I introduce now for the first time the neutrosophic modal logic. The Neutrosophic Modal Logic includes the neutrosophic operators that express the modalities. It is an extension of neutrosophic predicate logic, and of neutrosophic propositional logic. In order for the paper to be self-contained, I also recall the etymology and definition of neutrosophy and of neutrosophic logic. Several examples are presented as well.

In this research, the neutrosophic SuperHyperNotion, namely, neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth, is up. $E_1$ and $E_3$ are some empty neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges but $E_2$ is a loop neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and $E_4$ is an neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge. Thus in the terms of neutrosophic SuperHyperNeighbor, there's only one neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge, namely, $E_4.$ The neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, $V_3$ is neutrosophic isolated means that there's no neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge has it as an neutrosophic endpoint. Thus the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex, $V_3,$ is excluded in every given neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth. $ \mathcal{C}(NSHG)=\{E_i\}~\text{is an neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth.} \ \ \mathcal{C}(NSHG)=jz^i~\text{is an neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth SuperHyperPolynomial.} \ \ \mathcal{C}(NSHG)=\{V_i\}~\text{is an neutrosophic R-SuperHyperGirth.} \ \ \mathcal{C}(NSHG)=jz^I~{\small\text{is an neutrosophic R-SuperHyperGirth SuperHyperPolynomial.}} $ The following neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] is the neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], is the neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth. The neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], is an neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth $\mathcal{C}(ESHG)$ for an neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph $ESHG:(V,E)$ is an neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet with the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of an neutrosophic SuperHyperSet $S$ of neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there's only one neutrosophic consecutive sequence of the neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges form only one neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. There are not only four neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth isn't up. The obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth is an neutrosophic SuperHyperSet includes only less than four neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices. But the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], doesn't have less than four SuperHyperVertices inside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet. Thus the non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth isn't up. To sum them up, the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], isn't the non-obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth. Since the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices], is an neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth $\mathcal{C}(ESHG)$ for an neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph $ESHG:(V,E)$ is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet $S$ of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices[SuperHyperEdges] such that there's only one neutrosophic consecutive neutrosophic sequence of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges form only one neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle given by that neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth and it's an neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth . Since it 's the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of an neutrosophic SuperHyperSet $S$ of neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges[SuperHyperVertices] such that there's only one neutrosophic consecutive neutrosophic sequence of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices and neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges form only one neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle. There are only less than four neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices inside the intended neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, thus the obvious neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth, is up. The obvious simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet of the neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth, is: ,is the neutrosophic SuperHyperSet, is: does includes only less than four SuperHyperVertices in a connected neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph $ESHG:(V,E).$ It's interesting to mention that the only simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSet called the neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth amid those obvious[non-obvious] simple neutrosophic type-SuperHyperSets called the neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth , is only and only. A basic familiarity with neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth theory, SuperHyperGraphs, and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs theory are proposed.

In this research, assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then a neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching $\mathcal{C}(NSHG)$ for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph $NSHG:(V,E)$ is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet $S$ of high neutrosophic cardinality neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges such that there's no neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex not to in a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and there's no neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge; a neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching SuperHyperPolynomial $\mathcal{C}(NSHG)$ for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph $NSHG:(V,E)$ is the neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the neutrosophic coefficients defined as the neutrosophic number of the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet $S$ of high neutrosophic cardinality neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges such that there's no neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex not to in a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and there's no neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and the neutrosophic power is neutrosophicly corresponded to its neutrosophic coefficient; a neutrosophic R-SuperHyperMatching $\mathcal{C}(NSHG)$ for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph $NSHG:(V,E)$ is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet $S$ of high neutrosophic cardinality neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there's no neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex not to in a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and there's no neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge; a neutrosophic R-SuperHyperMatching SuperHyperPolynomial $\mathcal{C}(NSHG)$ for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph $NSHG:(V,E)$ is the neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the neutrosophic coefficients defined as the neutrosophic number of the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet $S$ of high neutrosophic cardinality neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there's no neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex not to in a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and there's no neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and the neutrosophic power is neutrosophicly corresponded to its neutrosophic coefficient. It's useful to define a ``neutrosophic'' version of a SuperHyperMatching . Since there's more ways to get type-results to make a SuperHyperMatching more understandable. For the sake of having neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching, there's a need to ``redefine'' the notion of a ``SuperHyperMatching ''. A basic familiarity with neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching theory, SuperHyperGraphs theory, and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs theory are proposed.

in this research, new setting is introduced for new SuperHyperNotion, namely, Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable. In this research article, there are some research segments for ``Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable'' about some researches on neutrosophic SuperHyperStable. With researches on the basic properties, the research article starts to make neutrosophic SuperHyperStable theory more understandable. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then a ``neutrosophic SuperHyperStable'' $\mathcal{I}_n(NSHG)$ for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph $NSHG:(V,E)$ is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet $S$ of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there's no neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to have a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge in common. A basic familiarity with SuperHyperGraph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory are proposed.

In this research, assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then a ``Failed SuperHyperClique'' $\mathcal{C}(NSHG)$ for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph $NSHG:(V,E)$ is the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet $S$ of SuperHyperVertices such that there's a SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then an ``$\delta-$Failed SuperHyperClique'' is a \underline{maximal} Failed SuperHyperClique of SuperHyperVertices with \underline{maximum} cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the (neutrosophic) cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of $s\in S:$ $~|S\cap N(s)| > |S\cap (V\setminus N(s))|+\delta,~|S\cap N(s)| < |S\cap (V\setminus N(s))|+\delta.$ The first Expression, holds if $S$ is an ``$\delta-$SuperHyperOffensive''. And the second Expression, holds if $S$ is an ``$\delta-$SuperHyperDefensive''; a``neutrosophic $\delta-$Failed SuperHyperClique'' is a \underline{maximal} neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique of SuperHyperVertices with \underline{maximum} neutrosophic cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of $s\in S:$ $~|S\cap N(s)|_{neutrosophic} > |S\cap (V\setminus N(s))|_{neutrosophic}+\delta,~ |S\cap N(s)|_{neutrosophic} < |S\cap (V\setminus N(s))|_{neutrosophic}+\delta.$ The first Expression, holds if $S$ is a ``neutrosophic $\delta-$SuperHyperOffensive''. And the second Expression, holds if $S$ is a ``neutrosophic $\delta-$SuperHyperDefensive''. A basic familiarity with Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique theory, SuperHyperGraphs theory, and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs theory are proposed.

In this research, Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. Then a ``Failed SuperHyperStable $\mathcal{I}(NSHG)$ for a SuperHyperGraph $NSHG:(V,E)$ is the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet $S$ of SuperHyperVertices such that there's a SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common; a ``neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable'' $\mathcal{I}_n(NSHG)$ for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph $NSHG:(V,E)$ is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet $S$ of neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there's a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex to have a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge in common. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then an ``$\delta-$Failed SuperHyperStable'' is a \underline{maximal} Failed SuperHyperStable of SuperHyperVertices with \underline{maximum} cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the (neutrosophic) cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of $s\in S:$ $~|S\cap N(s)| > |S\cap (V\setminus N(s))|+\delta,~|S\cap N(s)| < |S\cap (V\setminus N(s))|+\delta.$ The first Expression, holds if $S$ is an ``$\delta-$SuperHyperOffensive''. And the second Expression, holds if $S$ is an ``$\delta-$SuperHyperDefensive''; a``neutrosophic $\delta-$Failed SuperHyperStable'' is a \underline{maximal} neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable of SuperHyperVertices with \underline{maximum} neutrosophic cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of $s\in S:$ $~|S\cap N(s)|_{neutrosophic} > |S\cap (V\setminus N(s))|_{neutrosophic}+\delta,~ |S\cap N(s)|_{neutrosophic} < |S\cap (V\setminus N(s))|_{neutrosophic}+\delta.$ The first Expression, holds if $S$ is a ``neutrosophic $\delta-$SuperHyperOffensive''. And the second Expression, holds if $S$ is a ``neutrosophic $\delta-$SuperHyperDefensive''. A basic familiarity with Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique theory, Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique theory, and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs theory are proposed.

New setting is introduced to study co-neighborhood, neutrosophic t-neighborhood, neutrosophic quasi-vertex set, neutrosophic quasi-order, neutrosophic neighborhood, neutrosophic co-t-neighborhood, neutrosophic quasi-edge set, neutrosophic quasi-size, Neutrosophic number, neutrosophic co-neighborhood, co-neutrosophic number, quasi-number and quasi-co-number. Some classes of neutrosophic graphs are investigated.

In this research, new setting is introduced for new SuperHyperNotion, namely, 11 Neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Two different types of SuperHyperDefinitions 12 are debut for them but the research goes further and the SuperHyperNotion, 13 SuperHyperUniform, and SuperHyperClass based on that are well-defined and 14 well-reviewed. The literature review is implemented in the whole of this research. For 15 shining the elegancy and the significancy of this research, the comparison between this 16 SuperHyperNotion with other SuperHyperNotions and fundamental 17 SuperHyperNumbers are featured. The definitions are followed by the examples and the 18 instances thus the clarifications are driven with different tools. The applications are 19 figured out to make sense about the theoretical aspect of this ongoing research. The 20 “Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition” are the under research to figure out the challenges 21 make sense about ongoing and upcoming research. The special case is up. The cells are 22 viewed in the deemed ways. There are different types of them. Some of them are 23 individuals and some of them are well-modeled by the group of cells. These types are all 24 officially called “SuperHyperVertex” but the relations amid them all officially called 25 “SuperHyperEdge”. The frameworks “SuperHyperGraph” and “neutrosophic 26 SuperHyperGraph” are chosen and elected to research about “Cancer’s Neutrosophic 27 Recognition”. Thus these complex and dense SuperHyperModels open up some avenues 28 to research on theoretical segments and “Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition”. Some 29 avenues are posed to pursue this research. It’s also officially collected in the form of 30 some questions and some problems. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then a “1-failed 31 SuperHyperForcing” Z(NSHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph NSHG : (V,E) 32 is the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of black SuperHyperVertices 33 (whereas SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white) such that V (G) isn’t 34 turned black after finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: a white 35 SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black SuperHyperVertex if it is the only white 36 SuperHyperNeighbor of a black SuperHyperVertex. The additional condition is referred 37 by “1-” about the usage of any black SuperHyperVertex only once to act on white 38 SuperHyperVertex to be black SuperHyperVertex; a “neutrosophic 1-failed 39 SuperHyperForcing” Zn(NSHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph NSHG : (V,E) 40 is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of black 41 SuperHyperVertices (whereas SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white) such 42 that V (G) isn’t turned black after finitely many applications of “the color-change rule”: 43 a white SuperHyperVertex is converted to a black SuperHyperVertex if it is the only 44 1/128 white SuperHyperNeighbor of a black SuperHyperVertex. The additional condition is 45 referred by “1-” about the usage of any black SuperHyperVertex only once to act on 46 white SuperHyperVertex to be black SuperHyperVertex. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. 47 Then an “δ−1-failed SuperHyperForcing” is a maximal 1-failed SuperHyperForcing of 48 SuperHyperVertices with maximum cardinality such that either of the following 49 expressions hold for the (neutrosophic) cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : 50 |S ∩N(s)| > |S ∩(V \N(s))|+δ, |S ∩N(s)| < |S ∩(V \N(s))|+δ. The first Expression, 51 holds if S is an “δ−SuperHyperOffensive”. And the second Expression, holds if S is an 52 “δ−SuperHyperDefensive”; a“neutrosophic δ−1-failed SuperHyperForcing” is a maximal 53 neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing of SuperHyperVertices with maximum 54 neutrosophic cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the 55 neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : |S ∩ N(s)|neutrosophic > 56 |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ, |S ∩ N (s)|neutrosophic < |S ∩ (V \ N (s))|neutrosophic + δ. 57 The first Expression, holds if S is a “neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperOffensive”. And the 58 second Expression, holds if S is a “neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperDefensive”. It’s useful to 59 define “neutrosophic” version of 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Since there’s more ways to 60 get type-results to make 1-failed SuperHyperForcing more understandable. For the sake 61 of having neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, there’s a need to “redefine” the 62 notion of “1-failed SuperHyperForcing”. The SuperHyperVertices and the 63 SuperHyperEdges are assigned by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this 64 procedure, there’s the usage of the position of labels to assign to the values. Assume a 65 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. It’s redefined neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing if 66 the mentioned Table holds, concerning, “The Values of Vertices, SuperVertices, Edges, 67 HyperEdges, and SuperHyperEdges Belong to The Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” 68 with the key points, “The Values of The Vertices & The Number of Position in 69 Alphabet”, “The Values of The SuperVertices&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, 70 “The Values of The Edges&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The 71 HyperEdges&The maximum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The 72 SuperHyperEdges&The maximum Values of Its Endpoints”. To get structural examples 73 and instances, I’m going to introduce the next SuperHyperClass of SuperHyperGraph 74 based on 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. It’s the main. It’ll be disciplinary to have the 75 foundation of previous definition in the kind of SuperHyperClass. If there’s a need to 76 have all SuperHyperConnectivities until the 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, then it’s 77 officially called “1-failed SuperHyperForcing” but otherwise, it isn’t 1-failed 78 SuperHyperForcing. There are some instances about the clarifications for the main 79 definition titled “1-failed SuperHyperForcing”. These two examples get more scrutiny 80 and discernment since there are characterized in the disciplinary ways of the 81 SuperHyperClass based on 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. For the sake of having 82 neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of 83 “neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing” and “neutrosophic 1-failed 84 SuperHyperForcing”. The SuperHyperVertices and the SuperHyperEdges are assigned 85 by the labels from the letters of the alphabets. In this procedure, there’s the usage of 86 the position of labels to assign to the values. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. 87 It’s redefined “neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” if the intended Table holds. And 88 1-failed SuperHyperForcing are redefined “neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing” if 89 the intended Table holds. It’s useful to define “neutrosophic” version of 90 SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s more ways to get neutrosophic type-results to make 91 neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing more understandable. Assume a neutrosophic 92 SuperHyperGraph. There are some neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the intended 93 Table holds. Thus SuperHyperPath, SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, 94 SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and SuperHyperWheel, are 95 “neutrosophic SuperHyperPath”, “neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle”, “neutrosophic 96 SuperHyperStar”, “neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite”, “neutrosophic 97 2/128 SuperHyperMultiPartite”, and “neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel” if the intended Table 98 holds. A SuperHyperGraph has “neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing” where it’s 99 the strongest [the maximum neutrosophic value from all 1-failed SuperHyperForcing 100 amid the maximum value amid all SuperHyperVertices from a 1-failed 101 SuperHyperForcing.] 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. A graph is SuperHyperUniform if it’s 102 SuperHyperGraph and the number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. 103 Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some SuperHyperClasses as 104 follows. It’s SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 105 SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one 106 SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges; it’s SuperHyperStar it’s 107 only one SuperVertex as intersection amid all SuperHyperEdges; it’s 108 SuperHyperBipartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given 109 SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has no 110 SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as 111 intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi 112 separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s SuperHyperWheel if it’s only one 113 SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has 114 one SuperHyperEdge with any common SuperVertex. The SuperHyperModel proposes 115 the specific designs and the specific architectures. The SuperHyperModel is officially 116 called “SuperHyperGraph” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. In this 117 SuperHyperModel, The “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells are 118 SuperHyperModeled as “SuperHyperVertices” and the common and intended properties 119 between “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells are SuperHyperModeled as 120 “SuperHyperEdges”. Sometimes, it’s useful to have some degrees of determinacy, 121 indeterminacy, and neutrality to have more precise SuperHyperModel which in this case 122 the SuperHyperModel is called “neutrosophic”. In the future research, the foundation 123 will be based on the “Cancer’s Neutrosophic Recognition” and the results and the 124 definitions will be introduced in redeemed ways. The neutrosophic recognition of the 125 cancer in the long-term function. The specific region has been assigned by the model 126 [it’s called SuperHyperGraph] and the long cycle of the move from the cancer is 127 identified by this research. Sometimes the move of the cancer hasn’t be easily identified 128 since there are some determinacy, indeterminacy and neutrality about the moves and 129 the effects of the cancer on that region; this event leads us to choose another model [it’s 130 said to be neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph] to have convenient perception on what’s 131 happened and what’s done. There are some specific models, which are well-known and 132 they’ve got the names, and some SuperHyperGeneral SuperHyperModels. The moves 133 and the traces of the cancer on the complex tracks and between complicated groups of 134 cells could be fantasized by a neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperCycle, 135 SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). 136 The aim is to find either the longest 1-failed SuperHyperForcing or the strongest 137 1-failed SuperHyperForcing in those neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. For the longest 138 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, called 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, and the strongest 139 SuperHyperCycle, called neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing, some general results 140 are introduced. Beyond that in SuperHyperStar, all possible SuperHyperPaths have 141 only two SuperHyperEdges but it’s not enough since it’s essential to have at least three 142 SuperHyperEdges to form any style of a SuperHyperCycle. There isn’t any formation of 143 any SuperHyperCycle but literarily, it’s the deformation of any SuperHyperCycle. It, 144 literarily, deforms and it doesn’t form. A basic familiarity with SuperHyperGraph 145 theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory are proposed.

New ideas on the framework of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph for different styles of Neutrosophic SuperHyper-Bipartite and Neutrosophic SuperHyper-Path are introduced. More instances and more clarifications alongside sufficient references.

In this research, assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then a “SuperHyperForcing” Z(NSHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph NSHG : (V,E) is the minimum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of black SuperHyperVertices (whereas SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white) such that V (G) is 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; a “neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing” Zn(NSHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph NSHG : (V,E) is the minimum neutrosophic cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of black SuperHyperVertices (whereas SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white) such that V (G) is 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. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then a “SuperHyperForcing” Z(NSHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph NSHG : (V,E) is the minimum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of black SuperHyperVertices (whereas SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white) such that V (G) is 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; a “neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing” Zn(NSHG) for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph NSHG : (V,E) is the minimum neutrosophic cardinality of a SuperHyperSet S of black SuperHyperVertices (whereas SuperHyperVertices in V (G) \ S are colored white) such that V (G) is 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. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then an “δ−SuperHyperForcing” is a minimal SuperHyperForcing of SuperHyperVertices with minimum cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the (neutrosophic) cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s ∈ S : |S∩N(s)|>|S∩(V \N(s))|+δ, |S∩N(s)|<|S∩(V \N(s))|+δ.Thefirst Expression, holds if S is an “δ−SuperHyperOffensive”. And the second Expression, holds if S is an “δ−SuperHyperDefensive”; a“neutrosophic δ−SuperHyperForcing” is a minimal neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing of SuperHyperVertices with minimum 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 Expression, 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 SuperHyperForcing. Since there’s more ways to get type-results to make SuperHyperForcing more understandable. For the sake of having neutrosophic SuperHyperForcing, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of “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. A basic familiarity with SuperHyperGraph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory are proposed.

In this research, new setting is introduced for new SuperHyperNotions, namely, SuperHyperAlliances and Neutrosophic SuperHyperAlliances. Two different types of SuperHyperDefinitions are debut for them but the research goes further and the SuperHyperNotion, 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 “Cancer’s Recognitions” 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 “SuperHyperGraph” and “neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” are chosen and elected to research about “Cancer’s Recognitions”. Thus these complex and dense SuperHyperModels open up some avenues to research on theoretical segments and “Cancer’s Recognitions”. 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. An “SuperHyperAlliance” is a minimal SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices with minimum cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s∈S:,|S∩N(s)|>|S∩(V \N(s))|,and|S∩N(s)|<|S∩(V \N(s))|.Thefirst Expression, holds if S is SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds if S is “SuperHyperDefensive”. It’s useful to define “neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperAlliances. Since there’s more ways to get type-results to make SuperHyperAlliances more understandable. For the sake of having neutrosophic SuperHyperAlliances, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of “SuperHyperAlliances”. 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 SuperHyperAlliance. It’s redefined neutrosophic SuperHyperAlliance if the mentioned Table holds, concerning, “The Values of Vertices, 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 Minimum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The Edges&The Minimum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The HyperEdges&The Minimum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The SuperHyperEdges&The Minimum Values of Its Endpoints”. To get structural examples and instances, I’m going to introduce the next SuperHyperClass of SuperHyperGraph based on SuperHyperAlliances. It’s the main. It’ll be disciplinary to have the foundation of previous definition in the kind of SuperHyperClass. If there’s a need to have all SuperHyperConnectivities until the SuperHyperAlliances, then it’s officially called “SuperHyperAlliances” but otherwise, it isn’t SuperHyperAlliances. There are some instances about the clarifications for the main definition titled “SuperHyperAlliances”. These two examples get more scrutiny and discernment since there are characterized in the disciplinary ways of the SuperHyperClass based on SuperHyperAlliances. For the sake of having neutrosophic SuperHyperAlliances, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of “neutrosophic SuperHyperAlliances” and “neutrosophic SuperHyperAlliances”. 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 SuperHyperAlliances are redefined “neutrosophic SuperHyperAlliances” if the intended Table holds. It’s useful to define “neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s more ways to get neutrosophic type-results to make neutrosophic SuperHyperAlliances more understandable. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the intended Table holds. Thus SuperHyperPath, SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and SuperHyperWheel, are “neutrosophic SuperHyperPath”, “neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle”, “neutrosophic SuperHyperStar”, “neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite”, “neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite”, and “neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel” if the intended Table holds. A SuperHyperGraph has “neutrosophic SuperHyperAlliances” where it’s the strongest [the maximum neutrosophic value from all SuperHyperAlliances amid the maximum value amid all SuperHyperVertices from a SuperHyperAlliances.] SuperHyperAlliances. 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 SuperHyperClasses as follows. It’s SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges; 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 SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge 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 SuperHyperModel proposes the specific designs and the specific architectures. The SuperHyperModel is officially called “SuperHyperGraph” 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 Recognitions” and the results and the definitions will be introduced in redeemed ways. The recognition of the cancer in the long-term function. 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 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 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 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 neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find either the longest SuperHyperAlliances or the strongest SuperHyperAlliances in those neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. For the longest SuperHyperAlliances, called SuperHyperAlliances, and the strongest SuperHyperCycle, called neutrosophic SuperHyperAlliances, 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.

The research is on the SuperHyperGirth and the neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth. A SuperHyperGraph has SuperHyperGirth where it’s the longest SuperHyperCycle. To get structural examples and instances, I’m going to introduce the next SuperHyperClass of SuperHyperGraph based on SuperHyperGirth. It’s the main. It’ll be disciplinary to have the foundation of previous definition in the kind of SuperHyperClass. This SuperHyperClass is officially called “SuperHyperFlower”. If there’s a need to have all SuperHyperCycles until the SuperHyperGirth, then it’s officially called “SuperHyperOrder” but otherwise, it isn’t SuperHyperOrder. There are two instances about the clarifications for the main definition titled “SuperHyperGirth”. These two examples get more scrutiny and discernment since there are characterized in the disciplinary ways of the SuperHyperClass based on SuperHyperGirth and they’re called “SuperHyperFlower.” A SuperHyperGraph has “neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth” where it’s the strongest [the maximum value from all SuperHyperCycles amid the minimum value amid all SuperHyperEdges from a SuperHyperCycle.] SuperHyperCycle. In “Cancer’s Recognitions”, the aim is to find either the longest SuperHyperCycle or the strongest SuperHyperCycle in those neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. For the longest SuperHyperCycle, called SuperHyperGirth, and the strongest SuperHyperCycle, called neutrosophic SuperHyperGirth, 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.

In this research, new setting is introduced for new notions, namely, SuperHyperDegree and Co-SuperHyperDegree. Two different types of definitions are debut for them but the research goes further and the SuperHyperNotion, 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 cancer’s treatments 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 “SuperHyperGraph” and “neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” are chosen and elected to research about “cancer’s treatments”. Thus these complex and dense SuperHyperModels open up some avenues to research on theoretical segments and “cancer’s treatments”. Some avenues are posed to pursue this research. It’s also officially collected in the form of some questions and some problems. If there’s a SuperHyperEdge between two SuperHyperVertices, then these two SuperHyperVertices are called SuperHyperNeighbors. The number of SuperHyperNeighbors for a given SuperHyperVertex is called SuperHyperDegree. The number of common SuperHyperNeighbors for some SuperHyperVertices is called Co-SuperHyperDegree for them and used SuperHyperVertices are called Co-SuperHyperNeighbors. 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 SuperHyperClasses as follows. It’s SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges; 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 SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge 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 number of SuperHyperEdges for a given SuperHyperVertex is called SuperHyperDegree. The number of common SuperHyperEdges for some SuperHyperVertices is called Co-SuperHyperDegree for them. The number of SuperHyperVertices for a given SuperHyperEdge is called SuperHyperDegree. The number of common SuperHyperVertices for some SuperHyperEdges is called Co-SuperHyperDegree for them. The model proposes the specific designs. The model is officially called “SuperHyperGraph” and “Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph”. In this model, The “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells are modeled as “SuperHyperVertices” and the common and intended properties between “specific” cells and “specific group” of cells are modeled as “SuperHyperEdges”. Sometimes, it’s useful to have some degrees of determinacy, indeterminacy, and neutrality to have more precise model which in this case the model is called “neutrosophic”. In the future research, the foundation will be based on the caner’s treatment and the results and the definitions will be introduced in redeemed ways. A basic familiarity with SuperHyperGraph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory are proposed.

New setting is introduced to study chromatic number. Different types of chromatic numbers and neutrosophic chromatic number are proposed in this way, some results are obtained. Classes of neutrosophic graphs are used to obtains these numbers and the representatives of the colors. Using colors to assign to the vertices of neutrosophic graphs is applied. Some questions and problems are posed concerning ways to do further studies on this topic. Using different types of edges from connectedness in same neutrosophic graphs and in modified neutrosophic graphs to define the relation amid vertices which implies having different colors amid them and as consequences, choosing one vertex as a representative of each color to use them in a set of representatives and finally, using neutrosophic cardinality of this set to compute types of chromatic numbers. This specific relation amid edges is necessary to compute both types of chromatic number concerning the number of representative in the set of representatives and types of neutrosophic chromatic number concerning neutrosophic cardinality of set of representatives. If two vertices have no intended edge, then they can be assigned to same color even they’ve common edge. Basic familiarities with neutrosophic graph theory and graph theory are proposed for this article.

New setting is introduced to study chromatic number. vital chromatic number and n-vital chromatic number are proposed in this way, some results are obtained. Classes of neutrosophic graphs are used to obtains these numbers and the representatives of the colors. Using colors to assign to the vertices of neutrosophic graphs is applied. Some questions and problems are posed concerning ways to do further studies on this topic. Using vital edge from connectedness to define the relation amid vertices which implies having different colors amid them and as consequences, choosing one vertex as a representative of each color to use them in a set of representatives and finally, using neutrosophic cardinality of this set to compute vital chromatic number. This specific relation amid edges is necessary to compute both vital chromatic number concerning the number of representative in the set of representatives and n-vital chromatic number concerning neutrosophic cardinality of set of representatives. If two vertices have no vital edge, then they can be assigned to same color even they’ve common edge. Basic familiarities with neutrosophic graph theory and graph theory are proposed for this article.

New setting is introduced to study chromatic number. Neutrosophic chromatic number and chromatic number are proposed in this way, some results are obtained. Classes of neutrosophic graphs are used to obtains these numbers and the representatives of the colors. Using colors to assigns to the vertices of neutrosophic graphs is applied. Some questions and problems are posed concerning ways to do further studies on this topic. Using strong edge to define the relation amid vertices which implies having different colors amid them and as consequences, choosing one vertex as a representative of each color to use them in a set of representatives and finally, using neutrosophic cardinality of this set to compute neutrosophic chromatic number. This specific relation amid edges is necessary to compute both chromatic number concerning the number of representative in the set of representatives and neutrosophic chromatic number concerning neutrosophic cardinality of set of representatives. If two vertices have no strong edge, then they can be assigned to same color even they’ve common edge. Basic familiarities with neutrosophic graph theory and graph theory are proposed for this article.

In this paper, a geometric model is introduced for Neutrosophic data problem for the first time. This model is based on neutrosophic sets and neutrosophic relations. Neutrosophic control points are defined according to these points, resulting in neutrosophic Bézier curves.

In this research, new setting is introduced for new SuperHyperNotions, namely, SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances and Neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances. Two different types of SuperHyperDefinitions are debut for them but the research goes further and the SuperHyperNotion, 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 “Cancer’s Recognitions” 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 “SuperHyperGraph” and “neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph” are chosen and elected to research about “Cancer’s Recognitions”. Thus these complex and dense SuperHyperModels open up some avenues to research on theoretical segments and “Cancer’s Recognitions”. 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. An “SuperHyperAlliance” is a minimal SuperHyperSet of SuperHyperVertices with minimum cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of s∈S:,|S∩N(s)|>|S∩(V \N(s))|,and|S∩N(s)|<|S∩(V \N(s))|.Thefirst Expression, holds if S is SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds if S is “SuperHyperDefensive”. It’s useful to define “neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances. Since there’s more ways to get type-results to make SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances more understandable. For the sake of having neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of “SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”. 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 SuperHyperAlliance. It’s redefined neutrosophic SuperHyperAlliance if the mentioned Table holds, concerning, “The Values of Vertices, 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 Minimum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The Edges&The Minimum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The HyperEdges&The Minimum Values of Its Vertices”, “The Values of The SuperHyperEdges&The Minimum Values of Its Endpoints”. To get structural examples and instances, I’m going to introduce the next SuperHyperClass of SuperHyperGraph based on SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances. It’s the main. It’ll be disciplinary to have the foundation of previous definition in the kind of SuperHyperClass. If there’s a need to have all SuperHyperConnectivities until the SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances, then it’s officially called “SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances” but otherwise, it isn’t SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances. There are some instances about the clarifications for the main definition titled “SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”. These two examples get more scrutiny and discernment since there are characterized in the disciplinary ways of the SuperHyperClass based on SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances. For the sake of having neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances, there’s a need to “redefine” the notion of “neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances” and “neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances”. 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 SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances are redefined “neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances” if the intended Table holds. It’s useful to define “neutrosophic” version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there’s more ways to get neutrosophic type-results to make neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances more understandable. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the intended Table holds. Thus SuperHyperPath, SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and SuperHyperWheel, are “neutrosophic SuperHyperPath”, “neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle”, “neutrosophic SuperHyperStar”, “neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite”, “neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite”, and “neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel” if the intended Table holds. A SuperHyperGraph has “neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances” where it’s the strongest [the maximum neutrosophic value from all SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances amid the maximum value amid all SuperHyperVertices from a SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances.] SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances. 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 SuperHyperClasses as follows. It’s SuperHyperPath if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; it’s SuperHyperCycle if it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges; 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 SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it’s SuperHyperMultiPartite it’s only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge 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 SuperHyperModel proposes the specific designs and the specific architectures. The SuperHyperModel is officially called “SuperHyperGraph” 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 Recognitions” and the results and the definitions will be introduced in redeemed ways. The recognition of the cancer in the long-term function. 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 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 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 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 neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find either the longest SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances or the strongest SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances in those neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. For the longest SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances, called SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances, and the strongest SuperHyperCycle, called neutrosophic SuperHyperDefensive SuperHyperAlliances, 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.

In this research article, the notions of SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving are defined in the setting of neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs. Some ideas are introduced on both notions of SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving, simultaneously and as the same with each other. Some neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses are defined based on the notion, SuperHyperResolving. The terms of duality, totality, perfectness, connectedness, and stable, are added to basic framework and initial notions, SuperHyperDominating and SuperHyperResolving but the concentration is on the “perfectness” to figure out what’s going on when for all targeted SuperHyperVertices, there’s only one SuperHyperVertex in the intended set. There are some instances and some clarifications to make sense about what’s happened and what’s done in the starting definitions. The key point is about the minimum sets. There are some questions and some problems to be taken as some avenues to pursue this study and this research. A basic familiarity with SuperHyperGraph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory are proposed.

New setting is introduced to study neutrosophic failed-independent number and failed independent neutrosophic-number arising neighborhood of different vertices. Neighbor is a key term to have these notions. Having all possible edges amid vertices in a set is a key type of approach to have these notions namely neutrosophic failed-independent number and failed independent neutrosophic-number. Two numbers are obtained but now both settings leads to approach is on demand which is finding biggest set which have all vertices which are neighbors. Let NTG : (V,E,σ,μ) be a neutrosophic graph. Then failed independent number I(NTG) for a neutrosophic graph NTG : (V,E,σ,μ) is maximum cardinality of a set S of vertices such that every two vertices of S are endpoints for an edge, simultaneously; failed independent neutrosophic-number In(NTG) for a neutrosophic graph NTG : (V,E,σ,μ) is maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a set S of vertices such that every two vertices of S are endpoints for an edge, simultaneously. As concluding results, there are some statements, remarks, examples and clarifications about some classes of neutrosophic graphs namely path-neutrosophic graphs, cycle-neutrosophic graphs, complete-neutrosophic graphs, star-neutrosophic graphs, complete-bipartite-neutrosophic graphs and complete-t-partite-neutrosophic graphs. The clarifications are also presented in both sections “Setting of Neutrosophic Failed-Independent Number,” and “Setting of Failed Independent Neutrosophic-Number,” for introduced results and used classes. Neutrosophic number is reused in this way. It’s applied to use the type of neutrosophic number in the way that, three values of a vertex are used and they’ve same share to construct this number to compare with other vertices. Summation of three values of vertex makes one number and applying it to a comparison. This approach facilitates identifying vertices which form neutrosophic failed-independent number and failed independent neutrosophic-number arising neighborhoods of vertices. In path-neutrosophic graphs, two neighbors, form maximal set but with slightly differences, in cycle-neutrosophic graphs, two neighbors forms maximal set. Other classes have same approaches. In complete-neutrosophic graphs, a set of all vertices leads us to neutrosophic failed-independent number and failed independent neutrosophic-number. In star-neutrosophic graphs, a set of vertices containing only center and one other vertex, makes maximal set. In complete-bipartite-neutrosophic graphs, a set of vertices including two vertices from different parts makes intended set but with slightly differences, in complete-t-partite-neutrosophic graphs, a set of t vertices from different parts makes intended set. In both settings, some classes of well-known neutrosophic graphs are studied. Some clarifications for each result and each definition are provided. Using basic set to extend this set to set of all vertices has key role to have these notions in the form of neutrosophic failed-independent number and failed independent neutrosophic-number arising neighborhood of vertices. The cardinality of a set has eligibility to neutrosophic failed-independent number but the neutrosophic cardinality of a set has eligibility to call failed independent neutrosophic-number. Some results get more frameworks and perspective about these definitions. The way in that, two vertices have connections amid each other, opens the way to do some approaches. A vertex could affect on other vertex but there’s no usage of edges. These notions are applied into neutrosophic graphs as individuals but not family of them as drawbacks for these notions. Finding special neutrosophic graphs which are well-known, is an open way to pursue this study. Some problems are proposed to pursue this study. Basic familiarities with graph theory and neutrosophic graph theory are proposed for this article.

New ideas on the framework of Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph for different styles of Neutrosophic SuperHyper-Wheel and Neutrosophic SuperHyper-Star are introduced. More instances and more clarifications alongside sufficient references are featured with a specific type of independency of SuperHyperVertices.

New setting is introduced to study the global offensive alliance. Global offensive alliance is about a set of vertices which are applied into the setting of neutrosophic graphs. Neighborhood has the key role to define this notion. Also, neighborhood is defined based on strong edges. Strong edge gets a framework as neighborhood and after that, too close vertices have key role to define global offensive alliance based on strong edges. The structure of set is studied and general results are obtained. Also, some classes of neutrosophic graphs containing complete, empty, path, cycle, star, and wheel are investigated in the terms of set, minimal set, number, and neutrosophic number. Neutrosophic number is defined in new way. It’s first time to define this type of neutrosophic number in the way that, three values of a vertex are used and they’ve same share to construct this number. It’s called “modified neutrosophic number”. Summation of three values of vertex makes one number and applying it to a set makes neutrosophic number of set. This approach facilitates identifying minimal set and optimal set which forms minimal-global-offensive-alliance number and minimal-global-offensive-alliance-neutrosophic number. Two different types of sets namely global-offensive alliance and minimal-global-offensive alliance are defined. Global-offensive alliance identifies the sets in general vision but minimal-global-offensive alliance takes focus on the sets which deleting a vertex is impossible. Minimal-global-offensive-alliance number is about minimum cardinality amid the cardinalities of all minimal-global-offensive alliances in a given neutrosophic graph. New notions are applied in the settings both individual and family. Family of neutrosophic graphs is studied in the way that, the family only contains same classes of neutrosophic graphs. Three types of family of neutrosophic graphs including m-family of neutrosophic stars with common neutrosophic vertex set, m-family of odd complete graphs with common neutrosophic vertex set, and m-family of odd complete graphs with common neutrosophic vertex set are studied. The results are about minimal-global-offensive alliance, minimal-global-offensive-alliance number and its corresponded sets, minimal-global-offensive-alliance-neutrosophic number and its corresponded sets, and characterizing all minimal-global-offensive alliances. The connection of global-offensive-alliances with dominating set and chromatic number are obtained. The number of connected components has some relations with this new concept and it gets some results. Some classes of neutrosophic graphs behave differently when the parity of vertices are different and in this case, path, cycle, and complete illustrate these behaviors. Two applications concerning complete model as individual and family, under the titles of time table and scheduling conclude the results and they give more clarifications. In this study, there’s an open way to extend these results into the family of these classes of neutrosophic graphs. The family of neutrosophic graphs aren’t study deeply and with more results but it seems that analogous results are determined. Slight progress is obtained in the family of these models but there are open avenues to study family of other models as same models and different models. There’s a question. How can be related to each other, two sets partitioning the vertex set of a graph? The ideas of neighborhood and neighbors based on strong edges illustrate open way to get results. A set is global offensive alliance when two sets partitioning vertex set have uniform structure. All members of set have more amount of neighbors in the set than out of set. It leads us to the notion of global offensive alliance. Different edges make different neighborhoods but it’s used one style edge titled strong edge. These notions are applied into neutrosophic graphs as individuals and family of them. Independent set as an alliance is a special set which has no neighbor inside and it implies some drawbacks for these notions. Finding special sets which are well-known, is an open way to purse this study. Special set which its members have only one neighbor inside, characterize the connected components where the cardinality of its complement is the number of connected components. Some problems are proposed to pursue this study. Basic familiarities with graph theory and neutrosophic graph theory are proposed for this article.

This article presents a new method of segmenting images with gray levels. The method is based on determining several thresholds for separation of gray levels. The determination of these thresholds is done using the certainty of the neutrosophic information. The concept of this method can be stated simply: to choose the local maximums for the neutrosophic certainty.

Bipolar neutrosophic set is an important extension of bipolar fuzzy set. This set is a hybridization of bipolar fuzzy set and neutrosophic set. Every element of a bipolar neutrosophic set consists of three independent positive membership functions and three independent negative membership functions. In this paper, we develop cross entropy measures of bipolar neutrosophic sets and prove its properties. We also define cross entropy measures of interval bipolar neutrosophic sets and prove its properties. Thereafter, we develop two novel multi-attribute decision making methods based on the proposed cross entropy measures. In the decision making framework, we calculate the weighted cross entropy measures between each alternative and the ideal alternative to rank the alternatives and choose the best one. We solve two illustrative examples of multi-attribute decision making problems and compare the obtained result with the results of other existing methods to show the applicability and effectiveness of the developed method. In the end, the main conclusion and future scope of research are summarized.

Neutrosophic cubic set (NCS) is one of the important family members of neutrosophic hybrid sets. Neutrosophic cubic set has more strength than other family members of neutrosophic hybrid sets to express incomplete information due to the presence of interval valued neutrosophic set (IVNS) and single valued neutrosophic set (SVNS) in its structure. Cross entropy measure is one of the best way to calculate the divergence of any variable from the priori one variable. In this paper we first define a new cross entropy measure under NCSs environment which we call NC- cross entropy measure. We investigate the basic properties of NC-cross entropy. We also propose weighted NC-cross entropy and investigate its basic properties. We develop a novel multi attribute decision making (MADM) strategy based on weighted NC-cross entropy. To show the feasibility and applicability, we solve a MADM problem using the proposed strategy.

Neutrosophic cubic set is the hybridization of the concept of neutrosophic set and interval neutrosophic set. Neutrosophic cubic set has the capacity to express the hybrid information of both the interval neutrosophic set and the single valued neutrosophic set simultaneously. As newly defined, little research on the operations and applications of neutrosophic cubic sets appear in the current literature. In the present paper we propose the score, accuracy functions for neutrosophic cubic sets and prove their basic properties. We firstly develop TODIM method to solve multi attribute group decision making in neutrosophic cubic set environment, which we call NC-TODIM. Also, we solve a MAGDM problem using the proposed NC-TODIM method to show the applicability and effectiveness of the developed method. We also conduct sensitivity analysis to show the impact of ranking order of the alternatives for different values of attenuation factor of losses for multi-attribute group decision making problem.

In this research, assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then an extreme SuperHyperMatching $\mathcal{C}(NSHG)$ for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph $NSHG:(V,E)$ is the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet $S$ of high cardinality SuperHyperEdges such that there's no SuperHyperVertex not to in a SuperHyperEdge and there's no SuperHyperEdge to have a SuperHyperVertex in a SuperHyperEdge; a neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching $\mathcal{C}(NSHG)$ for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph $NSHG:(V,E)$ is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet $S$ of high neutrosophic cardinality neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges such that there's no neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex not to in a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and there's no neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge; an extreme SuperHyperMatching SuperHyperPolynomial $\mathcal{C}(NSHG)$ for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph $NSHG:(V,E)$ is the extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the coefficients defined as the number of the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet $S$ of high cardinality SuperHyperEdges such that there's no SuperHyperVertex not to in a SuperHyperEdge and there's no SuperHyperEdge to have a SuperHyperVertex in a SuperHyperEdge and the power is corresponded to its coefficient; a neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching SuperHyperPolynomial $\mathcal{C}(NSHG)$ for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph $NSHG:(V,E)$ is the neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the neutrosophic coefficients defined as the neutrosophic number of the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet $S$ of high neutrosophic cardinality neutrosophic SuperHyperEdges such that there's no neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex not to in a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and there's no neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and the neutrosophic power is neutrosophicly corresponded to its neutrosophic coefficient; an extreme R-SuperHyperMatching $\mathcal{C}(NSHG)$ for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph $NSHG:(V,E)$ is the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet $S$ of high cardinality SuperHyperVertices such that there's no SuperHyperVertex not to in a SuperHyperEdge and there's no SuperHyperEdge to have a SuperHyperVertex in a SuperHyperEdge; a neutrosophic R-SuperHyperMatching $\mathcal{C}(NSHG)$ for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph $NSHG:(V,E)$ is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet $S$ of high neutrosophic cardinality neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there's no neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex not to in a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and there's no neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge; an extreme R-SuperHyperMatching SuperHyperPolynomial $\mathcal{C}(NSHG)$ for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph $NSHG:(V,E)$ is the extreme SuperHyperPolynomial contains the coefficients defined as the number of the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet $S$ of high cardinality SuperHyperVertices such that there's no SuperHyperVertex not to in a SuperHyperEdge and there's no SuperHyperEdge to have a SuperHyperVertex in a SuperHyperEdge and the power is corresponded to its coefficient; a neutrosophic R-SuperHyperMatching SuperHyperPolynomial $\mathcal{C}(NSHG)$ for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph $NSHG:(V,E)$ is the neutrosophic SuperHyperPolynomial contains the neutrosophic coefficients defined as the neutrosophic number of the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a neutrosophic SuperHyperSet $S$ of high neutrosophic cardinality neutrosophic SuperHyperVertices such that there's no neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex not to in a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and there's no neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge to have a neutrosophic SuperHyperVertex in a neutrosophic SuperHyperEdge and the neutrosophic power is neutrosophicly corresponded to its neutrosophic coefficient. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then $\delta-$SuperHyperMatching is a maximal of SuperHyperVertices with a maximum cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the (neutrosophic) cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of $s\in S:$ there are $|S\cap N(s)| > |S\cap (V\setminus N(s))|+\delta;$ and $ |S\cap N(s)| < |S\cap (V\setminus N(s))|+\delta.$ The first Expression, holds if $S$ is an $\delta-$SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds if $S$ is an $\delta-$SuperHyperDefensive; a neutrosophic $\delta-$SuperHyperMatching is a maximal neutrosophic of SuperHyperVertices with maximum neutrosophic cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of $s\in S$ there are: $|S\cap N(s)|_{neutrosophic} > |S\cap (V\setminus N(s))|_{neutrosophic}+\delta;$ and $ |S\cap N(s)|_{neutrosophic} < |S\cap (V\setminus N(s))|_{neutrosophic}+\delta.$ The first Expression, holds if $S$ is a neutrosophic $\delta-$SuperHyperOffensive. And the second Expression, holds if $S$ is a neutrosophic $\delta-$SuperHyperDefensive It's useful to define a ``neutrosophic'' version of a SuperHyperMatching . Since there's more ways to get type-results to make a SuperHyperMatching more understandable. For the sake of having neutrosophic SuperHyperMatching, there's a need to ``redefine'' the notion of a ``SuperHyperMatching ''. A basic familiarity with Extreme SuperHyperMatching theory, SuperHyperGraphs, and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs theory are proposed.

In this research, new setting is introduced for new SuperHyperNotions, namely, an SuperHyperStable and Neutrosophic SuperHyperStable. Two different types of SuperHyperDefinitions are debut for them but the research goes further and the SuperHyperNotion, 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 ``Cancer's Recognitions'' 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 ``SuperHyperGraph'' and ``neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph'' are chosen and elected to research about ``Cancer's Recognitions''. Thus these complex and dense SuperHyperModels open up some avenues to research on theoretical segments and ``Cancer's Recognitions''. 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``SuperHyperStable'' $\mathcal{I}(NSHG)$ for a SuperHyperGraph $NSHG:(V,E)$ is the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet $S$ of SuperHyperVertices such that there's no SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then an ``$\delta-$SuperHyperStable'' is a \underline{maximal} SuperHyperStable of SuperHyperVertices with \underline{maximum} cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the (neutrosophic) cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of $s\in S:$ $~|S\cap N(s)| > |S\cap (V\setminus N(s))|+\delta,~|S\cap N(s)| < |S\cap (V\setminus N(s))|+\delta.$ The first Expression, holds if $S$ is an ``$\delta-$SuperHyperOffensive''. And the second Expression, holds if $S$ is an ``$\delta-$SuperHyperDefensive''; a``neutrosophic $\delta-$SuperHyperStable'' is a \underline{maximal} neutrosophic SuperHyperStable of SuperHyperVertices with \underline{maximum} neutrosophic cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of $s\in S:$ $~|S\cap N(s)|_{neutrosophic} > |S\cap (V\setminus N(s))|_{neutrosophic}+\delta,~ |S\cap N(s)|_{neutrosophic} < |S\cap (V\setminus N(s))|_{neutrosophic}+\delta.$ The first Expression, holds if $S$ is a ``neutrosophic $\delta-$SuperHyperOffensive''. And the second Expression, holds if $S$ is a ``neutrosophic $\delta-$SuperHyperDefensive''. It's useful to define a ``neutrosophic'' version of an SuperHyperStable. Since there's more ways to get type-results to make an SuperHyperStable more understandable. For the sake of having neutrosophic SuperHyperStable, there's a need to ``redefine'' the notion of an ``SuperHyperStable''. 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 an SuperHyperStable. It's redefined a neutrosophic SuperHyperStable if the mentioned Table holds, concerning, ``The Values of Vertices, 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 SuperHyperGraph based on an SuperHyperStable. It's the main. It'll be disciplinary to have the foundation of previous definition in the kind of SuperHyperClass. If there's a need to have all SuperHyperConnectivities until the SuperHyperStable, then it's officially called an ``SuperHyperStable'' but otherwise, it isn't an SuperHyperStable. There are some instances about the clarifications for the main definition titled an ``SuperHyperStable''. These two examples get more scrutiny and discernment since there are characterized in the disciplinary ways of the SuperHyperClass based on an SuperHyperStable. For the sake of having a neutrosophic SuperHyperStable, there's a need to ``redefine'' the notion of a ``neutrosophic SuperHyperStable'' and a ``neutrosophic SuperHyperStable''. 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 an SuperHyperStable are redefined to an ``neutrosophic SuperHyperStable'' if the intended Table holds. It's useful to define ``neutrosophic'' version of SuperHyperClasses. Since there's more ways to get neutrosophic type-results to make a neutrosophic SuperHyperStable more understandable. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some neutrosophic SuperHyperClasses if the intended Table holds. Thus SuperHyperPath, SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultiPartite, and SuperHyperWheel, are ``neutrosophic SuperHyperPath'', ``neutrosophic SuperHyperCycle'', ``neutrosophic SuperHyperStar'', ``neutrosophic SuperHyperBipartite'', ``neutrosophic SuperHyperMultiPartite'', and ``neutrosophic SuperHyperWheel'' if the intended Table holds. A SuperHyperGraph has a ``neutrosophic SuperHyperStable'' where it's the strongest [the maximum neutrosophic value from all the SuperHyperStable amid the maximum value amid all SuperHyperVertices from an SuperHyperStable.] SuperHyperStable. A graph is a SuperHyperUniform if it's a SuperHyperGraph and the number of elements of SuperHyperEdges are the same. Assume a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph. There are some SuperHyperClasses as follows. It's SuperHyperPath if it's only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges with two exceptions; it's SuperHyperCycle if it's only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges; 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 SuperVertices, forming two separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it's SuperHyperMultiPartite it's only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and these SuperVertices, forming multi separate sets, has no SuperHyperEdge in common; it's a SuperHyperWheel if it's only one SuperVertex as intersection amid two given SuperHyperEdges and one SuperVertex has one SuperHyperEdge with any common SuperVertex. The SuperHyperModel proposes the specific designs and the specific architectures. The SuperHyperModel is officially called ``SuperHyperGraph'' 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 Recognitions'' and the results and the definitions will be introduced in redeemed ways. The recognition of the cancer in the long-term function. 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 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 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 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 neutrosophic SuperHyperPath(-/SuperHyperCycle, SuperHyperStar, SuperHyperBipartite, SuperHyperMultipartite, SuperHyperWheel). The aim is to find either the longest SuperHyperStable or the strongest SuperHyperStable in those neutrosophic SuperHyperModels. For the longest SuperHyperStable, called SuperHyperStable, and the strongest SuperHyperCycle, called neutrosophic SuperHyperStable, 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.

New notion of dimension as set, as two optimal numbers including metric number, dimension number and as optimal set are introduced in individual framework and in formation of family. Behaviors of twin and antipodal are explored in fuzzy(neutrosophic) graphs. Fuzzy(neutrosophic) graphs, under conditions, fixed-edges, fixed-vertex and strong fixed-vertex are studied. Some classes as path, cycle, complete, strong, t-partite, bipartite, star and wheel in the formation of individual case and in the case, they form a family are studied in the term of dimension. Fuzzification(neutrosofication) of twin vertices but using crisp concept of antipodal vertices are another approaches of this study. Thus defining two notions concerning vertices which one of them is fuzzy(neutrosophic) titled twin and another is crisp titled antipodal to study the behaviors of cycles which are partitioned into even and odd, are concluded. Classes of cycles according to antipodal vertices are divided into two classes as even and odd. Parity of the number of edges in cycle causes to have two subsections under the section is entitled to antipodal vertices. In this study, the term dimension is introduced on fuzzy(neutrosophic) graphs. The locations of objects by a set of some junctions which have distinct distance from any couple of objects out of the set, are determined. Thus it’s possible to have the locations of objects outside of this set by assigning partial number to any objects. The classes of these specific graphs are chosen to obtain some results based on dimension. The types of crisp notions and fuzzy(neutrosophic) notions are used to make sense about the material of this study and the outline of this study uses some new notions which are crisp and fuzzy(neutrosophic). Some questions and problems are posed concerning ways to do further studies on this topic. Basic familiarities with fuzzy(neutrosophic) graph theory and graph theory are proposed for this article.

The paper investigates some similarity measures in interval bipolar neutrosophic environment for multi-attribute decision making problems. At first, we define Hamming and Euclidean distances measures between interval bipolar neutrosophic sets and establish their basic properties. We also propose two similarity measures based on the Hamming and Euclidean distance functions. Using maximum and minimum operators, we define new similarity measures and prove their basic properties. Using the proposed similarity measures, we propose a novel multi attribute decision making strategy in interval bipolar neutrosophic set environment. Lastly, we solve an illustrative example of multi attribute decision making and present comparison analysis to show the feasibility, applicability and effectiveness of the proposed strategy.

The concept of neutrosophic number is a significant mathematical tool to deal with real scientific problems because it can tackle indeterminate and incomplete information which exists generally in real problems. In this article, we use neutrosophic numbers (a + bI), where a and bI denote determinate component and indeterminate component respectively. We explore the situations in which the input information is needed to express in terms of neutrosophic numbers. We define score functions and accuracy functions for ranking neutrosophic numbers. We then define a cosine function to determine unknown criteria weights. We define neutrosophic number harmonic mean operators and proved their basic properties. Then, we develop two novel MCGDM strategies using the proposed aggregation operators. We solve a numerical example to demonstrate the feasibility and effectiveness of the proposed two strategies. Sensitivity analysis with variation of “I” on neutrosophic numbers is performed to demonstrate how the preference ranking order of alternatives is sensitive to the change of “I”. The efficiency of the developed strategies is ascertained by comparing the obtained results from the proposed strategies with the existing strategies in the literature.

Single valued neutrosophic set has king power to express uncertainty characterized by indeterminacy, inconsistency and incompleteness. Most of the existing single valued neutrosophic cross entropy bears an asymmetrical behavior and produce an undefined phenomenon in some situations. In order to deal with these disadvantages, we propose a new cross entropy measure under single valued neutrosophic set (SVNS) environment namely SN- cross entropy and prove its basic properties. Also we define weighted SN-cross entropy measure and investigate its basic properties. We develop a new multi attribute group decision making (MAGDM) strategy for ranking of the alternatives based on the proposed weighted SN-cross entropy measure between each alternative and the ideal alternative. Finally, a numerical example of MAGDM problem of investment potential is solved to show the validity and efficiency of proposed decision making strategy. We also present comparative anslysis of the obtained result with the results obtained form the existing solution strategies in the solution.

In this research, assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then a ``Failed SuperHyperStable'' $\mathcal{I}(NSHG)$ for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph $NSHG:(V,E)$ is the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet $S$ of SuperHyperVertices such that there's a SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then an ``$\delta-$Failed SuperHyperStable'' is a \underline{maximal} Failed SuperHyperStable of SuperHyperVertices with \underline{maximum} cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the (neutrosophic) cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of $s\in S:$ $~|S\cap N(s)| > |S\cap (V\setminus N(s))|+\delta,~|S\cap N(s)| < |S\cap (V\setminus N(s))|+\delta.$ The first Expression, holds if $S$ is an ``$\delta-$SuperHyperOffensive''. And the second Expression, holds if $S$ is an ``$\delta-$SuperHyperDefensive''; a``neutrosophic $\delta-$Failed SuperHyperStable'' is a \underline{maximal} neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperStable of SuperHyperVertices with \underline{maximum} neutrosophic cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of $s\in S:$ $~|S\cap N(s)|_{neutrosophic} > |S\cap (V\setminus N(s))|_{neutrosophic}+\delta,~ |S\cap N(s)|_{neutrosophic} < |S\cap (V\setminus N(s))|_{neutrosophic}+\delta.$ The first Expression, holds if $S$ is a ``neutrosophic $\delta-$SuperHyperOffensive''. And the second Expression, holds if $S$ is a ``neutrosophic $\delta-$SuperHyperDefensive''. A basic familiarity with Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique theory, Neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique theory, and (Neutrosophic) SuperHyperGraphs theory are proposed.

In this research, new setting is introduced for assuming a SuperHyperGraph. Then a ``SuperHyperClique'' $\mathcal{C}(NSHG)$ for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph $NSHG:(V,E)$ is the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet $S$ of SuperHyperVertices such that there's a SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then an ``$\delta-$SuperHyperClique'' is a \underline{maximal} SuperHyperClique of SuperHyperVertices with \underline{maximum} cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the (neutrosophic) cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of $s\in S:$ $~|S\cap N(s)| > |S\cap (V\setminus N(s))|+\delta,~|S\cap N(s)| < |S\cap (V\setminus N(s))|+\delta.$ The first Expression, holds if $S$ is an ``$\delta-$SuperHyperOffensive''. And the second Expression, holds if $S$ is an ``$\delta-$SuperHyperDefensive''; a``neutrosophic $\delta-$SuperHyperClique'' is a \underline{maximal} neutrosophic SuperHyperClique of SuperHyperVertices with \underline{maximum} neutrosophic cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of $s\in S:$ $~|S\cap N(s)|_{neutrosophic} > |S\cap (V\setminus N(s))|_{neutrosophic}+\delta,~ |S\cap N(s)|_{neutrosophic} < |S\cap (V\setminus N(s))|_{neutrosophic}+\delta.$ The first Expression, holds if $S$ is a ``neutrosophic $\delta-$SuperHyperOffensive''. And the second Expression, holds if $S$ is a ``neutrosophic $\delta-$SuperHyperDefensive''. A basic familiarity with Extreme SuperHyperClique theory, SuperHyperGraphs, and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs theory are proposed.

In this research, new setting is introduced for new SuperHyperNotions, namely, an 1-failed SuperHyperForcing and Neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then an ``1-failed SuperHyperForcing'' $\mathcal{Z}(NSHG)$ for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph $NSHG:(V,E)$ is the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet $S$ of black SuperHyperVertices (whereas SuperHyperVertices in $V(G) \setminus S$ 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'' $\mathcal{Z}_n(NSHG)$ for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph $NSHG:(V,E)$ is the maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a SuperHyperSet $S$ of black SuperHyperVertices (whereas SuperHyperVertices in $V(G) \setminus S$ 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. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then an ``$\delta-$1-failed SuperHyperForcing'' is a \underline{maximal} 1-failed SuperHyperForcing of SuperHyperVertices with \underline{maximum} cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the (neutrosophic) cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of $s\in S:$ $~|S\cap N(s)| > |S\cap (V\setminus N(s))|+\delta,~|S\cap N(s)| < |S\cap (V\setminus N(s))|+\delta.$ The first Expression, holds if $S$ is an ``$\delta-$SuperHyperOffensive''. And the second Expression, holds if $S$ is an ``$\delta-$SuperHyperDefensive''; a``neutrosophic $\delta-$1-failed SuperHyperForcing'' is a \underline{maximal} neutrosophic 1-failed SuperHyperForcing of SuperHyperVertices with \underline{maximum} neutrosophic cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of $s\in S:$ $~|S\cap N(s)|_{neutrosophic} > |S\cap (V\setminus N(s))|_{neutrosophic}+\delta,~ |S\cap N(s)|_{neutrosophic} < |S\cap (V\setminus N(s))|_{neutrosophic}+\delta.$ The first Expression, holds if $S$ is a ``neutrosophic $\delta-$SuperHyperOffensive''. And the second Expression, holds if $S$ is a ``neutrosophic $\delta-$SuperHyperDefensive''. A basic familiarity with SuperHyperGraph theory and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph theory are proposed.

In this research, assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then a ``Failed SuperHyperClique'' $\mathcal{C}(NSHG)$ for a neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph $NSHG:(V,E)$ is the maximum cardinality of a SuperHyperSet $S$ of SuperHyperVertices such that there's a SuperHyperVertex to have a SuperHyperEdge in common. Assume a SuperHyperGraph. Then an ``$\delta-$Failed SuperHyperClique'' is a \underline{maximal} Failed SuperHyperClique of SuperHyperVertices with \underline{maximum} cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the (neutrosophic) cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of $s\in S:$ $~|S\cap N(s)| > |S\cap (V\setminus N(s))|+\delta,~|S\cap N(s)| < |S\cap (V\setminus N(s))|+\delta.$ The first Expression, holds if $S$ is an ``$\delta-$SuperHyperOffensive''. And the second Expression, holds if $S$ is an ``$\delta-$SuperHyperDefensive''; a``neutrosophic $\delta-$Failed SuperHyperClique'' is a \underline{maximal} neutrosophic Failed SuperHyperClique of SuperHyperVertices with \underline{maximum} neutrosophic cardinality such that either of the following expressions hold for the neutrosophic cardinalities of SuperHyperNeighbors of $s\in S:$ $~|S\cap N(s)|_{neutrosophic} > |S\cap (V\setminus N(s))|_{neutrosophic}+\delta,~ |S\cap N(s)|_{neutrosophic} < |S\cap (V\setminus N(s))|_{neutrosophic}+\delta.$ The first Expression, holds if $S$ is a ``neutrosophic $\delta-$SuperHyperOffensive''. And the second Expression, holds if $S$ is a ``neutrosophic $\delta-$SuperHyperDefensive''. A basic familiarity with Extreme Failed SuperHyperClique theory, Extreme SuperHyperGraphs theory, and Neutrosophic SuperHyperGraphs theory are proposed.

New setting is introduced to study the global powerful alliance. Global powerful alliance is about a set of vertices which are applied into the setting of neutrosophic graphs. Neighborhood has the key role to define this notion. Also, neighborhood is defined based on strong edges. Strong edge gets a framework as neighborhood and after that, too close vertices have key role to define global powerful alliance based on strong edges. The structure of set is studied and general results are obtained. Also, some classes of neutrosophic graphs excluding empty, path, star, and wheel and containing complete, cycle and r-regular-strong are investigated in the terms of set, minimal set, number, and neutrosophic number. Neutrosophic number is used in this way. It’s applied to use the type of neutrosophic number in the way that, three values of a vertex are used and they’ve same share to construct this number. It’s called “modified neutrosophic number”. Summation of three values of vertex makes one number and applying it to a set makes neutrosophic number of set. This approach facilitates identifying minimal set and optimal set which forms minimal-global-powerful-alliance number and minimal-global-powerful-alliance-neutrosophic number. Two different types of sets namely global-powerful alliance and minimal-global-powerful alliance are defined. Global-powerful alliance identifies the sets in general vision but minimal-global-powerful alliance takes focus on the sets which deleting a vertex is impossible. Minimal-global-powerful-alliance number is about minimum cardinality amid the cardinalities of all minimal-global-powerful alliances in a given neutrosophic graph. New notions are applied in the settings both individual and family. Family of neutrosophic graphs has an open avenue, in the way that, the family only contains same classes of neutrosophic graphs. The results are about minimal-global-powerful alliance, minimal-global-powerful-alliance number and its corresponded sets, minimal-global-powerful-alliance-neutrosophic number and its corresponded sets, and characterizing all minimal-global-powerful alliances, minimal-t-powerful alliance, minimal-t-powerful-alliance number and its corresponded sets, minimal-t-powerful-alliance-neutrosophic number and its corresponded sets, and characterizing all minimal-t-powerful alliances. The connections amid t-powerful-alliances are obtained. The number of connected components has some relations with this new concept and it gets some results. Some classes of neutrosophic graphs behave differently when the parity of vertices are different and in this case, cycle, and complete illustrate these behaviors. Two applications concerning complete model as individual and family, under the titles of time table and scheduling conclude the results and they give more clarifications and closing remarks. In this study, there’s an open way to extend these results into the family of these classes of neutrosophic graphs. The family of neutrosophic graphs aren’t study deeply and with more results but it seems that analogous results are determined. Slight progress is obtained in the family of these models but there are open avenues to study family of other models as same models and different models. There’s a question. How can be related to each other, two sets partitioning the vertex set of a graph? The ideas of neighborhood and neighbors based on strong edges illustrate open way to get results. A set is global powerful alliance when two sets partitioning vertex set have uniform structure. All members of set have more amount of neighbors in the set than out of set and reversely for non-members of set with less members in the way that the set is simultaneously t-offensive and(t-2)-defensive. A set is global if t=0. It leads us to the notion of global powerful alliance. Different edges make different neighborhoods but it’s used one style edge titled strong edge. These notions are applied into neutrosophic graphs as individuals and family of them. Independent set as an alliance is a special set which has no neighbor inside and it implies some drawbacks for these notions. Finding special sets which are well-known, is an open way to purse this study. Special set which its members have only one neighbor inside, characterize the connected components where the cardinality of its complement is the number of connected components. Some problems are proposed to pursue this study. Basic familiarities with graph theory and neutrosophic graph theory are proposed for this article.

Many various using of this new-born fuzzy model for solving real-world problems and urgent requirements involve introducing new concept for analyzing the situations which leads to solve them by proper, quick and ecient method based on statistical data. This gap between the model and its solution cause that we introduce nikfar domination in neutrosophic graphs as creative and eective tool for studying a few selective vertices of this model instead of all ones by using special edges. Being special selection of these edges aect to achieve quick and proper solution to these problems. Domination hasn't ever been introduced. So we don't have any comparison with another denitions. The most used graphs which have properties of being complete, empty, bipartite, tree and like stu and they also achieve the names for themselves, are studied as fuzzy models for getting nikfar dominating set or at least becoming so close to it. We also get the relations between this special edge which plays main role in doing dominating with other special types of edges of graph like bridges. Finally, the relation between this number with other special numbers and characteristic of graph like order are discussed.

This article presents a new method of segmenting grayscale images by minimizing Shannon's neutrosophic entropy. For the proposed segmentation method, the neutrosophic information components, i.e., the degree of truth, the degree of neutrality and the degree of falsity are defined taking into account the belonging to the segmented regions and at the same time to the separation threshold area. The principle of the method is simple and easy to understand and can lead to multiple thresholds. The efficacy of the method is illustrated using some test gray level images. The experimental results show that the proposed method has good performance for segmentation with optimal gray level thresholds.

This article presents a method of segmenting images with gray levels that uses Onicescu's information energy calculated in the context of the neutrosophic theory. Starting from the information energy calculation for complete neutrosophic information, it is shown how to extend its calculation for incomplete and inconsistent neutrosophic information. The segmentation method is based on calculation of thresholds for separating the gray levels using the local maximum points of the Onicescu information energy.

Along with the economic growth, the companies must contribute to social progress and promote environmental sustainability in equal harmony. Sustainable human resource management (SHRM) strategies make it possible to attain the economic, social and environmental goals of a firm. In this regard, a survey method is discussed using the literature review and online questionnaire to identify the main factors/indicators during the SHRM evaluation of manufacturing firms in India. Uncertainty is commonly occurred in the assessment of SHRM factors. As a generalized version of fuzzy sets, single-valued neutrosophic set (SVNS) has been demonstrated as a valuable tool to illustrate the indeterminate, inconsistent and uncertain data of realistic decision-making problems. Considering the idea of SVNSs, this study develops a hybrid multi-criteria group decision-making (MCGDM) approach for assessing the SHRM of manufacturing firms under uncertainty settings. For this purpose, an SVN-alternative ranking order method accounting for two-step normalization (AROMAN) is proposed based on VIFI-score function-based decision experts’ (DEs’) weighting tool and integrated criteria weight-determining model to solve the MCGDM problems with fully unknown DEs and criteria weights. In this regard, we develop new SVN-distance measure to compute the degree of difference between SVNSs. Some examples are presented to demonstrate the efficacy of developed measure over the existing ones. In addition, new criteria weight-determination model is presented with the integration of objective weights through IVIF-distance measure-based model and subjective weights through ranking comparison (RANCOM) tool on SVNSs. The proposed ranking method is applied to an empirical study of SHRM assessment for manufacturing firms in India, which shows its applicability and feasibility. In this study, the evaluation criteria are characterized into social, environmental and economic aspects with DE’s opinions. Comparative and sensitivity analyses are made to show the strength and steadiness of presented approach. This study provides an innovative MCGDM analysis framework, which makes a significant contribution to the SHRM assessment problem under indeterminate, inconsistent and uncertain setting.

The influence of neutrosophy in the previous period is constantly growing in many areas of science and technology. Moreover, various applications of the neutrosophic approach have become more common in recent years. Our goal in this research is to utilize the neutrosophy to improve the performance of the Dai-Liao conjugate gradient (CG) method. Specifically, in this research, we propose and investigate a new neutrosophic logic system to calculate the key parameter t involved in the Dai–Liao CG iterations. Theoretical analysis and numerical experience indicate that the efficiency and robustness of the new rule for determining t. Combining the neutrosophy and the Dai-Liao conjugate gradient method, we propose and explore a new Dai-Liao CG iterations for solving large-scale unconstrained optimization models. The global convergence is established under common assumptions and the backtracking line search. Finally, by conducting numerical experiments, computational evidence demonstrates that the new fuzzy neutrosophic Dai-Liao conjugate gradient method is computationally effective and robust.

The objective of the paper is to introduce new similarity measure for single valued neutrosophic sets based on logarithm function. We define logarithm similarity measure and their weighted similarity measure for single valued neutrosophic sets. Then we define hybrid logarithm similarity measure and weighted hybrid logarithm similarity measure for single valued neutrosophic sets. We prove the basic properties of the proposed measures. We then define an entropy function using logarithm function to determine unknown attribute weights. We develop a novel multi attribute group decision making strategy for single valued neutrosophic sets based on the weighted hybrid logarithm similarity measure. We address an illustrative example to demonstrate the effectiveness and aptness of the proposed strategies. We conduct a sensitivity analysis of the developed strategy. We also make a comparison between the obtained results from proposed strategies and different existing strategies in the literature.