVertices and has
the N2t SHG and2644
interior : (V,
the E) is aneutrosophic
interior
neutrosophic neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices SuperHyperUnifo
SuperHyperVertices coincide anc
SuperHyperDefensive Consider 1-failed
one segment, neutrosophic
with two segments SuperHyperForcing. related This segment
to thexi neu- 2641 (i). has 2t
VConsider one
that segment is out of S which is neutrosophic
2644
orm neutrosophic neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. SuperHyperNeighbors in S, i.e, Suppose SuperHyperGraph
∈ that \ S such 2645 which 2645is a neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel.
neutrosophic trosophicSuperHyperNeighbors
SuperHyperLeaves in S, as i.e, Suppose
exceptions, isxiout of ∈ Vi=1,2,...,t
which \ Sis such SuperHyperDefens 1-failed neutrosophic
segment, with two segments related to the neutrosophic i=1,2,...,t S 2642 (i). Consider one segment is out of SSuperHyperForcing. which is neutrosophic Sup
neutrosophic
es as exceptions, is out of S which is neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic Supe- This segment has
2643 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. 3t neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors This segment 86/128in hasS, 3t neut
nsive 1-failed rHyperForcing.
neutrosophic This segment has 2t neutrosophic
SuperHyperForcing. This segment SuperHyper-
86/128
has 2t 86/128 2644 i.e, Suppose
SuperHyperNeighbors x ii=1,2 ,...,t ∈ V \ S such that
in S, i.e, Suppose xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S such tha
perHyperNeighbors Neighbors in in S, S, i.e,
i.e, Suppose
Suppose xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S such such that that 2645 y
ii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t By).it’sBy theit’s
exterior
the exterior87 n
neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices
86/128 SuperHyperVertices
86/128 and the interiorand the interior
neutrosophic neutrosophic
SuperHyperVerti
yii=1,2,...,t,zii=1,2,...,t ∈ N(xii=1,2,...,t). By it’s the exterior neutro- SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s neutrosophic SuperHyper-
sophic SuperHyperVertices and the interior neutrosophic Supe- Uniform neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel,
rHyperVertices coincide and it’s neutrosophic SuperHyperUni-
form neutrosophic SuperHyperPath, 86/128

J Math Techniques Comput Math, 2023 Volume 2 | Issue 6 | 272

 |{z1 , z2 , . . . , zt−1 , z1 , z2 , . . . , zt }| < |{x1 , x2 , . . . , xt
∃y ∈ S, 2t − 1 < t − 1.

Thus it’s contradiction. It implies every V \ {xii=1,2,...,t } is ne

SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcin
neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel, neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel.
SuperHyperUniform 2680

|N (xii=1,2,...,t )| = |N (yii=1,2,...,t )| = |N (zii=1,2,...,t )| (ii),

= 3t.(iii)
Thusare obvious by (i). 2681

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)|(iv). ≡ By (i), |V | is maximal and it is a dual neutrosophic

1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Thus it’s a dual |V
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
SuperHyperDefensive
t
1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForci
∃yii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ) ∈(v),
V \(vi)
{xi }are
i=1 , obvious by (iv).
|N (yii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t )) ∩ S| <
Proposition
|N (yii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t )) ∩ (V \ (V 5.19. Let N}))|
\ {xii=1,2,...,t SHG
≡ : (V, E) be a neutrosophic Su
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a neutrosophic Super
∃yii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ) ∈ V \ {xi }ti=1 ,
SuperHyperPath. Then the number of
|N (yii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t )) ∩ S| <
(i))): ∩the
|N (yii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t {xi1-failed
i=1,2,...,t
neutrosophic
})| ≡ SuperHyperForcing;
∃yii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ) ∈ V \ {xi }ti=1 ,
(ii) : the 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing;
|{z1 , z2 , . . . , zt−1 , z1 , z2 , . . . , zt }| < |{x1 , x2 , . . . , xt−1 })| ≡
∃y ∈ S, 2t − 1 < t − 1. (iii) : the connected 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing;
Thus it’s contradiction. It implies every VIt \implies
{xii=1,2,...,t}
every isV \ Forcing;
(iv)
{x : the O(N SHG)-1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcin
Thus it’s contradiction. ii=1,2,...,t } is neutrosophic 2682
neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing in a given neutrosophic 2683 SuperHy-
(vi) : the connected O(NSHG)-1-failed neutrosophic
SuperHyperForcing in a given neutrosophicneutrosophic
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperUniform
SuperHyperWheel. perForcing.
(v) : the strong O(N SHG)-1-failed neutrosophic 2684
SuperHyper
neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel.
(ii), (iii) are obvious by (i). is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior neutrosophic
2685
SuperHy-
(ii), (iii) are obvious by (i). By (i), |V | is maximal and it is a dual (vi) : the and
perVertices connected O(Nneutrosophic
SHG)-1-failed neutrosophic SuperHy
(iv). neutrosophicthe interior
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperVertices
2686
(iv). By (i), |V| is maximal and it is a dual neutrosophic
1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Thus coincide.
it’s aand dualit’s|V |-neutrosophic
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic1-failed SuperHyperForcing. is one only V. Where the exterior 2687 neutrosophic Super

SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing.

interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 2688
coincide.
Thus it’s a dual |V |-neutrosophic
(v), (vi) are obvious by (iv). 1-failed Proof. Suppose NSHG : (V,E) is a neutrosophic
SuperHyperDefensive 2689
SuperHyper-
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Graph which is a neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform neutrosoph-
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHype
(v),(vi) are obviousProposition
by (iv). 5.19. Let N SHG : (V, E) be aicneutrosophic SuperHyperCycle/neutrosophic
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperPath. 2690
neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform neutrosophic SuperHyperC
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle/neutrosophic 2691
Proposition 5.19.SuperHyperPath.
Let NSHG : (V,E) Then be the anumber
neutrosophic
of SuperHyperPath.
(i). Consider one segment is out of S which is neutrosophic 2692 Su-
SuperHyperUniform neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a perHyperDefensive (i). Consider 1-failed one segmentneutrosophicis out SuperHyperForcing.
of S which is neutrosoph
(i) : the 1-failed neutrosophic
neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle/neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing;
SuperHyperPath. 1-failed
This segment neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing.
has 2t neutrosophic 2693 This segment has
SuperHyperNeighbors in S,
Then the number of(ii) : the 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing; i.e, Suppose xii=1,2SuperHyperUniform
SuperHyperNeighbors
neutrosophic ,...,t ∈ V \ Sinsuch
S, i.e,that Suppose xii=1,2,...,t
neutrosophic
2694
∈ V \ S su
SuperHyperC
(i) : the 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing; y|N (x
ii=1,2,...,t , z
ii=1,2,...,t )| = |N
ii=1,2,...,t ∈
(y N (x )| =
ii=1,2,...,t
ii=1,2,...,t |N
). By
By
(z it’s
it’s the
theexterior
ii=1,2,...,t )|exterior
= neut
2t. Thus
(ii) : the 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing;
(iii) : the connected neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices
1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing; SuperHyperVertices
and the and the interior
interior 2695neutrosophic
neutrosophic SuperHype
(iii) : the connected 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForc- SuperHyperVertices ∀a ∈ S, |N (a)and
coincide ∩ S| |N (a) ∩ (VSuperHyper-
it’s<neutrosophic \ S)| ≡
ing; (iv) : the O(N SHG)-1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing; Uniform neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle, 2696
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
(iv) : the O(NSHG)-1-failed
(v) : the neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing;
strong O(N SHG)-1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing; ∃yii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ {xi }ti=1 , |N (y ii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ S| <
2697
(v) : the strong O(NSHG)-1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyper-
(vi) : theneutrosophic
connected SuperHyperUniform
O(N SHG)-1-failed neutrosophic neutrosophicSuperHyperForcing.
SuperHyperCycle,
|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ (V \ (V \ {xii=1,2,...,t 2698 }))| ≡
2709

|N (xii=1,2,...,t )| = |N (yii=1,2,...,t )| = |N (zii=1,2,...,t )| =∃y 2t. Thus ∈ V \ {x }t , |N (y 2710

ii=1,2,...,t i i=1 ii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ S| <
is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and the 2699

interior neutrosophic ∀a ∈ SuperHyperVertices

S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ {xii=1,2,...,t })| 2700
coincide. ≡
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡∃yii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ {xi }ti=1 , |{z1 , z2 , . . . , zt−1 }| < |{x1
Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic t SuperHyperGraph which is a 2701
∃yii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ {x
neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform neutrosophic ) ∩ S| <
i }i=1 , |N (yiSuperHyperCycle/neutrosophic
i=1,2,...,t ∃y ∈ S, t − 1 < t − 1. 2702

SuperHyperPath.|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ (V \ (V \ {xii=1,2,...,t }))| ≡ 2703

(i). Consider ∃y oneii=1,2,...,t

segment is out of tS which Thusis it’s contradiction.
neutrosophic
∈ V \ {xi }i=1 , |N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ S| <
It implies
SuperHyperDefensive every V \ {xii=1,2,...,t } isn’t
2704

1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcin

|N (yiSuperHyperForcing.
) ∩ {xii=1,2,...,tThis })| ≡segment has 2t neutrosophic 2705

SuperHyperNeighbors i=1,2,...,t in S, i.e, Suppose x SuperHyperUniform

ii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S such that neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle.
2706
∃yii=1,2,...,t
yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ {x
∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). iBy}ti=1it’s
, |{z
the1 , exterior
z2Consider
, . . . , zt−1 }|
one |{x1 , x2 , . .with
< segment,
neutrosophic . , xt−1two})| segments
≡ 2707 related to the n
SuperHyperVertices ∃y ∈and t − interior
S, the 1 < t − 1. neutrosophic SuperHyperLeaves
SuperHyperVertices as exceptions,
coincide andisit’s out of
2708 S which is neutros

Thus it’s contradiction. It implies every V \ {xii=1,2,...,t} isn’t rHyperForcing.

SuperHyperDefensiveThis segment has 2t neutrosophic
1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyper-
SuperHyperForcin
Thus it’s contradiction. It implies every V \ {xii=1,2,...,t } isn’t neutrosophic 2711
neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic Su- Neighbors neutrosophicin S, i.e, Suppose x ,...,t ∈ V \ in
SuperHyperNeighbors S such thatSuppose xii=1,2,.
S, i.e,
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing in iai=1,2 given neutrosophic 2712
perHyperForcing in a given neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). ByBy it’s
it’s the
theexterior
exterior neutr
SuperHyperUniform neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. 2713
neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
SuperHyperVertices
Consider one segment, with two segments related to the neutrosophic and the and the interior
interior neutrosophic
neutrosophic 2714
SuperHyper
Consider one segment, with two segments related to the neu- SuperHyperVertices
neutrosophic
SuperHyperLeaves as exceptions, is out of S which is neutrosophic coincide and
SuperHyperUniform it’s neutrosophic
neutrosophicSuperHyper-
2715
SuperHyperP
trosophic SuperHyperLeaves as exceptions, is out1-failed
SuperHyperDefensive of S which is Uniform
neutrosophic neutrosophic SuperHyperPath,
|N (xSuperHyperForcing.
ii=1,2,...,t )| = |N (yii=1,2,...,t )| = |Nhas
This segment (zii=1,2,...,t
2t )| = 2t. Thus
2716
neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic Supe-
neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in S, i.e, Suppose xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S such that
88/128 2717

yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By it’s the exterior neutrosophic ∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N2718 (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
SuperHyperVertices and the interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices ∀a ∈ S,coincide
|N (a) ∩and < |N2719
S| it’s (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
J Math Techniques Comput Math, 2023 SuperHyperUniform neutrosophic SuperHyperPath,
neutrosophic ∃yii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ {xi }i=1 ,6 |N
Volume 2 | Issue
t 2720 | 273
(yii=1,2,...,t )
|N (xii=1,2,...,t )| = |N (yii=1,2,...,t )| = |N (zii=1,2,...,t )| = 2t. Thus 2721
|N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ (V \ (V \ {xii=1,2,...,t }))|
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡ ∃y t
ii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ {xi }i=1 , |N (yii=1,2,...,t )
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡ |N (y
ii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ {xii=1,2,...,t })| ≡
 SuperHyperLeaves as exceptions, is out of S which is neutrosophic 2715

SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. This segment has 2t 2716

neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in S, i.e, Suppose xii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S such that 2717

yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ). By it’s the exterior neutrosophic 2718

SuperHyperVertices and the interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s 2719

neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform neutrosophic SuperHyperPath, 2720

|N (xii=1,2,...,t )| = |N (yii=1,2,...,t )| = |N (zii=1,2,...,t )| = 2t. Thus 2721

∀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 }))| ≡
∃yii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ {xi }ti=1 , |N (yii=1,2,...,t ) ∩ S| <
|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 (v) : the strong dual O(NSHG)-1-failed neutrosophic SuperHy-
neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive Thus it’s contradiction.
1-failed neutrosophicIt implies every V \ {xii=1,2,...,t } isn’t neutrosophic
Su- perForcing; 2722

SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic dual O(N SHG)-1-failed

(iv) : theSuperHyperForcing neutrosophic
in a given neutrosophic SuperHyperFo
perHyperForcing in a given neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform (vi) : the connected dual O(NSHG)-1-failed neutrosophic Supe-
2723

neutrosophic SuperHyperPath SuperHyperUniform neutrosophicrHyperForcing. SuperHyperPath.

(v) : the strong dual O(N SHG)-1-failed neutrosophic 2724
SuperH
(ii), (iii) are obvious by (i). (ii), (iii) are obvious by (i). is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior neutrosophic SuperHy- 2725

(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal and it’s(iv). By (i), |V |SuperHyper-

a neutrosophic is maximal and it’s: athe
perVertices
(vi) neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive
and the interior
connected dual neutrosophic 1-failed
SuperHyperVertices
O(N SHG)-1-failed neutrosophic
2726
Sup
Defensive 1-failed neutrosophic dual O(N SHG)-1-failed
(iv) : theneutrosophic
SuperHyperForcing. Thusneutrosophic
SuperHyperForcing. it’s |V |-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive
ThusSuperHyperForcing;
it’s coincide. 2736 2727

1-failed neutrosophic
|V |-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic is one and it’s only V. Where the exterior neutrosophic
SuperHyperForcing. 2728 Super
(v) : the strong dual
(v), (vi) O(N
are SHG)-1-failed
obvious by (iv). neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing; 2737
SuperHyperForcing. interior
Proof. Suppose NSHG : (V,E)
neutrosophic is a neutrosophic SuperHyperUni-
SuperHyperVertices coincide.2729
(v),(vi) are obvious by (iv).
(vi) : theProposition
connected dual O(NLet
5.20. N SHG : form
SHG)-1-failed (V, neutrosophic
neutrosophic
E) beSuppose SuperHyperGraph which is a 2738
SuperHyperForcing.
a neutrosophic neutrosophic
Proof.
SuperHyperWheel. N SHGSuperHyperUniform
: (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyper 2730

neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a neutrosophic

SuperHyperGraph SuperHyperWheel.
which Then
is ofa Sneutrosophic the
SuperHyperWheel
2731
Proposition 5.20. LetisNSHGone and it’sbeonly
: number
(V,E) V. Where the
aofneutrosophic exterior (i).
SuperHy- neutrosophic
Consider one SuperHyperVertices
segment is out and theis neutrosophic
which 2739
Su-
2732
perUniform neutrosophicinterior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
SuperHyperGraph which is a neutro- coincide. (i). Consider one
perHyperDefensive segment
1-failed is out of
neutrosophic S which
SuperHyperForcing.
2740 is neutrosophi
sophic SuperHyperWheel. Proof.Then the: number
(i)
Suppose
the dualof 1-failed neutrosophic
N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic This segment
1-failed has 3t neutrosophic
neutrosophic
SuperHyperForcing;
SuperHyperUniform SuperHyperNeighbors
SuperHyperForcing.
neutrosophic in2733S, has 3
This segment
2741
(i) : the dual 1-failedSuperHyperGraph
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing;
which is a neutrosophic i.e, Suppose x
SuperHyperNeighborsii=1,2,...,t ∈ V \ S
in such
S, that
i.e, Suppose x i2742 ∈ V \ S su
(ii) : the dual 1-failed neutrosophicSuperHyperWheel.
SuperHyperForcing; i=1,2,...,t
(ii) : the dual 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing; By it’s the exte
2734
(i). Consider one segment is out of S which y ii=1,2,...,t , z , s
ii=1,2,...,tSuperHyperDefensive
is neutrosophic ii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (x ii=1,2,...,t
2743
). By it’s
(iii) : the dual connected 1-failed
1-failed (iii) neutrosophic SuperHyper-
: the dualSuperHyperForcing.
neutrosophic the exterior neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices
connected 1-failed neutrosophic
This segmentSuperHyperForcing; SuperHyperVertices
and the interior neutrosophic
has 3t neutrosophic and the
2744
interior
SuperHyper
2735

Forcing; SuperHyperNeighbors in S, i.e, Suppose xneutrosophic neutrosophic

ii=1,2,...,t ∈ V SuperHyperVertices
\ SSuperHyperUniform
such that coincide and it’s 2745
neutrosophic neutrosophic
SuperHyperW
(iv) : the dual O(NSHG)-1-failed neutrosophic
yii=1,2,...,t , zii=1,2,...,t SuperHyper-
, sii=1,2,...,t SuperHyperUniform
|N).(x
∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t By = neutrosophic
it’s the)|exterior
ii=1,2,...,t |N (yneutrosophic SuperHyperWheel,
ii=1,2,...,t )| = |N (zii=1,2,...,t
2746 )| = 3t. Thus
Forcing; SuperHyperVertices and the interior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices coincide and it’s 2747
neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel, ∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V2748\ S)| ≡
89/128
|N (xii=1,2,...,t )| = |N (yii=1,2,...,t )| = |N (zii=1,2,...,t )| = 3t. ∀a Thus∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V2749\ S)| ≡
t
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡ ∃yii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ) ∈ V \ {xi }i=1
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡ |N (yii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t )) ∩ S| <
t
|Ni }(y , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t )) ∩ (V \ (V
∃yii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ) ∈ V \ {x ,
ii=1,2,...,t
i=1
∃y<ii=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, \|N(V(y\ii=1,2,...,t
{xii=1,2,...,t }))| ≡ ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t )) ∩ S| <
, sii=1,2,...,t
t
∃yii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ) ∈ V \ {x|Ni }(y
i=1
i , si ∈ N (xi )) ∩ {xi
i=1,2,...,t i=1,2,...,t i=1,2,...,t i=1,2,.
, |N (yii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t )) ∩ ∃y
S| < t
ii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ) ∈ V \ {xi }i=1
|N (yii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t )) ∩ {xii=1,2,...,t })| ≡   
|{z1 , z2 , . . . , zt−1 , z1 , z2 , . . . , zt }| < |{x1 , x2 , . . . , xt−
∃yii=1,2,...,t , sii=1,2,...,t ∈ N (xii=1,2,...,t ) ∈ V \ {xi }ti=1 ,
∃y ∈ S, 2t − 1 < t − 1.
|{z1 , z2 , . . . , zt−1 , z1 , z2 , . . . , zt }| < |{x1 , x2 , . . . , xt−1 })| ≡
∃y ∈ S, 2t − 1 < t − 1. Thus it’s contradiction. It implies every V \ {xii=1,2,...,t } isn’t
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcin
Thus it’s contradiction.ThusIt implies every V \ {xIt
it’s contradiction. ,...,t} isn’t
implies
ii=1,2 everya V SuperHyperDefensive
\ {xii=1,2,...,t } isn’t a 1-failed
SuperHyperUniform dual neutrosophic
neutrosophic
neutrosophic SuperHyperForc-
SuperHyperWheel.
2750

dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive

SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed
1-failed neutrosophicing.
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing in a given neutrosophic 2751
(ii), (iii) are obvious by (i).
SuperHyperForcing SuperHyperUniform
in a given neutrosophic SuperHyperUni-
neutrosophic (v),(vi)
SuperHyperWheel. are By
(iv). obvious by |(iv).
(i), |V
2752
is maximal and it’s a dual neutrosophic S
form neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel.
(ii), (iii) are obvious by (i). 2753
1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Thus it isn’t an |V |
(ii), (iii) are obvious by (i).
(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal and it’s a dual Proposition 5.21. Let
neutrosophic NSHG : (V,E) be a neutrosophic
SuperHyperDefensive 2754 Super-
(iv). By (i), |V | is maximal
1-failedand it’s a dual neutrosophic
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. SuperHyperDefensive
Super- HyperUniform
Thus it isn’t an neutrosophic
1-failed neutrosophic2755SuperHyperForcin
SuperHyperGraph which
|V |-neutrosophic is a neu-
HyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing.
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophictrosophic (v), (vi) are obvious by (iv).
SuperHyperStar/neutrosophic SuperHyperComplete
SuperHyperForcing. 2756

Thus it isn’t an |V |-neutrosop

(v), (vi) are obvious by (iv). neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite/neutrosophic 2757
SuperHyper-
Proposition 5.21. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic Su
J Math Techniques Comput Math, 2023
Proposition 5.21. Let N SHG : (V, E) beneutrosophic SuperHyperGraph
a neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform Volume
which is 2a| Issue 6 | 274
neutrosophic
2758 Super
SuperHyperComplete
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a neutrosophic neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite/neutr
SuperHyperStar/neutrosophic 2759

SuperHyperComplete neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite/neutrosophic

SuperHyperComplete neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite.
2760 T
SuperHyperComplete neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a neutrosophic
SuperHyperSet contains [the neutrosophic SuperHyperCenter
2761 an
SuperHyperSet contains [the neutrosophic SuperHyperCenter
r with the numberand]ofthe
all half
the of multiplying SuperHyperEdges
neutrosophic 2762
pl
 Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 2781
Consider n half +1 neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are in S which is neutrosophic
Thus it’sinproved.
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing It implies SuperHyperStar.
a given neutrosophic every S is a dual neutrosophic 2782 SuperHyperDefensive 1-fa
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. A neutrosophic
Consider n half +1 neutrosophic
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
SuperHyperForcing are in S whichin a is nneutrosophic
given neutrosophic 2783 SuperHyperComplete
SuperHyperVertex has at most 2 neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in S.
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. A neutrosophic
neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite which n in S. isn’t a neutrosophic
2784
n 2785 SuperHyperStar.
SuperHyperVertex has at most n2 neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors ∀a ∈ S, > |N (a) ∩ S| > − 1 > are|N (a) ∩S \ S)| ≡ is neutrosop
(V which
Consider n half +1 neutrosophic 2SuperHyperVertices 2 in
n n n n
∀a ∈ SuperHyperDefensive
S, > |N (a) ∩ S| > − 1 1-failed > |N (a) ∀a ∩neutrosophic
(V
∈ S,\ S)| ≡> − 1. SuperHyperForcing and they’re chosen f
2 2 2 2
∀a ∈ S,
different
n n neutrosophic SuperHyperParts,
> − 1.
equally or almost equally as possible. A
Complete neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite. Then 2 a neutro-
2
neutrosophic trosophic
Thus
SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperNeighbors
it’s proved. It implies every S is an dual
has at most in S.neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors
neutrosophic
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed
i
2
sophic SuperHyperSet contains Thus[the
it’s neutrosophic
proved. It impliesSuperHyper- neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing in a given
every S is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 2786
neutrosophic SuperHyperComplete
neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite
n which n isn’t a2787neutrosophic SuperHyperStar.
Center and] the half of multiplying r withSuperHyperForcing
neutrosophic the number of all in the
a given neutrosophic
∀a ∈ S,n half
Consider
SuperHyperComplete
> +1|N (a) ∩ S| >
neutrosophic − 1 > |N (a)are
SuperHyperVertices ∩ in
(VS \which
S)| ≡ is neutrosophic
neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite which isn’t a neutrosophic
neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 2 SuperHyperStar. 2 2788
1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing and they’re chosen from
Consider n half +1 neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are n in Snwhich is neutrosophic 2789
SuperHyperVertices is a different
∀a ∈
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing
neutrosophic
S, > SuperHyperParts,
− 1. chosen from equally or almost equally as possible. A
2 and
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 2 they’rehas 2790
at most n2 neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in S.
(i) : dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive
different neutrosophic1-failed neutro- equally or almost equally as possible. A
SuperHyperParts, 2791

Thus it’s hasproved. It implies every n

Simplies
is >a |Ndual n 2792
at mostThus it’s proved. ∈ItS, ∩neutrosophic
every S.is a 1dual SuperHyperDefensive
neutrosophic
(a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡Su- 1-fa
n
sophic SuperHyperForcing; neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 2 neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors
∀a (a) in S
S| > − > |N
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing in 2a given 2
neutrosophic SuperHyperComplete
(ii) : strong dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive > |N (a) ∩ S| >perHyperDefensive 1-failed
n ≡ n neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing
n 1-failed n
∀a ∈ S, − 1 > |N (a) ∀a ∩ (V∈ S,\ S)| > − 1. is neither a neutrosophic SuperHyperS
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing; neutrosophic
2 SuperHyperMultipartite
in 2
a given neutrosophic 2 which 2 SuperHyperComplete neutrosophic
n n
∀a ∈ nor
S, neutrosophic SuperHyperComplete neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite.
(iii) : connected dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 2
> − 1.
2 SuperHyperMultipartite
Thus it’s proved. It implies which
every S is aisdual
neither a neutrosophic
neutrosophic Super- 1-failed
SuperHyperDefensive
1-failed neutrosophic (ii), (iii) are obvious
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dualHyperStar
neutrosophic
neutrosophic
by
nor (i).
neutrosophic
SuperHyperForcing
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperComplete neutrosophic
in a given neutrosophic SuperHyperComplete
1-failed 2793
neutrosophic
O(N SHG)SuperHyperMultipartite which is neither a neutrosophic SuperHyperStar
ected dualSuperHyperForcing; neutrosophic 1-failed
neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing
(iv). in
neutrosophic Bya given SuperHyperBipartite.
neutrosophic
{x
(i),nor
+1
SuperHyperComplete
i }i=1 2768 SuperHyperComplete
2
neutrosophic is a dual neutrosophic 2794
neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperBipartite. 1-failed
rHyperForcing; (ii),
neutrosophic neutrosophic (iii)
(iii)are
SuperHyperForcing. are
2769 obvious
neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite which is neither a neutrosophic SuperHyperStar
(iv) : O (NSHG)/2 + 1-dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive (ii), obvious by
by
Thus (i).
(i). it’s O(N SHG) 2795
+ 1-dual neutrosophic
ected dual1-failed
neutrosophic nor neutrosophic
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperComplete
1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite. 2
neutrosophi SuperHyperForcing; (iv):
(iv).By (i);
O(N SHG) 2796

is (is aSuperHyperForcing.
dual neutrosophic SuperHyper- 1-failed
2768 +1
SHG) (ii), (iii) are obviousSuperHyperDefensive
by (i). By (i), {xi }neutrosophic
1-failed i=1
2
a dual neutrosophic
2797 SuperHyperDefensive
HyperForcing;
+ 1-dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive
(v) : strong O (NSHG)/2 + 1-dual neutrosophic 1-failed
O(N SHG)neutrosophic
SuperHyperDe- Defensive 1-failed
(iv). neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing.
it’s O(N2798 Thus it’s +
2769
2770 SHG)
2
(iv). By (i), {xi }i=1 2 +1
(v), is(vi)
a dual neutrosophic
areneutrosophic
obvious by SuperHyperForcing.
SuperHyperDefensive Thus
1-failed 2 + 1-dual neutrosophic
rHyperForcing;
fensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing; SuperHyperDefensive
1-dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive
1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing.
1-failed
HG) 2771
+ 1-dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Thus it’s O(N SHG) +
27701-dual neutrosophic 2799
(v),2(vi) are obvious by (iv).
connected (vi)
O(N SHG)
HyperForcing;
ng : connected
dual
+ 1-dual O (NSHG)/2
neutrosophic
neutrosophic + 1-dual neutrosophic
SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperDefensive
1-failed
1-failedSuperHy-
neutrosophic
neutrosophic neutrosophic
1-failed 2772 SuperHyperForcing.
SuperHyperForcing.
neutrosophic 2771
2768 2800

perDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic

SuperHyperForcing;
2
rHyperForcing;
(v), SuperHyperForcing.
(vi) are obvious by (iv).
2773 (v),(vi) are obvious by (iv).
2769 2801

g O(N
O(N
SHG)
SHG)
2 + 1-dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 2772
2 O(N+SHG)
1-dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic
Consider n half +1 neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
2770
Proof.
HyperForcing;
ected (i).
+ 1-dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed Proposition
2773
2774 5.22. Let NSHG : (V,E) be a neutrosophic Super- 91/128 91/
SuperHyperForcing;
2 2771
rosophic are in S which
SuperHyperForcing. is neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed HyperUniform 2775 neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a neu-
ected O(N O(N
SHG)
2 SHG)++1-dual
neutrosophic neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperForcing. A neutrosophic SuperHyper- 1-failed trosophic2774SuperHyperStar/neutrosophic
91/128
SuperHyperComplete
trong
Consider 2n half +1 1-dual neutrosophic
neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperVertices are in1-failed
S which neutrosophic
is 2772
osophic SuperHyperForcing. 2776
Vertex has either n/2 or one neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors neutrosophic 2773 SuperHyperBipartite/neutrosophic SuperHyper-
2775
SuperHyperForcing;
hic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. A 2777
Consider innO(N IfSHG)
S.half the
+1neutrosophic
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex
nSuperHyperVertices
Proposition
is non-neutrosophic
are in S which 5.22. Let N
isComplete SHG : (V, E)
neutrosophic
2776
be a neutrosophic SuperHyperUniform
SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a neutro-
hic SuperHyperVertex
connected + has either
1-dual 2 or one neutrosophic
neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperNeighbors
neutrosophic 1-failed
SuperHyperGraph 2778
2774which is a neutrosophic SuperHyperStar/neutrosophi
ic SuperHyperCenter,
SuperHyperDefensive2
e neutrosophicSuperHyperForcing.
then
1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing.
SuperHyperVertex is non-neutrosophic SuperHyperCenter, then A sophic SuperHyperSet
2777 contains the half of multiplying r with the
neutrosophic
ic SuperHyperVertex has either n2 or one neutrosophicSuperHyperComplete SuperHyperNeighbors number of
2779
neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite/neutrosophic
2778all the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges plus one of all
2775

SuperHyperComplete the neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite. Then a neutrosophic

neutrosophic
neutrosophic n∀ahalf
∈ S,
(i). ConsiderSuperHyperVertex +1|N (a) ∩ S|
neutrosophic > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)|
is non-neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices ≡ are in S which
SuperHyperCenter, then is 2779 2776 SuperHyperVertices in the biggest neutrosoph-
SuperHyperSet contains ic A the half of multiplying
SuperHyperPart is a r with the number of all the neutrosoph
sophic SuperHyperDefensive
∀a∈∈S,
∀a S, |N
1> (a)0.∩1-failed
S| > |N neutrosophic
(a) ∩ (V \ S)|SuperHyperForcing.
≡ 2777
SuperHyperEdges plus one
(i): neutrosophic of all the neutrosophic
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperVertices in the biggest
1-failed neutrosophic
sophic SuperHyperVertex has either n2 or one neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors 2778
trosophic IfSuperHyperVertex
the neutrosophic
S, 1 > SuperHyperVertex
∀a ∈SuperHyperVertex0. is neutrosophic neutrosophic
isSuperHyperCenter,
neutrosophic SuperHy- SuperHyperPart
then SuperHyperForcing;
2780 is a
f the neutrosophic is non-neutrosophic SuperHyperCenter, then 2779

perCenter,
rosophic SuperHyperVertex then
∀a ∈∀aS,∈|N (a) is ∩ S| >
neutrosophic|N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
(i)
SuperHyperCenter, : neutrosophic
then (ii): strong neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperDefensive
2780 1-failed neutrosophic1-failed neutro-
SuperHyperForcing;
S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡ sophic
n n
∀a∈∈∀a
∀a S, > ∩−
S,∈|NS,(a)
2 1 2> 0.
S| 1.> |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡ (ii) : strong neutrosophicSuperHyperForcing;
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic
∀a ∈
n
S, S >
n
− 1. (iii):
SuperHyperForcing; connected neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed
neutrosophic
proved. It implies SuperHyperVertex
every is neutrosophic SuperHyperCenter, then
2 is a2 dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing;
2781 2780

hic SuperHyperForcing in a given neutrosophic SuperHyperStar. (iii) : connected neutrosophic 2782 SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic
roved. It implies ∀a ∈S S,
every a|Ndual
(a) ∩
isSuperHyperVertices S| > |N (a) ∩
neutrosophic (V \ S)| ≡
SuperHyperDefensive (iv): δ-neutrosophic
1-failed 2781 SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosoph-
er n half +1 neutrosophic are in S which is neutrosophic
SuperHyperForcing;
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual neutrosophic Supe- ic SuperHyperForcing;
2783
ic SuperHyperForcing n n
erDefensive 1-failed∀a ∈inS,a given
neutrosophic > neutrosophic
− 1.
SuperHyperForcing. SuperHyperStar.
A neutrosophic 2782
rHyperDefensive n 1-failed 2neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing in a (v): SuperHyperDefensive
strong2783 δ-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive
1-failed neutrosophic 1-failed neu-
2784
rerVertex
n half +1 neutrosophic 2
SuperHyperVertices are in S which
(iv) : is neutrosophic
δ-neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing;
has at most 2 neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in S.
given neutrosophic SuperHyperStar. Consider n half +1 neutro- trosophic SuperHyperForcing;
2785
rDefensive
t’s proved. It 1-failed
implies neutrosophic
every S is a SuperHyperForcing. A neutrosophic
dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed2784 2781

rVertex sophic
has at
sophic SuperHyperForcing SuperHyperVertices
n n neutrosophic
most in a given are in S which is SuperHyperStar.
n SuperHyperNeighbors
neutrosophic neutrosophic
(v) : strong
in S.Su- (vi): connected
δ-neutrosophic δ-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 1-failed
∀a ∈ S, > 2|N (a) ∩ S| > − 1 > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡ 2785 2782
perHyperDefensive
nsider n half +1nneutrosophic 2 1-failed 2neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices SuperHyperForcing. neutrosophic
SuperHyperForcing;
are in S which is neutrosophic 2783 SuperHyperForcing.
n > |N n SuperHyperVertex n
∀a
∀a
HyperDefensive A∈neutrosophic
∈S, >
S, 1-failed (a)
− 1.
neutrosophic 1> has|Nat(a)
∩ S| > −SuperHyperForcing. most
∩ (Vn/2\neutrosophic
S)| ≡neutrosophic
22 2 n in S. 2 (vi) : A connected δ-neutrosophic2784SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic
SuperHyperNeighbors
HyperVertex hasnat most n neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in S. Proof. (i). Consider the half of multiplying r with the number of
SuperHyperForcing. 2785
proved. ∀a ∈ S, every
It implies > −
2 n2 S
2
1.
is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive all the
1-failed neutrosophic
2786 SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the neu-
n trosophic
hic SuperHyperForcing∀a ∈ S, in a given neutrosophic
> |N (a) ∩ S| > − 1 > |N (a)Proof. SuperHyperComplete
∩ (V \(i). S)| Consider
≡ the half of multiplying r inwith
SuperHyperVertices
2787 the biggest
the numberneutrosophic
of all theSupe-
neutrosoph
roved. It implies every2 S iswhich
hic SuperHyperBipartite a dual neutrosophic
isn’t a 2
neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperStar. 1-failed
rHyperPart 2786
are in S which is neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive
n n SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in the bigges
2788
ic SuperHyperForcing in
> aSuperHyperVertices
given
− 1. neutrosophic are SuperHyperComplete 1-failed 2787 neutrosophic
er n half +1∀a ∈ S,
neutrosophic in S which is neutrosophic
neutrosophic SuperHyperPart 2789 are in SSuperHyperForcing.
which is neutrosophic A neutrosophic Su-
SuperHyperDefensive
ic SuperHyperBipartite 2 which 2 isn’t a neutrosophic SuperHyperStar.
erDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing and they’re chosen perHyperVertex
from 2788
has either n − 1, 1 or zero
1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. A neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex has eith
2790 neutrosophic Super-
reutrosophic
nproved.
half +1Itneutrosophic
implies everySuperHyperVertices are equally
in SuperHyperDefensive
S which is neutrosophic
AHyperNeighbors in S. If the neutrosophic
t’s S is equally
a dual neutrosophic 1-failed in S.SuperHyperVertex is
2789
SuperHyperParts, or almost n − as1, 1possible.
or zero neutrosophic 2786
2791 SuperHyperNeighbors If the neutrosophic
rDefensive
hicsophic 1-failed
Thus it’s proved.
SuperHyperForcing
SuperHyperVertex neutrosophic
hasItat implies
inmost SuperHyperForcing
a given every
n
is a
neutrosophic
S
neutrosophic dual and they’re
neutrosophic
SuperHyperComplete
SuperHyperNeighbors chosen
Supe- infrom
S,
in then
S. 2790 2787
2 SuperHyperVertex is in S, then 2792
eutrosophic SuperHyperParts,
rHyperDefensive
sophic SuperHyperBipartite 1-failed equally
which or aalmost
neutrosophic
isn’t equally SuperHyperStar.
as possible.
SuperHyperForcing
neutrosophic in a A 2791 2788

ic SuperHyperVertex n has at most nn

neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in S.
nsider n ∀a given
half S,neutrosophic
∈ +1 > |N (a) SuperHyperComplete
neutrosophic ∩ S| >2 − 1 > |N (a)neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices are
∩ (Vin\ S Super-
S)|which
≡ is neutrosophic ∀a ∈2789
2792
S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
2 2 SuperHyperForcing and they’re chosen from 2790
HyperDefensive HyperBipartite
1-failed
nn which isn’t
neutrosophic an neutrosophic
n (a) ∩ S| > − 1 > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡ SuperHyperStar. ∀a ∈ S, 0 < 1.
∀a
∀a
nt neutrosophic ∈∈S, >>|N − 1.
S, 2SuperHyperParts,
Consider 2n half2 +1 neutrosophic 2equally
n
or almost equallyare
SuperHyperVertices as in
possible.
S A 2791

sophic SuperHyperVertex
which n n has at most neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in S.
∈ S, is every neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed
Thus it’s neutro-
proved. Thus it’s proved.
It implies every It implies
S is every S is SuperHyperDefensive
a neutrosophic a neutrosophic Super- 1-failed
2792
> − 2
proved. ∀a It implies S 1.
is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed
sophic SuperHyperForcing and n they’re chosenneutrosophic
from differentSuperHyperForcing
HyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing in a
2793
2 n2 in a given neutrosophic SuperHyperStar.
hic SuperHyperForcing >in|N a (a)
∀a ∈ S, SuperHyperParts, given∩ S| neutrosophic− 1 >orSuperHyperComplete
> equally |Nal(a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡as
neutrosophic most equally given neutrosophic SuperHyperStar.
2794
roved. It implies every2 S is a dual neutrosophic
2 Consider
SuperHyperDefensive the half
1-failed of multiplying
2793 r with the number of all the neutrosophic
hic SuperHyperMultipartite which is neither a neutrosophic SuperHyperStar
possible. A neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex has at most n/2 neu-
2795
ic SuperHyperForcing n in an given neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges
SuperHyperComplete plus one 2794 of all the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in the bigges
∀a ∈ S,
osophic SuperHyperComplete > − 1.
neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite. 2796
ic 2 2 which is neither a neutrosophic neutrosophic SuperHyperPart are in S which is neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive
i) SuperHyperMultipartite
are obvious
J Math
by (i).
Techniques Comput Math, 2023 1-failed
SuperHyperStar
neutrosophic
2795
2797
SuperHyperForcing. A neutrosophicVolume 2 | Issue 6 | 275
SuperHyperVertex has no
sophic SuperHyperComplete
t’s proved. It implies
O(N SHG) neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite.
+1 every S is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 2793 2796
ysophic
) (i), {xSuperHyperForcing
i }i=1 by (i). is a dual
are obvious
2
neutrosophic
in a given SuperHyperDefensive
neutrosophic
neutrosophic SuperHyperComplete 1-failed
SuperHyperNeighbor 2798
2797 2794
in S.
O(N SHG) O(N SHG)
hic SuperHyperForcing.
sophic +1
SuperHyperMultipartite Thus it’swhich is + 1-dual
neither a neutrosophic
neutrosophic SuperHyperStar 2799
(i), {xi }i=1 2
is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed
2
∀a
2798
2795
∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
erDefensive
utrosophic 1-failed neutrosophic O(N
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperForcing.
neutrosophic
SHG) SuperHyperBipartite. 2800
2796
)ic SuperHyperForcing.
, are
(iii)obvious
are obvious by (iv). by (i).
Thus it’s 2 + 1-dual neutrosophic ∀a
2801 ∈ S, 0 < δ.
2799
2797
 zero neutrosophic
phic SuperHyperPart SuperHyperNeighbors
are in S which is neutrosophic (iv) :
in S. If the neutrosophic
SuperHyperDefensive 2 SHG)+ 1-dual 2823 neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic
O(N 2821
rVertex is in S, then (iv) :SuperHyperForcing;
2 + 1-dual2824neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. A neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex has either 2822
SuperHyperForcing;
or zero neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in S. If the(v) neutrosophic O(N SHG) 2823
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡ : strong O(N2 SHG)+ 1-dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosop
perVertex is in S, then (v) :SuperHyperForcing;
strong + 1-dual
2824
neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutroso
∀a ∈ S, 0 < 1. 2
SuperHyperForcing;
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| < |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| (vi)≡ : connected O(N SHG) + 1-dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed
roved. It implies every S is a neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed O(N 2 SHG) 2825
Consider∀athe∈ half
ic SuperHyperForcing
S, 0of < multiplying
in a given
1.
neutrosophic r with SuperHyperStar.
the number (vi) of all the ingSuperHyperForcing.
:neutrosophic
connected r 2with 2826
the numberneutrosophic
+ 1-dual of all the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed
rproved. neutrosophic
the halfItofimplies
multiplying SuperHyperEdges plus one of all the neutrosophic
neutrosophic plus one of all
SuperHyperForcing. the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Where the
SuperHyperVerticesevery rSwith in a the
is the number ofSuperHyperDefensive
neutrosophic
biggest
all the isneutrosophic
neutrosophic one and it’s1-failed
SuperHyperPart only S, a 2827
exterior neutrosophic
neutrosophic
2825 SuperHyperSet contains
SuperHyperVertices and the [the neutrosophic
interior neu-
rEdges
phic plus one of all theinneutrosophic
SuperHyperForcing a given neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is oneinand
SuperHyperCenter
SuperHyperStar. theit’s biggest
only
and] S, the
a2828neutrosophic
half of multiplying SuperHyperSet r with the contains
number[the neutrosophic
of all the neutrosop
ic are in S which
SuperHyperPart are is S
in neutrosophic
which is SuperHyperDefensive
neutrosophic 1-failed trosophic2829SuperHyperVertices
SuperHyperDefensive
2826
coincide.
der the half of multiplying r with the number of all the SuperHyperCenter
SuperHyperEdges
neutrosophic plusand] one the ofhalf of multiplying
all the neutrosophic r with the number of all Where
SuperHyperVertices. the neutroso
the
trosophicneutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. A neutrosophic SuperHyper-has no 2827

perEdges SuperHyperForcing.
plus one of all the A neutrosophic
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex
SuperHyperVertices SuperHyperEdges
exterior neutrosophic
in the plus
biggest one
2830 of all the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Where the
SuperHyperVertices and the interior neutrosophic
Vertex has no neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor in S.
ic SuperHyperNeighbor Proof. (i). Consider n half +1 neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
2828

phic SuperHyperPart areininS.S which is neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive exterior neutrosophic

SuperHyperVertices SuperHyperVertices
coincide.
are in S which
2831
2829 and the interior neutrosophic
is neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. A neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex SuperHyperVertices has no coincide.
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡Proof. (i). Consider neutrosophic
n half 2831 +1SuperHyperForcing.
2830
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices A neutrosophic SuperHyper-are in S which is
phic SuperHyperNeighbor in S. Vertex has either n/2 or one neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors
∀a ∈ S, 0 < δ. Proof. (i). Consider
neutrosophic n half +1 neutrosophic
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophicSuperHyperVertices are in S which
SuperHyperForcing. A is
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)|neutrosophic neutrosophic
≡ in S. If the neutrosophic
SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperVertex has either SuperHyperVertex
1-failed n neutrosophicisSuperHyperForcing.
or one neutrosophicnon-neutrosophic
SuperHyperNeighb A
2
roved. It Thus
implies it’severy
proved. S isIt aimplies
neutrosophicevery SSuperHyperDefensive
is a neutrosophic
inneutrosophic
S. If Super-
the 1-failedSuperHyperCenter,
SuperHyperVertex
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex
2832 hasthen either isn2 non-neutrosophic
or one neutrosophic SuperHyperNeigh
SuperHyperCenter, th
∀a ∈ S, 1-failed
HyperDefensive 0 < δ.
ic SuperHyperForcing in a given neutrosophic
neutrosophicSuperHyperForcing in S. If the
SuperHyperComplete in neutrosophic
a SuperHyperVertex is non-neutrosophic SuperHyperCenter,
2833

icproved. given neutrosophic

SuperHyperBipartite
It implies everywhich S SuperHyperComplete
is aisn’t a neutrosophic
neutrosophic neutrosophic
SuperHyperStar.
SuperHyperDefensive Super- 1-failed 2834 ∀a2832∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
HyperBipartite
r theSuperHyperForcing
phic half of multiplying rinwith which isn’t
a given a neutrosophic
the neutrosophic SuperHyperStar.
number of allSuperHyperComplete
the neutrosophic ∀a
2835∀a∈∈S,S,1 |N
2833 > (a)0. ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
rEdges
phic Consider the half
plus one of all the neutrosophic
SuperHyperBipartite of multiplying r with
which isn’t a SuperHyperVertices the number
neutrosophic SuperHyperStar. of all the
in the biggest 2836∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
2834
ic neutrosophic
derSuperHyperPart
the half are
of multiplying SuperHyperEdges
in Srwhich with the plus one of
is neutrosophic
number of all theIf neutrosophic
SuperHyperDefensive
all the the neutrosophic
neutrosophic If the neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex
2837
2835
SuperHyperVertex
is neutrosophic is neutrosophic
SuperHyperCenter, SuperHy-then
trosophic SuperHyperVertices
SuperHyperForcing. in theA biggest
neutrosophicneutrosophic
perEdges plus one of all the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices in the biggest SuperHyperPart
If
SuperHyperVertex the neutrosophic
has perCenter,
no 2838 then
SuperHyperVertex
2836
is neutrosophic SuperHyperCenter, then
ic are in S
SuperHyperNeighbor which is
in neutrosophic
S. SuperHyperDefensive
phic SuperHyperPart are in S which is neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed ∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
2839
2837

neutrosophicneutrosophic SuperHyperForcing.
SuperHyperForcing. A neutrosophic
A neutrosophic SuperHyper- has no ∀a
SuperHyperVertex
∀a ∈ S, n|N (a)
∈ S, n> n− 1.
2838
n ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
Vertex ∀ahas∈ no
S, neutrosophic
phic SuperHyperNeighbor in S.
|N (a) ∩ S| >SuperHyperNeighbor
|N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡in S.
∀a
2839 ∈ S,
2 >2 − 1.
∀a ∈ S, 0 < δ. 2 2
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-fai
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)|neutrosophic ≡
Thus it’s proved. Thus it’s proved. It
It implies everyinS aisgiven implies everyneutrosophic
a dual S is a dual neutrosophic Super-
SuperHyperDefensive 1-fa
SuperHyperForcing neutrosophic SuperHyperStar.
∀a ∈ S, 0 < δ. HyperDefensive 1-failed
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing in a given neutrosophic SuperHyperStar. neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing in a
given neutrosophic SuperHyperStar.
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a neutrosophic SuperHy-
perDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing in a 92/128 Consider n half +1 neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are in S
given neutrosophic SuperHyperComplete neutrosophic Super-n half
Consider which +1 isneutrosophic
neutrosophicSuperHyperVertices
SuperHyperDefensive are1-failed
in S whichneutro-is neutroso
HyperMultipartite which is neither a neutrosophicSuperHyperDefensive SuperHyper- sophic 92/128 SuperHyperForcing.
1-failed neutrosophic A neutrosophic
SuperHyperForcing. SuperHyperVertex
A neutrosophic
Star nor neutrosophic SuperHyperComplete neutrosophic Supe-n half
SuperHyperVertex
Consider has at +1most
has at mostn/2 neutrosophic
neutrosophic
n
2 neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors
SuperHyperVertices are in Sinwhich
SuperHyperNeighbors S. inisS.neutroso
rHyperBipartite. 93/1
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed1-failed
n neutrosophic 2840 SuperHyperForcing.
n A neutrosophic 93/
(ii), (iii) are obvious
neutrosophic by (i).
SuperHyperForcing in a given neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex ∀a
Consider
SuperHyperComplete has ∈ atS,nmost > |N
half n (a)
+1 ∩ S| > −
neutrosophic 1 > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)|are
SuperHyperVertices ≡ in S which
2 2 neutrosophic 2 SuperHyperNeighbors in S.
2841

(iv). By (i), S SuperHyperMultipartite

neutrosophic is a neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive which is neither1-failed SuperHyperDefensive
a neutrosophic n
SuperHyperStar n 1-failed
2842 neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. A neu
neutrosophic
nor neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing.
SuperHyperComplete Thus it’s an δ-neutrosophic
neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite. ∀a ∈ S, n > has−at
SuperHyperVertex 1.2843
most
Consider nn
neutrosophic
n half +1 SuperHyperNeighbors
neutrosophic SuperHype
∀a ∈ S, 2 > |N 2 (a) ∩ S| > 2 − 1 > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
SuperHyperDefensive
Thusare
(ii), (iii) it’s obvious
proved. 1-failed
It (i).neutrosophic
byimplies every S is aSuperHyperForc-
neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive Thus it’s proved. 2 1-failed
Itn implies every2S is a dual neutrosophic
SuperHyperDefensive
2840
2844 Supe-
1-failed neutrosophic Su
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing in a given Thus it’s
neutrosophic proved. It implies
SuperHyperComplete n every S is a n2841
dual neutrosophic n
SuperHyperDefensive 1-fa
ing. (iv). By (i), S is a neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failedrHyperDefensive neutrosophic
∀a ∈ S, >∀a1-failed
∈−S,1.2845neutrosophic
> |N
SuperHyperVertex (a) ∩ SuperHyperForcing
S| > has at− 1most> |Nn2(a) in∩a (V \ S)|
neutrosophic
neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite is a neutrosophic
every S which SuperHyperForcing
is neither a SuperHyperDefensive
neutrosophic 2 1-failed
SuperHyperStar 2 in a 2846 given 2
22842 2840 neutrosophic SuperHyperComplete
(v), (vi) are norobvious
Thus it’sby
SuperHyperForcing.
neutrosophic (iv).
proved.
Thus It implies
it’s an δ-neutrosophic
SuperHyperComplete
neutrosophic
SuperHyperDefensive
neutrosophic given neutrosophic
SuperHyperBipartite.
1-failed SuperHyperComplete
n n neutrosophic n Super- n
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing in a given neutrosophic
neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite
SuperHyperComplete ∀a S∈whichS, 2843
>isn’t a 1.
− neutrosophic SuperHyperStar.
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Thus it’s proved. HyperBipartite
It implies which
every isn’t
is a a
dual neutrosophic
neutrosophic SuperHyperStar.
∀a SuperHyperDefensive
∈ S, > |N (a) ∩ S| >1-fa
2841
2847
(ii), (iii) are SuperHyperMultipartite
neutrosophic obvious by (i). which is neither a neutrosophic
Consider nSuperHyperForcing
half +1 neutrosophic SuperHyperStar 2 2 2 which is neutroso2
aSuperHyperVertices are in S
2844
(v), (vi) 5.23.are obvious by (iv). Consider n half +1inneutrosophic
2842
SuperHyperVertices
Proposition Let(i),NSHG a:neutrosophic
(V, E) be a SuperHyperDefensive
neutrosophic
neutrosophic Super- given neutrosophic n are
SuperHyperComplete in S
2848
(iv).neutrosophic
nor By S is SuperHyperComplete neutrosophic
SuperHyperDefensive
1-failed neutrosophic
SuperHyperBipartite.
1-failed neutrosophic
2845
SuperHyperForcing and n SuperHyperD
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual neutrosophic > they’re
− 1. chosen f
2843

HyperUniform neutrosophic
SuperHyperForcing. SuperHyperGraph
Thus it’s an which is
neutrosophic
δ-neutrosophic a neu- which is
SuperHyperBipartite
SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic
1-failed SuperHyperDefensive
which 2846 isn’t a neutrosophic
∀a ∈ S,
1-failed neutro-
SuperHyperStar.
Proposition (ii), 5.23. (iii)
LetareNobvious
SHG : by (V,(i).
E) be a neutrosophic
different SuperHyperUniform
neutrosophic SuperHyperParts, 2849 2844
equally in aorgiven
almost 2 as2 possible.
trosophic
neutrosophic SuperHyperStar/neutrosophic
neutrosophic
(iv). BySuperHyperForcing.
SuperHyperGraph(i), S is a which is aSuperHyperComplete
neutrosophic Consider
SuperHyperDefensive
neutrosophic
neutrosophic
sophic
n half
1-failed
SuperHyperStar/neutrosophic
SuperHyperForcing
SuperHyperForcing
+1neutrosophic
neutrosophic andn they’re chosen
SuperHyperVertices
2847
2850 2845
areequally
neutrosophic
from
in S which SuperHyperC
differentis neutrosoA
(v), (vi) are obvious by (iv). neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex
neutrosophic has
SuperHyperBipartite at
Thus most it’s neutrosophic
which
proved. isn’t
It aSuperHyperNeighbors
implies neutrosophic
every S is SuperHy
a dual nei
neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite/neutrosophic
SuperHyperForcing.
SuperHyperComplete neutrosophic SuperHyper-
SuperHyperDefensive
ThusSuperHyperBipartite/neutrosophic
it’s an δ-neutrosophic neutrosophic
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperParts,
neutrosophic
1-failed 2848
2851
2 equally or almostand
SuperHyperForcing
2846 equally
they’re as chosen f
Consider n half +1 neutrosophic
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
SuperHyperForcing are
in ain S which
given ne
Complete neutrosophicneutrosophic
neutrosophic
SuperHyperComplete
Proposition SuperHyperMultipartite.
SuperHyperForcing.
5.23. Let N SHG : (V, E) beThen
different
SuperHyperMultipartite. Thenneutrosophic
a neutrosophic the
Then possible.
Then the
SuperHyperUniform
∀a ∈ S, Anumber
neutrosophic
SuperHyperParts,
n
> |N of 2852
(a) SuperHyperVertex
∩most
equally
2847

S|2848
2849
n or almost hasequally
∩at(V
− SuperHyperBipartite most
1 > |NSuperHyperForcing
> n neutrosophic (a)
asn possible.
\ S)| neu-
≡which
A
(v), (vi) are obvious by (iv). SuperHyperDefensive has1-failed
neutrosophic neutrosophic andisn’t
thei
number ofneutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a neutrosophic neutrosophic trosophic SuperHyperNeighbors
SuperHyperVertex
SuperHyperStar/neutrosophic 2 at 2850 22in S. SuperHyperNeighbors
(i) : dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic different neutrosophic
SuperHyperForcing;n n SuperHyperParts,
Consider n half equally
+1 or almost
neutrosophic equally
SuperHype as p
(i): dual SuperHyperComplete
neutrosophic
PropositionSuperHyperDefensive
5.23.neutrosophic 1-failed neutro- SuperHyperUniform
Let N SHGSuperHyperBipartite/neutrosophic
2853
: (V, E) be a neutrosophic ∀aThen ∈ S,the n > − SuperHyperDefensive2851
1. 2852 2849 has n at most n 1-failed
SuperHyperComplete neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite. neutrosophic
Then ∀a ∈ S, SuperHyperVertex
>
number|N (a)
of ∩ S| > − 1 > |N (a) neutrosophic
∩ (V \ S)| ≡ SuperHype
neutrosophic Sup
sophic SuperHyperForcing;
(ii) : strong neutrosophic
dual neutrosophicSuperHyperGraph which is a neutrosophic
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 2
SuperHyperStar/neutrosophic
2
2 2854
2850
2
2
different 2851 neutrosophicnSuperHyperParts, equal
(ii):strong (i)dual
: dualneutrosophic
SuperHyperComplete
SuperHyperForcing; SuperHyperDefensive
neutrosophic
neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed
SuperHyperBipartite/neutrosophic
Thus it’s
1-failed proved.
neutrosophic It implies neveryn S is a2855n2853
SuperHyperForcing; dual neutrosophic
∩ S| > SuperHyperDefensive 1-fa
∀a ∈ 2852 |N (a)SuperHyperVertex − 1 > |Nhas ∩ (V \ S)|
n
SuperHyperComplete neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite. Then ∀a ∈Then S, the>number −S,1.of >
neutrosophic (a) at most
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing; neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing 2 2 in a 2
given neutrosophic 2
SuperHyperComplete 2
(ii) : strong
(iii) : connected dualdual neutrosophic
neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive1-failed
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic
neutrosophic n2854 2853 nis neither
(iii): connected (i) : dual dual neutrosophic
neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperDefensive Thus
1-failed neutrosophic
neutrosophic
Thus it’s proved. It implies every it’s proved.
SuperHyperForcing;
SuperHyperMultipartite It
∀a S∈ isimplies2856
which
S,a28572855
dual every S
− 1.
> neutrosophic is a dual
a neutrosophic
n
neutrosophic Su-
SuperHyperS n
SuperHyperForcing;
SuperHyperForcing; ∀a ∈SuperHyperDefensive
S, > |N (a) ∩ S| >1-fa
1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing;
(ii) : strong dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive nor neutrosophic
neutrosophic perHyperDefensive
SuperHyperComplete
SuperHyperForcing
1-failed neutrosophic
1-failed
in a given neutrosophic
2
2neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing
2
SuperHyperBipartite.
2854 neutrosophic SuperHyperComplete
2
(iv) : (iii)
O(N SHG) +
: connected 1-dualdualneutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive
neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive (ii), (iii) are
Thus in
1-failed a
obvious
it’s given
neutrosophic by
proved. neutrosophic
(i).
It implies SuperHyperCompletev
every
2856
S is a dual n
neutrosophic n SuperHyperD
neutrosophic
(iv) : 2 + 1-dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperForcing; neutrosophic 1-failed neutrosophic
SuperHyperMultipartite which
2858 2855
is neither ∀a ∈ S,
a neutrosophic > − 1.
SuperHyperS
SuperHyperForcing;
1-failedSuperHyperForcing;
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing; nor neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite
neutrosophic O(N SHG)
2 SuperHyperForcing
SuperHyperComplete +1 which
2857
2859 isinneither
neutrosophic a given a neutrosophic 2
neutrosophic
SuperHyperBipartite. Super-
2 SuperHyperC
(iv). By (i), {xi }i=1 is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-faile
(v) : strong (iii)O(N
(iv) :O(N
: connected
SHG) + dual
SHG)
1-dual
+ 1-dual
neutrosophic
neutrosophic
neutrosophic
SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperDe-
SuperHyperDefensive are HyperStar
1-failed
(ii), (iii) neutrosophic
1-failed
obvious nor
neutrosophic
neutrosophic
by neutrosophic
SuperHyperMultipartite
(i). Thus 2858 SuperHyperComplete
2856
it’sO(N proved.
SHG) which neutrosophic
is neither
It implies everya neutrosophic
S is a dual ne
(v) : strong SuperHyperForcing;
2
+ 1-dual neutrosophic neutrosophic
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcing.
1-failed neutrosophic Thus 2860it’s + 1-dual neutrosophic
fensive 1-failedSuperHyperForcing;
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing; norSuperHyperBipartite.
2857
2 neutrosophic
O(N SHG)
+1 SuperHyperComplete
neutrosophic
2859 neutrosophic
2 SuperHyperForcing SuperHyperBipar
in a given ne
SuperHyperForcing; SuperHyperDefensive
(iv). By (i), {x } 1-failed neutrosophic
is a dual SuperHyperForcing.
2861 neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-faile
(ii), (iii) are obvious by (i).
2
(vi): connected (iv) : O(N SHG) + + 1-dual
1-dual neutrosophic
neutrosophic SuperHyper-
SuperHyperDefensive (ii),i (iii)
1-failed
i=1 are obvious
neutrosophic by (i).
neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite which is
(v) : strong 2O(N SHG)
2858
+ 1-dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive
(v), (vi) are obvious 1-failed
by neutrosophic
(iv). O(N SHG)
Defensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. (iv). By (i), {xi} 2859 is a dual neutrosophic SuperHy-
2860

(vi) : connected SuperHyperForcing;

O(N SHG) 2 neutrosophic
+ 1-dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperForcing. Thus
O(N SHG)
nor it’s
neutrosophic
+1 + 1-dual neutrosophic
SuperHyperComplete neutro
SuperHyperForcing; (iv). 1-failed
By (i), {xi=1 i }i=1
2 28622861 2
is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefe
perDefensive 1-failed
2
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing.
O(N SHG) SuperHyperDefensive
Proposition 5.24. Let1-failed
N SHG neutrosophic
: (V, E) (ii),
be SuperHyperForcing.
a (iii) are obvious
neutrosophic O(N by (i).
SuperHyperGraph.
SHG) The
(v) : strong O(N2SHG) + 1-dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive
neutrosophic 1-failed neutrosophic
SuperHyperForcing. 2863
2860
Thus it’s + 1-dual neutros
is one and (vi)it’s: connected
only S, a neutrosophic
SuperHyperForcing; 2 + SuperHyperSet
1-dual neutrosophic (v),contains
(vi) are
SuperHyperDefensive
number of connected neutrosophic
obvious by
1-failed
component SuperHyperForcing.
(iv). is |V − S|
2862
if Thus
there’s it’s
a
O(N SHG)
2
neutrosophic +1+ SuperHyperSet
1-dual
containsSuperHyperDefensive 1-failed (iv). By (i), {xi }SuperHyperForcing.
2863 neutrosophic
2861 2
is a dual neutro
[the
is oneneutrosophic
and it’sneutrosophic
onlySuperHyperCenter and]
SuperHyperForcing.
S, a neutrosophic the half
SuperHyperSet
whichof multiply-
is a dual5.24. neutrosophic
[the neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 2864
1-failed neutrosophic
i=1
Supe- O(
SuperHyperCenter(vi) : connectedand] the O(N SHG)
half of multiplying r Proposition
with the number (v),
of
+ 1-dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed all Let
(vi)
the N
are SHG
obvious
neutrosophic : (V,by E)
2865 be
(iv).
neutrosophic2862
a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph.
SuperHyperForcing. Thus it’sThe
is one and it’s only S, a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet contains [the neutrosophic
2
the is |VSuperHyperDefensive
− 2864

JSuperHyperEdges plus oneand] ofSuperHyperForcing.

all the neutrosophic number of connected
SuperHyperVertices.
(i) component
Whereneutrosophic 2866S| if there’s a neutrosophic
Volume 1-failed
2 | Issue 6SuperHyperSet
neutrosophic
| 276 Su
Math Techniques Comput Math, the2023 r :with
neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing;
neutrosophic 2863
SuperHyperCenter half of multiplying the number
Propositionof all the 5.24. Let N2867 SHG
2865
: (V, E)obvious
be a neutrosophic SuperHyper
exterior neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdges SuperHyperVertices
plus S, onea of and which
the
all the neutrosophic interior is a dual
neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices. Where the component (v), (vi) are by (iv).
is one and it’s only neutrosophic SuperHyperSet
(ii) : strong contains
number
neutrosophic[the
of neutrosophic
connected
SuperHyperDefensive 2866
2864 is |V − S| if there’s a neutrosophic Su
1-failed neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices
exterior coincide.SuperHyperVertices and
neutrosophic (i)the interior neutrosophic 2868
SuperHyperCenter and] the half of multiplying : rSuperHyperForcing;
neutrosophic
with the number
which isSuperHyperDefensive
of
a all
dual the neutrosophic 1-failed
2867
Proposition 2865 neutrosophic
5.24. Let NSuperHyperForcing;
SHG : (V, E) be a n
SuperHyperVertices coincide.
Proof. (i). SuperHyperEdges plusneutrosophic
one of all the SuperHyperVertices
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Where is the number
2868
Consider n half +1 are in S which 2869
2866
of connected component is |V − S| if th
neutrosophic exterior neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices (ii)
and:: the
(iii) strong
interior
connected neutrosophic
(i)neutrosophic
: neutrosophic
neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperDefensive
ASuperHyperDefensive 2867 1-failed neutrosophic
1-failed
1-failed neutrosophic SuperHy
neutrosophic
Proof.SuperHyperDefensive
(i). Consider n half +11-failed neutrosophic
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing.
SuperHyperVertices are in S which is which 2870
2869
is a dual
SuperHyperVertices coincide. SuperHyperForcing; 2868
 ∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > |N (a) ∩ ∅| ≡
c SuperHyperForcing in a given neutrosophic SuperHyperComplete 2887
∀a ∀a∈∈∈V,
∀a V,|N
V, |N(a)
|N (a)∩∩∩VVV|||>>
(a) >|∅||N≡
|N (a)∩∩(V
(a) ∅| ≡\ V )| ≡
c SuperHyperMultipartite which is neither a neutrosophic SuperHyperStar 2888

ophic SuperHyperComplete neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite. ∀a

2889
∀a ∈
∀a∈∈V, V,
V, |N |N
|N(a)(a) ∩ V |
(a)∩∩VV||>>0|N> |∅| ≡
≡(a) ∩ ∅| ≡
are obvious by (i). ∀a
2890∀a
∀a ∈∈V,∈ V,
V, δ|N|N 0. ∩ V | > |∅|≡≡
(a)
>(a) ∩ V | > 0
O(N SHG)
+1
(i), {xi }i=1 2
is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed ∀a ∈∈ V,
2891∀a V, |N δ> (a)0.∩ V | >1-failed
0 ≡ neutrosophic SuperHyperForc
O(N SHG)
V is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive
c SuperHyperForcing. Thus it’s + 1-dual neutrosophic
V is the
a dual neutrosophic2892∀a ∈ V, δ > 0.
SuperHyperDefensive
are equivalent. 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperFor
rHyperForcing. 2 since equivalent.
following statements
Defensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. since the following statements are equivalent. 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperFor
(v), (vi) are obvious by (iv).
2893

are obvious by (iv). V is a dual neutrosophic ∀aSuperHyperDefensive

2894
∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > |N s (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
since the following statements∀a ∈ S,are|N equivalent.
(a) ∩ S|
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |Nss(a)
s > |N (a)∩∩(V (V \\VS)| ≡
)| ≡
n 5.24. Proposition
Let N SHG5.24. Let be
: (V, E) NSHG : (V, E) be aSuperHyperGraph.
a neutrosophic neutrosophic Super-The 2895
∀a∈∈∈V, |Ns(a) ∩VS|
V| |> |Ns(a)
∀a V,|N
S, |N s (a)∩ >>|N
|N s (a)∩∩∅|(V≡\\S)|
V )|≡≡
onnected HyperGraph.
component isThe |V −number of connected
S| if there’s componentSuperHyperSet
a neutrosophic is |V − S| if ∀a
2896
s (a)∩ s (a) ∩ (V
there’s a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet which is a dual ∀a
∀a∈∈V,
∀a ∈ V, |N
|Nss(a)
V, |N (a)
s(a)∩ ∩ V | >
∩VV||>>|∅| |N
|N≡ (a) ∩ ∅| ≡
ss(a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡
ual 2897

(i): neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic ∀a

∀a ∈∈ V,
V, |N
|N (a) ∩∩ V ||
∀a ∈ V, |Nss(a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡s (a)
s(a) V >
> |∅|
|N ≡ ∩ ∅| ≡
sophic SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperForcing; 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing; 2898
∀a∈∈∈V,
∀a
∀a V,δ|N
V, |N (a)∩∩VV|| >
>ss(a)
0. 0 ≡≡
> |∅|
(ii): strong
neutrosophic neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutro-
1-failed neutrosophic ∀a
2899
∈ V, δ > 0.
∀a ∈ V, |NsSuperHyperDefensive
(a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡
sophic SuperHyperForcing;
HyperForcing; V is connected aVdual is connected
neutrosophic
2900 a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive1-failed neutrosophic
(iii): connected neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 1-failed
V is connected
SuperHyperForcing a dual
since neutrosophic
∀athe∈ following
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing
V, δ > SuperHyperDefensive
0. statements are equivalent.since the following
1-failed neutrosophic
cted neutrosophic
neutrosophicSuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperForcing; 1-failed neutrosophic
SuperHyperForcing statements
since are equivalent.
2901 the following statements are equivalent.
V is connected a dual neutrosophic
∀a ∈ S, |Nc (a) SuperHyperDefensive
∩ S| > |Nc (a) ∩ (V \1-failed S)| ≡ neutrosophic
HyperForcing;
(iv) : 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing; SuperHyperForcing since 2902
∀athe∈ following
S, |N
∀a ∈ V, |Nc (a) c (a) statements
∩ |N are equivalent.
∩
∩ V | > |Ncc(a) ∩ (V \ VS)|
S| > (a) (V \ ≡
)| ≡
(v) : strong
d neutrosophic 1-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neu-
SuperHyperForcing; ∀a∈∈∈V,
2903
∀a V,|N
S, |Nc(a)
|N c (a)∩ ∩VS|
V| |>
>>|N
|N|Nc(a)
c (a)∩∩∅|(V≡\\S)|
V )|≡≡
trosophic SuperHyperForcing; ∀a c (a)∩ c (a) ∩ (V
(vi) : connected
1-neutrosophic 1-neutrosophic1-failed
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDefensive
neutrosophic 1-failed ∀a∈∈∈V,
∀a
∀a
2904 V,|N
V, |Nc(a)
|N c (a) ∩
c (a)∩
∩VVV|||>>
>|∅||N≡
|N (a)∩∩(V
cc(a) ∅| ≡\ V )| ≡
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing.
HyperForcing; ∀a∈∈∈V,
2905
∀a
∀a V,|N
V, |Nc(a)
|N (a)∩∩∩VVV|||>>
c(a) >0|N|∅| ≡ ∩ ∅| ≡
≡c (a)
c
cted 1-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic ∀a ∀a∈∈∈V,
∀a V,δ|N
V, |N
>cc(a)(a)∩∩VV|| >
0. 0 ≡≡
> |∅|
Proof. (i). Consider some neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are
2906

HyperForcing. ∀a ∈∈ V,
∀a V, |Nδ> 0. ∩ V | > 0 ≡
c (a)
2907
out of S which is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive V is a dual δ-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic
1-failed
Consider some neutrosophic
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing.are
SuperHyperVertices These neutrosophic
outSuperHyperForcing
Vof isS awhich
dual is issince
a Vdual a dual
δ-neutrosophic ∀a
2908 theδ-neutrosophic
∈SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDefensive
V, δ > 0. statements
following 1-failed 1-failed neu-
neutrosophic
are equivalent.
SuperHyperVertex-type
c SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed have some neutrosophic
neutrosophic SuperHyper-These
SuperHyperForcing.
SuperHyperForcing trosophic 2909SuperHyperForcing
since the following since theare
statements following
equivalent.statements are
V is a dual δ-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic
Neighbors in S buthave
c SuperHyperVertex-type no neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor
some neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in ∀a2910∈ S, |(N (a) ∩ S) − (N (a) ∩ (V \ S))| > δ ≡
out equivalent.
SuperHyperForcing since ∀a ∈the following
∀a2911∈ V,S, |(N |(N(a)(a)∩∩Vstatements
) −−(N
S) (N(a)
(a)∩are
∩(V(Vequivalent.
\\VS))| ≡
> δδ ≡
utrosophicof S. Thus
SuperHyperNeighbor out of S. Thus ))| >
∀a∈∈∈V,
∀a
∀a V,|(N
S, |(N(a)
|(N (a)∩∩∩VS)
(a) −−(N
V) )− (N(a)
(N (a)∩
(a) ∩∩(∅))|
(V \\>
(V >>δ δ≡≡
V δ))|≡
S))|
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
∀a
∀a∈∈V,
∀a ∈ V,
V, |(N |(N
|(N(a) (a) ∩ V ) −
(a)∩∩VV))−−(∅)| (N > δ∩≡(V \ V ))| ≡
(a)
(N (a) ∩ (∅))| > δ >δ≡
∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.
∀a
∀a∈∈V,
∀a ∈ V,
V, |(N |(N
|(N(a) (a) ∩ V
(a)∩∩VV)|) −) − (∅)| > δ ≡
δ. (a) ∩ (∅))| > δ ≡
> (N
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual neutrosophic Supe-
∀a ∈∈ V,
∀a V, |(N|(N(a)(a)∩∩VV))|−>(∅)| δ. > δ ≡
rHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing and
number of connected component is |V − S|. ∀a ∈ V, |(N (a) ∩ V )| > δ.
(ii), (iii) are obvious by (i).
94/128
(iv). By (i), S is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive V is a dual strong δ-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 95/1
1-failedeveryneutrosophic V is a dual strong δ-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic
ved. It implies S is a dualSuperHyperForcing. Thus isit’s
neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive a dual
VSuperHyperForcing
a dual neutrosophic
1-failed
strong δ-neutrosophic
2912 SuperHyperForcing
SuperHyperDefensive since the1-failed
following statements
neutrosophic 95/
1-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic since the following statements are equivalent.
SuperHyperForcing and number of connected component is |V Su-
SuperHyperForcing− S|. aresinceequivalent.
2913the following statements are equivalent.

perHyperForcing. 95/
are obvious by (i). ∀a2914∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S))| > δ ≡
(i), S is a(v),
dual(vi)neutrosophic
are obvious bySuperHyperDefensive
(iv). 1-failed neutrosophic ∀a 2915 ∈ S, |(Ns (a) ∩ S) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ S))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V ) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ V ))| > δ ≡
Forcing. Thus it’s a dual 1-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed ∀a 2916
∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V ) − (Ns (a) ∩ (V \ V ))| > δ ≡
Proposition 5.25. Let NSHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic Supe-
SuperHyperForcing. ∀a2917∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V ) − (Ns (a) ∩ (∅))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V ) − (Ns (a) ∩ (∅))| > δ ≡
are obviousrHyperGraph.
by (iv). Then the number is at most O(NSHG) and the ∀a2918∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V ) − (∅)| > δ ≡
neutrosophic number is at most On(NSHG). ∀a ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V ) − (∅)| > δ ≡
n 5.25. LetProof.N SHG
Suppose: (V,NSHG
E) be :a(V,
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph.
E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyper- Then the∀a∀a2919 ∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V )| > δ.
∈ V, |(Ns (a) ∩ V )| > δ.
most O(N SHG)
Graph. and theV.neutrosophic
Consider All neutrosophicnumber is at most On (N SHG).
SuperHyperMembers
V is a dual of V is a2920
connected dual connectedSuperHyperDefensive
δ-neutrosophic δ-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive
1-failed neutrosophic
ose N SHG V have
: (V, at
E)least
is a one neutrosophic
neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor
SuperHyperGraph. inside
VSuperHyperForcing
is aConsider
dual 1-failed
connected
V. All neutrosophic
δ-neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing
SuperHyperDefensive
since the following statements are equivalent.
2921 since the following
1-failed neutrosophic
the neutrosophic
SuperHyperMembers of SuperHyperSet
V have at leastmore than neutrosophic
SuperHyperForcing
one neutrosophic Su- statements
since2922thearefollowing
equivalent. statements are equivalent.
NeighborperHyperNeighbor
inside the neutrosophic out of SuperHyperSet
neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus,
more than neutrosophic ∀a2923∈ S, |(Nc (a) ∩ S) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S))| > δ ≡
NeighborVout is aofdual neutrosophic
neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperSet. Thus, 1-failed neutro- ∀a 2924
∈ S, |(Nc (a) ∩ S) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ S))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V ) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ V ))| > δ ≡
sophic SuperHyperForcing
al neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive since1-failed
the following statements are
neutrosophic ∀a 2925
∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V ) − (Nc (a) ∩ (V \ V ))| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V ) − (Nc (a) ∩ (∅))| > δ ≡
equivalent.
Forcing since the following statements are equivalent. ∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V ) − (Nc (a) ∩ (∅))| > δ ≡
2926
∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V ) − (∅)| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡ ∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V ) − (∅)| > δ ≡
∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V )| > δ.
∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > |N (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡ ∀a ∈ V, |(Nc (a) ∩ V )| > δ.
∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > |N (a) ∩ ∅| ≡ Thus V is a dualThus V is a dual
neutrosophic neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 1-failed
Thus V is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic
∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡ SuperHyperForcing neutrosophic
and V is SuperHyperForcing
the biggest and
neutrosophic V is the biggest
SuperHyperSet neutro-
in
SuperHyperForcing
N SHG : (V, E).sophic and theV isnumber
the biggest at neutrosophic SuperHyperSet andinthe
Then SuperHyperSet is in NSHG
most O(N : (V, SHG
E). Then : (V,theE))number is atneutrosop
∀a ∈ V, |N (a) ∩ V | > 0 ≡ Nnumber
SHG : (V, E). Then the number at most O(N SHG : (V, E)) and the neutrosoph
is E)).
is at mostmostOnO(NSHG
(N SHG : :(V,
(V, E)) and the neutrosophic number is at most
∀a ∈ V, δ > 0. number is at most On (N SHG : (V, E)).
On(NSHG : (V, E)).
Proposition 5.26. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which
V is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive
neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 1-failed
Proposition neutro-
SuperHyperForcing5.26. Let2927 N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which i
O(N SHG:(V,E))
sophic SuperHyperForcing neutrosophic SuperHyperComplete. The number isO(N + 1 and the
owing statements are equivalent. since the followingneutrosophic
statements are SHG:(V,E))
2
neutrosophic number is min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E))2⊆V σ(v),+in1 the
SuperHyperComplete. The number is andsetting
the
2928
of d
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡ neutrosophic number is min Σ t>
v∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V
2 σ(v), in the setting of du
J Math Techniques
s Comput Math,
s 2023 t>
2 Volume 2 | Issue 6 | 277
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ V )| ≡ (i) : neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing;
(i) : neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing;
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |Ns (a) ∩ ∅| ≡ (ii) : strong neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic
∀a ∈ V, |Ns (a) ∩ V | > |∅| ≡ (ii) : strong neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic
SuperHyperForcing;
SuperHyperForcing;
 ∀a ∈
∀a ∈ V, |(Nc c(a)
V, |(N (a)∩∩VV)|)|>>
δ. δ.Thus
1-failed it’s proved.
neutrosophic
neutrosophic It implies
number every
is min
SuperHyperForcing 2Sin1isa,v2given
a2,···dual
ΣSuperHyperDefensive
dual neutrosophic v∈{v
strongn neutrosophic
} n O(N1-failed
,vt neutrosophic σ(v),SuperHyperDefen
in theSuperHype
SuperHyperComplete
⊆Vneutrosophic
neutrosophic
SHG:(V,E))
setting
SuperHyperForcing.
2967 o
∀a ∈in
S, t>O(N −
2 1.
>SHG:(V,E))
(Nc∀a
ost O∈n∩Thus
(a) (N
V, −
V )|(N
V(∅)|
SHG is >
c (a) ≡
a :δVdual
∩ ) − (∅)|
(V, E)). >δ≡
neutrosophic 1-failed
SuperHyperDefensive
neutrosophic
Thus it’s
neutrosophic
dual1-failed
SuperHyperForcing
neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph.
proved.
strong It (ii).
implies
neutrosophic Thus
Consider n the
every 2937isa 2given
2940number
half −1 neutrosophic
S is a dual
SuperHyperDefensive strong
neutrosophic
1-failed
SuperHyperComp
+ 1neutrosophic
andSuperHyperDefen
2 2neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices theout ofnumber
are
neutrosophic S whichisism 2968
(Nc∀a (a)∈∩ Thus
V,VThus >cV
)||(N
SuperHyperForcingV isis
δ.
(a) ∩ aVa dual > δ.neutrosophic
)|dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive
and V is theSuperHyperDefensive
biggest neutrosophic neutrosophic
neutrosophic 1-failed
1-failed number
SuperHyperSet neutrosophic
neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph.
dual
is min neutrosophic
in Thus
Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,···SuperHyperDefensive 2937
the 2938number
2937
is O(N
1-failed
σ(v),
SHG:(V,E))
neutrosophic
in the setting +
of 1a and2969
SuperHyperForcing. the
t} ⊆V
SuperHyperForcing
SuperHyperForcing and
and VV is
is the
the biggest
biggest neutrosophic
neutrosophic1-failed neutrosophic
SuperHyperForcing.
SuperHyperSet
SuperHyperSet Thusneutrosophic SuperHyperForcing
it’s
in proved.
in It ,vimplies
SuperHyperVertex t> in2938
every
O(N SHG:(V,E))
a given
2hasS n is
halfa dualneutrosophic
strong2dual
neutrosophic SuperHyperComp
strong neutrosophic
neutrosophic
SuperHyperNeighbors SuperHyp in S
.26. Let
N SHG N SHG: (V, :
E). (V,
Then E) be
the a neutrosophic
number is at most SuperHyperGraph
O(N
dual neutrosophic
SHG
strong : (V,
neutrosophic number
E)) and which is
the min is Σ
neutrosophic
SuperHyperDefensive v∈{v 2941 ,v
2938
,··· 1-failed
,v 2939} neutrosophic O(N σ(v),
SHG:(V,E))
⊆V in the setting of
SuperHyperDefensive
neutrosophic N NSHG SHG : (V,1-failed
SuperHyperDefensive
:(V, E). Then
E). Then neutrosophic
1-failed
the
the number
numberneutrosophic
isO(N
is atatmost most
SHG:(V,E)) O(N
2937 neutrosophic
O(N SHG (iii).
SHG :2937
(V, : Consider
E))
(V, 1-failed
SuperHyperGraph.
E)) andand n
thehalfneutrosophic
−1
neutrosophic
the neutrosophic
1SuperHyperForcing
neutrosophic
Thus 2
the
2939
t
t>
2939
SuperHyperVertices
number
O(N
2
isin a given2SuperHyperForcing.
SHG:(V,E)) neutrosophic
are out + 1 of SuperHype
and S 2970
which
the
he
g and biggest number
perHyperComplete. is
neutrosophic
V isnumber
the biggest at most TheO
SuperHyperSet(N
n numberSHG : (V,
in : is E)). SuperHyperForcing.
dual +neutrosophic
dualstrong 1 and the SuperHyperDefensive
neutrosophic
neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperGraph. ∀a ∈ S,
2940 |N (a)
Thus ∩ S|
1-failed
the > |N (a) ∩ (V
neutrosophic
number \O(N
S)|
is (iii). SHG:(V,E))
≡ Consider +n 1half
ana
atneutrosophic (NSuperHyperSet (V, E)).in 2 2938 neutrosophic 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing 2971
number isis at most
most O
O SHG
n (N SHG : (V, E)).
n
2938 number is min Σv∈{v2942 1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt }2940
2940
nO(NnSHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the 2 setting of
mber
Then is at most O(Nis atSHG most: O(N (V, E)) and: (V,
theE))neutrosophic 2939 (iii). Consider half −1 neutrosophic
n neutrosophic number SuperHyperVertices
is min ∈Σ 1.t }areO(N out of S which
dual neutrosophic is a 2972
⊆V σ(v), in the SuperHset
mberthe number SHG and the neutrosophic t>
is min
Proposition Σ v∈{v5.26. Let
,vt }N SHG : neutrosophic
(V, E) SuperHyperForcing.
σ(v),
beSuperHyperGraph. in
neutrosophic the
2939
setting
SuperHyperVertex of dual has ∀a n S,v∈{v
half >
neutrosophic
1 ,v2 ,··· −2,v SuperHyperNeighbors in
aa a neutrosophic ThusSuperHyperGraph which andisthe 2941
⊆V 2943 SHG:(V,E))
1 ,v2 ,···
O(N SHG:(V,E))
dual dual strong
neutrosophic neutrosophic
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDefensive
+ 1 1-failed 2 2
1-failed neutrosophic
2941 neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. ASuperHype
O(N SHG:(V,E)) the number is t>
2neutrosophic
:O(V,
n (N E)).
SHG Proposition
: (V, E)). 5.26.
Proposition
Proposition 5.26.
5.26. LetLetNSHG
Let N
NSHG
t>
SHG: (V,:neutrosophic
(V,
:E)
2(V,
E)
be E) abeneutrosophic
be
number
neutrosophic
2940
(iii).
neutrosophic
is min Σv∈{v
2940 SuperHyperGraph
Super-
Consider SuperHyperGraph
dual n half
strong −1
2 which
neutrosophic
σ(v), in which
the
issetting
neutrosophic is
2960

SuperHyperVertices
SuperHyperDefensive
of a 1-failed are out
neutrosophic of S
2973
which i
O(N SHG:(V,E))
,v ,··· ,v } ⊆V 2941
2961
neutrosophic
neutrosophic SuperHyperComplete.
SuperHyperComplete. The
The number
number neutrosophic
SuperHyperForcing.
is O(N
is SuperHyperVertex
SHG:(V,E)) 1

+ +
2
Thus 1and
t
and
it’s
t>
thehasthe
O(N SHG:(V,E))
proved.
1SuperHyperDefensive nIthalf
implies neutrosophic
every 2942 S is aSuperHyperNeighbors
dual strong neutrosophic in S.
SuperHyperDefen 2974
HyperGraph which is neutrosophic SuperHyperComplete. O(N The ∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
2
dual SHG:(V,E))
2 1-failed
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. 2942
1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing.
G :
6. Let N (V, E)neutrosophic
be a neutrosophic
SHG : (V, E) number beSuperHyperComplete.
SuperHyperGraph
a neutrosophic dual The number
neutrosophic
which
SuperHyperGraph is whichis(iii).
SuperHyperDefensive
2941 is 2941 2
Consider 1-failed
n +half
neutrosophic1O(N and
neutrosophic
−1 the
SuperHyperForcing.
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing
2962
2942 in a given neutrosophic are outSuperHyperComp
hic neutrosophic
SuperHyperDefensive isis min
1-failedΣΣv∈{v neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing; 2σ(v), in the setting of 1dual aSuperHyperVertices of S whichSis
SHG:(V,E))
neutrosophic
number is O(N number +min
11and the11neutrosophic
neutrosophic } SuperHyperGraph. −1 neutrosophic
number is ⊆Vσ(v),
Thus the in
number the is setting of dual
+2944 ndual
and theisn 2943
2942min
,v (ii).
2 ,···Consider
,v n half SuperHyperVertices
(iii). are out n of S which−1
SHG:(V,E)) ,vtt } neutrosophic ⊆V SuperHyperVertex ∈Consider half
has n half
2943 neutrosophic
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
O(N SHG:(V,E)) are out ofin
≡ SuperHyperNeighbors + 1 and the S
2960
2963
O(N v∈{v ,v
SHG:(V,E))
+2 ,···
O(N SHG:(V,E))
lete. Theneutrosophic number2 is is + min ∀a the S, 2
|N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (Vthe\ S)|
2 Σv∈{v σ(v), in setting of
rHyperComplete. number The is number and the
dual 1 and
1 ,vneutrosophic
t>theO(N
2 ,··· ,vt }number
neutrosophic t> 2942
O(N
SHG:(V,E))
is22min Σv∈{v
dual2 neutrosophic
SuperHyperDefensive
SHG:(V,E)) ,v⊆V ,···1-failed
,v }
neutrosophic
SuperHyperDefensive
neutrosophic ⊆V ∀a SuperHyperGraph.
σ(v), ∈in S,
the
SuperHyperForcing. setting> of A a −
1-failedThus
2943
2961
2964 1. number
neutrosophic is SuperHyperForcing.
2
dual
1 2
neutrosophic
t O(N SHG:(V,E))
n SuperHyperDefensive
n 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperF
in the setting of dual 2 2
t> t>
ber
∈{vis ,vmin
,··· Σ
,v }
v∈{v 2 ,··· ,vt }
1 ,vSHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in
O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V
the setting
σ(v), in of
the
neutrosophic dualsetting 2943 of
SuperHyperVertex dual has
2943 n
dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic half neutrosophic
neutrosophic number
SuperHyperNeighbors
2

∀a ∈ S, SuperHyperVertex
is min
− 1.n2944
SuperHyperForcing.
> has
inΣ S.
v∈{v2965 ,v ,··· ,v } ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a
trosophic
1 2
(i)t(i) SuperHyperDefensive
O(N
:t>neutrosophic
: neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic
1-failed
1-failed neutrosophic
neutrosophic
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex
SuperHyperForcing;
−1 neutrosophicSuperHyperForcing;neutrosophic ∀a ∈ of|N
half∩ neutrosophic
1
2962

a has
2

|N
t
n (a)half
t>
∩ SuperHyperNeighbors
O(N SHG:(V,E))
neutrosophic
\ ≡ SuperHyperNeighb in S
Thus it’s proved. S, It implies(a) every
S| > is a dual(V connected
S)| neutro-
t>
S
2 2
(ii). Consider n half SuperHyperVertices 2are out 2 2945 S which is2944
2

(i) : neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic

∀a ∈ S, it’s dual
∩ S| >SuperHyperForcing;
|N (a)proved. |N (a) strong neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive
2963
1-failed neutrosophic
rForcing; dual neutrosophic Thus
SuperHyperDefensive It∩ implies
1-failed neutrosophic
(V \ S)| ≡ every S is a 2944
n
SuperHyperForcing. n Adual connected neutrosophic Thus it’s proved. It impl
Defensive
(ii)((ii)
1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing; sophic SuperHyperDefensive S,1.1-failed ∩ neutrosophic SuperHy-
2964
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing; n n SuperHyperForcing.
i): :neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic
2944 2944 2946
: strongstrong neutrosophic
neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperDefensive Thus 1-failedit’s∈ S,
1-failed neutrosophic
proved.
neutrosophic −It1.neutrosophic
implies every ∀a S
∀a ∈∈is a |Ndual
S,nneutrosophic > connected− neutrosophic
−12∩ |N ∩ (V \ (a)
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex ∀a has> n half
SuperHyperDefensive
2 2 (iii). 1-failed S,
SuperHyperNeighbors
Consider half (a) ∀a
2945 in∈ S|
S.
2945 2965
neutrosophic >|N (a) (a)
SuperHyperForcing S| > |N
SuperHyperVertices S)| ∩≡(V in are
\aS)|
SuperHyperDefensive given
out
≡of Sneutros
2975 1-f
which is
rHyperDefensive
osophic
(ii) : strong
SuperHyperForcing;
SuperHyperDefensive
neutrosophic
SuperHyperForcing;
SuperHyperForcing;
1-failed neutrosophic
SuperHyperDefensive
1-failed neutrosophic
1-failed
SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperComplete
∀a ∈ S, |N
neutrosophic
(a) ∩ S|
perForcing
>
1-failed
dual
|N (a) ∩ (V
in
neutrosophic
neutrosophic
neutrosophic
\ S)| ≡
a given n 2 neutrosophic
SuperHyperForcing
n 2945 n
SuperHyperGraph.
2946
SuperHyperDefensive 2946 SuperHyperComplete
n
1-failed
in a given
Thus
neutrosophic
neutrosophic
SuperHyperComplete
the number neu- is2976 ne
SuperHyperForcing.
neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 2946 2945
neutrosophic 2945
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual strong neutrosophic ∀a S, 2947> ∀a ∈
SuperHyperDefensive
∈SuperHyperComplete −2946S,1. Thus > − 1.
SuperHyperForcing; trosophic SuperHyperGraph. Thus the2 number is O(N
2966

Forcing; (ii): strong neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed

SuperHyperComplete
ThusO(N neutro-n
SHG:(V,E)) n neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. has 2connected the number isSHG:(V,E)) + 12977and in tS
1-failed neutrosophic ∀a ∈it’s
S,2946proved.
SuperHyperForcing > in−a1.given + It1neutrosophic
implies
neutrosophic and the every 2S is2947
SuperHyperVertex
neutrosophic 2a dual number
2967 n half neutrosophic
is neutrosophic
SuperHyperNeighbors
2
(iii) : connected neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive O(N 1-failed
SHG:(V,E)) neutrosophic + 1the and the
rForcing; (iii)sophic: connected neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 2 neutrosophic and thenumber isismin {v1,vmin
Σv∈connected ,•••inΣ,v }given
22 2 O(N SHG:(V,E))
Thus+ 1 number
and is neutrosophic number is
SuperHyperForcing;
(iii)SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperDefensive
utrosophic :SuperHyperForcing;
connected
SuperHyperForcing;
1-failed neutrosophic
neutrosophic
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph.
SuperHyperDefensive
1-failed neutrosophic
neutrosophic number SuperHyperDefensive
isΣ min
min
2
Σ Σv∈{v
1-failed
the
Thus
neutrosophic it’s 1-failed
proved.
⊆V σ(v), in
+ 12948
neutrosophic
It implies
the setting σ(v),
2947
2968
every SuperHyperForcing
S
inconnected
the a dual
setting (a)of∩ a 2
(Vdual a
v∈{v
t t>
neutrosophic
connected2979 ,vt2978
1 ,v2 ,···neutroso
} O(N S
Thus it’s proved. It Thus
min
2947 implies it’s
every
v∈{v Sproved.
,v
2947 a,v
is 1,v
,··· dual Itt }implies
}2 ,···strong
,v neutrosophic every
σ(v), Sin ⊆V
SuperHyperDefensive∀a
isin aofthe
the
2948 asetting
∈dual S,2947
2969|N
setting(a) of∩of aS| a>dual
dual |Nconnected
connected
neutrosophic \ S)| ≡
neutro-
t>

(V,E)) (iii) :SuperHyperForcing; connected neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed

1 2 t O(N SHG:(V,E))
O(N SHG:(V,E)) 2966
v∈{v 1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } t> t> ⊆V 2948
Forcing; 1-failed
dual strong neutrosophic SuperHyperComplete
2948 SuperHyperForcing
neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive t>
in SuperHyperDefensive
O(N SHG:(V,E))
a given
1-failed neutrosophic
neutrosophic
2
2
neutrosophic 2 SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperGraph.
1-failed neutrosophic
n n Thus the number
neutrosophic
SuperHyperForcing isa given ne
inSuperHype
sophic SuperHyperDefensive 21-failed
2967

is neutrosophic(iv). SuperHy-
+neutrosophic
1)-neutrosophic SHG:(V,E)) SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDefensive
neutrosophic
1-failed
2948
neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 1-failed
∀a ∈ S, SuperHyperForcing
2948
2970
neutrosophic
> − 1. inThus
a given
SuperHyperForcing. neutrosop
(iv)(iv) : (:O(N ( O(N SuperHyperForcing;
SHG:(V,E))2 ++1)-neutrosophic
1)-neutrosophic neutrosophic
SuperHyperForcing. neutrosophic
SuperHyperDefensive O(N
SuperHyperGraph.
SuperHyperDefensive
SHG:(V,E)) SuperHyperDefensive
Thus the SuperHyperComplete
1-failednumber
+
1-failed and is O(N
neutrosophic
1 SHG:(V,E))
SHG:(V,E))
theσ(v),
neutrosophic
1-failed
2 neutrosophic +2949
1 and neutrosophic
neutrosophic
the
2949 number
2968
2971 2SuperHyperForcing.
SuperHyperGraph. Consider
the number n halfis
2980
E))
+
trosophic
rForcing; (iv)::SuperHyperForcing;
1)-neutrosophic O(N
SuperHyperDefensive
(iv) SHG:(V,E))
2
SuperHyperDefensive
(SuperHyperForcing; 1-failed
+ -neutrosophic
neutrosophic
1-failed
neutrosophic
1)-neutrosophicdual
number
(iii). neutrosophic
Consider SuperHyperComplete
n half is −1
(iv).
SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperDefensive
neutrosophic
2949
min Σ
(iv).
SuperHyperDefensive
2 ,vConsider
minneutrosophic
Σv∈{v
Consider
2949 n
,··· ,v perForcing.
1-failed
1-failed
1
Thus
2 n
−1
SuperHyperVertices
} half
O(N t neutrosophic
half
it’s
2
neutrosophic
t>
⊆V−1
neutrosophicare out
neutrosophic
proved. +
O(N SHG:(V,E))neutrosophic
in the
1It and
2950
implies
SuperHyperForcing.
SuperHyperGraph.
setting
which of
of SSuperHyperVertices
the
σ(v), every A
a SuperHyperVertices
is2949 2969
2972
2950neutrosophic
in
2949S the
is a setting
dual
are
number Thus
out
of
connected a
of
is theS
dual
dual
number
are
which out
neutrosophic
connected
neutrosophic
is of
a is S which
SuperH
2981
2 O(NSuperHyperDefensive
SHG:(V,E))
v∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt }1-failed
2
SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V
Forcing; 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing;
dual strong neutrosophic dual
2950 dual
neutrosophicneutrosophic
2950 + min 1 and
Σ
t> SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperDefensive O(Nneutrosophic
the neutrosophic 1-failed 1-failed
2973
neutrosophic
number
2950 2970
is
σ(v), neutrosophic
SuperHyperForcing.
in the SuperHyperForcing
neutrosophic
setting of a dual A SuperHype
connected
2982
SuperHyperForcing; neutrosophic
SuperHyperForcing. SuperHyperVertex 2 has n half neutrosophic
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperNeighbors
v∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N
2 1-failed in S.neutrosophic
2950 ⊆V
2974 SuperHyperForcing in a given neutrosop
( O(N SHG:(V,E)) SHG:(V,E)) 2971
N SHG:(V,E)) (v) : strong O(N + 1)-neutrosophic neutrosophic
neutrosophic
neutrosophic
SuperHyperDefensive
n min Σv∈{v SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperVertex (iv). Consider
SuperHyperVertex
1-failed has nn half half
t>
of−1
hasS1-failed
neutrosophic
neutrosophic
σ(v), n2 half isina neutrosophic
SuperHyperNeighbors
neutrosophic
the setting ofSuperHyperForcing.
SuperHyperVertices aSuperHyperNeighbors
dual
Thus connected in
are S.
out is 2983 in
(v): strong -neutrosophic
(iii). Consider SuperHyperDe- 2951
SHG:(V,E)) −1 SuperHyperComplete
} (a) out⊆V neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. the number
SHG:(V,E))
(v)
1)-neutrosophic
2 + : strong + 1)-neutrosophic
1)-neutrosophic (
SuperHyperDefensive
neutrosophic
2
+
SuperHyperDefensive
2SuperHyperForcing;
SuperHyperDefensive
1)-neutrosophic 1-failed
1-failed dual neutrosophic
half
SuperHyperDefensive
∀a ∈
(iv).
S, |N1-failed
neutrosophic
1 ,v2∩,···
(a)
Consider
2951 S|
SuperHyperVertices
,v
neutrosophic
> t
|N
nt> 1-failed
O(N
∩
half
(V SHG:(V,E))
\
−1
S)| ≡
are
SuperHyperDefensive
neutrosophic
2951
which
2951
2972
1-failed
SuperHyperVertices
neutrosophic
are
SuperHyperForcin
out of S which is
of (iv). which S, is |Ndual neutrosophic 2951 SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed
O(N SHG:(V,E)) 2951 O(N
S ∀a
2 SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SHG:(V,E))
neutrosophic 2 SuperHyperForcing. A
+ 1nand the neutrosophic number is
fensive
(v) 1-failed
:neutrosophic
strong ( neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing;
+ 1)-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed
n n 2952 2973

hicSuperHyperForcing;
Forcing;SuperHyperForcing; SuperHyperForcing;
2 2952 neutrosophic
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex ∀a ∈ S, 2952 has> n half −SuperHyperDefensive
1.neutrosophic 2Consider
∈ SuperHyperNeighbors
(a) ∩half S| −1
1-failed
> inneutrosophic
|N (a)
S. neutrosophic
∩σ(v),
(V |N \inS)| SuperHyperVertices
≡∩ SuperHyperForcing. are out of S w
dual neutrosophic
2 2 min SuperHyperDefensive
neutrosophic Σv∈{v ∀a ∈ S,2952
SuperHyperForcing. |N (a) ∩
2952
S|
2974
1-failed > (a)
neutrosophic
the
A neutrosophic (V
setting \ S)|
of ≡
SuperHyperForcing.
a dual
SuperHyper- connected
(vi) ::neutrosophic
connected -neutrosophic SuperHy-
} ⊆V
( O(NSuperHyperForcing;
SHG:(V,E))
(iv). Consider dual n neutrosophic
half
,v
1 2
−1
,··· ,v
SuperHyperDefensive
nneutrosophic
t
n O(N SHG:(V,E)) 1-failed neutrosophic out ofSuperHyperF
nSuperHyperVertices are S which is
2952
O(N
) SHG:(V,E)) (vi) connected O(N +Thus
1)-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive
It implies∀aevery ∈ S, S|Nis(a) ∩SuperHyperVertex
|N (a)∀a ∩1-failed
∈neutrosophic
(VS, \ S)| ≡> has
t>
−n
2
1.n2953half
2953 neutrosophic
S| connected
>neutrosophic neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in S
+ 1)-neutrosophic
(vi)
O(N SHG:(V,E))
2 : +
perDefensive1)-neutrosophic
connected SuperHyperDefensive
neutrosophic 1-failed
(
2
SHG:(V,E))
SuperHyperDefensive
neutrosophic 1-failed
SuperHyperForcing. +
it’s proved.
1)-neutrosophic 1-failed
SuperHyperForcing. dual SuperHyperDefensive
2953
neutrosophic
n
a dual
Vertex
neutrosophic has
SuperHyperDefensive
n SuperHyperForcing n ∀a
1-failed half ∈ neutrosophic
SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperVertex
2in a given S,
2 neutrosophic >
2975
− SuperHyperNeighbors
1-failed
has
1. n neutrosophic
half neutrosophic
2954 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing.
2953 in S.
SuperHyperForcing.
SuperHyperNeighb
(SuperHyperForcing.
Forcing. (vi) : connected + 1)-neutrosophic
(
2 neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing.
O(N SHG:(V,E))
2
+ SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperDefensive
1)-neutrosophic 2954
SuperHyperCompleteneutrosophic
1-failed∀a ∈ S,2954 > 1-failed
neutrosophic
SuperHyperDefensive
neutrosophic 2SuperHyperGraph.2
− 1. (iv). Consider 1-failed
Thus the number
29532−1 neutrosophic
n half
is n half
2 2976
2953
SuperHyperVertices are out of S which is
Thus it’s proved. It impl
2 SuperHyperVertex
dual neutrosophic ∀awhich has
SuperHyperDefensive 2954neutrosophic
2977
1-failed SuperHyperNeighbors
neutrosophic \ S)| ≡ 2984 in1-fS
(VSuperHyperForcing.
hic SuperHyperForcing.
Proof. neutrosophic
(i). Consider SuperHyperForcing.
n half −1
O(N SHG:(V,E))
neutrosophic + 1Thus it’s
SuperHyperVertices
and the proved.
neutrosophic S is anumberIt implies
are out
is every
of S S∈isS,ais |N
duala (a) ( O(N
∀a ∩∈ S| S, |N|N
SHG:(V,E))
> (a) (a)
∩+ S|∩1)-neutrosophic
(V
> |N\(a)
S)| ∩≡
SuperHyperDefensive
Proof. (i). Consider n half −1 neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
Thus 2it’s proved. It implies every dual connected neutrosophic 2954 2955 2954
2978
2 O(N
er n half −1
neutrosophic neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices SuperHyperVertices
are out of Sminare
which
Σ out isof a S which
2955 is
Thus
v∈{v ,v ,··· ,v SuperHyperDefensive
a it’s
2955
σ(v),proved.in the neutrosophic
It
setting implies
of a dual SuperHyperVertex
every
connected S is
nisneutrosophic a has
2975
dual
n 2955S, > − 1. n n
(half n SHG:(V,E))
neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in
+ 1)-neutrosophic S
Proof.dual (i). Consider
neutrosophic n half −1 neutrosophic
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDefensive
1-failed }1 1-failed neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices
neutrosophic
2 t ⊆V 1-failed
SuperHyperForcing
are
SuperHyperForcing.
O(N SHG:(V,E))
out of neutrosophic
S∈∈in whicha given
A|N SuperHyperForcing
a∀a
2956 ∈
2979
2976 in2 a given neutrosophic 2985 ne
SuperHyperComplete
are out(i). of SConsider
which is n a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive ∀a
∀a S,
S, >
(a) ∩ −S| 1.> |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
t>
SuperHyperDefensive
Defensive 1-failed 1-failed
neutrosophic neutrosophic
SuperHyperForcing. SuperHyperForcing.A
SuperHyperComplete A
neutrosophic 2956
2
SuperHyperGraph.
Proof. −1 neutrosophic
halfSuperHyperVertices
neutrosophic 2956
SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperVertices
SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperComplete 1-failed are
neutrosophic
Sneutrosophic outThus ofisthe
1-failed Sin number
SuperHyperForcing.which
SuperHyperGraph. is is a 2955 SuperHyperForcing
neutrosophic ∈ S, |N 2 Thus 2 > the|Nnumber O(N is in ≡a given+neutros
SHG:(V,E))
nS2 A n2is2956
2977

iderhas n half −1nneutrosophic

neutrosophic are out of which area
∀a (a) ∩ S| (a) ∩ (V \ S)|
2980

rHyperVertexndual neutrosophic
neutrosophic
has halfSuperHyperVertex
SuperHyperDefensive
neutrosophic hasO(Nn
SuperHyperNeighbors half neutrosophic
S.1-failed inneutrosophic
S. SuperHyperNeighborsSuperHyperForcing. outS. 12986and t
1-failed SuperHyperForcing. A neutrosophic Su-
SHG:(V,E))
ex half neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in
(iv). 2Consider +2957
n 1 half
O(N and −1
the neutrosophic
neutrosophic
SHG:(V,E)) 2957 number is
SuperHyperVertices of2955 which2957
a 2978
2981 2
dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperComplete
neutrosophic + 1 andSuperHyperForcing.
the neutrosophic
neutrosophic number ASuperHyperGraph.
>∀a ∈ − is n n Thus the number is2987 O(N S
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex has minn half neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors setting of∀a ∈ S, in S. 1. > − 1.
2956 min Σv∈{v
Thus it’sSuperHyperNeighbors
proved. ItIt2956
2implies every 2isisaaaSHG:(V,E))
dual(
Σv∈{v σ(v), in theneutrosophic a dual connected
(SO(N
dual neutrosophic ,vSuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. A
S, O(N SHG:(V,E))
ic SuperHyperDefensive
perHyperVertex 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing.
2
Aevery 1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt }

(V>has n≡ half (Vneutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors

} ⊆V 2979
2982
,v ,··· 1 2
O(N it’s
t O(N SHG:(V,E))
Thus it’s proved. implies 2a S. every
2957
2 S dual + 1)-neutrosop
∩SHG:(V,E))
t> t>
S, |N (a) ∀aneutrosophic
∩∈S| S,>|N |N(a) (a)∩∩S| SuperHyperVertex
\|N
S)|(a) ∩ ∀a ∈
\ S)| ≡has
|N
S, neutrosophic
(a) n ∩half
neutrosophic S| > min|NThus
SuperHyperVertexΣ
neutrosophic
(a) v∈{v
SuperHyperDefensive (V proved.
has,···
,v S)|
,v
2
+ItSHG:(V,E))
nSuperHyperNeighbors
2 \1-failed
half} ≡ neutrosophic1 implies
neutrosophic andSuperHyperForcing.
the σ(v),
⊆Vneutrosophic in SinS. isthein dual
setting
number
2983
2957 of dual
is + 2 1)-neutrosophic 2988
- neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic
2SuperHyperForcing
O(N SHG:(V,E))
Su-
1 t O(N
2 SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic
2980
in a given ne
perHyperVertex nin S. n n has n half∀aneutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in S. ( + 1)-neut
t>
n n (a) (iv).nConsider SuperHyperDefensive
n half
min−1 neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
Σ(V
2
1-failedS)| ≡ neutrosophic
are out 2957 of S which is a SuperHyperForcing
σ(v), in
S (isthe setting ( O(N SHG:(V,E)) inThus
+a1)-neutrosophic
2given neutroso
of2 aSuperHyperForcing.
dual
∀a∈∈S, S, |N ∩−S|1.> |N ∀a ∈∩ \+ ≡|N
2981

( O(N (a)
SHG:(V,E))S, |N (a) 1S)|
∩,vS| > Thus (a) ∩it’s
(V \proved. It implies every O(Na dual SHG:(V,E))
S, >∀a ∈−S, 1. > − 1. dual>neutrosophic
∀a ∈ S,n2neutrosophic
|N (a) Thus it’s
SuperHyperDefensive v∈{v proved. perHyperForcing
SuperHyperComplete
2 ,···
1-failed ,v
It
1)-neutrosophic }implies
tneutrosophicO(N SHG:(V,E))every in S a
SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperForcing. ⊆V
given
neutrosophic
is a dual neutrosophic
A SuperHyperGraph.
1-failed SuperHyperComplete
neutrosophic + 1)-neutrosophic the number 2989 is
n2 ∩ S| |N∀a(a) ∈ S,∩ has > n\half ≡SHG:(V,E))
2982
> SuperHyperComplete
2 n(V n
−S)|
t>
neutrosophic 2 Thus the number
1 and SuperHyperGraph. is neutrosop
2 2 2 2 SuperHyperVertex O(N SuperHyperDefensive
1.neutrosophic 2
SuperHyperNeighbors 1-failedinneutrosophic
S. SuperHyperForcing in a given
− 1.\SuperHyperForcing.
SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic 21-failed +neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph. the neutrosophic Thus
SuperHyperForcing number
the number is isin (v).aneutrosophic
given
Consider isn half −
neutrosop
2983

( O(N SHG:(V,E)) 2990

∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ ∀a >
S| ∈ S, |N (a)n> ∩n(V S)| O(N
≡
2
SHG:(V,E))
2
2
+ + 1)-neutrosophic
SuperHyperComplete
1 and the neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive
neutrosophic number SuperHyperGraph.
is 1-failed
Thus the number
tryimplies
S is a every dual Sit’sis aproved.
Thusneutrosophic dual neutrosophic ∀aevery
SuperHyperDefensive
It implies 2 is1-failed
SuperHyperDefensive
∈ S,Thus
S >a 2 dual − 1. (v).
2958 1-failed
neutrosophic Consider n half
SuperHyperDefensivemin −1
Σ neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperVertices
and
σ(v), are
in out
the of S
setting
dual which
of a is
dual
neutrosophic a
is minis SuperH
in the neutrosophic of a number
it’s proved. It implies SuperHyperComplete
∀a ∈ 2
S, |N
2958
SuperHyperForcing.
(a)
every S is a dual (
∩ S| >O(N|N
O(N (a) neutrosophic
∩ (V
SHG:(V,E))
v∈{v
SHG:(V,E)) \
,v
1 2 S)|
,··· ≡,v }
+ t1 t> and
+ 1)-neutrosophic O(N SuperHyperGraph.
the 2958
neutrosophic
SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V numberThus is the number 2991

in a givenn n in2 a given 2 neutrosophic 2984

rHyperForcing
ng in a given neutrosophic
neutrosophic neutrosophic
SuperHyperComplete
SuperHyperForcing SuperHyperComplete dual min
O(N Σ∈neutrosophic
neutrosophic
SHG:(V,E))
v∈{v n ,vn,··· SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperComplete ,v
2 2
t } SHG:(V,E)) 1-failed
⊆V σ(v),
2959 neutrosophic
2
the setting dual
SuperHyperForcing.
neutrosophic ASuperHype
n{vhalf ,vthe,••• 2 ,v
,v} is in the settingare of a in dual
S,2959
(Σ1v∈and
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperForcing in a given neutrosophic 2992
2959 ∀a 1> 2 − 1. min
O(N Σ σ(v), in the setting of a dual
Thus∀a it’s∈proved. S, It>implies − 1.every SSuperHyperComplete 2 + 1 ,v2neutrosophic number
O(N SHG:(V,E)) 2985
is a dual neutrosophic neutrosophic (v).
neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive
Consider
2 2SuperHyperGraph.
SuperHyperVertex
t> v∈{v
12Thus2 −1
,··· +
has
the t nt>
number1-failed
1)-neutrosophic
neutrosophic
t} O(N SHG:(V,E))
half neutrosophic
t> is
⊆V SuperHyperDefensive
2958SuperHyperVertices
SuperHyperNeighbors 1-failed
out ofneutrosoph
S. S which
Thus it’s proved. 2
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing inThus It 2
implies every S
O(N is a
SHG:(V,E))
a 2given dual neutrosophic
minO(N
It (implies
+neutrosophic
SHG:(V,E))
Σevery SuperHyperDefensive
O(N
+(t(}O(N SHG:(V,E))
SuperHyperForcing.
1)-neutrosophic 1-failed
-neutrosophic
2
σ(v),2959
SuperHyperDefensive
2986

in
2958 the SuperHyperDefensive
setting of a dual
1-failed 1-failed
neutrosophic
2993

dual 2 S1SuperHyperComplete
neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing
it’s proved. 1 and the neutrosophic
v∈{v ,vis 2anumber
,···
dual,v is SHG:(V,E))
O(N SHG:(V,E)) + 1)-neutrosophic
⊆V
+ 1)-neutrosophic 2987 SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic
t> 2 2 2984
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcingmin inΣv∈{va given neutrosophic ⊆V σ(v), SuperHyperComplete
neutrosophic
in the setting
(v).
SuperHyperForcing. of a dual
Consider 2
SuperHyperForcing.
n half −1 neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are out of S in w
Thus it’s proved. S isIt aimplies
dual every SO(Nis SHG:(V,E))
a dual neutrosophic Supe-
SuperHyperForcing. ∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
SuperHyperDefensive
,v ,··· ,v } 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing in a given neutrosophic 2959
2988
1 2
neutrosophic
t O(N SHG:(V,E))
SuperHyperVertex has n half neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors 2985

. It implies every neutrosophic ( O(N

SuperHyperDefensive SHG:(V,E))
1-failed
t>

( SuperHyperComplete neutrosophic
2
+ 1)-neutrosophic
SuperHyperGraph.
dual (v). Thus the
Consider
neutrosophic n number SuperHyperDefensive
−1 neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
is
n SuperHyperDefensive
nhalf
2958 2986
1-failed 1-failed neutrosophic
neutrosophic are outSuperHyperF
of S which is
rHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing in number
2
O(N SHG:(V,E))
+ 1)-neutrosophic (v). SuperHyperDefensive
2Consider n half 1-failed
−1 neutrosophic
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
2989
are out of S which is
+ 1 and the neutrosophic
SuperHyperForcing. dual is∀a ∈ S, SuperHyperVertex
neutrosophic − 1.
> SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighb
SuperHyperForcing.
perHyperForcing in a given neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing.
2
SuperHyperComplete
96/128 neutrosophic
in(v).Consider ∀a half
2n out∈ of2S, −1which neutrosophic
2959|N (a) ∩ S|
2987
2990
has >n|N half
(a)neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices
∩ (V \ S)| ≡ are out
a given neutrosophic SuperHyperComplete neutrosophic min(v).96/128
Σ Consider
v∈{v n }half
,v ,··· ,v 1 dual
(v).
2
Supe-
neutrosophic
−1 neutrosophic
t
Consider
⊆V σ(v),
t>
O(N SHG:(V,E))
n
the SuperHyperDefensive
setting of a are
SuperHyperVertices 96/128
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex
half −1 SuperHyperForcing.
neutrosophic
dual S is 1-failed
SuperHyperVertices
a 2988 neutrosophic
has n half neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in S
2991
are out of S which is
SuperHyperForcing.
of1 and
S which is∀aa neutrosophic
dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive ∩ (V 1-failed
2

rHyperGraph. Thus theSuperHyperGraph.

number
dual
( O(N neutrosophic
is neutrosophic
O(NSHG:(V,E)) SuperHyperDefensive
SHG:(V,E))
+
+ 1)-neutrosophic 1
neutrosophic and the
1-failed neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex
SuperHyperDefensive
O(N SHG:(V,E)) 1-failed has nn∀ahalf ∈
nA neutrosophic
S, |N (a) ∩ S| > SuperHyperNeighbors
2992
|N (a)SuperHyperForcing.
\ S)| ≡ in S
ophic SuperHyperGraph. Thus
neutrosophic the number is Thus 2 the number +
is 1 and
dual neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex has 2 the
n half + the
SuperHyperDefensive
neutrosophic 2960 ∈
SuperHyperNeighborsS, ∀a> in
2960
∈ 1-failed
S. −|N 1. 2989
neutrosophic
∩ |N ∩ \ S)| ≡
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. S, (a)
A neutrosophic
S| > (a) (V
SuperHyper-
SuperHyperForcing. 2 2993

ophic number neutrosophic

is min Σv∈{vnumber
neutrosophic
is,vmin
number
Σv∈{v
is min Σ
,v(v).
v∈{v
,•••Consider
,v
,vσ(v),
,··· ,v
} n half
} in the ⊆V
−1 neutrosophic
σ(v), in the
a setting
setting ofSuperHyperVertices of a 96/128 2 2961 2 n n n n
2990

1 ,v2 ,··· t} 1 2 ⊆V 1
t t>
2
neutrosophic
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ SuperHyperVertex
t
t>
O(N SHG:(V,E)) 2961 are out has
96/128 n∀a∀a
of S which halfis
∈S,aS|S,neutrosophic
> 1.−∩ 1.(VSuperHyperNeighbors
2991
in S
Vertex has S)| n half
∈ S,neutrosophic A 2SuperHyperNeighbors \ S)| ≡in S.
O(N SHG:(V,E)) S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \∀a ≡
dual neutrosophic t> SuperHyperDefensive
2 dual neutrosophic 1-failed neutrosophic
SuperHyperDefensive
2
SuperHyperForcing.
1-failed neutrosophic |N (a)
SuperHyperForcing. ∈∩ >>2 |N2 2
− (a)
in the setting of a dual neutrosophic O(N SuperHyperDefensive
2962 2992
utrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing.
SHG:(V,E)) n n
ic SuperHyperGraph. (ii).
Thus Consider n half −1 neutrosophic
neutrosophic
the number is Thus 2the number ∀a
SuperHyperVertex
SuperHyperVertices ∈ S,
+ 1 and has> n
are
2 O(N
−
half
out
2the
1.neutrosophic
of S 2962 SuperHyperNeighbors in S.
which
SHG:(V,E))2960 is a n n
2963 2993
97/128
Consider1-failedhalf −1 neutrosophic
nneutrosophic neutrosophic
dual neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing.
SuperHyperGraph. SuperHyperVertices
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed are out of S which
neutrosophic is is a2 2963 ∀a
SuperHyperForcing. +A 1∈
∀a ∈and S, |N
S, the(a)> ∩−2964 S|1.>2960|N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
ic number is min
O(N SHG:(V,E)) Σ
neutrosophic v∈{v ,v ,··· ,v } ⊆V σ(v), in ∀athe ∈ S,setting
|N (a) ∩ of
S| > a
|N (a) ∩ (V
2961\ S)| ≡ 2
n of na 2
utrosophic
ber is 2 + 11number
neutrosophic
SuperHyperDefensive 2
and t is O(N
the t> minneutrosophic
SuperHyperVertex
1-failed Σ2v∈{v
SHG:(V,E)) has n half SuperHyperForcing.
2960 1 ,v2 ,··· ,v
neutrosophic
t} O(N SHG:(V,E)) n n ⊆VAσ(v),
SuperHyperNeighbors 2964in
in S.
96/128 the setting
∀a ∈ S,
2965

> − 1.
2961

(ii). Consider n half −1 neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices ∀a ∈ S,

are out
> − 1.
t>
osophic SuperHyperDefensive
ophic SuperHyperVertex
dualσ(v), has
in the setting
neutrosophic n 1-failed
half neutrosophic
neutrosophic
of a ∀a ∈ 2961
SuperHyperDefensive S, |N (a) ∩ S| 1-failed SuperHyperForcing.
SuperHyperNeighbors
> |N (a) ∩ (V
2
2
\ S)| ≡
neutrosophic in
2 S. 2965 2962
SuperHyperForcing. 97/128 2962 2 2 9
N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V
nsider
2 n of
halfS which
−1
(ii).
is a dual neutrosophic
neutrosophic
Consider n SuperHyperVertices
half −1 ∀a
SuperHyperDefensive
neutrosophic
∈ S,
n
>
n
− are
1. out of1-failed
SuperHyperVertices S which is are a out 2963
of S which is a
97/
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing.
neutrosophic
osophic SuperHyperDefensive∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩
SuperHyperForcing. S| > |Nneutrosophic
1-failed (a)A ∩neutrosophic
2962 ≡ SuperHyper- Thus
2(V \2 S)|SuperHyperForcing. A it’s2964proved. It implies every S is a dual strong 2963

HyperVertices dualare neutrosophic

out of nSproved.
whichnSuperHyperDefensive
is a 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. -neutrosophic A every SuperHyperDefensive
2964
( O(N1-failed
SHG:(V,E))
Vertex has
ic SuperHyperVertex ∀a n∈ half
Thus it’sneutrosophic
hasSuperHyperVertex
S, n>Thus
half−it’s It impliesSuperHyperNeighbors
neutrosophic
1. proved.
2963
every S is
It implies a dual every S isina S.
strong
SuperHyperNeighbors neutrosophic
dual strong O(N
Thus SHG:(V,E))
SuperHyperDefensive
in (S. it’s
22965
proved.
Thus +it’s It implies
1)-neutrosophic
proved. 2966
It implies
97/128 S isevery
2994 a dual S isstrong
a dual strong 2( + 1)-
O(N SHG:(V,
2 97/
neutrosophic
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing.
1-failed 2
2 SuperHyperDefensive
neutrosophic A
SuperHyperForcing
2964 has n half
in a neutrosophic
given neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors
neutrosophic
SuperHyperComplete
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperForcingin S.
1-failed 2965
in
neutrosophic a given neutrosophic
SuperHyperForcing Su- in a given
1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing
O(N SHG:(V,E)) in a given neutrosophic
2967
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing in
2995
neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Thus the number is + 1 and the
rosophic
s proved. SuperHyperNeighbors S|in>S. perHyperComplete
SuperHyperComplete number isneutrosophic neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph.
SuperHyperGraph. Thus
Thus thetheThusnumber
2968
∀a ∈every
It implies S, |NS(a)
neutrosophic isSuperHyperComplete
a∩ dual
number |N
strong
is∀amin∈(a)
ΣS,
2965
∩ |N(V neutrosophic
neutrosophic \,vS)| ≡ SuperHyperGraph.
SuperHyperDefensive
2 Thus the
2966 of SuperHyperComplete neutrosophic
2996 SuperHyperGraph. 97/
the
v∈{v (a)
,v ,··· }∩ S| > |N (a) ⊆V σ(v),
∩ (Vin \theS)| setting
O(N ≡SHG:(V,E)) a 2969

number is and the

2997 neutrosophic number is min
O(N SHG:(V,E)) 1 2 t O(N SHG:(V,E))
+ 1 and the
O(N SHG:(V,E)) neutrosophic number is
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcingdual
n
strong
n in
neutrosophic2 a given + 1 and
neutrosophic
n
SuperHyperDefensive
the
n
neutrosophic
1-failed
number
t>
SuperHyperComplete
neutrosophic
2 is 2967 2 + 1 and the neutrosophic number is
N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ∀a≡∈ S, > min− 1. ∀a ∈ S,O(N SHG:(V,E)) min ofΣav∈{v
2 2970 O(N
( σ(v), inSHG:(V,E))
in the setting
ophic SuperHyperGraph. 2Thus 2 the
SuperHyperForcing. Σv∈{v number ist }t> O(N>
1 ,v2 ,··· ,v SHG:(V,E)) − 1.⊆V Thus
+σ(v), it’s
1 and in proved.
the
the setting ΣItv∈{v2968
implies,vdual
1 2
,•••
min ,vΣ
1every ,···},v
,vstrong
2 S }is,vaO(N
t>t t>
t v∈{v
dual strong2998
SHG:(V,E))
1 2 ,··· ,vt2}
2971
⊆V
O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V
2 theσ(v),setting
+ theofofsetting
aadual
dual of
in1)-neutrosophic strong
a dual
2994
2 222SuperHyperVertices SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing
t>
in a given neutrosophic
(iii). Consider n half −1 neutrosophic are outastrong
of S which is a -neutrosophic 2
SuperHyperDefensive
roved. It Thus
ophic number isit’s minproved.
Σv∈{v1It,vimplies
2(,··· ,vt } every
O(N SHG:(V,E)) Thus S+is
it’s a dual
proved. ⊆V σ(v),
1)-neutrosophic strong
It implies neutrosophic
inSuperHyperDefensive
the everysetting is aofdual ( O(N
S SuperHyperForcing. strong O(N
SHG:(V,E)) SHG:(V,E))
2969 ( O(N SHG:(V,E))
1-failed ++
2972

2+ SuperHyperGraph.1)-neutrosophic
1)-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosop
2995

2 (Aneutrosophic
2994
implies every
dual S is a
neutrosophic dual O(N SHG:(V,E))
2 strong 2 neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed SuperHyperComplete
neutrosophic neutrosophic 1)-neutrosophic
2999
Thus SuperHyperDefensive
the number is 1-failed 2996n
1-failed inneutrosophic in aSuperHyperForcing.
t> 2966 2973
2
SuperHyperDefensive
Thus it’s
ong neutrosophic
utrosophic SuperHyperDefensive
neutrosophic
SuperHyperForcing 1-failed
proved.SuperHyperForcing.
ItSuperHyperVertex
implies
in a neutrosophic
everyhasS
SuperHyperDefensive
1-failed
given nishalf
neutrosophic
neutrosophic SuperHyperForc-
a neutrosophic
dual strong
1-failed
O(N neutrosophic
neutrosophic
SuperHyperNeighbors
SHG:(V,E))
SuperHyperComplete + 1 and2970the
SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperForcing
SuperHyperForcing.
S.
SuperHyperForcing.
2967neutrosophic number is
given neutrosophic
2974
2966
3000 2995
2997
ing1-failed
ong neutrosophic
yperForcing. in a given neutrosophic
neutrosophic
SuperHyperDefensive (vi). SuperHyperComplete
SuperHyperComplete
SuperHyperForcing
Consider inneutrosophic
−1 neutrosophic
n half SHG:(V,E)) aneutrosophic SuperHyperGraph.
givenSuperHyperVertices
2 neutrosophic are Thus
SuperHyperComplete
(vi). Consider
out
(vi). the
of nS number
which−1
half
Consider isnisneutrosophic
ahalf2967 SuperHyperVertices
2996
−1 neutrosophic
3001 SuperHyperVerticesare out ofare S
S, O(N
2966
|N (a) ∩ S| > |N min ∩Σ ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual strong
2971
ic SuperHyperGraph. Thus the numberO(N∀a ∈is
SHG:(V,E)) (a) + (V1 \and
v∈{v S)| ,v≡2the ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E))
,···SHG:(V,E)) 2998
.ven
trosophic SuperHyperGraph.
neutrosophic
n half −1
neutrosophic
Consider Thus
Thusthe
dual
SuperHyperGraph.
SuperHyperComplete
SuperHyperGraph. neutrosophic thenumber
neutrosophic
SuperHyperVertices
number isn n 1.are+ 1
SuperHyperDefensive
Thus O(N and
the
2 the
number
SHG:(V,E)) neutrosophic
out of++ S11which
1-failed
is
1O(N
and the (vi).
number t> Consider
dual
neutrosophic
is a2 2972 2960 neutrosophic
is 2968
n half
SuperHyperForcing.
+ 1 and the −1 neutrosophic
SuperHyperDefensive A
dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic Su
3002 SuperHyperVertices
1-failed
2997 neutrosophic are
SuperHype
∈ S, is >⊆V−σ(v), and
2 2967 2 2968
ic number is min Σv∈{v1 ,v neutrosophic min ∀a
ΣSuperHyperVertex 2
O(Nhas (inO(Nnthehalf setting
SHG:(V,E)) σ(v), +
neutrosophic of
inout a of
neutrosophic
the S2969
setting which is
of asetting
SuperHyperNeighbors
1)-neutrosophic dual astrong
dual
SuperHyperVertex in
a S.
SuperHyperDefensive neutrosophic
has
3003 n 1-failed SuperHyperDefensive
half
2998neutrosophic
has nneutrosophic SuperHyperNeig
is O(N
utrosophic
ber
trosophic the
numberneutrosophic
SHG:(V,E))
neutrosophic
SuperHyperDefensive
2
is min + Σ1 number
v∈{v
2 ,···
number
and 1 ,v the
2 ,···is
,vt1-failed
t>,v min
} is O(N
t
min
} Σ
O(N
Σ 2 v∈{v{v
neutrosophic
v∈{v1 ,v
SHG:(V,E))
v∈ 2968
22,v
1
1 2
,v ,•••
,··· ,v
2 ⊆V ,v
,v
t> }
t } SuperHyperForcing.
2,··· σ(v),
t }
t t>
t> O(N
2 in
SHG:(V,E))
the 2⊆V
SHG:(V,E))setting ⊆V Aofσ(v),
a 2973in the
neutrosophic
2961 of
SuperHyperVertex 2969 half neutrosophic SuperH 2999

1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. A neutrosophic Su-

SHG:(V,E))
ophic SuperHyperVertex
neutrosophic has
SuperHyperDefensive n half neutrosophic
t>
O(N 1-failed
SHG:(V,E)) SuperHyperNeighbors
2 Sneutrosophic SuperHyperForcing.
2 in S. ∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡ 3000
σ(v), in the
Thus
in the setting
it’ssettingofofa1-failed
proved. It
dual
implies
(a strong
every
neutrosophic
is a ∀a1)-neutrosophic
dual connected
SuperHy-
∈ S,SuperHyperForcing.
|N (a) ∩ S|SuperHyperDefensive
> |N
neutrosophic (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡1-failed neutrosophic 2970∀a ∈ S,2999|N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
2974 2970
neutrosophic dual
⊆V strong neutrosophic
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperDefensive
neutrosophic
22969 + 1-failed neutrosophic 2975
N SHG:(V,E))
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing (vi). Consider
in a given n half
perHyperVertex −12962 neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices
neutrosophic has n half∀aneutrosophic n are out
n SuperHyperNeighbors of S which is a 3001
rForcing.
2
perDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing.
SuperHyperForcing. n n 2971
2976
∈ S, >∈ S,− n1. n
∀a −1
SuperHyperForcing. 3000
ii). Consider
1-failed n half
neutrosophic ∈ S,neutrosophic
|N (a)
SuperHyperComplete ∩ S| SuperHyperVertices
> |N (a)
neutrosophic ∩ (V \ ∀a
S)| ∈≡
SuperHyperGraph. S,aredual out
> Thus of
− 1. Sthewhich
neutrosophic number isSuperHyperDefensive
isa 2963 1-failed neutrosophic
2971
∀a SuperHyperForcing.
> − 1. A
inisS.A
2970 2977 3002
onsider
neutrosophic −1 neutrosophic
n half SuperHyperDefensive
O(N SHG:(V,E)) SuperHyperVertices (vi). neutrosophic
1-failed Consider number n halfare 2outneutrosophic
−1 2of S which
SuperHyperForcing. a out
SuperHyperVertices 2972 are out of S which2is a 2 30012 2
(iii). Consider2n n+half 1 and −1 neutrosophic
the neutrosophic
2971 SuperHyperVertices
is
neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex are 2964 of S which
has n halfisneutrosophic
2978 a 2972 SuperHyperNeighbors in S. 3003

(iii). Consider S,Σnv∈{v 1.dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic it’sSuperHyperForcing. SA

2half 2−1 neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are inThus
osophic
trosophic ∀a ∈
SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperVertex min > Thus
has n,v−it’s
1-failed
half
} neutrosophic
proved.
neutrosophic It ⊆V
implies SuperHyperForcing.
every
σ(v),SuperHyperNeighbors
in S is aofdual
the setting a dual connected
connected A
S. it’s proved.
Thus
2973 Itproved.
impliesItevery
2979
implies
3004 isevery
a dual
3002
S isconnected
a dual connected
HyperVertices dual neutrosophic
are out of S O(N SuperHyperDefensive
,v ,···
which
1 2
is a
t
neutrosophic
SHG:(V,E)) t>
O(N SHG:(V,E))
2972 2 1-failed
SuperHyperVertex neutrosophic
has n half SuperHyperForcing.
O(N
neutrosophic
2965
SHG:(V,E))
∀a ∈ S,SHG:(V,E))
|N1)-neutrosophic A
(a) ∩ S| > |N (a)
SuperHyperNeighbors 2973
in ∩ (V \ S)| ≡
S.
outneutrosophic
ic SuperHyperVertexofSuperHyperForcing.
S which isn(ahalf
neutrosophic dualneutrosophic
hasSuperHyperVertex 2 neutrosophic
SuperHyperDefensive + 1)-neutrosophicSuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperNeighbors
1-failed SuperHyperDefensive
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. in (S. 1-failed O(N
2 ( neutrosophic
2974 + + 1)-neutrosophic
2980 SuperHyperDefensive
3005
3003
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosop
1-failed n
2973has n half neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors nina S.
sneutrosophic A−1 n2 in 2974
proved.1-failed
It implies every
∀a (iv).
∈ S
S, is
Consider a dualn∩half
SuperHyperForcing
|N (a) connected
S| > neutrosophic
|N (a)in neutrosophic
∩ a given
(V SuperHyperVertices
\ neutrosophic
S)| ≡ are out ofSuperHyperForcing
SuperHyperComplete S which2975 is a neutrosophic given neutrosophic SuperHyperComplete neutros
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. A neutrosophic Su- ∀a ∈
SuperHyperForcing − 2981
∀a ∈ S, |N (a) ∩ S| > |N (a) ∩ (V S,\ S)| >
≡ 1. in a given
3006
neutrosophic SuperHyperComplet
rosophic SuperHyperNeighbors dual neutrosophicn∩ S| in S.|N (a)2974
nSuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing.
O(N SHG:(V,E))
SuperHyperGraph. A 2 Thus 2 theThus number O(N
isnumber isSHG:(V,E))
+ 1 and the
yperDefensive 1-failed
∀a ∈ S,neutrosophic
|N (a) SuperHyperForcing
> ∩ (V \ S)| in ≡ a given neutrosophic 1 neutro
2982
SuperHyperGraph. Thus the number is n n + 1 and the neutrosophic O(N SHG:(V,E))
perHyperVertex ∀a ∈ has half −
S, nSuperHyperVertex neutrosophic |NnSuperHyperNeighbors SuperHyperGraph. the + and t
2976 3007
neutrosophic > ∀a
1. ∈ S,has half ∩
(a) S| > ∀a |N
neutrosophic
Thus ∈ S, (a)
it’s
∩ >(V 2
proved. −\ 1.
SuperHyperNeighbors S)|
It
≡ in is
implies
number
S.
every
min Σ S is a
2983
dual connected
2
σ(v), in 2
the setting ofsettin
a 3004
du
yperComplete neutrosophic n SuperHyperGraph.
n
number
2 2 is min Σ Thus the number is σ(v), in the setting of a dual connected
N (a) ∩+(Vin
v∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E))2⊆V 2
S.S)|
2977
number is
v∈{v min
1 2Σ
,v ,··· ,v } 3008 ⊆V σ(v), in the
∀a ≡∈neutrosophic
S, > −number 1. ∀a∀ais n ∩n v∈{v t
,vO(N SHG:(V,E))
,··· ,v } ⊆V
1\
t> O(N SHG:(V,E)) t>
1 2 t2 O(N SHG:(V,E))
G:(V,E))
and the 2 (SO(N 2 isSHG:(V,E)) Thusstrong∈ ∈ S,
it’s
S, |N (a)
proved. > S| −> |N 1.((a) ∩ (V
2 \ S)| ≡ + 1)-neutrosophic
O(N SHG:(V,E)) SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed
t>
2neutrosophic 3005
2 n It 2 implies every2 S is a dual( connected 2978
s it’s proved. It implies every a dual nneutrosophic
+ 1)-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperDefensive
2( 1-failed
+SuperHyperComplete + 1)-neutrosophic3009SuperHyperDefensive
neutrosophic
2966O(N SHG:(V,E))
1)-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed
3004 1-failed neutrosop
σ(v), in2 (the setting
∈ S, of>a − SuperHyperForcing in2979
a given neutrosophic neutrosophic 3006n
∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt }
led neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing ⊆V
in
O(N
a given
∀aSHG:(V,E))
+ dual
1. connected
1)-neutrosophic
2neutrosophic
2 neutrosophic
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed
SuperHyperComplete SuperHyperForcing.
S isSuperHyperForcing. 2
O(N SHG:(V,E)) 3005
SuperHyperForcing. O(N SHG:(V,E))
roved. It implies
t>
every
2 aItdual connected 2 neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Thus 2975
2967
the number is
3010
+ 1 3006
and the neutrosophic
JSuperHyperGraph.
Math
ThusTechniques
it’s proved. Comput Math,
implies 2023 isSSuperHyperForcing.
every is aSHG:(V,E))
dual connected neutrosophic Volume 2 | Issue 6 | 278
3007
ophic SuperHyperDefensive
trosophic 1-failed
Thus the SuperHyperForcing
neutrosophic
number O(N in a given
O(N neutrosophic
+
SHG:(V,E)) 1 and the SuperHyperComplete
2980 2968 neutrosophic2 2975
rDefensive SuperHyperDefensive
1-failed Thus
neutrosophic
it’s proved.
Proposition ItSuperHyperForcing
implies5.27.
1-failed
every SLet is aNdual
neutrosophic SHG 2(in: number
a(V, given
2E) beis
SuperHyperForcing neutrosophic
a+min Σv∈{v
1)-neutrosophic
Proposition
neutrosophic
O(N 1 ,v2SuperHyperGraph
SHG:(V,E))
in ,···2976
a ,v t}
given 5.27. Let N
which
neutrosophic
Proposition 5.27. SHG
⊆V σ(v),
isLet : N inSHG
(V, the
E) setting
be
: a
(V, ofbea adual
neutrosophic
2984
E) connected
SuperHyperGra
neutrosophic 3008
Super
nnected
trosophic n half −1
Considerneutrosophic
number neutrosophic
is min Σv∈{v
SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperGraph.
SuperHyperVertices
1-failed neutrosophic
2975 Thus
are out in
σ(v), the
SuperHyperForcing number
of the
S which is
in a is
setting a aneutrosophic
of
given 2 2981 2969 t> + 1 and
O(N the neutrosophic
SHG:(V,E)) 3011
2976 3007
1 ,v 2 ,··· ,v t} ⊆V 2
rComplete neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph.
∅. The number O(N is 0 Thus
and
SHG:(V,E)) the the number
neutrosophic is
number is 0,∅.forThe an number
independent
in∅.the
2977
The is 0 and the
neutrosophic
isnumber
neutrosophic
of a isdual
0 and number
2985

the neutrosophic is 0, for an independent

number is 0, for an ind
number is 2min Σv∈{v ( O(N SHG:(V,E)) isσ(v), setting connected
3012
utrosophic
erHyperForcing
E))
SuperHyperDefensive
SuperHyperComplete
in aSuperHyperComplete
given 1-failed
neutrosophic
t>
neutrosophic
neutrosophic
neutrosophic
2976
SuperHyperForcing.
SuperHyperGraph.
SuperHyperGraph.
1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } Thus the Thus +A⊆V
number
O(N SHG:(V,E)) the number
1)-neutrosophic
2982 SuperHyperDefensive 2977 1-failed
3008 neutrosophic
2986 3009
strong 1 neutrosophic
+SuperHyperVertex
andO(Nthe SuperHyperDefensive
neutrosophic
O(N
SHG:(V,E)) SuperHyperSet
SHG:(V,E))
number
+ 1 and theis 1-failed
in
neutrosophic neutrosophic
the setting of dual
number is
t> 2
2 SuperHyperSet in the setting
SuperHyperSet
2970
in theofsetting
dual
3013
of dual
ophic
Graph. Thus the number has
2 +n1 half
is and neutrosophic
theO(N neutrosophic
SHG:(V,E)) SuperHyperNeighbors
number SuperHyperForcing.
is in S. 2983 2978
2978
2987
3010
erHyperForcing. 2 min Σv∈{vσ(v), ,···:,vin
,v(i)
(
} the setting
2977
⊆Vof
+
σ(v),
a 1)-neutrosophic
in the setting
dual connected a SuperHyperDefensive
of1-failed
dual neutrosophic 2971 1-failed neutrosophic
(i) : neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 3009
1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyper
v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N ⊆V neutrosophic
1 2 t2 SuperHyperDefensive
O(N SHG:(V,E)) SuperHyperForcing;
2979
(i) : neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive
2988
1-failed neutrosophic Su
t> min nΣ σ(v), inare theout setting of5.27.
a dual a connected
t> 3014
SHG:(V,E))
riii).
is Consider half
v∈{v
2∀a −1 S,neutrosophic
(∈O(N
2 ,··· ,vt }
1 ,vSHG:(V,E))
|N (a) t> ∩+O(NS| >SuperHyperForcing.
SuperHyperVertices
|N (a)2978
SHG:(V,E))
1)-neutrosophic ∩ ⊆V(V
2
\ S)| ≡ Proposition
SuperHyperDefensive
of S which
1-failed neutrosophic
is Let N2972SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic 2979
SuperHyperGraph
3010
2989
which is 3011
2
 dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. A 3002

neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex has n half neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors in S. 3003

∀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 3004

( O(N SHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 3005

SuperHyperForcing in a given neutrosophic SuperHyperComplete neutrosophic 3006

SuperHyperGraph. Thus the number is O(N SHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and the neutrosophic 3007

number is min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a dual connected 3008
t>
2

( O(N SHG:(V,E))
2 + 1)-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 3009

SuperHyperForcing. 3010

Proposition 5.27. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 3011

∅. The number is 0 and the neutrosophic number is 0, for an independent neutrosophic 3012

SuperHyperSet in the setting of dual 3013

(i) : neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing; 3014

(ii) : strong neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 3015

SuperHyperForcing; 3016

(iii) : connected neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 3017

SuperHyperForcing; 3018

(iv) : 0-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing; 3019

(v) : strong 0-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 3020

SuperHyperForcing; 3021

(vi) : connected 0-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 3022

SuperHyperForcing. 3023

Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider ∅. All 3024

neutrosophic SuperHyperMembers of ∅ have no neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor 3025

inside the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet less than neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor out 3026

of neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus, 3027

(i). ∅ is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 3028

SuperHyperForcing since the following statements are equivalent. 3029

∀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 neutrosophic 3030

SuperHyperSet in the setting of a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 3031

neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. 3032

98/128
(ii). ∅ is a dual strong neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 3033

SuperHyperForcing since the following statements are equivalent. 3034

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

J Math Techniques Comput Math, 2023 ∀a ∈ ∅, |Ns (a) ∩ ∅| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡ Volume 2 | Issue 6 | 279

∀a ∈ ∅, |∅| < |Ns (a) ∩ (V \ ∅)| ≡

∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |Ns (a) ∩ V | ≡
∀a ∈ ∅, 0 < |N (a) ∩ V | ≡
 The number is 0 and the neutrosophic number is 0, for an independent neutrosophic 3030

SuperHyperSet in the setting of a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 3031

neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. 3032

(ii). ∅ is a dual strong neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 3033

SuperHyperForcing since the following statements are equivalent. 3034

∀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.

The number is 0 and the neutrosophic number is 0, for an independent neutrosophic 3035

SuperHyperSet in the setting of a dual strong neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 3036

1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. 3037

(iii). ∅ is a dual connected neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 3038

SuperHyperForcing since the following statements are equivalent. 3039

∀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.

The number is 0 and the neutrosophic number is 0, for an independent neutrosophic 3040

SuperHyperSet in the setting of a dual connected neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 3041

1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. 3042

(iv). ∅ is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 3043

SuperHyperForcing since the following statements are equivalent. 3044

∀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.

The number is 0 and the neutrosophic number is 0, for an independent neutrosophic 3045

SuperHyperSet in the setting of a dual 0-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 3046

neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. 3047

(v). ∅ is a dual strong 0-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 3048

SuperHyperForcing since the following statements are equivalent. 3049

∀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.
J Math Techniques Comput Math, 2023 Volume 2 | Issue 6 | 280
 The number is 0 and the neutrosophic number is 0, for an independent neutrosophic 3050

SuperHyperSet in the setting of a dual strong 0-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 3051

1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. 3052

(vi). ∅ is a dual connected neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 3053

SuperHyperForcing since the following statements are equivalent. 3054

∀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.
The number is 0 and the neutrosophic number is 0, for an independent neutrosophic 3055

SuperHyperSet in the setting of a dual connected 0-offensive neutrosophic 3056

SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. 3057

Proposition 5.28. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 3058

neutrosophic SuperHyperComplete. Then there’s no independent neutrosophic 3059

SuperHyperSet. 3060

Proposition 5.29. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 3061

neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle/neutrosophic SuperHyperPath/neutrosophic 3062

SuperHyperWheel. The number is O(N SHG : (V, E)) and the neutrosophic number is 3063

On (N SHG : (V, E)), in the setting of a dual 3064

(i) : neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing; 3065

(ii) : strong neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 3066

SuperHyperForcing; 3067

(iii) : connected neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 3068

SuperHyperForcing; 3069

(iv) : O(N SHG : (V, E))-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 3070

SuperHyperForcing; 3071

(v) : strong O(N SHG : (V, E))-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 3072

neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing; 3073

(vi) : connected O(N SHG : (V, E))-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 3074

neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. 3075

Proof. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 3076

neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle/neutrosophic SuperHyperPath/neutrosophic 3077

SuperHyperWheel. 3078

(i). Consider one neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is out of S which is a dual 3079

neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. This 3080

neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex has one neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor in S, i.e, 3081

suppose x ∈ V \ S such that y, z ∈ N (x). By it’s neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle, 3082

|N (x)| = |N (y)| = |N (z)| = 2. Thus 3083

∀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.

J Math Techniques Comput Math, 2023 Volume 2 | Issue 6 | 281

100/128
 Thus it’s contradiction. It implies every V \ {x} isn’t a dual neutrosophic 3084

SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing in a given neutrosophic 3085

SuperHyperCycle. 3086

Consider one neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is out of S which is a dual 3087

neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. This 3088

neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex has one neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor in S, i.e, 3089

Suppose x ∈ V \ S such that y, z ∈ N (x). By it’s neutrosophic SuperHyperPath, 3090

|N (x)| = |N (y)| = |N (z)| = 2. Thus 3091

∀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 neutrosophic 3092

SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing in a given neutrosophic 3093

SuperHyperPath. 3094

Consider one neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is out of S which is a dual 3095

neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. This 3096

neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex has one neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor in S, i.e, 3097

Suppose x ∈ V \ S such that y, z ∈ N (x). By it’s neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel, 3098

|N (x)| = |N (y)| = |N (z)| = 2. Thus 3099

∀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 neutrosophic 3100

SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing in a given neutrosophic 3101

SuperHyperWheel. 3102

(ii), (iii) are obvious by (i). 3103

(iv). By (i), V is maximal and it’s a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 3104

neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Thus it’s a dual O(N SHG : (V, E))-neutrosophic 3105

SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. 3106

(v), (vi) are obvious by (iv). 3107

Thus the number is O(N SHG : (V, E)) and the neutrosophic number is 3108

On (N SHG : (V, E)), in the setting of all types of a dual neutrosophic 3109

SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. 3110

Proposition 5.30. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is 3111

neutrosophic SuperHyperStar/complete neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite/complete 3112

neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite. The number is O(N SHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and the 3113

neutrosophic number is min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of a 3114
t>
2
dual 3115

(i) : neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing; 3116

J Math Techniques Comput Math, 2023 Volume 2 | Issue 6 | 282

101/128
 (ii) : strong neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 3117

SuperHyperForcing; 3118

(iii) : connected neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 3119

SuperHyperForcing; 3120

(iv) : ( O(N SHG:(V,E))

2 + 1)-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 3121

SuperHyperForcing; 3122

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

2 + 1)-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 3123

neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing; 3124

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

2 + 1)-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 3125

neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. 3126

Proof. (i). Consider n half +1 neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are in S which is 3127

neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. A 3128

neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex has at most n half neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors 3129

in S. If the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is the non-neutrosophic SuperHyperCenter, 3130

then 3131

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

∀a ∈ S, 1 > 0.

If the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex is the neutrosophic SuperHyperCenter, then 3132

∀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 neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 3133

neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing in a given neutrosophic SuperHyperStar. 3134

Consider n half +1 neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are in S which is a dual 3135

neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. 3136

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

δ δ
∀a ∈ S, >n− .
2 2
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 3137

neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing in a given complete neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite 3138

which isn’t a neutrosophic SuperHyperStar. 3139

Consider n half +1 neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices are in S which is a dual 3140

neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing and they 3141

are chosen from different neutrosophic SuperHyperParts, equally or almost equally as 3142

possible. A neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in S has δ half neutrosophic 3143

SuperHyperNeighbors in S. 3144

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

δ δ
∀a ∈ S, >n− .
2 2
Thus it’s proved. It implies every S is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 3145

1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing in a given complete neutrosophic 3146

SuperHyperMultipartite which is neither a neutrosophic SuperHyperStar nor complete 3147

neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite. 3148

J Math Techniques Comput Math, 2023 Volume 2 | Issue 6 | 283

102/128
 (ii), (iii) are obvious by (i). 3149
O(N SHG:(V,E))
+1
(iv). By (i), {xi }i=1 2
is maximal and it’s a dual neutrosophic 3150

SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Thus it’s a dual 3151

O(N SHG:(V,E))
2 + 1-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 3152

SuperHyperForcing. 3153

(v), (vi) are obvious by (iv). 3154

Thus the number is O(N SHG:(V,E)) 2 + 1 and the neutrosophic number is 3155

min Σv∈{v1 ,v2 ,··· ,vt } O(N SHG:(V,E)) ⊆V σ(v), in the setting of all dual 1-failed neutrosophic 3156
t>
2
SuperHyperForcing. 3157

Proposition 5.31. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a neutrosophic SuperHyperFamily of the 3158

N SHGs : (V, E) neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs which are from one-type neutrosophic 3159

SuperHyperClass which the result is obtained for the individuals. Then the results also 3160

hold for the neutrosophic SuperHyperFamily N SHF : (V, E) of these specific 3161

neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses of the neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs. 3162

Proof. There are neither neutrosophic SuperHyperConditions nor neutrosophic 3163

SuperHyperRestrictions on the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. Thus the 3164

neutrosophic SuperHyperResults on individuals, N SHGs : (V, E), are extended to the 3165

neutrosophic SuperHyperResults on neutrosophic SuperHyperFamily, 3166

N SHF : (V, E). 3167

Proposition 5.32. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If 3168

S is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing, 3169

then ∀v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S such that 3170

(i) v ∈ Ns (x); 3171

(ii) vx ∈ E. 3172

Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 3173

Consider v ∈ V \ S. Since S is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 3174

neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing, 3175

∀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 3176

v ∈ V \ S. Since S is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 3177

SuperHyperForcing, 3178

∀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.

3179

Proposition 5.33. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. If 3180

S is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing, 3181

then 3182

J Math Techniques Comput Math, 2023 Volume 2 | Issue 6 | 284

103/128
 (i) S is neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating set; 3183

(ii) there’s S ⊆ S  such that |S  | is neutrosophic SuperHyperChromatic number. 3184

Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 3185

Consider v ∈ V \ S. Since S is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 3186

neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing, either 3187

∀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 3188

∀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 neutrosophic SuperHyperDominating neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. 3189

(ii). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider 3190

v ∈ V \ S. Since S is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 3191

SuperHyperForcing, either 3192

∀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 3193

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

v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (v) ∩ S| > |Ns (v) ∩ (V \ S)|
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S : v ∈ Ns (x)
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S : vx ∈ E, µ(vx) = σ(v) ∧ σ(x)
v ∈ V \ S, ∃x ∈ S : vx ∈ E.
Thus every neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex v ∈ V \ S, has at least one neutrosophic 3194

SuperHyperNeighbor in S. The only case is about the relation amid neutrosophic 3195

SuperHyperVertices in S in the terms of neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbors. It implies 3196

there’s S ⊆ S  such that |S  | is neutrosophic SuperHyperChromatic number. 3197

Proposition 5.34. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 3198

Then 3199

(i) Γ ≤ O; 3200

(ii) Γs ≤ On . 3201

Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Let 3202

S = V. 3203

∀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

J Math Techniques Comput Math, 2023 Volume 2 | Issue 6 | 285

104/128
 It implies V is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 3204

SuperHyperForcing. For all neutrosophic SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic 3205

SuperHyperVertices S, S ⊆ V. Thus for all neutrosophic SuperHyperSets of 3206

neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S, |S| ≤ |V |. It implies for all neutrosophic 3207

SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S, |S| ≤ O. So for all neutrosophic 3208

SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S, Γ ≤ O. 3209

(ii). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Let S = V. 3210

∀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 neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 3211

SuperHyperForcing. For all neutrosophic SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic 3212

SuperHyperVertices S, S ⊆ V. Thus for all neutrosophic SuperHyperSets of 3213

neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ Σv∈V Σ3i=1 σi (v). It implies for all 3214

neutrosophic SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 3215

S, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ On . So for all neutrosophic SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic 3216

SuperHyperVertices S, Γs ≤ On . 3217

Proposition 5.35. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 3218

which is connected. Then 3219

(i) Γ ≤ O − 1; 3220

(ii) Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 3221

Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Let 3222

S = V − {x} where x is arbitrary and x ∈ V. 3223

∀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 neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 3224

SuperHyperForcing. For all neutrosophic SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic 3225

SuperHyperVertices S =  V, S ⊆ V − {x}. Thus for all neutrosophic SuperHyperSets of 3226

neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S =  V, |S| ≤ |V − {x}|. It implies for all neutrosophic 3227

SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S = V, |S| ≤ O − 1. So for all 3228

neutrosophic SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S, Γ ≤ O − 1. 3229

(ii). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Let 3230

S = V − {x} where x is arbitrary and x ∈ V. 3231

∀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

J Math Techniques Comput Math, 2023 Volume 2 | Issue 6 | 286

105/128
 It implies V − {x} is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 3232

SuperHyperForcing. For all neutrosophic SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic 3233

SuperHyperVertices S =  V, S ⊆ V − {x}. Thus for all neutrosophic SuperHyperSets of 3234

neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S = V, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ Σv∈V −{x} Σ3i=1 σi (v). It 3235

implies for all neutrosophic SuperHyperSets of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 3236

S = V, Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s) ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). So for all neutrosophic SuperHyperSets of 3237

neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices S, Γs ≤ On − Σ3i=1 σi (x). 3238

Proposition 5.36. Let N SHG : (V, E) be an odd neutrosophic SuperHyperPath. Then 3239

(i) the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual neutrosophic 3240

SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing; 3241

(ii) Γ =  n2  + 1 and corresponded neutrosophic SuperHyperSet is 3242

S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 3243

(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 3244

(iv) the neutrosophic SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } and 3245

S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only a dual 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. 3246

Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an odd neutrosophic SuperHyperPath. Let 3247

S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all vi , vj ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }, vi vj ∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 3248

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 neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 3249

neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. If S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } − {vi } where 3250

vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }, then 3251

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

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 > 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
So {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } − {vi } where vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } isn’t a dual neutrosophic 3252

SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. It induces 3253

S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 3254

neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. 3255

(ii) and (iii) are trivial. 3256

(iv). By (i), S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 3257

1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Thus it’s enough to show that 3258

S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 3259

neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an odd neutrosophic 3260

SuperHyperPath. Let S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all 3261

vi , vj ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, vi vj ∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 3262

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 })|
J Math Techniques Comput Math, 2023 Volume 2 | Issue 6 | 287

106/128
 It implies S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 3263

neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. If S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } − {vi } where 3264

vi ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, then 3265

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

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

So {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } − {vi } where vi ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } isn’t a dual neutrosophic 3266

SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. It induces 3267

S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 3268

neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. 3269

Proposition 5.37. Let N SHG : (V, E) be an even neutrosophic SuperHyperPath. 3270

Then 3271

(i) the set S = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 3272

neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing; 3273

(ii) Γ =  n2  and corresponded neutrosophic SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and 3274

{v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 }; 3275

(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 3276

(iv) the neutrosophic SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn } and 3277

S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only dual 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. 3278

Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an even neutrosophic SuperHyperPath. Let 3279

S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } where for all vi , vj ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, vi vj ∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 3280

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 neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 3281

neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. If S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } − {vi } where 3282

vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, then 3283

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

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

So {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } − {vi } where vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } isn’t a dual neutrosophic 3284

SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. It induces 3285

S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 3286

SuperHyperForcing. 3287

(ii) and (iii) are trivial. 3288

(iv). By (i), S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 3289

1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Thus it’s enough to show that 3290

S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 3291

neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an even neutrosophic 3292

J Math Techniques Comput Math, 2023 Volume 2 | Issue 6 | 288

107/128
 SuperHyperPath. Let S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all 3293

vi , vj ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, vi vj ∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 3294

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 })|

It implies S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 3295

neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. If S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } − {vi } where 3296

vi ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, then 3297

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

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

So {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } − {vi } where vi ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } isn’t a dual neutrosophic 3298

SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. It induces 3299

S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 3300

neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. 3301

Proposition 5.38. Let N SHG : (V, E) be an even neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. 3302

Then 3303

(i) the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual neutrosophic 3304

SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing; 3305

(ii) Γ =  n2  and corresponded neutrosophic SuperHyperSets are {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and 3306

{v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }; 3307

(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· ,vn } σ(s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· ,vn−1 } σ(s)}; 3308

(iv) the neutrosophic SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } and 3309

S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } are only dual 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. 3310

Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an even neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. Let 3311

S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } where for all vi , vj ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, vi vj ∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 3312

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 neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 3313

neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. If S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } − {vi } where 3314

vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn }, then 3315

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

∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 1 > 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃vi+1 ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
J Math Techniques Comput Math, 2023 Volume 2 | Issue 6 | 289

108/128
 So {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } − {vi } where vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } isn’t a dual neutrosophic 3316

SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. It induces 3317

S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 3318

SuperHyperForcing. 3319

(ii) and (iii) are trivial. 3320

(iv). By (i), S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn } is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 3321

1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Thus it’s enough to show that 3322

S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 3323

neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an even neutrosophic 3324

SuperHyperCycle. Let S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all 3325

vi , vj ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, vi vj ∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 3326

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 })|

It implies S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 3327

neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. If S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } − {vi } where 3328

vi ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, then 3329

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

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

So {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } − {vi } where vi ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } isn’t a dual neutrosophic 3330

SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. It induces 3331

S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 3332

neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. 3333

Proposition 5.39. Let N SHG : (V, E) be an odd neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. Then 3334

(i) the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual neutrosophic 3335

SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing; 3336

(ii) Γ =  n2  + 1 and corresponded neutrosophic SuperHyperSet is 3337

S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }; 3338

(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S={v2 ,v4 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s), Σs∈S={v1 ,v3 ,··· .vn−1 } Σ3i=1 σi (s)}; 3339

(iv) the neutrosophic SuperHyperSets S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · .vn−1 } and 3340

S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · .vn−1 } are only dual 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. 3341

Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an odd neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. Let 3342

S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all vi , vj ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }, vi vj ∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 3343

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 })|

J Math Techniques Comput Math, 2023 Volume 2 | Issue 6 | 290

109/128
 It implies S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 3344

neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. If S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } − {vi } where 3345

vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 }, then 3346

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

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

So {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } − {vi } where vi ∈ {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } isn’t a dual neutrosophic 3347

SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. It induces 3348

S = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 3349

neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. 3350

(ii) and (iii) are trivial. 3351

(iv). By (i), S1 = {v2 , v4 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 3352

1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Thus it’s enough to show that 3353

S2 = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 3354

neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an odd neutrosophic 3355

SuperHyperCycle. Let S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } where for all 3356

vi , vj ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, vi vj ∈ E and vi , vj ∈ V. 3357

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 })|

It implies S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 3358

neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. If S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } − {vi } where 3359

vi ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 }, then 3360

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

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

So {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } − {vi } where vi ∈ {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } isn’t a dual neutrosophic 3361

SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. It induces 3362

S = {v1 , v3 , · · · , vn−1 } is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 3363

neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. 3364

Proposition 5.40. Let N SHG : (V, E) be neutrosophic SuperHyperStar. Then 3365

(i) the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S = {c} is a dual maximal 1-failed neutrosophic 3366

SuperHyperForcing; 3367

(ii) Γ = 1; 3368

(iii) Γs = Σ3i=1 σi (c); 3369

(iv) the neutrosophic SuperHyperSets S = {c} and S ⊂ S  are only dual 1-failed 3370

neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. 3371

J Math Techniques Comput Math, 2023 Volume 2 | Issue 6 | 291

 Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperStar. 3372

∀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 neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 3373

SuperHyperForcing. If S = {c} − {c} = ∅, then 3374

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

∃v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 0 > 0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.

So S = {c} − {c} = ∅ isn’t a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 3375

neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. It induces S = {c} is a dual neutrosophic 3376

SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. 3377

(ii) and (iii) are trivial. 3378

(iv). By (i), S = {c} is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 3379

neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Thus it’s enough to show that S ⊆ S  is a dual 3380

neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Suppose 3381

N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperStar. Let S ⊆ S  . 3382

∀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  )|

It implies S  ⊆ S is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 3383

SuperHyperForcing. 3384

Proposition 5.41. Let N SHG : (V, E) be neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel. Then 3385

6+3(i−1)≤n
(i) the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 3386

is a dual maximal neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 3387

SuperHyperForcing; 3388

6+3(i−1)≤n
(ii) Γ = |{v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 |; 3389

(iii) Γs = Σ{v1 ,v3 }∪{v6 ,v9 ··· ,vi+6 ,··· ,vn }6+3(i−1)≤n Σ3i=1 σi (s); 3390
i=1

6+3(i−1)≤n
(iv) the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is 3391

only a dual maximal neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 3392

SuperHyperForcing. 3393

Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel. Let 3394

6+3(i−1)≤n
S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 . There are either 3395

∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 2 > 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

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

J Math Techniques Comput Math, 2023 Volume 2 | Issue 6 | 292

 or 3396

∀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 neutrosophic 3397

SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. If 3398

6+3(i−1)≤n
S  = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 − {z} where 3399
6+3(i−1)≤n
z ∈ S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 , then There are either 3400

∀z ∈ V \ S  , |Ns (z) ∩ S  | = 1 < 2 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S  )|

∀z ∈ V \ S  , |Ns (z) ∩ S  | < |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S  )|
∀z ∈ V \ S  , |Ns (z) ∩ S  | >
 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S  )|

or 3401

∀z ∈ V \ S  , |Ns (z) ∩ S  | = 1 = 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S  )|

∀z ∈ V \ S  , |Ns (z) ∩ S  | = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S  )|
∀z ∈ V \ S  , |Ns (z) ∩ S  | > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S  )|
6+3(i−1)≤n
So S  = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 − {z} where 3402
6+3(i−1)≤n
z ∈ S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 isn’t a dual neutrosophic 3403

SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. It induces 3404

6+3(i−1)≤n
S = {v1 , v3 } ∪ {v6 , v9 · · · , vi+6 , · · · , vn }i=1 is a dual maximal neutrosophic 3405

SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. 3406

(ii), (iii) and (iv) are obvious. 3407

Proposition 5.42. Let N SHG : (V, E) be an odd neutrosophic SuperHyperComplete. 3408

Then 3409

n
2 +1
(i) the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual neutrosophic 3410

SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing; 3411

(ii) Γ =  n2  + 1; 3412

(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)}  n +1

2
; 3413
S={vi }i=1

 n +1
(iv) the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual neutrosophic 3414

SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. 3415

Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an odd neutrosophic SuperHyperComplete. Let 3416
n
2 +1
S = {vi }i=1 . Thus 3417

n n
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| =   + 1 >   − 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
 n +1
It implies S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 3418
n
2 +1 n
2 +1
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. If S  = {vi }i=1 − {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1 , 3419

then 3420

n n
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| =   =   = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| >
 |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

J Math Techniques Comput Math, 2023 Volume 2 | Issue 6 | 293

112/128
  n +1  n +1
So S  = {vi }i=1
2
− {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1
2
isn’t a dual neutrosophic 3421

SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. It induces 3422

n
2 +1
S = {vi }i=1 is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 3423

SuperHyperForcing. 3424

(ii), (iii) and (iv) are obvious. 3425

Proposition 5.43. Let N SHG : (V, E) be an even neutrosophic SuperHyperComplete. 3426

Then 3427

n
2
(i) the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual neutrosophic 3428

SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing; 3429

(ii) Γ =  n2 ; 3430

(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} n

2
; 3431
S={vi }i=1

n
(iv) the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is only a dual maximal neutrosophic 3432

SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. 3433

Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is an even neutrosophic SuperHyperComplete. Let 3434
n
2
S = {vi }i=1 . Thus 3435

n n
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| =   >   − 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
n
It implies S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 3436
n
2 n
2
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. If S  = {vi }i=1 − {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1 , then 3437

n n
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| =   − 1 <   + 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
n n
So S  = {vi }i=12
− {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1
2
isn’t a dual neutrosophic 3438
n
2
SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. It induces S = {vi }i=1 3439

is a dual maximal neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 3440

SuperHyperForcing. 3441

(ii), (iii) and (iv) are obvious. 3442

Proposition 5.44. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-neutrosophic SuperHyperFamily of 3443

neutrosophic SuperHyperStars with common neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex 3444

neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Then 3445

(i) the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual neutrosophic 3446

SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing for N SHF; 3447

(ii) Γ = m for N SHF : (V, E); 3448

(iii) Γs = Σm 3
i=1 Σj=1 σj (ci ) for N SHF : (V, E); 3449

(iv) the neutrosophic SuperHyperSets S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } and S ⊂ S  are only dual 3450

1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing for N SHF : (V, E). 3451

J Math Techniques Comput Math, 2023 Volume 2 | Issue 6 | 294

 Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic SuperHyperStar. 3452

∀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 neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 3453

neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing for N SHF : (V, E). If S = {c} − {c} = ∅, then 3454

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

∃v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| = 0 > 0 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
∃v ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.

So S = {c} − {c} = ∅ isn’t a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 3455

neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing for N SHF : (V, E). It induces S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is 3456

a dual maximal neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 3457

SuperHyperForcing for N SHF : (V, E). 3458

(ii) and (iii) are trivial. 3459

(iv). By (i), S = {c1 , c2 , · · · , cm } is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 3460

1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing for N SHF : (V, E). Thus it’s enough to show 3461

that S ⊆ S  is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 3462

SuperHyperForcing for N SHF : (V, E). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a neutrosophic 3463

SuperHyperStar. Let S ⊆ S  . 3464

∀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  )|

It implies S  ⊆ S is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 3465

SuperHyperForcing for N SHF : (V, E). 3466

Proposition 5.45. Let N SHF : (V, E) be an m-neutrosophic SuperHyperFamily of 3467

odd neutrosophic SuperHyperComplete neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs with common 3468

neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Then 3469

n
2 +1
(i) the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1 is a dual maximal neutrosophic 3470

SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing for N SHF; 3471

(ii) Γ =  n2 + 1 for N SHF : (V, E); 3472

(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)}  n +1

2
for N SHF : (V, E); 3473
S={vi }i=1

 n +1
(iv) the neutrosophic SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only a dual maximal 1-failed 3474

neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing for N SHF : (V, E). 3475

Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is odd neutrosophic SuperHyperComplete. Let 3476
n
2 +1
S = {vi }i=1 . Thus 3477

n n
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| =  + 1 >  − 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|

J Math Techniques Comput Math, 2023 Volume 2 | Issue 6 | 295

114/128
  n +1
It implies S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 3478
n
2 +1
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing for N SHF : (V, E). If S  = {vi }i=1 − {z} where 3479
n
 2 +1
z ∈ S = {vi }i=1 , then 3480

n n
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| =   =   = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
 n +1  n +1
So S  = {vi }i=1
2
− {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1
2
isn’t a dual neutrosophic 3481

SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing for N SHF : (V, E). It 3482

n2 +1
induces S = {vi }i=1 is a dual maximal neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 3483

neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing for N SHF : (V, E). 3484

(ii), (iii) and (iv) are obvious. 3485

Proposition 5.46. Let N SHF : (V, E) be a m-neutrosophic SuperHyperFamily of 3486

even neutrosophic SuperHyperComplete neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs with common 3487

neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Then 3488

n
(i) the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual neutrosophic 3489

SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing for N SHF : (V, E); 3490

(ii) Γ =  n2  for N SHF : (V, E); 3491

(iii) Γs = min{Σs∈S Σ3i=1 σi (s)} n

2
for N SHF : (V, E); 3492
S={vi }i=1

n
(iv) the neutrosophic SuperHyperSets S = {vi }i=1
2
are only dual maximal 1-failed 3493

neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing for N SHF : (V, E). 3494

Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is even neutrosophic SuperHyperComplete. Let 3495
n
2
S = {vi }i=1 . Thus 3496

n n
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| =   >   − 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
n
It implies S = {vi }i=1
2
is a dual neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 3497
n
2
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing for N SHF : (V, E). If S  = {vi }i=1 − {z} where 3498
n
2
z ∈ S = {vi }i=1 , then 3499

n n
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| =   − 1 <   + 1 = |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|
2 2
∀z ∈ V \ S, |Ns (z) ∩ S| > |Ns (z) ∩ (V \ S)|.
n n
So S  = {vi }i=1
2
− {z} where z ∈ S = {vi }i=1
2
isn’t a dual neutrosophic 3500

SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing for N SHF : (V, E). It 3501

n2
induces S = {vi }i=1 is a dual maximal neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 3502

neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing for N SHF : (V, E). 3503

(ii), (iii) and (iv) are obvious. 3504

Proposition 5.47. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 3505

Then following statements hold; 3506

(i) if s ≥ t and a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 3507

is an t-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 3508

SuperHyperForcing, then S is an s-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 3509

neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing; 3510

J Math Techniques Comput Math, 2023 Volume 2 | Issue 6 | 296

115/128
 (ii) if s ≤ t and a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 3511

is a dual t-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 3512

SuperHyperForcing, then S is a dual s-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 3513

neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. 3514

Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 3515

Consider a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is an 3516

t-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Then 3517

∀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-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 3518

SuperHyperForcing. 3519

(ii). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider 3520

a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is a dual 3521

t-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Then 3522

∀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-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 3523

SuperHyperForcing. 3524

Proposition 5.48. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 3525

Then following statements hold; 3526

(i) if s ≥ t + 2 and a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic 3527

SuperHyperVertices is an t-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 3528

neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing, then S is an s-neutrosophic SuperHyperPowerful 3529

1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing; 3530

(ii) if s ≤ t and a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices 3531

is a dual t-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 3532

SuperHyperForcing, then S is a dual s-neutrosophic SuperHyperPowerful 1-failed 3533

neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. 3534

Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 3535

Consider a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is an 3536

t-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Then 3537

∀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)−neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 3538

SuperHyperForcing. By S is an s−neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 3539

neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing and S is a dual (s + 2)−neutrosophic 3540

SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing, S is an s-neutrosophic 3541

SuperHyperPowerful 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. 3542

(ii). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a strong neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Consider 3543

a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet S of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices is a dual 3544

J Math Techniques Comput Math, 2023 Volume 2 | Issue 6 | 297

116/128
 t-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Then 3545

∀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)−neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 3546

SuperHyperForcing. By S is an (s − 2)−neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed 3547

neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing and S is a dual s−neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 3548

1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing, S is an s−neutrosophic SuperHyperPowerful 3549

1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. 3550

Proposition 5.49. Let N SHG : (V, E) be a[an] [r-]neutrosophic 3551

SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following statements 3552

hold; 3553

(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| <  2r  + 1, then N SHG : (V, E) is an 2-neutrosophic 3554

SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing; 3555

(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| >  2r  + 1, then N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 3556

2-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing; 3557

(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then N SHG : (V, E) is an r-neutrosophic 3558

SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing; 3559

(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then N SHG : (V, E) is a dual r-neutrosophic 3560

SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. 3561

Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]neutrosophic 3562

SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then 3563

r r
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| <   + 1 − (  − 1);
2 2
r r
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| <   + 1 − (  − 1) < 2;
2 2
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2.

Thus S is an 2-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 3564

SuperHyperForcing. 3565

(ii). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]neutrosophic 3566

SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then 3567

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

Thus S is a dual 2-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 3568

SuperHyperForcing. 3569

(iii). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]neutrosophic 3570

SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then 3571

∀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.

J Math Techniques Comput Math, 2023 Volume 2 | Issue 6 | 298

117/128
 Thus S is an r-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 3572

SuperHyperForcing. 3573

(iv). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]neutrosophic 3574

SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then 3575

∀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-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 3576

SuperHyperForcing. 3577

Proposition 5.50. Let N SHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]neutrosophic 3578

SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then following statements 3579

hold; 3580

(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| <  2r  + 1 if N SHG : (V, E) is an 2-neutrosophic 3581

SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing; 3582

(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| >  2r  + 1 if N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-neutrosophic 3583

SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing; 3584

(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if N SHG : (V, E) is an r-neutrosophic 3585

SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing; 3586

(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if N SHG : (V, E) is a dual r-neutrosophic 3587

SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. 3588

Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]neutrosophic 3589

SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then 3590

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

r r
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2 =   + 1 − (  − 1);
2 2
r r
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| <   + 1 − (  − 1);
2 2
r r
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| =   + 1, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| =   − 1.
2 2
(ii). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]neutrosophic 3591

SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and a dual 2-neutrosophic 3592

SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Then 3593

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

r r
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2 =   + 1 − (  − 1);
2 2
r r
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| >   + 1 − (  − 1);
2 2
r r
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| =   + 1, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S) =   − 1.
2 2
(iii). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]neutrosophic 3594

SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and an r-neutrosophic 3595

SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. 3596

∀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.

J Math Techniques Comput Math, 2023 Volume 2 | Issue 6 | 299

118/128
 (iv). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]neutrosophic 3597

SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and a dual r-neutrosophic 3598

SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Then 3599

∀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.

3600

Proposition 5.51. Let N SHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]neutrosophic 3601

SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a neutrosophic 3602

SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 3603

(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| <  O−1

2  + 1 if N SHG : (V, E) is an 2-neutrosophic 3604

SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing; 3605

(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| >  O−1

2  + 1 if N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-neutrosophic 3606

SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing; 3607

(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if N SHG : (V, E) is an (O − 1)-neutrosophic 3608

SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing; 3609

(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if N SHG : (V, E) is a dual (O − 1)-neutrosophic 3610

SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. 3611

Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]neutrosophic 3612

SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and an 2- neutrosophic 3613

SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Then 3614

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

O−1 O−1
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| < 2 =   + 1 − (  − 1);
2 2
O−1 O−1
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| <   + 1 − (  − 1);
2 2
O−1 O−1
∀t ∈ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| =   + 1, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| =   − 1.
2 2
(ii). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]neutrosophic 3615

SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and a dual 2-neutrosophic 3616

SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Then 3617

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

O−1 O−1
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| > 2 =   + 1 − (  − 1);
2 2
O−1 O−1
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| − |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S)| >   + 1 − (  − 1);
2 2
O−1 O−1
∀t ∈ V \ S, |Ns (t) ∩ S| =   + 1, |Ns (t) ∩ (V \ S) =   − 1.
2 2
(iii). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]neutrosophic 3618

SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and an 3619

J Math Techniques Comput Math, 2023 Volume 2 | Issue 6 | 300

 (O − 1)-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. 3620

∀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.

(iv). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]neutrosophic 3621

SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and a dual r-neutrosophic 3622

SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Then 3623

∀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.

3624

Proposition 5.52. Let N SHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]neutrosophic 3625

SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a neutrosophic 3626

SuperHyperComplete. Then following statements hold; 3627

(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| <  O−1

2  + 1, then N SHG : (V, E) is an 2-neutrosophic 3628

SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing; 3629

(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| >  O−1

2  + 1, then N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 3630

2-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing; 3631

(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then N SHG : (V, E) is (O − 1)-neutrosophic 3632

SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing; 3633

(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 3634

(O − 1)-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 3635

SuperHyperForcing. 3636

Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]neutrosophic 3637

SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a neutrosophic 3638

SuperHyperComplete. Then 3639

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

Thus S is an 2-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 3640

SuperHyperForcing. 3641

(ii). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]neutrosophic 3642

SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a neutrosophic 3643

SuperHyperComplete. Then 3644

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

J Math Techniques Comput Math, 2023 Volume 2 | Issue 6 | 301

120/128
 Thus S is a dual 2-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 3645

SuperHyperForcing. 3646

(iii). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]neutrosophic 3647

SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a neutrosophic 3648

SuperHyperComplete. Then 3649

∀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)-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 3650

SuperHyperForcing. 3651

(iv). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]neutrosophic 3652

SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is a neutrosophic 3653

SuperHyperComplete. Then 3654

∀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)-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 3655

SuperHyperForcing. 3656

Proposition 5.53. Let N SHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]neutrosophic 3657

SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is neutrosophic 3658

SuperHyperCycle. Then following statements hold; 3659

(i) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2 if N SHG : (V, E)) is an 2-neutrosophic 3660

SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing; 3661

(ii) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2 if N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-neutrosophic 3662

SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing; 3663

(iii) ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if N SHG : (V, E) is an 2-neutrosophic 3664

SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing; 3665

(iv) ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0 if N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-neutrosophic 3666

SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. 3667

Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]neutrosophic 3668

SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and S is an 2-neutrosophic 3669

SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Then 3670

∀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.
(ii). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]neutrosophic 3671

SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and S is a dual 3672

2-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Then 3673

∀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.

J Math Techniques Comput Math, 2023 Volume 2 | Issue 6 | 302

121/128
 (iii). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]neutrosophic 3674

SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and S is an 2-neutrosophic 3675

SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. 3676

∀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.

(iv). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]neutrosophic 3677

SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph and S is a dual 3678

r-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. Then 3679

∀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.

3680

Proposition 5.54. Let N SHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]neutrosophic 3681

SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is neutrosophic 3682

SuperHyperCycle. Then following statements hold; 3683

(i) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| < 2, then N SHG : (V, E) is an 2-neutrosophic 3684

SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing; 3685

(ii) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ S| > 2, then N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-neutrosophic 3686

SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing; 3687

(iii) if ∀a ∈ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then N SHG : (V, E) is an 2-neutrosophic 3688

SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing; 3689

(iv) if ∀a ∈ V \ S, |Ns (a) ∩ V \ S| = 0, then N SHG : (V, E) is a dual 2-neutrosophic 3690

SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. 3691

Proof. (i). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]neutrosophic 3692

SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is neutrosophic 3693

SuperHyperCycle. Then 3694

∀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.

Thus S is an 2-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 3695

SuperHyperForcing. 3696

(ii). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]neutrosophic 3697

SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is neutrosophic 3698

SuperHyperCycle. Then 3699

∀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.

J Math Techniques Comput Math, 2023 Volume 2 | Issue 6 | 303

122/128
 Thus S is a dual 2-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 3700

SuperHyperForcing. 3701

(iii). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]neutrosophic 3702

SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is neutrosophic 3703

SuperHyperCycle. Then 3704

∀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.

Thus S is an 2-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 3705

SuperHyperForcing. 3706

(iv). Suppose N SHG : (V, E) is a[an] [r-]neutrosophic 3707

SuperHyperUniform-strong-neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph which is neutrosophic 3708

SuperHyperCycle. Then 3709

∀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.

Thus S is a dual 2-neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive 1-failed neutrosophic 3710

SuperHyperForcing. 3711

6. Applications in Cancer’s Neutrosophic about the moves and the effects of the cancer on that region;
Recognition 6 Applications in Cancer’sthisNeutrosophic event leads us to choose another model [it’s said to 3712be neu-

The cancer is the disease but the model is going to figure out trosophic SuperHyperGraph] to haveconvenient perception on
Recognition
what’s going on this phenomenon. The special case of this dis- what’s happened and what’s done.
3713

ease is considered and as the consequences of the model, some

The cancer is the disease but the model is going to figure out what’s going on this 3714
parameters are used. The cells are under attack of this disease Step 3. (Model) There are some specific models, which are well-
phenomenon. The special case of this disease is considered and as the consequences
but the moves of the cancer in the special region are the matter known and they’ve got the names, and some general3715models. of
of mind. The the model, some parameters
neutrosophic recognition are used.
of the cancer The cells
could help The are under
moves attack
and the tracesofofthis
the disease
cancer onbutthe the
complex
3716
tracks
moves of for
to find some treatments thethis
cancer in the special region areand
disease. thebetween
mattercomplicated
of mind. groups
The neutrosophic
of cells could be fantasized
3717 by
recognition of the cancer could help to find some a neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/neutrosophic
treatments for this disease. SuperHyperCy-
3718

In the following, In
somethesteps are devised
following, on this
some disease.
steps are devised oncle,this
neutrosophic
disease. SuperHyperStar, neutrosophic SuperHyper- 3719

Step 1. (Definition) The neutrosophic recognition of the cancer Bipartite, neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite, neutrosophic
in the long-term function.
Step 1. (Definition) The neutrosophic recognition SuperHyperWheel). The aiminis the
of the cancer to find either the 1-failed
long-term 3720neutro-

function. sophic SuperHyperForcing or the neutrosophic 1-failed 3721neutro-

Step 2. (Issue) The specific region has been assigned by the sophic SuperHyperForcing in those neutrosophic SuperHyper-
model [it’s called
Stepneutrosophic
2. (Issue) SuperHyperGraph] and the has
The specific region longbeen
Models.
assigned by the model [it’s called 3722

cycle of the move from the cancer isSuperHyperGraph]

neutrosophic identified by this research.
and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is 3723
Sometimes the move of the cancer
identified hasn’t
by this be easilySometimes
research. identified The
the Values
move ofofThe
theneutrosophic
cancer hasn’t SuperHyperEdges
be easily The
3724 max-

since there are someidentified

determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality imum Values of Its Endpoints
since there are some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about 3725
the moves and the effects of the cancer on that region; this event leads us to 3726

choose another model [it’s said to be neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have 3727

convenient perception on what’s happened and what’s done. 3728

Step 3. (Model) There are some specific models, which are well-known and they’ve 3729

got the names, and some general models. The moves and the traces of the cancer 3730

on the complex tracks and between complicated groups of cells could be fantasized 3731

by a neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle, 3732

neutrosophic SuperHyperStar, neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite, neutrosophic 3733

SuperHyperMultipartite, neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find 3734

either the 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing or the neutrosophic 1-failed 3735

neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing in those neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. 3736

J Math Techniques Comput Math, 2023 Volume 2 | Issue 6 | 304
 Figure 27: A neutrosophic Figure
SuperHyperBipartite Associated
27. A neutrosophic to the Notions of
SuperHyperBipartite 1-failedneutrosophic
Associated SuperHyperForcing
to the Notions of 1-failed
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing
The Values of The Vertices The Number of Position in Alphabet
Table 10. The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and neutrosophic
The Values of The SuperVertices The maximum Values of Its Vertices
SuperHyperEdges Belong to The neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite
The Values of The Edges The maximum Values
The Values of The Vertices of Its Vertices
The Number of Position in Alphabet
The Values of The HyperEdges
The Values of The The maximum Values of Its Vertices
SuperVertices The maximum Values of Its Vertices
The Values of The Edges The maximum Values of Its Vertices
The Values of The neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges
The Values The maximum Values
of The HyperEdges of Its Endpoints
The maximum Values of Its Vertices
Table 10: The Values of Vertices,The
SuperVertices,
Values of The Edges, HyperEdges,
neutrosophic and neutrosophic
SuperHyperEdges SuperHyperEdges
The maximum Belong to The
Values of Its Endpoints
neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite
6.1 Case 1: The Initial Steps Toward 6.1 neutrosophic
Case 1: SuperHy-
The Initial Steps
By using theToward neutrosophic
Figure (28) and the Table (11), the neutrosophic
3737

perBipartite as neutrosophic SuperHyperModel

SuperHyperBipartite SuperHyperMultipartite is obtained.
as neutrosophic SuperHyperModel 3738

Step 4. (Solution) In the Figure (27), the neutrosophic SuperHy-

Step 4. (Solution) In the Figure (27), the neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite is
perBipartite is highlighted and featurí. highlighted and featured. 7. Open Problems
3739

3740
By using the Figure (27) and the Table (10), the neutrosop
By using the Figure Supe-
(27) andIn
thewhat
Tablefollows,
(10), thesome “problems” and some “questions”
neutrosophic 3741
are
rHyperBipartite is obtained. proposed. The 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing
SuperHyperBipartite is obtained. 3742 and
Case 2: The Increasing Steps Toward neutrosophic SuperHyper- the neutrosophic 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing are
Multipartite as neutrosophic SuperHyperModel defined on a real-world application, titled
6.2 Case 2: The Increasing Steps Toward neutrosophic
Step 4. (Solution) In the Figure (28), the neutrosophic SuperHy-
3743

SuperHyperMultipartite as neutrosophic SuperHyperModel 3744

perMultipartite is highlighted and featured.
Step 4. (Solution) In the Figure (28), the neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite is 3745

highlighted and featured. 3746

By using the Figure (28) and the Table (11), the neutrosophic 3747

SuperHyperMultipartite is obtained. 3748

7 Open Problems 3749

In what follows, some “problems” and some “questions” are proposed. 3750

The 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing and the neutrosophic 1-failed 3751

neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing are defined on a real-world application, titled 3752

124/128

Figure 28. A neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of

Figure 28: A neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite Associated to the Notions of 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing
1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing

J Math Techniques Comput Math, 2023 Volume 2 | Issue 6 | 305

 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 neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges The maximum Values of Its Endpoints
Table 11: The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, HyperEdges, and neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges Belong to The
neutrosophic SuperHyperMultipartite

“Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition”. This research uses some approaches to make neutrosophic Su-
Question 7.1. Which the else neutrosophic SuperHyperModels perHyperGraphs more understandable. In this endeavor, two
could be defined based on Cancer’s neutrosophic recognition? neutrosophic SuperHyperNotions are defined on the 1-failed
neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. For that sake in the second
Question 7.2. Are there some neutrosophic SuperHyperNotions definition, the main definition of the neutrosophic SuperHyper-
related to 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing and the Graph is redefined on the position of the alphabets. Based on the
neutrosophic 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing? new definition for the neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph, the new
neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion, neutrosophic 1-failed neutro-
Question 7.3. Are there some Algorithms to be defined on the sophic SuperHyperForcing, finds the convenient background to
neutrosophic SuperHyperModels to compute them? implement some results based on that. Some neutrosophic Supe-
rHyperClasses and some neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses are
Question 7.4. Which the neutrosophic SuperHyperNotions are the cases of this research on the modeling of the regions where
related to beyond the 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing are under the attacks of the cancer to recognize this disease as it’s
and the neutrosophic 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForc- mentioned on the title “Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition”. To
ing? formalize the instances on the neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion,
1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing, the new neutrosoph-
Problem 7.5. The 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing and ic SuperHyperClasses and neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses, are
the neutrosophic 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing do a introduced. Some general results are gathered in the section on
neutrosophic SuperHyperModel for the Cancer’s neutrosophic the 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing and the neutro-
recognition and they’re based on 1-failed neutrosophic Super- sophic 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing. The clarifica-
HyperForcing, are there else? tions, instances and literature reviews have taken the whole way
through. In this research, the literature reviews have fulfilled the
Problem 7.6. Which the fundamental neutrosophic SuperHyper- lines containing the notions and the results. The neutrosophic
Numbers are related to these neutrosophic SuperHyperNumbers SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph are the
types-results? neutrosophic SuperHyperModels on the “Cancer’s Neutrosophic
Recognition” and both bases are the background of this research.
Problem 7.7. What’s the independent research based on Can- Sometimes the cancer has been happened on the region, full of
cer’s neutrosophic recognition concerning the multiple types of cells, groups of cells and embedded styles. In this segment, the
neutrosophic SuperHyperNotions? neutrosophic SuperHyperModel proposes some neutrosophic
SuperHyperNotions based on the connectivities of the moves of
8. Conclusion and Closing Remarks the cancer in the longest and strongest styles with the SuperHy-
In this section, concluding remarks and closing remarks are rep- perForcing” in the themes of jargons and buzzwords. The prefix
resented. The drawbacks of this research are illustrated. Some “neutrosophicSuperHyper” refers to the theme of the embedded
benefits and some advantages of this research are highlighted. styles to figure out the background for the neutrosophic Super-
HyperNotions. In the Table (12), some limitations and

Advantages Limitations
1. Redefining neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph 1. General Results
2. 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing
3. Neutrosophic 1-failed neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing 2. Other neutrosophicSuperHyper Numbers
4. Modeling of Cancer's Neutrosophic Recognition
5. neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses 3. neutrosophic SuperHyperFamilies
Table 12: A Brief Overview about Advantages and Limitations of this Research advantages of this research are pointed out.

J Math Techniques Comput Math, 2023 Volume 2 | Issue 6 | 306

References rHyperForcing And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling
1. Garrett, H. (2022). Properties of SuperHyperGraph and in Cancer’s Recognitions And (Neutrosophic) SuperHyper-
Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Infinite Study. Graphs.
2. Garrett, H. (2022). Neutrosophic Co-degree and Neutro- 9. Garrett, H. (2022). Basic Neutrosophic Notions Concerning
sophic Degree alongside Chromatic Numbers in the Setting SuperHyperDominating and Neutrosophic SuperHyperRe-
of Some Classes Related to Neutrosophic Hypergraphs. J solving in SuperHyperGraph.
Curr Trends Comp Sci Res, 1 (1) 06, 14. 10. Garrett, H. (2022). Initial Material of Neutrosophic Pre-
3. Garrett, H. (2022). (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of liminaries to Study Some Neutrosophic Notions Based on
Cancer’s Recognitions Featuring (Neutrosophic) SuperHy- Neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge (NSHE) in Neutrosophic
perDefensive SuperHyperAlliances. SuperHyperGraph (NSHG).
4. Garrett, H. (2022). (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperAllianc- 11. Garrett, H. (2023). Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs. Dr. Hen-
es With SuperHyperDefensive and SuperHyperOffensive ry Garrett.
Type-SuperHyperSet On (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraph 12. Garrett, H. (2023). Neutrosophic Duality. Dr. Henry Gar-
With (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperModeling of Cancer’s rett.
Recognitions And Related (Neutrosophic) SuperHyper- 13. Smarandache, F. (2020). Extension of HyperGraph to n-Su-
Classes. perHyperGraph and to Plithogenic n-SuperHyperGraph,
5. Garrett, H. (2022). SuperHyperGirth on SuperHyperGraph and Extension of HyperAlgebra to n-ary (Classical-/Neu-
and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph With SuperHyper- tro-/Anti-) HyperAlgebra. Infinite Study.
Modeling of Cancer’s Recognitions. 14. Akram, M., Shahzadi, S., & Saeid, A. B. (2018). Single-val-
6. Garrett, H. (2022). Some SuperHyperDegrees and Co-Su- ued neutrosophic hypergraphs. TWMS Journal of Applied
perHyperDegrees on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs and and Engineering Mathematics, 8(1), 122-135.
SuperHyperGraphs Alongside Applications in Cancer’s 15. Broumi, S., Talea, M., Bakali, A., & Smarandache, F.
Treatments (2016). Single valued neutrosophic graphs. Journal of New
7. Garrett, H. (2022). SuperHyperDominating and SuperHy- theory, (10), 86-101.
perResolving on Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs And 16. Wang, H., Smarandache, F., Zhang, Y., & Sunderraman, R.
Their Directions in Game Theory and Neutrosophic Supe- (2010). Single valued neutrosophic sets. Infinite study, 12.
rHyperClasses. 17. Nguyen, H. T., Walker, C. L., & Walker, E. A. (2018). A first
8. Garrett, H. (2023). Basic Notions on (Neutrosophic) Supe- course in fuzzy logic. CRC press.

Copyright: ©2023 Henry Garrett. This is an open-access article distributed

under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original author and source are credited.
J Math Techniques Comput Math, 2023 https://opastpublishers.com Volume 2 | Issue 6 | 307