Neutrosophic Graphs

Ideas | Approaches | Accessibility | Availability

Dr. Henry Garrett

Report | Exposition | References | Research #22 2021
 Abstract

In this outlet, a journey amid three models are designed. Graphs, fuzzy graphs
and neutrosophic graphs are three models which form main parts. Assigning
one specific number with some conditions to vertices and edges of graphs make
them to be titled as fuzzy graphs and assigning three specific numbers with
some conditions to vertices and edges of graphs make them to be titled as
neutrosophic graphs. In other viewpoint, neutrosophic graphs are 3-array fuzzy
graphs which every things are triple. To make more sense, the well-known
graphs are defined in new ways. For example, crisp complete, fuzzy complete
and neutrosophic complete when the context is about being complete in every
model. New notions are defined in the comparable structures on these three
models to understand the behaviors of these models according to the notions.
New notions are defined in the comparable structures on these three models to
understand the behaviors of these models according to the notions.

i
 Acknowledgements

The author is going to say his gratitude and his appreciation about the brains
and their hands which are showing the importance of words in the framework
of every wisdom, knowledge, arts and emotions which are streaming in the lines The words of mind and the
from the words, notions, ideas and approaches to have the material which is minds of words, are too
eligible to be in the stage
only the way to flourish the minds, the growing the notions, advancing ways of aknowledgements
and making the stable ways to be amid the events and storms of minds for
surviving from them and making the outstanding experiences about the tools
and ideas to be on the star lines of words and shining like stars, forever.

iii
 Contents

Abstract i

Acknowledgements iii

Contents v

List of Figures vi

List of Tables vii

1 Definitions 1

2 New Ideas 21
2.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.2 Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.3 Fuzzy(Neutrosophic) Twin Vertices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.4 Antipodal Vertices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
2.5 Extended Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

3 Applications 39
3.1 Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
3.2 Open Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
3.3 Conclusion and Closing Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Bibliography 45

v
 List of Figures

1.1 Neutrosophic Graph, N1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

1.2 Neutrosophic Complete, N1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.3 Neutrosophic Strong, N1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.4 Neutrosophic Cycle, N1 , has same neutrosophic values for two
vertices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.5 Neutrosophic Cycle, N1 , has same neutrosophic values for vertices. 6
1.6 Neutrosophic path, N1 , has same neutrosophic values for vertices.
It’s also Neutrosophic strong and Neutrosophic complete. . . . . . 7
1.7 Neutrosophic Path, N1 , has same neutrosophic values for vertices.
It’s also Neutrosophic strong and Neutrosophic complete. . . . . . 8

2.1 Black vertex {f6 } is only fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric set amid all

sets of vertices for fuzzy(neutrosophic) graph G. . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.2 Black vertex {f4 } and the set of vertices {f2 } are simultaneously
fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric set amid all sets of vertices for family
of fuzzy(neutrosophic) graphs G. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

3.1 Black vertex {s1 } is only fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric set amid all

sets of vertices for fuzzy(neutrosophic) graph T. . . . . . . . . . . . 40
3.2 Black vertices {i1 , i2 } are only fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric set amid
all sets of vertices for fuzzy(neutrosophic) graph T. Black vertices
V \ {c1 , c2 } are only fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric set amid all sets of
vertices for fuzzy(neutrosophic) graph T 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

vi
 List of Tables

1.1 Crisp-fying, Fuzzy-fying and Neutrosophic-fying . . . . . . . . . . 3

1.2 Crisp-fying, Fuzzy-fying and Neutrosophic-fying . . . . . . . . . . 17

2.1 Crisp-fying, Fuzzy-fying and Neutrosophic-fying . . . . . . . . . . 24

2.2 Crisp-fying, Fuzzy-fying and Neutrosophic-fying . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.3 Distances of Vertices from sets of vertices {f6 } and {f4 } in
fuzzy(neutrosophic) Graph G. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
2.4 Distances of Vertices from set of vertices {f6 } in Family of
fuzzy(neutrosophic) Graphs G. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

3.1 A Train concerning its Stations and its Connections as a Fuzzy

Graph in a Model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
3.2 An Infected Person concerning his two selective Connections and
his Partners With their two selective Connections as a Fuzzy Graph
T in a Model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
3.3 An Infected Person concerning his Connections and his Partners as
a Fuzzy Graph T 0 in a Model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
3.4 A Brief Overview about Advantages and Limitations of this study 43

vii
 CHAPTER 1

Definitions

To clarify about
the definitions, The concept of complete is used to classify specific graph in every environment.
I use some To differentiate, I use an adjective or prefix in every definition. Two adjectives
examples and in “fuzzy” and “neutrosophic” are used to distinguish every graph or classes of
this way,
exemplifying has
graph or any notion on them.
key role to make The reference [Ref4] is used to write the contents of this chapter. For further
sense about the studies, the references [Ref1; Ref2; Ref3; Ref4; Ref5; Ref6; Ref7; Ref8;
definitions and Ref9; Ref10] are suggested.
to introduce new
ways to use on Definition 1.0.1. G : (V, E) is called a crisp graph where V is a set of objects
these models in
the terms of new
and E is a subset of V × V such that this subset is symmetric.
notions.
Definition 1.0.2. A crisp graph G : (V, E) is called a fuzzy graph G : (σ, µ)
where σ : V → [0, 1] and µ : E → [0, 1] such that µ(xy) ≤ σ(x) ∧ σ(y) for all
xy ∈ E.
Definition 1.0.3. A crisp graph G : (V, E) is called a neutrosophic graph
G : (σ, µ) where σ = (σ1 , σ2 , σ3 ) : V → [0, 1] and µ = (µ1 , µ2 .µ3 ) : E → [0, 1]
such that µ(xy) ≤ σ(x) ∧ σ(y) for all xy ∈ E.
Definition 1.0.4. A crisp graph G : (V, E) is called a crisp complete where
∀x ∈ V, ∀y ∈ V, xy ∈ E.

Definition 1.0.5. A fuzzy graph G : (σ, µ) is called fuzzy complete where it’s
complete and µ(xy) = σ(x) ∧ σ(y) for all xy ∈ E.
Definition 1.0.6. A neutrosophic graph G : (σ, µ) is called a neutrosophic
complete where it’s complete and µ(xy) = σ(x) ∧ σ(y) for all xy ∈ E.
Definition 1.0.7. A crisp graph G : (V, E) is called a crisp strong.
Definition 1.0.8. A fuzzy graph G : (σ, µ) is called fuzzy strong where
µ(xy) = σ(x) ∧ σ(y) for all xy ∈ E.
Definition 1.0.9. A neutrosophic graph G : (σ, µ) is called a neutrosophic
strong where µ(xy) = σ(x) ∧ σ(y) for all xy ∈ E.
Definition 1.0.10. A distinct sequence of vertices v0 , v1 , · · · , vn in a crisp
graph G : (V, E) is called crisp path with length n from v0 to vn where
vi vi+1 ∈ E, i = 0, 1, · · · , n − 1.
Definition 1.0.11. A path v0 , v1 , · · · , vn is called fuzzy path where µ(vi vi+1 ) >
0, i = 0, 1, · · · , n − 1.

1
1. Definitions

Figure 1.1: Neutrosophic Graph, N1 nsc1

Figure 1.2: Neutrosophic Complete, N1 nsc2

Definition 1.0.12. A path v0 , v1 , · · · , vn is called neutrosophic path where

µ(vi vi+1 ) > 0, i = 0, 1, · · · , n − 1.
Definition 1.0.13. A path v0 , v1 , · · · , vn with exception of v0 and vn in a crisp
graph G : (V, E) is called crisp cycle with length n for v0 where v0 = vn . and
the order is three.
Definition 1.0.14. A crisp cycle v0 , v1 , · · · , vn , v0 is called fuzzy cycle
where there are two edges xy and uv such that µ(xy) = µ(uv) =

2
 Figure 1.3: Neutrosophic Strong, N1 nsc3

µ(vi vi+1 ).
V
i=0,1,··· ,n−1

Definition 1.0.15. A crisp cycle v0 , v1 , · · · , vn , v0 is called neutrosophic

cycle where there are two edges xy and uv such that µ(xy) = µ(uv) =
i=0,1,··· ,n−1 µ(vi vi+1 ).
V

Table 1.1: Crisp-fying, Fuzzy-fying and Neutrosophic-fying tbl1

Crisp Graphs Fuzzy Graphs Neutrosophic Graphs

Crisp Complete Fuzzy Complete Neutrosophic Complete
Crisp Strong Fuzzy Strong Neutrosophic Strong
Crisp Path Fuzzy Path Neutrosophic Path
Crisp Cycle Fuzzy Cycle Neutrosophic Cycle

New definitions are introduced in the terms of neutrosophic type. There are
some questions about the relations amid these notions.
The notion of strong is too close to the notions of complete.
(1). Is neutrosophic strong, neutrosophic complete?
No.
Example 1.0.16. Consider Figure (1.3). N1 is a neutrosophic strong
which isn’t also neutrosophic complete.

(2). Does neutrosophic strong imply neutrosophic complete?

Sometimes.
Example 1.0.17. Consider Figure (1.3). N1 is a neutrosophic strong
which isn’t neutrosophic complete.

3
1. Definitions

Example 1.0.18. Consider Figure (1.2). N1 is a neutrosophic strong

which is also neutrosophic complete.

(3). Does neutrosophic complete imply neutrosophic strong?

Yes. All neutrosophic complete from order 1, 2, 3, · · · are neutrosophic
strong. All neutrosophic complete from any order are neutrosophic strong.

Example 1.0.19. Consider Figure (1.2). N1 is a neutrosophic complete

which is also neutrosophic strong.

(4). When does neutrosophic complete imply neutrosophic strong?

Always.
Example 1.0.20. Consider Figure (1.2). N1 is a neutrosophic complete
which is also neutrosophic strong.

(5). When neutrosophic strong imply neutrosophic complete?

When neutrosophic graph is crisp complete.
Example 1.0.21. Consider Figure (1.2). N1 is a neutrosophic strong
which is also neutrosophic complete. Since it’s neutrosophic strong and
crisp complete.

(6). Which neutrosophic graphs are both neutrosophic complete and neutro-
sophic strong?
All neutrosophic graphs, which are neutrosophic complete, are neutro-
sophic strong. In other words, neutrosophic graphs, which are neutrosophic
strong and crisp complete, are neutrosophic complete. Neutrosophic com-
plete means that neutrosophic graph is neutrosophic strong and crisp
complete.
Example 1.0.22. Consider Figure (1.2). N1 is a neutrosophic strong
which is also neutrosophic complete.

(7). Which neutrosophic graphs are either neutrosophic complete or neutro-

sophic strong?
Neutrosophic graphs, which are neutrosophic strong but not crisp com-
plete, aren’t neutrosophic complete.
Example 1.0.23. Consider Figure (1.3). N1 is a neutrosophic strong
which isn’t also neutrosophic complete.

(8). Which neutrosophic graphs are neither neutrosophic complete nor

neutrosophic strong?
Neutrosophic graphs, which aren’t neutrosophic strong, are neithter
neutrosophic complete.
Example 1.0.24. Consider Figure (1.1). N1 is neither a neutrosophic
strong nor neutrosophic complete.

The notion of cycle when the order is three, is too close to the notions of
complete. Thus there are some natural questions about them.

4
 (1). Is neutrosophic cycle, neutrosophic complete?
When the order is three and it’s neutrosophic strong. For instance, there’s
a possibility to have neutrosophic cycle and neutrosophic complete. In
these Examples, at least the neutrosophic values of two vertices have to be
same and minimum to have two edges which have minimum neutrosophic
values. In this case, all three edges have same neutrosophic values. Thus I
represent three types neutrosophic graphs, which are neutrosophic cycle in
the terms of non-isomorphic. Firstly, two vertices have same neutrosophic
values and third vertex has neutrosophic value which is greater than them.

Example 1.0.25. Consider Figure (1.4). N1 is a neutrosophic cycle and

neutrosophic complete.

Figure 1.4: Neutrosophic Cycle, N1 , has same neutrosophic values for two
vertices. nsc4

Secondly, three vertices have same neutrosophic values.

Example 1.0.26. Consider Figure (1.4). N1 is both a neutrosophic
complete and neutrosophic cycle.

Thirdly, three vertices have different neutrosophic values.

Example 1.0.27. Consider Figure (1.2). N1 is both a neutrosophic
complete and neutrosophic cycle.

(2). Does neutrosophic cycle imply neutrosophic complete?

When the order is three and it’s neutrosophic strong.

(3). Does neutrosophic complete imply neutrosophic cycle?

When the order is three.

(4). When does neutrosophic complete imply neutrosophic cycle?

When the order is three.

5
1. Definitions

Figure 1.5: Neutrosophic Cycle, N1 , has same neutrosophic values for vertices. nsc5

(5). When neutrosophic cycle imply neutrosophic complete?

When the order is three and it’s neutrosophic strong.
(6). Which neutrosophic graphs are both neutrosophic complete and neutro-
sophic cycle?
Only three types of neutrosophic graphs which are in Figures (1.2),(1.4)
and (1.5). The order has to be three and it’s neutrosophic strong.
Firstly, two vertices have same neutrosophic values and third vertex has
neutrosophic value which is greater than them.
Secondly, three vertices have same neutrosophic values.
Thirdly, three vertices have different neutrosophic values.
(7). Which neutrosophic graphs are either neutrosophic complete or neutro-
sophic cycle?
Either neutrosophic complete or neutrosophic cycle which don’t have the
order is three for neutrosophic complete and if they have, then they aren’t
neutrosophic strong.
(8). Which neutrosophic graphs are neither neutrosophic cycle nor neutrosophic
strong?
Neutrosophic graphs which aren’t neutrosophic strong.
Proposition 1.0.28. A neutrosophic cycle is neutrosophic complete if and only
if it’s neutrosophic strong and order is three.

Proof. Let N is neutrosophic cycle.

(⇒) If N is neutrosophic complete, then, by it’s neutrosophic complete, it’s
neutrosophic strong. By it’s crisp cycle and crisp complete, order is three. Thus
N is neutrosophic strong and order is three.
(⇐) If it’s neutrosophic strong and order is three, then, by order is three and it’s
crisp cycle, it’s crisp complete. By it’s neutrosophic strong, N is neutrosophic
complete. 

6
Proposition 1.0.29. A neutrosophic complete is neutrosophic cycle if and only
if it’s order is three.

Proof. Let N is neutrosophic complete.

(⇒) If N is neutrosophic cycle, then, by it’s crisp cycle and it’s crisp complete,
order is three.
(⇐) If order is three, then, by order is three and it’s crisp complete, it’s crisp
cycle. By it’s neutrosophic complete, N is neutrosophic cycle. 

Proposition 1.0.30. A neutrosophic path is neutrosophic complete if and only

if it’s neutrosophic strong and order is two.

Proof. Let N is neutrosophic path.

(⇒) If N is neutrosophic complete, then, by it’s crisp path and it’s crisp
complete, order is two. By it’s crisp complete, it’s neutrosophic strong. Thus
it’s neutrosophic strong and order is two.
(⇐) If order is two, then, by order is two, it’s crisp connected and it’s
neutrosophic strong, N is neutrosophic complete. 

Proposition 1.0.31. A neutrosophic complete is neutrosophic path if and only

if it’s order is two.

Proof. Let N is neutrosophic complete.

(⇒) Consider N is neutrosophic path. Then, by it’s crisp path and it’s crisp
complete, order is two.
(⇐) Suppose order is two, then, by order is two and it’s crisp complete, it’s
crisp path. By it’s neutrosophic complete, it’s neutrosophic path. Thus N is
neutrosophic path. 

Example 1.0.32. Up to isomorphic there are two neutrosophic graphs which

are neutrosophic path, neutrosophic complete and neutrosophic strong.

• Firstly, two vertices have same neutrosophic values as Figure (1.6).

Figure 1.6: Neutrosophic path, N1 , has same neutrosophic values for vertices.
It’s also Neutrosophic strong and Neutrosophic complete. nsc6

• Secondly, two vertices have different neutrosophic values as Figure (1.7).

7
 1. Definitions

Figure 1.7: Neutrosophic Path, N1 , has same neutrosophic values for vertices.
It’s also Neutrosophic strong and Neutrosophic complete. nsc7

Numbers are created by some tools arising from attributes concerning different
models of graphs.
Definition 1.0.33. Let G : (V, E) be a crisp graph. For any given subset N of
V, Σn∈N 1 is called crisp cardinality of N and it’s denoted by |N |c .
Definition 1.0.34. Let G : (V, E) be a crisp graph. Crisp cardinality of V is
called crisp order of G and it’s denoted by Oc (G).
Definition 1.0.35. Let G : (σ, µ) be a fuzzy graph. For any given subset N of
V, Σn∈N σ(n) is called fuzzy cardinality of N and it’s denoted by |N |f .
Definition 1.0.36. Let G : (σ, µ) be a fuzzy graph. Fuzzy cardinality of V is
called fuzzy order of G and it’s denoted by Of (G).
Definition 1.0.37. Let G : (σ, µ) be a neutrosophic graph. For any given subset
N of V, Σn∈N σ(n) is called neutrosophic cardinality of N and it’s denoted
by |N |n .
Definition 1.0.38. Let G : (σ, µ) be a neutrosophic graph. Neutrosophic
cardinality of V is called neutrosophic order of G and it’s denoted by On (G).
exm39 Example 1.0.39.

• Consider Figure (1.1). Neutrosophic order of N1 , On (N1 ) is

(2.57, 2.05, 1.04). Thus On (N1 ) = (2.57, 2.05, 1.04).

• Consider Figure (1.2). Neutrosophic order of N1 , On (N1 ) is

(2.57, 2.05, 1.04). Thus On (N1 ) = (2.57, 2.05, 1.04).

• Consider Figure (1.3). Neutrosophic order of N1 , On (N1 ) is

(2.57, 2.05, 1.04). Thus On (N1 ) = (2.57, 2.05, 1.04).

• Consider Figure (1.4). Neutrosophic order of N1 , On (N1 ) is

(2.47, 2.26, 1.47). Thus On (N1 ) = (2.47, 2.26, 1.47).

• Consider Figure (1.5). Neutrosophic order of N1 , On (N1 ) is

(2.22, 1.92, 1.47). Thus On (N1 ) = (2.47, 2.26, 1.38).

8
 • Consider Figure (1.6). Neutrosophic order of N1 , On (N1 ) is
(1.48, 1.28, 0.92). Thus On (N1 ) = (1.48, 1.28, 0.92).
• Consider Figure (1.7). Neutrosophic order of N1 , On (N1 ) is
(1.73, 1.49, 1.13). Thus On (N1 ) = (1.73, 1.49, 1.13).
prp40 Proposition 1.0.40. |N |n ≤ (|N |c , |N |c , |N |c ).

Proof.

|N |n = Σn∈N σ(n) = Σn=(n1 ,n2 ,n3 )∈N (σ(n1 ), σ(n2 ), σ(n3 ))

≤ Σn=(n1 ,n2 ,n3 )∈N (1, 1, 1) = (|N |c , |N |c , |N |c ).

cor41 Corollary 1.0.41. On (N ) ≤ (Oc (N ), Oc (N ), Oc (N )).

Proof. By Proposition (1.0.40), Oc (N ) = |V |c and On (N ) = |V |n , the result is

straightforward. Since

On (N ) = |V |n = Σv∈V σ(v) = Σv=(v1 ,v2 ,v3 )∈V (σ(v1 ), σ(v2 ), σ(v3 ))

≤ Σn=(v1 ,v2 ,v3 )∈V (1, 1, 1) = (|V |c , |V |c , |V |c ) = (Oc (N ), Oc (N ), Oc (N )).

prp42 Proposition 1.0.42. |N |n = (|N |f , |N |f , |N |f ).

Proof.

|N |n = Σn∈N σ(n) = Σn=(n1 ,n2 ,n3 )∈N (σ(n1 ), σ(n2 ), σ(n3 ))

= (|N |f , |N |f , |N |f ).

In Example (1.0.39), the computations of this notion when they come to

neutrosophic order, are done. There’s same type-result with analogous to
Corollary (1.0.41).
Corollary 1.0.43. On (N ) = (Of (N ), Of (N ), Of (N )).

Proof. By Proposition (1.0.42), Of (N ) = |V |f and On (N ) = |V |n , the result is

straightforward. Since

On (N ) = |V |n = Σv∈V σ(v) = Σv=(v1 ,v2 ,v3 )∈V (σ(v1 ), σ(v2 ), σ(v3 ))

= (|V |f , |V |f , |V |f ) = (Of (N ), Of (N ), Of (N )).

prp44 Proposition 1.0.44. Let N = (σ, µ) be a neutrosophic graph and S, S 0 ⊆ V. If

S ⊆ S 0 , then |S|n ≤ |S 0 |n .

Proof.

|S|n = Σs∈S σ(s) = Σs∈S⊆S 0 σ(s) ≤ Σs0 ∈S 0 σ(s0 ) = |S 0 |n .

9
 1. Definitions

The converse of Proposition (1.0.44), doesn’t hold. Since in Figure

(1.6), S = {n1 }, S 0 = {n2 } ⊆ V = {n1 , n2 }. |S|n = (0.74, 0.64, 0.46) =
(0.74, 0.64, 0.46) = |S 0 |n . Thus |S|n ≤ |S 0 |n but S 6⊆ S 0 .
cor45 Corollary 1.0.45. Let N = (σ, µ) be a neutrosophic graph. S ⊆ V if and only
if |S|n ≤ |V |n .

Proof. (⇒). By S ⊆ V and Proposition (1.0.44), |S|n ≤ |V |n . In other words,

|S|n = Σs∈S σ(s) = Σs∈S⊆V σ(s) ≤ Σv∈V σ(v) = |V |n .

(⇐). This case is obvious. 

Corollary 1.0.46. Let N = (σ, µ) be a neutrosophic graph and S ⊆ V.

|S|n = On (N ) if and only if S = V.

Proof. (⇒). Suppose |S|n = On (N ). Hence |S|n = On (N ) = |V |n . Thus

|S|n = |V |n . By Corollary (1.0.45), we get S = V.
(⇐). Consider S = V. Thus |V |n = |S|n . By On (N ) = |V |n , |S|n = On (N ). 

Definition 1.0.47. Let C = (V, E) be a crisp graph. It’s called crisp

connected if for every given couple of vertices, there’s at least one path
amid them.
Definition 1.0.48. Let F = (σ, µ) be a fuzzy graph. It’s called fuzzy
connected if for every given couple of vertices, there’s at least one path
amid them.
Definition 1.0.49. Let N = (σ, µ) be a neutrosophic graph. It’s called
neutrosophic connected if for every given couple of vertices, there’s at
least one path amid them.
Example 1.0.50. Neutrosophic complete, neutrosophic path and neutrosophic
cycle, are only neutrosophic connected but neutrosophic strong could be either
neutrosophic connected or not. In other words, if neutrosophic graph is
neutrosophic strong, then it’s neutrosophic connected or not but if neutrosophic
graph is either of neutrosophic complete, neutrosophic path and neutrosophic
cycle, then it’s forever neutrosophic connected.
Definition 1.0.51. Let C = (V, E) be a crisp graph. Suppose a path P :
v0 , v1 , · · · , vn−1 , vn from v0 to vn . mini=0,1,2,··· ,n−1 1 is called crisp strength
of P and it’s denoted by Sc (P ).
Definition 1.0.52. Let F = (σ, µ) be a fuzzy graph. Suppose a path P :
v0 , v1 , · · · , vn−1 , vn from v0 to vn . mini=0,1,2,··· ,n−1 µ(vi vi+1 ) is called fuzzy
strength of P and it’s denoted by Sf (P ).
Definition 1.0.53. Let N = (σ, µ) be a neutrosophic graph. Suppose a path
P : v0 , v1 , · · · , vn−1 , vn from v0 to vn . mini=0,1,2,··· ,n−1 µ(vi vi+1 ) is called
neutrosophic strength of P and it’s denoted by Sn (P ).
i-path is a path with i edges, it’s also called length of path.
Example 1.0.54. In Figures (1.1), (1.2), (1.3), (1.4), (1.5), (1.6), (1.7),
neutrosophic strengths are computed for all possible paths.

10
(a) : Consider Figure (1.1).
(i) : An 1-path P1 : n1 , n2 has neutrosophic strength (0.74, 0.47, 0.31).
(ii) : An 1-path P2 : n1 , n3 has neutrosophic strength (0.55, 0.64, 0.26).
(iii) : An 1-path P3 : n2 , n3 has neutrosophic strength (0.37, 0.46, 0.24).
(iv) : An 2-path P4 : n1 , n2 , n3 has neutrosophic strength (0.37, 0.46, 0.24).
(v) : There are only four distinct paths.
(vi) : There are only three neutrosophic strengths.
(vii) : There are only two same neutrosophic strengths.
(b) : Consider Figure (1.2).
(i) : An 1-path P1 : n1 , n2 has neutrosophic strength (0.74, 0.47, 0.31).
(ii) : An 1-path P2 : n1 , n3 has neutrosophic strength (0.84, 0.47, 0.27).
(iii) : An 1-path P3 : n2 , n3 has neutrosophic strength (0.74, 0.64, 0.27).
(iv) : An 2-path P4 : n1 , n2 , n3 has neutrosophic strength (0.74, 0.47, 0.27).
(v) : There are only four distinct paths.
(vi) : There are only four different neutrosophic strengths.
(vii) : There is no same neutrosophic strengths.
(c) : Consider Figure (1.3).
(i) : An 1-path P1 : n1 , n3 has neutrosophic strength (0.84, 0.47, 0.27).
(ii) : An 1-path P2 : n2 , n3 has neutrosophic strength (0.74, 0.64, 0.27).
(iii) : An 2-path P3 : n1 , n3 , n2 has neutrosophic strength (0.74, 0.47, 0.27).
(iv) : There are only three distinct paths.
(v) : There are only three different neutrosophic strengths.
(vii) : There is no same neutrosophic strengths.
(d) : Consider Figure (1.4).
(i) : An 1-path P1 : n1 , n2 has neutrosophic strength (0.74, 0.64, 0.46).
(ii) : An 1-path P2 : n1 , n3 has neutrosophic strength (0.74, 0.64, 0.46).
(iii) : An 1-path P3 : n2 , n3 has neutrosophic strength (0.74, 0.64, 0.46).
(iv) : An 2-path P4 : n1 , n2 , n3 has neutrosophic strength (0.74, 0.64, 0.46).
(v) : There are only four distinct paths.
(vi) : There are only four different neutrosophic strengths.
(vii) : There are only four same neutrosophic strengths.
(e) : Consider Figure (1.5).
(i) : An 1-path P1 : n1 , n2 has neutrosophic strength (0.74, 0.64, 0.46).
(ii) : An 1-path P2 : n1 , n3 has neutrosophic strength (0.74, 0.64, 0.46).
(iii) : An 1-path P3 : n2 , n3 has neutrosophic strength (0.74, 0.64, 0.46).
(iv) : An 2-path P4 : n1 , n2 , n3 has neutrosophic strength (0.74, 0.64, 0.46).

11
 1. Definitions

(v) : There are only four distinct paths.

(vi) : There are only four different neutrosophic strengths.
(vii) : There are only four same neutrosophic strengths.

(f ) : Consider Figure (1.6).

(i) : An 1-path P1 : n1 , n2 has neutrosophic strength (0.74, 0.64, 0.46).

(ii) : There is only one different neutrosophic strengths.
(iii) : There is no same neutrosophic strengths.

(g) : Consider Figure (1.7).

(i) : An 1-path P1 : n1 , n2 has neutrosophic strength (0.74, 0.64, 0.46).

(ii) : There is only one different neutrosophic strengths.
(iii) : There is no same neutrosophic strengths.

prp55 Proposition 1.0.55. Let N = (σ, µ) be a neutrosophic cycle. Then the number
of distinct neutrosophic path is 2n − n − 1.

Proof. The number of subsets of number n is 2n . The vertex of 1-set couldn’t

be considered as path. The number of 1-set is n. Thus it remains 2n − n. Also,
the vertex of 0-set couldn’t be considered as path. The number of 0-set is 1.
Thus it finally remains 2n − n − 1. 

Corollary 1.0.56. Let N = (σ, µ) be a neutrosophic cycle. Then the number of

distinct neutrosophic path is 2n − n − 1.

Proof. neutrosophic path implies having distinct vertices in a consecutive

sequence of vertices. Thus neutrosophic cycle is as same case as neutrosophic
path. So by applying Proposition (1.0.55), the result is straightforward. In
other way, there’s direct proof as follows. The number of subsets of number n
is 2n . The vertex of 1-set couldn’t be considered as path. The number of 1-set
is n. Thus it remains 2n − n. Also, the vertex of 0-set couldn’t be considered as
path. The number of 0-set is 1. Thus it finally remains 2n − n − 1. 

Definition 1.0.57. Let C = (V, E) be a crisp graph which isn’t crisp path. For
any given couple of vertices v0 and vn ,

(i) : max{P is a path from v0 to vn } Sc (P ) is denoted by C(v0 , vn ) and it’s called

t-connectedness amid v0 and vn in C.

(ii) : max{P is a path from v0 to vn }\{P :v0 vn } Sc (P ) is denoted by Cα (v0 , vn ) it’s

called α−connectedness v0 and vn in C where v0 vn is an edge, if
Cα (v0 , vn ) > µ(v0 vn ).

(iii) : max{P is a path from v0 to vn }\{P :v0 vn } Sc (P ) is denoted by Cα (v0 , vn ) it’s

called β−connectedness v0 and vn in C where v0 vn is an edge, if
Cα (v0 , vn ) = µ(v0 vn ).

(iv) : max{P is a path from v0 to vn }\{P :v0 vn } Sc (P ) is denoted by Cα (v0 , vn ) it’s

called δ−connectedness v0 and vn in C where v0 vn is an edge, if
Cα (v0 , vn ) < µ(v0 vn ).

12
Definition 1.0.58. Let C = (V, E) be a crisp graph which isn’t crisp path. For
any given couple of vertices v0 and vn ,

(i) : max{P is a path from v0 to vn } Sc (P ) = c ∈ Q is denoted by Ct and it’s called

t-crisp.

(ii) : max{P is a path from v0 to vn }\{P :v0 vn } Sc (P ) > µ(v0 vn ) is denoted by Cα

it’s called α−crisp where v0 vn is an edge.

(iii) : max{P is a path from v0 to vn }\{P :v0 vn } Sc (P ) = µ(v0 vn ) is denoted by Cβ

it’s called β−crisp where v0 vn is an edge.

(iv) : max{P is a path from v0 to vn }\{P :v0 vn } Sc (P ) < µ(v0 vn ) is denoted by Cδ

it’s called δ−crisp where v0 vn is an edge.

Definition 1.0.59. Let F = (σ, µ) be a fuzzy graph which isn’t fuzzy path. For
any given couple of vertices v0 and vn ,

(i) : max{P is a path from v0 to vn } Sf (P ) is denoted by F(v0 , vn ) and it’s called

t-connectedness amid v0 and vn in F.

(ii) : max{P is a path from v0 to vn }\{P :v0 vn } Sf (P ) is denoted by Fα (v0 , vn ) it’s

called α−connectedness v0 and vn in F where v0 vn is an edge, if
Fα (v0 , vn ) > µ(v0 vn ).

(iii) : max{P is a path from v0 to vn }\{P :v0 vn } Sf (P ) is denoted by Fα (v0 , vn ) it’s

called β−connectedness v0 and vn in F where v0 vn is an edge, if
Fα (v0 , vn ) = µ(v0 vn ).

(iv) : max{P is a path from v0 to vn }\{P :v0 vn } Sf (P ) is denoted by Fα (v0 , vn ) it’s

called δ−connectedness v0 and vn in F where v0 vn is an edge, if
Fα (v0 , vn ) < µ(v0 vn ).

Definition 1.0.60. Let F = (σ, µ) be a fuzzy graph which isn’t fuzzy path. For
any given couple of vertices v0 and vn ,

(i) : max{P is a path from v0 to vn } Sf (P ) = c ∈ Q is denoted by Ft and it’s

called t-fuzzy.

(ii) : max{P is a path from v0 to vn }\{P :v0 vn } Sf (P ) > µ(v0 vn ) is denoted by Fα

it’s called α−fuzzy where v0 vn is an edge.

(iii) : max{P is a path from v0 to vn }\{P :v0 vn } Sf (P ) = µ(v0 vn ) is denoted by Fβ

it’s called β−fuzzy where v0 vn is an edge.

(iv) : max{P is a path from v0 to vn }\{P :v0 vn } Sf (P ) < µ(v0 vn ) is denoted by Fδ

it’s called δ−fuzzy where v0 vn is an edge.

Definition 1.0.61. Let N = (σ, µ) be a neutrosophic graph which isn’t

neutrosophic path. For any given couple of vertices v0 and vn ,

(i) : max{P is a path from v0 to vn } Sn (P ) is denoted by N (v0 , vn ) and it’s called

t-connectedness amid v0 and vn in N.

13
1. Definitions

(ii) : max{P is a path from v0 to vn }\{P :v0 vn } Sn (P ) is denoted by Nα (v0 , vn ) it’s

called α−connectedness v0 and vn in N where v0 vn is an edge, if
Nα (v0 , vn ) > µ(v0 vn ).
(iii) : max{P is a path from v0 to vn }\{P :v0 vn } Sn (P ) is denoted by Nα (v0 , vn ) it’s
called β−connectedness v0 and vn in N where v0 vn is an edge, if
Nα (v0 , vn ) = µ(v0 vn ).
(iv) : max{P is a path from v0 to vn }\{P :v0 vn } Sn (P ) is denoted by Nα (v0 , vn ) it’s
called δ−connectedness v0 and vn in N where v0 vn is an edge, if
Nα (v0 , vn ) < µ(v0 vn ).
Definition 1.0.62. Let N = (σ, µ) be a neutrosophic graph which isn’t
neutrosophic path. For any given couple of vertices v0 and vn ,
(i) : max{P is a path from v0 to vn } Sn (P ) = c ∈ Q. Then N = (σ, µ) is denoted
by Nt and it’s called t-neutrosophic.
(ii) : max{P is a path from v0 to vn }\{P :v0 vn } Sn (P ) > µ(v0 vn ). Then N = (σ, µ)
is denoted by Nα it’s called α−neutrosophic where v0 vn is an edge.
(iii) : max{P is a path from v0 to vn }\{P :v0 vn } Sn (P ) = µ(v0 vn ). Then N = (σ, µ)
is denoted by Nβ it’s called β−neutrosophic where v0 vn is an edge.
(iv) : max{P is a path from v0 to vn }\{P :v0 vn } Sn (P ) < µ(v0 vn ). Then N = (σ, µ)
is denoted by Nδ it’s called δ−neutrosophic where v0 vn is an edge.
Example 1.0.63. In Figures (1.1), (1.2), (1.3), (1.4), (1.5), (1.6), (1.7),
neutrosophic graphs and all possible edges are characterized.
(a) : Consider Figure (1.1).
(i) : The edge n1 n2 is α−connectedness and Nα (v0 , vn ) =
(0.74, 0.47, 0.31).
(ii) : The edge n1 n3 is α−connectedness and Nα (v0 , vn ) =
(0.55, 0.64, 0.26).
(iii) : The edge n2 n3 is neither of t−connectedness α−connectedness
β−connectedness and δ−connectedness. Since for path P :
n2 , n1 , n3 , Sn (P ) isn’t computable. So
max Sn (P )
{P is a path from v2 to v3 }\{P :v2 v3 }

isn’t computable.
(iv) : N = (σ, µ) is neither of t−neutrosophic, Nt , α−neutrosophic, Nα ,
β−neutrosophic, Nβ , and δ−connectedness, Nδ .
(b) : Consider Figure (1.2).
(i) : The edge n1 n2 is neither of t−connectedness, α−connectedness,
β−connectedness and δ−connectedness. Since for path P :
n1 , n2 , n2 , Sn (P ) isn’t computable. So
max Sn (P )
{P is a path from v1 to v2 }\{P :v1 v2 }

isn’t computable.

14
 (ii) : The edge n1 n3 is neither of t−connectedness, α−connectedness,
β−connectedness and δ−connectedness. Since for path P :
n1 , n2 , n3 , Sn (P ) isn’t computable. So

max Sn (P )
{P is a path from v1 to v3 }\{P :v1 v3 }

isn’t computable.
(iii) : The edge n2 n3 is neither of t−connectedness, α−connectedness,
β−connectedness and δ−connectedness. Since for path P :
n2 , n1 , n3 , Sn (P ) isn’t computable. So

max Sn (P )
{P is a path from v2 to v3 }\{P :v2 v3 }

isn’t computable.
(iv) : N = (σ, µ) is neither of t−neutrosophic, Nt , α−neutrosophic,
Nα , β−neutrosophic, Nβ and δ−connectedness, Nδ .
(c) : Consider Figure (1.3).
(i) : It’s neutrosophic path. Thus the notion couldn’t be applied.
(d) : Consider Figure (1.4).
(i) : The edge n1 n2 is t−connectedness and α−connectedness and
Nα (v1 , v2 ) = (0.74, 0.64, 0.46).
(ii) : The edge n1 n3 is t−connectedness and α−connectedness and
Nα (v1 , v3 ) = (0.74, 0.64, 0.46).
(iii) : The edge n1 n3 is t−connectedness and α−connectedness and
Nα (v1 , v3 ) = (0.74, 0.64, 0.46).
(iv) : N = (σ, µ) is neither of α−neutrosophic, Nα , and δ−connectedness,
Nδ .
(v) : N = (σ, µ) is both t−neutrosophic, Nt , and β−neutrosophic, Nβ .
(e) : Consider Figure (1.5).
(i) : The edge n1 n2 is t−connectedness and α−connectedness and
Nα (v1 , v2 ) = (0.74, 0.64, 0.46).
(ii) : The edge n1 n3 is t−connectedness and α−connectedness and
Nα (v1 , v3 ) = (0.74, 0.64, 0.46).
(iii) : The edge n1 n3 is t−connectedness and α−connectedness and
Nα (v1 , v3 ) = (0.74, 0.64, 0.46).
(iv) : N = (σ, µ) is neither of α−neutrosophic, Nα , and δ−connectedness,
Nδ .
(v) : N = (σ, µ) is both t−neutrosophic, Nt , and β−neutrosophic, Nβ .
(f ) : Consider Figure (1.6).
(i) : It’s neutrosophic path. Thus the notion couldn’t be applied.
(g) : Consider Figure (1.7).

15
1. Definitions

(i) : It’s neutrosophic path. Thus the notion couldn’t be applied.

Proposition 1.0.64. Let N = (σ, µ) be a neutrosophic complete. Then it’s

β−neutrosophic.

Proof. Suppose xy is a given neutrosophic edge. For any given neut-

rosophic path P : x = v0 , v1 , · · · , vn = y, neutrosophic strength
is min{σ(x), σ(v1 ), · · · , σ(y)} ≤ min{σ(x), σ(y)}. It implies Sn (P ) ≤
min{σ(x), σ(y)}. In other hand, by xy is an edge, P 0 : x, y is a path thus
Sn (P ) ≥ min{σ(x), σ(y)}. Thus Sn (P ) = min{σ(x), σ(y)}. It means every edge
is β−neutrosophic. It induces N = (σ, µ) is β−neutrosophic. So N = (σ, µ) is
Nβ . 

Proposition 1.0.65. Let N = (σ, µ) be a neutrosophic graph such that for every
neutrosophic edges xy and uv, µ(xy) = µ(uv). Then it’s β−neutrosophic.

Proof. Suppose xy is a given neutrosophic edge. Consider µ(xy) = c, c ∈ Q. For

any given neutrosophic path P : x = v0 , v1 , · · · , vn = y, neutrosophic strength
is min{µ(xv1 ), µ(v1 v2 ), · · · , µ(vn−1 y)} = min{c, c, · · · , c}. It implies Sn (P ) ≤ c.
In other hand, by xy is an edge, P 0 : x, y is a path thus Sn (P ) ≥ µ(xy) = c. Thus
Sn (P ) = c. It means every edge is β−neutrosophic. It induces N = (σ, µ) is
β−neutrosophic. So N = (σ, µ) is Nβ . 

Proposition 1.0.66. Let N = (σ, µ) be a neutrosophic graph. Then it’s neither

α−neutrosophic nor δ−neutrosophic.

Proof. If all edges have same values, then every given edge isn’t neither
α−neutrosophic nor δ−neutrosophic. Otherwise, if there’s an edge which
has different value, then there’s one edge which has minimum value so it isn’t
neither α−neutrosophic nor δ−neutrosophic. 

Definition 1.0.67. Let N = (σ, µ) be a neutrosophic graph. Coloring number

is minimum number of distinct colors which are used to color the vertices which
are neighbors.
Example 1.0.68. In Figures (1.1), (1.2), (1.3), (1.4), (1.5), (1.6), (1.7),
neutrosophic graphs and all possible edges are characterized.

(a) : Consider Figure (1.1). Coloring number is three.

(b) : Consider Figure (1.2). Coloring number is three.

(c) : Consider Figure (1.3). Coloring number is two.

(d) : Consider Figure (1.4). Coloring number is three.

(e) : Consider Figure (1.5). Coloring number is three.

(f ) : Consider Figure (1.6). Coloring number is two.

(g) : Consider Figure (1.7). Coloring number is two.

Proposition 1.0.69. In complete neutrosophic, coloring number is n.

Proof. Every vertex has n − 1 neighbors. Thus the number of colors are n. 

16
Proposition 1.0.70. In path neutrosophic, coloring number is 2.

Proof. Every vertex has two different neighbors. Thus coloring number is 2. 

Proposition 1.0.71. In even cycle neutrosophic, coloring number is 2.

Proof. Every vertex has two different neighbors. Thus coloring number is 2. 

Proposition 1.0.72. In odd cycle neutrosophic, coloring number is 3.

Proof. Every vertex has two different neighbors but one vertex has two neighbors
which have different colors. Thus coloring number is 3. 

Definition 1.0.73. A fuzzy(neutrosophic) graph is called fuzzy(neutrosophic)

t-partite if V is partitioned to t parts, V1 , V2 , · · · , Vt and the edge xy implies
x ∈ Vi and y ∈ Vj where i 6= j. If it’s fuzzy(neutrosophic) complete, then
it’s denoted by Kσ1 ,σ2 ,··· ,σt where σi is σ on Vi instead V which mean x 6∈ Vi
induces σi (x) = 0. If t = 2, then it’s called fuzzy(neutrosophic) complete
bipartite and it’s denoted by Kσ1 ,σ2 especially, if |V1 | = 1, then it’s called
fuzzy(neutrosophic) star and it’s denoted by S1,σ2 . In this case, the vertex
in V1 is called center and if a vertex joins to all vertices of fuzzy(neutrosophic),
it’s called fuzzy(neutrosophic) wheel and it’s denoted by W1,σ2 .

Table 1.2: Crisp-fying, Fuzzy-fying and Neutrosophic-fying tbl2

Crisp Graphs Fuzzy Graphs Neutrosophic Graphs

Crisp Complete Fuzzy Complete Neutrosophic Complete
Crisp Strong Fuzzy Strong Neutrosophic Strong
Crisp Path Fuzzy Path Neutrosophic Path
Crisp Cycle Fuzzy Cycle Neutrosophic Cycle
Crisp t-partite Fuzzy t-partite Neutrosophic t-partite
Crisp Bipartite Fuzzy Bipartite Neutrosophic Bipartite
Crisp Star Fuzzy Star Neutrosophic Star
Crisp Wheel Fuzzy Wheel Neutrosophic Wheel

Example 1.0.74. In Figures (1.1), (1.2), (1.3), (1.4), (1.5), (1.6), (1.7),
neutrosophic graphs and all possible edges are characterized.

(a) : Consider Figure (1.1).

(i) : Neutrosophic graph is neutrosophic wheel.

(b) : Consider Figure (1.2).

(i) : Neutrosophic graph is neutrosophic wheel.

(c) : Consider Figure (1.3).

(i) : Neutrosophic graph is neutrosophic star.

(ii) : Neutrosophic graph is neutrosophic bipartite.
(iii) : Neutrosophic graph is neutrosophic t-partite.

17
1. Definitions

(iv) : Neutrosophic graph is neutrosophic complete.

(d) : Consider Figure (1.4).
(i) : Neutrosophic graph is neutrosophic wheel.
(e) : Consider Figure (1.5).
(i) : Neutrosophic graph is neutrosophic wheel.
(f ) : Consider Figure (1.6).
(i) : Neutrosophic graph is neutrosophic wheel.
(ii) : Neutrosophic graph is neutrosophic star.
(iii) : Neutrosophic graph is neutrosophic bipartite.
(iv) : Neutrosophic graph is neutrosophic t-partite.
(v) : Neutrosophic graph is neutrosophic complete.
(g) : Consider Figure (1.7).
(i) : Neutrosophic graph is neutrosophic wheel.
(ii) : Neutrosophic graph is neutrosophic star.
(iii) : Neutrosophic graph is neutrosophic bipartite.
(iv) : Neutrosophic graph is neutrosophic t-partite.
(v) : Neutrosophic graph is neutrosophic complete.
Proposition 1.0.75. In star neutrosophic, coloring number is 2.

Proof. The center has n − 1 different neighbors and its neighbors have no
neighbor instead of center. So the neighbors have same color and center has
different color. Thus coloring number is 2. 

Proposition 1.0.76. In wheel neutrosophic, coloring number is 4.

Proof. The center has n − 1 different neighbors and its neighbors have two
neighbors which are distinct from center. So the neighbors have same color and
center has different color. Thus coloring number is 4. 

Proposition 1.0.77. In bipartite neutrosophic such that it’s neutrosophic

complete, coloring number is 2.

Proof. There are two parts and in every part, there’s no neighbor. Thus coloring
number is 2. 

Proposition 1.0.78. In t-partite neutrosophic such that it’s neutrosophic

complete, coloring number is t.

Proof. There are t parts and in every part, there’s no neighbor. Thus coloring
number is t. 

Definition 1.0.79. Let N = (σ, µ) be a neutrosophic graph. Dominating

number is minimum number of vertices which has at least one edge with the
vertices out of this set.

18
Example 1.0.80. In Figures (1.1), (1.2), (1.3), (1.4), (1.5), (1.6), (1.7),
neutrosophic graphs and all possible edges are characterized.

(a) : Consider Figure (1.1). Dominating number is one.

(b) : Consider Figure (1.2). Dominating number is one.

(c) : Consider Figure (1.3). Dominating number is one.

(d) : Consider Figure (1.4). Dominating number is one.

(e) : Consider Figure (1.5). Dominating number is one.

(f ) : Consider Figure (1.6). Dominating number is one.

(g) : Consider Figure (1.7). Dominating number is one.

Proposition 1.0.81. In complete neutrosophic, dominating number is 1.

Proof. Every vertex has n − 1 neighbors. Thus dominating number of is 1. 

Proposition 1.0.82. In path neutrosophic, dominating number is b n3 c.

Proof. Every vertex has two different neighbors. One vertex has edge with its
neighbors and the next vertex is the vertex has two vertices amid itself and the
last vertex in the set. Since the minimum number is on demand, one vertex
dominates its neighbors and every of these neighbors has one neighbor which is
dominated by the vertex which is coming up after it. Thus dominating number
is b n3 c. 

Proposition 1.0.83. In cycle neutrosophic, dominating number is b n3 c.

Proof. Every vertex has two different neighbors. One vertex has edge with its
neighbors and the next vertex is the vertex has two vertices amid itself and the
last vertex in the set. Since the minimum number is on demand, one vertex
dominates its neighbors and every of these neighbors has one neighbor which is
dominated by the vertex which is coming up after it. Thus dominating number
is b n3 c. 

Proposition 1.0.84. In star neutrosophic, dominating number is 1.

Proof. The center has n − 1 different neighbors and its neighbors have no
neighbor instead of center. So the neighbors are only dominated by center as
singleton. Since the minimum number is on demand, center is 1-set which is on
demand. Thus dominating number is 1. 

Proposition 1.0.85. In wheel neutrosophic, dominating number is 1.

Proof. The center has n − 1 different neighbors and its neighbors but neighbors
have two neighbors instead of center. So the neighbors are only dominated by
center as singleton. Since the minimum number is on demand, center is 1-set
which is on demand. Thus dominating number is 1. 

Proposition 1.0.86. In bipartite neutrosophic such that it’s neutrosophic

complete, dominating number is 2.

19
1. Definitions

Proof. There are two parts and in every part, there’s no neighbor. Every vertex
from one part, dominates all vertex from different part. Thus dominating
number is 2. 

Proposition 1.0.87. In t-partite neutrosophic such that it’s neutrosophic

complete, dominating number is 2.

Proof. There are t parts and in every part, there’s no neighbor. Every vertex
from one part, dominates all vertices from different parts. Since minimum
number is on demand, one vertex x, dominates all vertices from other parts and
one vertex y, from different part, dominates all vertices which have common
part with first vertex x. Thus dominating number is 2. 

20
 CHAPTER 2

New Ideas

New ideas are

applied on these The reference [Ref6] is used to write the contents of this chapter and next
models to
explore
chapter.
behaviors of
these models in
the mathematical
perspective.
Another ways to
make sense about
Abstract
them, are used
by relatively New notion of dimension as set, as two optimal numbers including metric
comparable
results to
number, dimension number and as optimal set are introduced in individual
conclude framework and in formation of family. Behaviors of twin and antipodal are
analysis. 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.
Keywords: Fuzzy Graphs, Neutrosophic Graphs, Dimension

AMS Subject Classification: 05C17, 05C22, 05E45

21
2. New Ideas

2.1 Background
Fuzzy set, neutrosophic set, related definitions of other sets, graphs and new
notions on them, neutrosophic graphs, studies on neutrosophic graphs, relevant
definitions of other graphs based on fuzzy graphs, related definitions of other
graphs based on neutrosophic graphs, are proposed.
In this section, I use two subsections to illustrate a perspective about the
background of this study.

Motivation and Contributions

In this study, there’s an idea which could be considered as a motivation.
Question 2.1.1. Is it possible to use mixed versions of ideas concerning
“crisp”, “fuzzy” and “neutrosophic” to define some notions which are applied to
fuzzy(neutrosophic) graphs?
It’s motivation to find notions to use in any classes of fuzzy(neutrosophic)
graphs. Real-world applications about locating the item, are another thoughts
which lead to be considered as motivation. Distance and path amid two items
have key roles to locate. Thus they’re used to define new ideas which conclude
to the structure of metric dimension. The concept of connectedness inspire
to study the behavior of path and distance in the way that, both individual
fuzzy(neutrosophic) graphs and family of them are the cases of study.
The framework of this study is as follows. In section (2.2), I introduce main
definitions alongside some examples to clarify about them. In section (2.3), one
idea titled fuzzy(neutrosophic) twin about specific fuzzy(neutrosophic) vertices,
is used to form the results for fuzzy(neutrosophic) graphs and family of them
but in this section, there’re some results concerning largest metric number
since fuzzy(neutrosophic) twin forms largest metric number as possible. In
section (2.4), one idea titled antipodal vertices about specific crisp vertices, is
used to form the results for fuzzy(neutrosophic) graphs and family of them
especially fuzzy(neutrosophic) cycles as two subsections. Fuzzy(neutrosophic)
cycles form smallest metric number but In section (2.5), the results are extended
and they’re inclusive and especific for fuzzy(neutrosophic) graphs and family
of them in the way that, the classification is done in the terms of smallest
metric number and largest metric number. In section (3.1), two applications
are posed for fuzzy(neutrosophic) graphs and family of them. In section (3.2),
some problems and questions for further studies are proposed. In section (3.3),
gentle discussion about results and applications are featured. In section (3.3),
a brief overview concerning advantages and limitations of this study alongside
conclusions are formed.

Preliminaries
To clarify about the models, I use some definitions and results, and in this way,
results have a key role to make sense about the definitions and to introduce
new ways to use on these models in the terms of new notions. For instance,
the concept of complete is used to specialize a graph in every environment. To
differentiate, I use an adjective or prefix in every definition. Two adjectives
“fuzzy” and “neutrosophic” are used to distinguish every graph or classes of

22
 2.1. Background

graph or any notion on them.

G : (V, E) is called a crisp graph where V is a set of objects and E is a
subset of V × V such that this subset is symmetric. A crisp graph G : (V, E) is
called a fuzzy graph G : (σ, µ) where σ : V → [0, 1] and µ : E → [0, 1] such
that µ(xy) ≤ σ(x) ∧ σ(y) for all xy ∈ E. A crisp graph G : (V, E) is called
a neutrosophic graph G : (σ, µ) where σ = (σ1 , σ2 , σ3 ) : V → [0, 1] and
µ = (µ1 , µ2 , µ3 ) : E → [0, 1] such that µ(xy) ≤ σ(x)∧σ(y) for all xy ∈ E. A crisp
graph G : (V, E) is called a crisp complete where ∀x ∈ V, ∀y ∈ V, xy ∈ E.
A fuzzy graph G : (σ, µ) is called fuzzy complete where it’s complete and
µ(xy) = σ(x) ∧ σ(y) for all xy ∈ E. A neutrosophic graph G : (σ, µ) is called
a neutrosophic complete where it’s complete and µ(xy) = σ(x) ∧ σ(y) for
all xy ∈ E. An N which is a set of vertices, is called fuzzy(neutrosophic)
cardinality and it’s denoted by |N | such that |N | = Σn∈N σ(n). A crisp graph
G : (V, E) is called a crisp strong. A fuzzy graph G : (σ, µ) is called fuzzy
strong where µ(xy) = σ(x)∧σ(y) for all xy ∈ E. A neutrosophic graph G : (σ, µ)
is called a neutrosophic strong where µ(xy) = σ(x) ∧ σ(y) for all xy ∈ E. A
distinct sequence of vertices v0 , v1 , · · · , vn in a crisp graph G : (V, E) is called
crisp path with length n from v0 to vn where vi vi+1 ∈ E, i = 0, 1, · · · , n − 1. If
one edge is incident to a vertex, the vertex is called leaf. A path v0 , v1 , · · · , vn is
called fuzzy path where µ(vi vi+1 ) > 0, i = 0, 1, · · · , n−1. A path v0 , v1 , · · · , vn
is called neutrosophic path where µ(vi vi+1 ) > 0, i = 0, 1, · · · , n − 1. Let
P : v0 , v1 , · · · , vn be fuzzy(neutrosophic) path from v0 to vn such that it
has minimum number of vertices as possible, then d(v0 , vn ) is defined as
Σni=0 µ(vi−1 vi ). A path v0 , v1 , · · · , vn with exception of v0 and vn in a crisp
graph G : (V, E) is called crisp cycle with length n for v0 where v0 = vn .
A cycle v0 , v1 , · · · , v0 is called fuzzy cycle where there are two edges xy and
uv such that µ(xy) = µ(uv) = i=0,1,··· ,n−1 µ(vi vi+1 ). A cycle v0 , v1 , · · · , v0 is
V
called neutrosophic V cycle where there are two edges xy and uv such that
µ(xy) = µ(uv) = i=0,1,··· ,n−1 µ(vi vi+1 ). A fuzzy(neutrosophic) cycle is called
odd if the number of its vertices is odd. Similarly, a fuzzy(neutrosophic) cycle
is called even if the number of its vertices is even. A fuzzy(neutrosophic)
graph is called fuzzy(neutrosophic) t-partite if V is partitioned to t parts,
V1 , V2 , · · · , Vt and the edge xy implies x ∈ Vi and y ∈ Vj where i 6= j. If it’s
fuzzy(neutrosophic) complete, then it’s denoted by Kσ1 ,σ2 ,··· ,σt where σi is σ
on Vi instead V which mean x 6∈ Vi induces σi (x) = 0. If t = 2, then it’s
called fuzzy(neutrosophic) complete bipartite and it’s denoted by Kσ1 ,σ2
especially, if |V1 | = 1, then it’s called fuzzy(neutrosophic) star and it’s
denoted by S1,σ2 . In this case, the vertex in V1 is called center and if a vertex
joins to all vertices of fuzzy(neutrosophic), it’s called fuzzy(neutrosophic)
wheel and it’s denoted by W1,σ2 . A set is n-set if its cardinality is n. A
fuzzy vertex set is the subset of vertex set of (neutrosophic) fuzzy graph
such that the values of these vertices are considered. A fuzzy edge set is
the subset of edge set of (neutrosophic) fuzzy graph such that the values of
these edges are considered. Let G be a family of fuzzy graphs or neutrosophic
graphs. This family have fuzzy(neutrosophic) common vertex set if all
graphs have same vertex set and its values but edges set is subset of fuzzy edge
set. A (neutrosophic) fuzzy graph is called fixed-edge fuzzy(neutrosophic)
graph if all edges have same values. A (neutrosophic) fuzzy graph is called
fixed-vertex fuzzy(neutrosophic) graph if all vertices have same values. A
couple of vertices x and y is called crisp twin vertices if either N (x) = N (y)

23
 2. New Ideas

Table 2.1: Crisp-fying, Fuzzy-fying and Neutrosophic-fying T1

Crisp Graphs Fuzzy Graphs Neutrosophic Graphs

Crisp Complete Fuzzy Complete Neutrosophic Complete
Crisp Strong Fuzzy Strong Neutrosophic Strong
Crisp Path Fuzzy Path Neutrosophic Path
Crisp Cycle Fuzzy Cycle Neutrosophic Cycle
Crisp t-partite Fuzzy t-partite Neutrosophic t-partite
Crisp Bipartite Fuzzy Bipartite Neutrosophic Bipartite
Crisp Star Fuzzy Star Neutrosophic Star
Crisp Wheel Fuzzy Wheel Neutrosophic Wheel

or N [x] = N [y] where ∀x ∈ V, N (x) = {y| xy ∈ E}, N [x] = N (x) ∪ {x}. Two
vertices t and t0 are called fuzzy(neutrosophic) twin vertices if N (t) = N (t0 )
and µ(ts) = µ(t0 s), for all s ∈ N (t) = N (t0 ). maxx,y∈V (G) |E(P (x, y))| is called

Table 2.2: Crisp-fying, Fuzzy-fying and Neutrosophic-fying T1

Crisp Vertex Set Fuzzy Vertex Set Neutrosophic Vertex Set

Crisp Edge Set Fuzzy Edge Set Neutrosophic Edge Set
Crisp Common Fuzzy Common Neutrosophic Common
Crisp Fixed-edge Fuzzy Fixed-edge Neutrosophic Fixed-edge
Crisp Fixed-vertex Fuzzy Fixed-vertex Neutrosophic Fixed-vertex
Crisp Twin Fuzzy Twin Neutrosophic Twin

diameter of G and it’s denoted by D(G) where |E(P (x, y))| is the number of
edges on the path from x to y. For any given vertex x if there’s exactly one
vertex y such that minP (x,y) |E(P (x, y))| = D(G), then a couple of vertices x
and y are called antipodal vertices.

2.2 Definitions
sec2
I use the notion of vertex in fuzzy(neutrosophic) graphs to define new notions
which state the relation amid vertices. In this way, the set of vertices are
distinguished by another set of vertices.
Definition 2.2.1. Let G = (V, σ, µ) be a fuzzy(neutrosophic) graph. A vertex m
fuzzy(neutrosophic)-resolves vertices f1 and f2 if d(m, f1 ) 6= d(m, f2 ). A set M
is fuzzy(neutrosophic)-resolving set if for every couple of vertices f1 , f2 ∈ V \ M,
there’s a vertex m ∈ M such that m fuzzy(neutrosophic)-resolves f1 and f2 .
|M | is called fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric number of G and
min Σs∈S σ(s) = Σm∈M σ(m)
S is fuzzy(neutrosophic)-resolving set

is called fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric dimension of G and if

min Σs∈S σ(s) = Σm∈M σ(m)
S is fuzzy(neutrosophic)-resolving set

where M is fuzzy(neutrosophic)-resolving set, then M is called

fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric set of G.

24
 2.2. Definitions

Example 2.2.2. Let G be a fuzzy(neutrosophic) graph as figure (2.1). By

applying Table (2.3), the 1-set is explored which its cardinality is minimum.
{f6 } and {f4 } are 1-set which has minimum cardinality amid all sets of vertices
but {f4 } isn’t fuzzy(neutrosophic)-resolving set and {f6 } is fuzzy(neutrosophic)-
resolving set. Thus there’s no fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric set but {f6 }. f6
fuzzy(neutrosophic)-resolves all given couple of vertices. Therefore one is
fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric number of G and 0.13 is fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric
dimension of G. By using Table (2.3), f4 doesn’t fuzzy(neutrosophic)-resolve f2
and f6 . f4 doesn’t fuzzy(neutrosophic)-resolve f1 and f5 , too.

Figure 2.1: Black vertex {f6 } is only fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric set amid all
sets of vertices for fuzzy(neutrosophic) graph G. F1

Table 2.3: Distances of Vertices from sets of vertices {f6 } and {f4 } in
fuzzy(neutrosophic) Graph G. T1

Vertices f1 f2 f3 f4 f5 f6
f6 0.22 0.26 0.39 0.24 0.13 0
Vertices f1 f2 f3 f4 f5 f6
f4 0.11 0.24 0.37 0 0.11 0.24

Definition 2.2.3. Consider G as a family of fuzzy(neutrosophic) graphs on

a fuzzy(neutrosophic) common vertex set V. A vertex m simultaneously
fuzzy(neutrosophic)-resolves vertices f1 and f2 if dG (m, f1 ) 6= dG (m, f2 ), for all
G ∈ G. A set M is simultaneously fuzzy(neutrosophic)-resolving set if for every
couple of vertices f1 , f2 ∈ V \ M, there’s a vertex m ∈ M such that m resolves
f1 and f2 , for all G ∈ G. |M | is called simultaneously fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric
number of G and

min Σs∈S σ(s) = Σm∈M σ(m)

S is fuzzy(neutrosophic)-resolving set

is called simultaneously fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric dimension of G and if

min Σs∈S σ(s) = Σm∈M σ(m)

S is fuzzy(neutrosophic)-resolving set

25
 2. New Ideas

where M is fuzzy(neutrosophic)-resolving set, then M is called simultaneously

fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric set of G.
Example 2.2.4. Let G = {G1 , G2 , G3 } be a collection of fuzzy(neutrosophic)
graphs with common fuzzy(neutrosophic) vertex set and a subset of
fuzzy(neutrosophic) edge set as figure (2.2). By applying Table (2.4), the 1-set
is explored which its cardinality is minimum. {f2 } and {f4 } are 1-set which has
minimum cardinality amid all sets of vertices. {f4 } is as fuzzy(neutrosophic)-
resolving set as {f6 } is. Thus there’s no fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric set but
{f4 } and {f6 }. f6 as fuzzy(neutrosophic)-resolves all given couple of ver-
tices as f4 . Therefore one is fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric number of G and
0.13 is fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric dimension of G. By using Table (2.4), f4
fuzzy(neutrosophic)-resolves all given couple of vertices.

Figure 2.2: Black vertex {f4 } and the set of vertices {f2 } are simultan-
eously fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric set amid all sets of vertices for family of
fuzzy(neutrosophic) graphs G. F2

Table 2.4: Distances of Vertices from set of vertices {f6 } in Family of

fuzzy(neutrosophic) Graphs G. T2

Vertices of G1 f1 f2 f3 f4
f4 0.37 0.26 0.13 0
Vertices of G2 f1 f2 f3 f4
f4 0.11 0.22 0.13 0
Vertices of G3 f1 f2 f3 f4
f4 0.24 0.26 0.13 0

2.3 Fuzzy(Neutrosophic) Twin Vertices

sec4
prp2 Proposition 2.3.1. Let G be a fuzzy(neutrosophic) graph. An (k − 1)-set from
an k-set of fuzzy(neutrosophic) twin vertices is subset of a fuzzy(neutrosophic)-
resolving set.
Proof. If t and t0 are fuzzy(neutrosophic) twin vertices, then N (t) = N (t0 ) and
µ(ts) = µ(t0 s), for all s ∈ N (t) = N (t0 ). 
cor2 Corollary 2.3.2. Let G be a fuzzy(neutrosophic) graph. The number of
fuzzy(neutrosophic) twin vertices is n − 1. Then fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric
number is n − 2.

26
 2.3. Fuzzy(Neutrosophic) Twin Vertices

Proof. Let f and f 0 be two vertices. By supposition, the cardinality of set of

fuzzy(neutrosophic) twin vertices is n − 2. Thus there are two cases. If both
are fuzzy(neutrosophic) twin vertices, then N (f ) = N (f 0 ) and µ(f s) = µ(f 0 s0 ),
∀s ∈ N (f ), ∀s0 ∈ N (f 0 ). It implies d(f, t) = d(f, t) for all t ∈ V. Thus suppose
if not, then let f be a vertex which isn’t fuzzy(neutrosophic) twin vertices
with any given vertex and let f 0 be a vertex which is fuzzy(neutrosophic) twin
vertices with any given vertex but not f. By supposition, it’s possible and this
is only case. Therefore, any given distinct vertex fuzzy(neutrosophic)-resolves
f and f 0 . Then V \ {f, f 0 } is fuzzy(neutrosophic)-resolving set. It implies
fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric number is n − 2. 

Corollary 2.3.3. Let G be a fuzzy(neutrosophic) graph. The number of

fuzzy(neutrosophic) twin vertices is n. Then G is fixed-edge fuzzy(neutrosophic)
graph.

Proof. Suppose f and f 0 are two given edges. By supposition, every couple
of vertices are fuzzy(neutrosophic) twin vertices. It implies µ(f ) = µ(f 0 ). f
and f 0 are arbitrary so every couple of edges have same values. It induces G is
fixed-edge fuzzy(neutrosophic) graph. 

cor1 Corollary 2.3.4. Let G be a fixed-vertex fuzzy(neutrosophic) graph. The number

of fuzzy(neutrosophic) twin vertices is n − 1. Then fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric
number is n − 2, fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric dimension is (n − 2)σ(m) where m
is fuzzy(neutrosophic) twin vertex with a vertex. Every (n − 2)-set including
fuzzy(neutrosophic) twin vertices is fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric set.

Proof. By Corollary (2.3.2), fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric number is n−2. By G is

a fixed-vertex fuzzy(neutrosophic) graph, fuzzy metric dimension is (n − 2)σ(m)
where m is fuzzy(neutrosophic) twin vertex with a vertex. One vertex doesn’t
belong to set of fuzzy(neutrosophic) twin vertices and a vertex from that set, are
out of fuzzy metric set. It induces every (n−2)-set including fuzzy(neutrosophic)
twin vertices is fuzzy metric set. 

Proposition 2.3.5. Let G be a fixed-vertex fuzzy(neutrosophic) graph such that

it’s fuzzy(neutrosophic) complete. Then fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric number is
n − 1, fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric dimension is (n − 1)σ(m) where m is a given
vertex. Every (n − 1)-set is fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric set.

Proof. In fuzzy(neutrosophic) complete, every couple of vertices are twin vertices.

By G is a fixed-vertex fuzzy(neutrosophic) graph and it’s fuzzy(neutrosophic)
complete, every couple of vertices are fuzzy(neutrosophic) twin vertices. Thus
by Proposition (2.3.1), the result follows. 

prp3 Proposition 2.3.6. Let G be a family of fuzzy(neutrosophic) graphs

with fuzzy(neutrosophic) common vertex set. Then simultaneously
fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric number of G is n − 1.

Proof. Consider (n − 1)-set. Thus there’s no couple of vertices to be

fuzzy(neutrosophic)-resolved. Therefore, every (n−1)-set is fuzzy(neutrosophic)-
resolving set for any given fuzzy(neutrosophic) graph. Then it holds for any
fuzzy(neutrosophic) graph. It implies it’s fuzzy(neutrosophic)-resolving set
and its cardinality is fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric number. (n − 1)-set has

27
 2. New Ideas

the cardinality n − 1. Then it holds for any fuzzy(neutrosophic) graph. It

induces it’s simultaneously fuzzy(neutrosophic)-resolving set and its cardinality
is simultaneously fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric number. 

prp4 Proposition 2.3.7. Let G be a family of fuzzy(neutrosophic) graphs

with fuzzy(neutrosophic) common vertex set. Then simultaneously
fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric number of G is greater than the maximum
fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric number of G ∈ G.

Proof. Suppose t and t0 are simultaneously fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric num-

ber of G and fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric number of G ∈ G. Thus t is
fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric number for any G ∈ G. Hence, t ≥ t0 . So simultan-
eously fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric number of G is greater than the maximum
fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric number of G ∈ G. 

prp5 Proposition 2.3.8. Let G be a family of fuzzy(neutrosophic) graphs

with fuzzy(neutrosophic) common vertex set. Then simultaneously
fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric number of G is greater than simultaneously
fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric number of H ⊆ G.

Proof. Suppose t and t0 are simultaneously fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric number

of G and H. Thus t is fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric number for any G ∈ G. It
implies t is fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric number for any G ∈ H. So t is simultan-
eously fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric number of H. By applying Definition about
being the minimum number, t ≥ t0 . So simultaneously fuzzy(neutrosophic)-
metric number of G is greater than simultaneously fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric
number of H ⊆ G. 

thm1 Theorem 2.3.9. Fuzzy(neutrosophic) twin vertices aren’t fuzzy(neutrosophic)-

resolved in any given fuzzy(neutrosophic) graph.

Proof. Let t and t0 be fuzzy(neutrosophic) twin vertices. Then N (t) = N (t0 )

and µ(ts) = µ(t0 s), for all s, s0 ∈ V such that ts, t0 s ∈ E. Thus for every given
vertex s0 ∈ V, dG (s0 , t) = dG (s, t) where G is a given fuzzy(neutrosophic) graph.
It means that t and t0 aren’t resolved in any given fuzzy(neutrosophic) graph. t
and t0 are arbitrary so fuzzy(neutrosophic) twin vertices aren’t resolved in any
given fuzzy(neutrosophic) graph. 

prp6 Proposition 2.3.10. Let G be a fixed-vertex fuzzy(neutrosophic) graph.

If G is fuzzy(neutrosophic) complete, then every couple of vertices are
fuzzy(neutrosophic) twin vertices.

Proof. Let t and t0 be couple of given vertices. By G is fuzzy(neutrosophic)

complete, N (t) = N (t0 ). By G is a fixed-vertex fuzzy(neutrosophic) graph,
µ(ts) = µ(t0 s), for all edges ts, t0 s ∈ E. Thus t and t0 are fuzzy(neutrosophic)
twin vertices. t and t0 are arbitrary couple of vertices, hence every couple of
vertices are fuzzy(neutrosophic) twin vertices. 

thm17 Theorem 2.3.11. Let G be a family of fuzzy(neutrosophic) graphs with

fuzzy(neutrosophic) common vertex set and G ∈ G is a fixed-vertex
fuzzy(neutrosophic) graph such that it’s fuzzy(neutrosophic) complete. Then
simultaneously fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric number is n − 1, simultaneously

28
 2.3. Fuzzy(Neutrosophic) Twin Vertices

fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric dimension is (n − 1)σ(m) where m is a given vertex.

Every (n − 1)-set is simultaneously fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric set for G.

Proof. G is fixed-vertex fuzzy(neutrosophic) graph and it’s fuzzy(neutrosophic)

complete. So by Theorem (2.3.10), I get every couple of vertices in
fuzzy(neutrosophic) complete are fuzzy(neutrosophic) twin vertices. So every
couple of vertices, by Theorem (2.3.9), aren’t resolved. 

Corollary 2.3.12. Let G be a family of fuzzy(neutrosophic) graphs with

fuzzy(neutrosophic) common vertex set and G ∈ G is a fuzzy(neutrosophic)
complete. Then simultaneously fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric number is n − 1,
simultaneously fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric dimension is (n − 1)σ(m) where m is
a given vertex. Every (n − 1)-set is simultaneously fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric
set for G.

Proof. By fuzzy(neutrosophic) graphs with fuzzy(neutrosophic) common vertex

set, G is fixed-vertex fuzzy(neutrosophic) graph. It’s fuzzy(neutrosophic)
complete. So by Theorem (2.3.11), I get intended result. 

Theorem 2.3.13. Let G be a family of fuzzy(neutrosophic) graphs with

fuzzy(neutrosophic) common vertex set and for every given couple of vertices,
there’s a G ∈ G such that in that, they’re fuzzy(neutrosophic) twin vertices.
Then simultaneously fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric number is n − 1, simultaneously
fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric dimension is (n − 1)σ(m) where m is a given vertex.
Every (n − 1)-set is simultaneously fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric set for G.

Proof. By Proposition (2.3.6), simultaneously fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric num-

ber is n − 1. By Theorem (2.3.9), simultaneously fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric
dimension is (n − 1)σ(m) where m is a given vertex. Also, every (n − 1)-set is
simultaneously fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric set for G. 

thm19 Theorem 2.3.14. Let G be a family of fuzzy(neutrosophic) graphs with

fuzzy(neutrosophic) common vertex set. If G contains three fixed-
vertex fuzzy(neutrosophic) stars with different center, then simultaneously
fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric number is n − 2, simultaneously fuzzy(neutrosophic)-
metric dimension is (n − 2)σ(m) where m is a given vertex. Every (n − 2)-set
is simultaneously fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric set for G.

Proof. The cardinality of set of fuzzy(neutrosophic) twin vertices is n − 1. Thus

by Corollary (2.3.4), the result follows. 

Corollary 2.3.15. Let G be a family of fuzzy(neutrosophic) graphs with

fuzzy(neutrosophic) common vertex set. If G contains three fuzzy(neutrosophic)
stars with different center, then simultaneously fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric
number is n − 2, simultaneously fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric dimension is
(n − 2)σ(m) where m is a given vertex. Every (n − 2)-set is simultaneously
fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric set for G.

Proof. By fuzzy(neutrosophic) graphs with fuzzy(neutrosophic) common vertex

set, G is fixed-vertex fuzzy(neutrosophic) graph. It’s fuzzy(neutrosophic)
complete. So by Theorem (2.3.14), I get intended result. 

29
 2. New Ideas

2.4 Antipodal Vertices

sec5
Even Fuzzy(Neutrosophic) Cycle
prp5.1 Proposition 2.4.1. Consider two antipodal vertices x and y in any given fixed-
edge even fuzzy(neutrosophic) cycle. Let u and v be given vertices. Then
d(x, u) 6= d(x, v) if and only if d(y, u) 6= d(y, v).

Proof. (⇒). Consider d(x, u) 6= d(x, v). By d(x, u) + d(u, y) = d(x, y) =

D(G), D(G) − d(x, u) 6= D(G) − d(x, v). It implies d(y, u) 6= d(y, v).
(⇐). Consider d(y, u) 6= d(y, v). By d(y, u) + d(u, x) = d(x, y) = D(G), D(G) −
d(y, u) 6= D(G) − d(y, v). It implies d(x, u) 6= d(x, v). 

Proposition 2.4.2. Consider two antipodal vertices x and y in any given fixed-
edge even fuzzy(neutrosophic) cycle. Let u and v be given vertices. Then
d(x, u) = d(x, v) if and only if d(y, u) = d(y, v).

Proof. (⇒). Consider d(x, u) = d(x, v). By d(x, u) + d(u, y) = d(x, y) =

D(G), D(G) − d(x, u) = D(G) − d(x, v). It implies d(y, u) = d(y, v).
(⇐). Consider d(y, u) = d(y, v). By d(y, u) + d(u, x) = d(x, y) = D(G), D(G) −
d(y, u) = D(G) − d(y, v). It implies d(x, u) = d(x, v). 

Proposition 2.4.3. The set contains two antipodal vertices, isn’t

fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric set in any given fixed-edge even fuzzy(neutrosophic)
cycle.

Proof. Let x and y be two given antipodal vertices in any given even
fuzzy(neutrosophic) cycle. By Proposition (2.4.1), d(x, u) 6= d(x, v) if and
only if d(y, u) 6= d(y, v). It implies that if x fuzzy(neutrosophic)-resolves a
couple of vertices, then y fuzzy(neutrosophic)-resolves them, too. Thus either
x is in fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric set or y is. It induces the set contains
two antipodal vertices, isn’t fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric set in any given even
fuzzy(neutrosophic) cycle. 

Proposition 2.4.4. Consider two antipodal vertices x and y in any given fixed-
edge even fuzzy(neutrosophic) cycle. x fuzzy(neutrosophic)-resolves a given
couple of vertices, z and z 0 , if and only if y does.

Proof. (⇒). x fuzzy(neutrosophic)-resolves a given couple of vertices, z and z 0 ,

then d(x, z) 6= d(x, z 0 ). By Proposition (2.4.1), d(x, z) 6= d(x, z 0 ) if and only if
d(y, z) 6= d(y, z 0 ). Thus y fuzzy(neutrosophic)-resolves a given couple of vertices
z and z 0 .
(⇐). y fuzzy(neutrosophic)-resolves a given couple of vertices, z and z 0 , then
d(y, z) 6= d(y, z 0 ). By Proposition (2.4.1), d(y, z) 6= d(y, z 0 ) if and only if
d(x, z) 6= d(x, z 0 ). Thus x fuzzy(neutrosophic)-resolves a given couple of vertices
z and z 0 . 

Proposition 2.4.5. There are two antipodal vertices aren’t fuzzy(neutrosophic)-

resolved by other two antipodal vertices in any given fixed-edge even
fuzzy(neutrosophic) cycle.

30
 2.4. Antipodal Vertices

Proof. Suppose x and y are a couple of vertices. It implies d(x, y) = D(G).

Consider u and v are another couple of vertices such that d(x, u) = D(G) 2 .
It implies d(y, u) = D(G) 2 . Thus d(x, u) = d(y, u). Therefore, u doesn’t
fuzzy(neutrosophic)-resolve a given couple of vertices x and y. By D(G) =
d(u, v) = d(u, x) + d(x, v) = D(G) 2 + d(x, v), d(x, v) = D(G) 2 . It implies
d(y, v) = D(G)
2 . Thus d(x, v) = d(y, v). Therefore, v doesn’t fuzzy(neutrosophic)-
resolve a given couple of vertices x and y. 

Proposition 2.4.6. For any two antipodal vertices in any given fixed-edge
even fuzzy(neutrosophic) cycle, there are only two antipodal vertices don’t
fuzzy(neutrosophic)-resolve them

Proof. Suppose x and y are a couple of vertices such that they’re antipodal
vertices. Let u be a vertex such that d(x, u) = D(G)
2 . It implies d(y, u) =
D(G)
2 .
Thus d(x, u) = d(y, u). Therefore, u doesn’t fuzzy(neutrosophic)-resolve a given
couple of vertices x and y. Let v be a antipodal vertex for u such that u and
v are antipodal vertices. Thus v d(x, v) = D(G) 2 . It implies d(y, v) =
D(G)
2 .
Therefore, v doesn’t fuzzy(neutrosophic)-resolve a given couple of vertices x and
y. If u is a vertex such that d(x, u) 6= D(G)
2 and v is a vertex such that u and v
D(G)
are antipodal vertices. Thus d(x, v) 6= 2 It induces either d(x, u) 6= d(y, u) or
d(x, v) 6= d(y, v). It means either u fuzzy(neutrosophic)-resolves a given couple
of vertices x and y or v fuzzy(neutrosophic)-resolves a given couple of vertices
x and y. 

Proposition 2.4.7. In any given fixed-edge even fuzzy(neutrosophic) cycle, for

any vertex, there’s only one vertex such that they’re antipodal vertices.

Proof. If d(x, y) = D(G), then x and y are antipodal vertices. 

prp5.8 Proposition 2.4.8. Let G be a fixed-edge even fuzzy(neutrosophic) cycle. Then

every couple of vertices are fuzzy(neutrosophic)-resolving set if and only if they
aren’t antipodal vertices.

Proof. If x and y are antipodal vertices, then they don’t fuzzy(neutrosophic)-

resolve a given couple of vertices u and v such that they’re antipodal vertices
and d(x, u) = D(G)
2 . Since d(x, u) = d(x, v) = d(y, u) = d(y, v) =
D(G)
2 . 

cor5.9 Corollary 2.4.9. Let G be a fixed-edge even fuzzy(neutrosophic) cycle. Then

fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric number is two.

Proof. A set contains one vertex x isn’t fuzzy(neutrosophic)-resolving set. Since

it doesn’t fuzzy(neutrosophic)-resolve a given couple of vertices u and v such
that d(x, u) = d(x, v) = 1. Thus fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric number ≥ 2. By
Proposition (2.4.8), every couple of vertices such that they aren’t antipodal
vertices, are fuzzy(neutrosophic)-resolving set. Therefore, fuzzy(neutrosophic)-
metric number is 2. 

cor5.10 Corollary 2.4.10. Let G be a fixed-edge even fuzzy(neutrosophic) cycle. Then

fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric set contains couple of vertices such that they aren’t
antipodal vertices.

31
 2. New Ideas

Proof. By Corollary (2.4.9), fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric number is two. By

Proposition (2.4.8), every couple of vertices such that they aren’t antipodal
vertices, are fuzzy(neutrosophic)-resolving set. Therefore, fuzzy(neutrosophic)-
metric set contains couple of vertices such that they aren’t antipodal vertices. 

cor4.11 Corollary 2.4.11. Let G be a family of fixed-edge odd fuzzy(neutrosophic)

cycles with fuzzy(neutrosophic) common vertex set. Then simultaneously
fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric set contains couple of vertices such that they aren’t
antipodal vertices and fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric number is two.

Odd Fuzzy(Neutrosophic) Cycle

prp5.11 Proposition 2.4.12. In any given fixed-edge odd fuzzy(neutrosophic) cycle, for
any vertex, there’s no vertex such that they’re antipodal vertices.

Proof. Let G be a fixed-edge odd fuzzy(neutrosophic) cycle. if x is a given

vertex. Then there are two vertices u and v such that d(x, u) = d(x, v) = D(G).
It implies they aren’t antipodal vertices. 

prp5.12 Proposition 2.4.13. Let G be a fixed-edge odd fuzzy(neutrosophic) cycle. Then

every couple of vertices are fuzzy(neutrosophic)-resolving set.

Proof. Let l and l0 be couple of vertices. Thus, by Proposition (2.4.12), l and

l0 aren’t antipodal vertices. It implies for every given couple of vertices fi and
fj , I get either d(l, fi ) 6= d(l, fj ) or d(l0 , fi ) 6= d(l0 , fj ). Therefore, fi and fj
are fuzzy(neutrosophic)-resolved by either l or l0 . It induces the set {l, l0 } is
fuzzy(neutrosophic)-resolving set. 

prp5.13 Proposition 2.4.14. Let G be a fixed-edge odd fuzzy(neutrosophic) cycle. Then

fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric number is two.

Proof. Let l and l0 be couple of vertices. Thus, by Proposition (2.4.12), l and

l0 aren’t antipodal vertices. It implies for every given couple of vertices fi and
fj , I get either d(l, fi ) 6= d(l, fj ) or d(l0 , fi ) 6= d(l0 , fj ). Therefore, fi and fj
are fuzzy(neutrosophic)-resolved by either l or l0 . It induces the set {l, l0 } is
fuzzy(neutrosophic)-resolving set. 

Corollary 2.4.15. Let G be a fixed-edge odd fuzzy(neutrosophic) cycle. Then

fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric set contains couple of vertices.

Proof. By Proposition (2.4.14), fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric number is two. By

Proposition (2.4.13), every couple of vertices are fuzzy(neutrosophic)-resolving
set. Therefore, fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric set contains couple of vertices. 

Corollary 2.4.16. Let G be a family of fixed-edge odd fuzzy(neutrosophic)

cycles with fuzzy(neutrosophic) common vertex set. Then simultan-
eously fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric set contains couple of vertices and
fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric number is two.

32
 2.5. Extended Results

2.5 Extended Results

sec6
Smallest Metric Number
prp1 Proposition 2.5.1. Let G be a fuzzy(neutrosophic) path. Then every leaf is
fuzzy(neutrosophic)-resolving set.

Proof. Let l be a leaf. For every given a couple of vertices fi and fj , I get
d(l, fi ) 6= d(l, fj ). Since if I reassign indexes to vertices such that every vertex
fi and l have i vertices amid themselves, then d(l, fi ) = Σj≤i µ(fj fi ) ≤ i. Thus
j ≤ i implies

Σt≤j µ(ft fj )+Σj≤s≤i µ(fs fi ) > Σj≤i µ(f fi ) ≡ d(l, fj )+c = d(l, fi ) ≡ d(l, fj ) < d(l, fi ).

Therefore, by d(l, fj ) < d(l, fi ), I get d(l, fi ) 6= d(l, fj ). fi and fj are arbitrary
so l fuzzy(neutrosophic)-resolves any given couple of vertices fi and fj which
implies {l} is a fuzzy(neutrosophic)-resolving set. 

Corollary 2.5.2. Let G be a fixed-edge fuzzy(neutrosophic) path. Then every

leaf is fuzzy(neutrosophic)-resolving set.

Proof. Let l be a leaf. For every given couple of vertices, fi and fj , I get
d(l, fi ) = ci 6= d(l, fj ) = cj. It implies l fuzzy(neutrosophic)-resolves any given
couple of vertices fi and fj which implies {l} is a fuzzy(neutrosophic)-resolving
set. 

Corollary 2.5.3. Let G be a fixed-vertex fuzzy(neutrosophic) path. Then every

leaf is fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric set, fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric number is one
and fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric dimension is c where c = σ(f ), f ∈ V.

Proof. By Proposition (2.5.1), every leaf is fuzzy(neutrosophic)-resolving

set. By c = σ(f ), ∀f ∈ V, every leaf is fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric set,
fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric number is one and fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric
dimension is c. 

prp7 Proposition 2.5.4. Let G be a fuzzy(neutrosophic) path. Then a set including

every couple of vertices is fuzzy(neutrosophic)-resolving set.

Proof. Let f and f 0 be a couple of vertices. For every given a couple of vertices
fi and fj , I get either d(f, fi ) 6= d(f, fj ) or d(f 0 , fi ) 6= d(f 0 , fj ). 

Corollary 2.5.5. Let G be a fixed-edge fuzzy(neutrosophic) path. Then every

set containing couple of vertices is fuzzy(neutrosophic)-resolving set.

Proof. Consider G is a fuzzy(neutrosophic) path. Thus by Proposition (2.5.4),

every set containing couple of vertices is fuzzy(neutrosophic)-resolving set. So
it holds for any given fixed-edge path fuzzy(neutrosophic) graph. 

Proposition 2.5.6. If I use fixed-vertex strong fuzzy(neutrosophic) cycles instead

of fixed-edge fuzzy(neutrosophic) cycles, then all results of Section (2.4) hold.

Proof. Let G be a fixed-vertex strong fuzzy(neutrosophic) cycles. By

G is fuzzy(neutrosophic) strong and it’s fixed-vertex, G is fixed-edge
fuzzy(neutrosophic). 

33
 2. New Ideas

prp6.2 Proposition 2.5.7. Let G be a fixed-vertex strong fuzzy(neutrosophic) path.

Then an 1-set contains leaf, is fuzzy(neutrosophic)-resolving set. An 1-set
contains leaf, is fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric set. Fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric
number is one. Fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric dimension is σ(m) where m is a
given vertex.

Proof. There are two leaves. Consider l is a given leaf. By G is a fixed-vertex

strong fuzzy(neutrosophic) path, there’s only one number to be seen. Thus if v
and e are a given vertex and given edge, then σ(v) = σ(e) = c where c ∈ [0, 1].
Further, for every given vertices v and v 0 , σ(v) = σ(v 0 ). With analogous, for
every given edges e and e0 , σ(e) = σ(e0 ). With rearranging the indexes of
vertices, d(l, vi ) = ci. Further more, d(l, vi ) = ci 6= cj = d(l, vj ). Therefore, l
fuzzy(neutrosophic)-resolves every given couple of vertices x and v. It induces
1-set containing leaf, is fuzzy(neutrosophic)-resolving set. By G is a fixed-vertex,
for every given vertices v and v 0 , σ(v) = σ(v 0 ). It implies 1-set containing leaf,
is fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric set. Also, fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric number is
one. Hence, fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric dimension is σ(m) where m is a given
vertex. 

cor6.3 Corollary 2.5.8. Let G be a family of fuzzy(neutrosophic) paths with

fuzzy(neutrosophic) common vertex set such that they’ve a common leaf.
Then simultaneously fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric number is 1, simultaneously
fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric dimension is σ(m) where m is a given vertex. 1-set
contains common leaf, is simultaneously fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric set for G.

Proof. By Proposition (2.5.7), common leaf fuzzy(neutrosophic)-resolves every

given couple of vertices x and v, simultaneously. Thus 1-set containing
common leaf, is simultaneously fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric set. Also, sim-
ultaneously fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric number is one. Hence, simultaneously
fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric dimension is σ(m) where m is a given vertex. 

prp6.4 Proposition 2.5.9. Let G be a fixed-vertex strong fuzzy(neutrosophic) path.

Then an 2-set contains every couple of vertices, is fuzzy(neutrosophic)-resolving
set. An 2-set contains every couple of vertices, is fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric
set. Fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric number is two. Fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric
dimension is 2σ(m) where m is a given vertex.

Proof. Suppose v is a given vertex. If there are two vertices x and y such
that d(x, v) 6= d(y, v), then x fuzzy(neutrosophic)-resolves x and y and the
proof is done. If not, d(x, v) = d(y, v), but for every given vertex v 0 ,
d(x, v 0 ) 6= d(y, v 0 ). 

Corollary 2.5.10. Let G be a family of fuzzy(neutrosophic) paths with

fuzzy(neutrosophic) common vertex set such that they’ve no common leaf. Then
an 2-set is simultaneously fuzzy(neutrosophic)-resolving set, simultaneously
fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric number is 2, simultaneously fuzzy(neutrosophic)-
metric dimension is minm,m0 ∈V σ(m) + σ(m0 ). Every 2-set is simultaneously
fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric set for G.

Proof. By Corollary (2.5.8), common leaf forms a simultaneously

fuzzy(neutrosophic)-resolving set but in this case, there’s no common leaf.
Thus by Proposition (2.5.9), an 2-set is fuzzy(neutrosophic)-resolving set for

34
 2.5. Extended Results

any fuzzy(neutrosophic). Then an 2-set is simultaneously fuzzy(neutrosophic)-

resolving set. It induces simultaneously fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric number
is 2. It also implies simultaneously fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric dimension is
minm,m0 ∈V σ(m) + σ(m0 ). So every 2-set is simultaneously fuzzy(neutrosophic)-
metric set for G. 

Largest Metric Number

Fuzzy(neutrosophic) t-partite(bipartite/star/wheel) is also studied but by
adding one restriction on these models. Fuzzy(neutrosophic) t-partite gets
us two results as individual and family when they’re either fixed-edge or strong
fixed-vertex.
prp55.11 Proposition 2.5.11. Let G be a fixed-edge fuzzy(neutrosophic) t-partite. Then
every set excluding couple of vertices in different parts whose cardinalities of
them are strictly greater than one, is fuzzy(neutrosophic)-resolving set.

Proof. Consider two vertices x and y. Suppose m has same part with either x
or y. Without loosing the generality, suppose m has same part with x thus it
doesn’t have common part with y. Therefore, d(m, x) = 2 6= 1 = d(m, y). 

cor55.12 Corollary 2.5.12. Let G be a fixed-vertex strong fuzzy(neutrosophic) t-partite.

Let n ≥ 3. Then every (n − 2)-set excludes two vertices from different parts
whose cardinalities of them are strictly greater than one, is fuzzy(neutrosophic)-
resolving set. Every (n − 2)-set excludes two vertices from different parts whose
cardinalities of them are strictly greater than one, is fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric
set. Fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric number is n − 2. Fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric
dimension is (n − 2)σ(m) where m is a given vertex.

Proof. By Proposition (2.5.11), every (n − 2)-set excludes two vertices from

different parts whose cardinalities of them are strictly greater than one, is
fuzzy(neutrosophic)-resolving set. It means that every (n − 2)-set excludes two
vertices from different parts whose cardinalities of them are strictly greater than
one, is fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric set. Since if x and y are either in same part
or in different parts, then, by any given vertex w, d(w, x) = d(w, y). Thus 1-set
isn’t fuzzy(neutrosophic)-resolving set. There are same arguments for a set with
cardinality ≤ n − 3 when pigeonhole principle implies at least two vertices have
same conditions concerning either being in same part or in different parts. 

cor55.13 Corollary 2.5.13. Let G be a fixed-vertex strong fuzzy(neutrosophic) bipartite.

Let n ≥ 3. Then every (n − 2)-set excludes two vertices from different parts, is
fuzzy(neutrosophic)-resolving set. Every (n − 2)-set excludes two vertices from
different parts, is fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric set. Fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric
number is n − 2. Fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric dimension is (n − 2)σ(m) where
m is a given vertex.

Proof. Consider x and y are excluded by a (n − 2)-set. Let m be a given

vertex which is distinct from them. By G is bipartite, m has a common part
with either x or y and not with both of them. It implies d(x, m) 6= d(y, m).
Since if m has a common part with x, then d(x, m) = 1 6= 2 = d(y, m). And
if m has a common part with y, then d(x, m) = 2 6= 1 = d(y, m). Thus m
fuzzy(neutrosophic)-resolves x and y. If w is another vertex which is distinct

35
 2. New Ideas

from them, then pigeonhole principle induces at least two vertices have same
conditions concerning either being in same part or in different parts. It implies
(n − 3)-set isn’t fuzzy(neutrosophic)-resolving set. Therefore, every (n − 2)-set
excludes two vertices from different parts, is fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric set.
Fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric number is n − 2. By G is fixed-vertex, for any given
vertices m and m0 , σ(m) = σ(m0 ). So fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric dimension is
(n − 2)σ(m) where m is a given vertex. 

cor55.14 Corollary 2.5.14. Let G be a fixed-vertex strong fuzzy(neutrosophic) star. Then

every (n − 2)-set excludes center and a given vertex, is fuzzy(neutrosophic)-
resolving set. An (n − 2)-set excludes center and a given vertex, is
fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric set. Fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric number is (n − 2).
Fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric dimension is (n − 2)σ(m) where m is a given vertex.

Proof. Consider x and y are excluded by a (n − 2)-set. Let m be a given

vertex which is distinct from them. By G is star, m has a common part
with either x or y and not with both of them. It implies d(x, m) 6= d(y, m).
Since if m has a common part with x, then d(x, m) = 1 6= 2 = d(y, m). And
if m has a common part with y, then d(x, m) = 2 6= 1 = d(y, m). Thus m
fuzzy(neutrosophic)-resolves x and y. If w is another vertex which is distinct
from them, then pigeonhole principle induces at least two vertices have same
conditions concerning either being in same part or in different parts. It implies
(n − 3)-set isn’t fuzzy(neutrosophic)-resolving set. Therefore, every (n − 2)-set
excludes two vertices from different parts, is fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric set.
Fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric number is n − 2. By G is fixed-vertex, for any given
vertices m and m0 , σ(m) = σ(m0 ). So fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric dimension is
(n − 2)σ(m) where m is a given vertex. 

cor55.15 Corollary 2.5.15. Let G be a fixed-vertex strong fuzzy(neutrosophic) wheel.

Let n ≥ 3. Then every (n − 2)-set excludes center and a given vertex, is
fuzzy(neutrosophic)-resolving set. Every (n − 2)-set excludes center and a given
vertex, is fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric set. Fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric number
is n − 2. Fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric dimension is (n − 2)σ(m) where m is a
given vertex.

Proof. Consider x and y are excluded by a (n − 2)-set. Let m be a given

vertex which is distinct from them. By G is wheel, m has a common part
with either x or y and not with both of them. It implies d(x, m) 6= d(y, m).
Since if m has a common part with x, then d(x, m) = 1 6= 2 = d(y, m). And
if m has a common part with y, then d(x, m) = 2 6= 1 = d(y, m). Thus m
fuzzy(neutrosophic)-resolves x and y. If w is another vertex which is distinct
from them, then pigeonhole principle induces at least two vertices have same
conditions concerning either being in same part or in different parts. It implies
(n − 3)-set isn’t fuzzy(neutrosophic)-resolving set. Therefore, every (n − 2)-set
excludes two vertices from different parts, is fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric set.
Fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric number is n − 2. By G is fixed-vertex, for any given
vertices m and m0 , σ(m) = σ(m0 ). So fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric dimension is
(n − 2)σ(m) where m is a given vertex. 

Fuzzy(neutrosophic) t-partite(bipartite/star/wheel) is also studied but by

adding one restriction on these models. Fuzzy(neutrosophic) t-partite gets us

36
 2.5. Extended Results

one result involving family of them when they’re either fixed-edge or strong
fixed-vertex.
Corollary 2.5.16. Let G be a family of fixed-vertex strong fuzzy(neutrosophic)
t-partite with fuzzy(neutrosophic) common vertex set. Let n ≥ 3. Then
simultaneously fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric number is n − 2, simultaneously
fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric dimension is (n − 2)σ(m). Every (n − 2)-set excludes
two vertices from different parts, is simultaneously fuzzy(neutrosophic)-resolving
set for G. There’s an (n − 2)-set which is simultaneously fuzzy(neutrosophic)-
metric set for G.

Proof. By Corollary (2.5.12), every result hold for any given fixed-vertex strong
fuzzy(neutrosophic) t-partite. Thus every result hold for any given fixed-vertex
strong fuzzy(neutrosophic) t-partite, simultaneously. Therefore, simultaneously
fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric number is n − 2, simultaneously fuzzy(neutrosophic)-
metric dimension is (n − 2)σ(m). Every (n − 2)-set excludes two vertices from
different parts, is simultaneously fuzzy(neutrosophic)-resolving set for G. There’s
an (n − 2)-set which is simultaneously fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric set for G. 

Corollary 2.5.17. Let G be a family of fixed-vertex strong fuzzy(neutrosophic)

bipartite with fuzzy(neutrosophic) common vertex set. Let n ≥ 3. Then
simultaneously fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric number is n − 2, simultaneously
fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric dimension is (n − 2)σ(m) Every (n − 2)-set excludes
two vertices from different parts, is simultaneously fuzzy(neutrosophic)-resolving
set for G. There’s an (n − 2)-set which is simultaneously fuzzy(neutrosophic)-
metric set for G.

Proof. By Corollary (2.5.13), every result hold for any given fixed-vertex strong
fuzzy(neutrosophic) bipartite. Thus every result hold for any given fixed-vertex
strong fuzzy(neutrosophic) bipartite, simultaneously. Therefore, simultaneously
fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric number is n − 2, simultaneously fuzzy(neutrosophic)-
metric dimension is (n − 2)σ(m). Every (n − 2)-set excludes two vertices from
different parts, is simultaneously fuzzy(neutrosophic)-resolving set for G. There’s
an (n − 2)-set which is simultaneously fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric set for G. 

Corollary 2.5.18. Let G be a family of fixed-vertex strong fuzzy(neutrosophic)

star with fuzzy(neutrosophic) common vertex set. Let n ≥ 3. Then
simultaneously fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric number is n − 2, simultaneously
fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric dimension is (n − 2)σ(m) Every (n − 2)-set excludes
center and a given vertex, is simultaneously fuzzy(neutrosophic)-resolving set
for G. There’s an (n − 2)-set which is simultaneously fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric
set for G.

Proof. By Corollary (2.5.14), every result hold for any given fixed-vertex strong
fuzzy(neutrosophic) star. Thus every result hold for any given fixed-vertex
strong fuzzy(neutrosophic) star, simultaneously. Therefore, simultaneously
fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric number is n − 2, simultaneously fuzzy(neutrosophic)-
metric dimension is (n − 2)σ(m). Every (n − 2)-set excludes two vertices from
different parts, is simultaneously fuzzy(neutrosophic)-resolving set for G. There’s
an (n − 2)-set which is simultaneously fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric set for G. 

37
2. New Ideas

Corollary 2.5.19. Let G be a family of fixed-vertex strong fuzzy(neutrosophic)

wheel with fuzzy(neutrosophic) common vertex set. Let n ≥ 3. Then
simultaneously fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric number is n − 2, simultaneously
fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric dimension is (n − 2)σ(m) Every (n − 2)-set excludes
center and a given vertex, is simultaneously fuzzy(neutrosophic)-resolving set
for G. There’s an (n − 2)-set which is simultaneously fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric
set for G.

Proof. By Corollary (2.5.15), every result hold for any given fixed-vertex strong
fuzzy(neutrosophic) wheel. Thus every result hold for any given fixed-vertex
strong fuzzy(neutrosophic) wheel, simultaneously. Therefore, simultaneously
fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric number is n − 2, simultaneously fuzzy(neutrosophic)-
metric dimension is (n − 2)σ(m). Every (n − 2)-set excludes two vertices from
different parts, is simultaneously fuzzy(neutrosophic)-resolving set for G. There’s
an (n − 2)-set which is simultaneously fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric set for G. 

38
 CHAPTER 3

Applications

In this chapter,
I introduce some 3.1 Applications
applications
sec7
concerning new Two applications are posed as follow.
ideas and in
this ways, the
results make Located Places
sense more about
their impacts on A program is devised for a robot to locate every couple of given places, separ-
different
ately. The number which this program assigns to any place from a given couple
models.
of places are unique. Thus every place has an unique number when a couple
of places are given. Three numbers are assigned to a place. First number is
about a model concerning attributes which titled to be obstacle for locating
the place, second number is about a model concerning attributes which titled
to be indeterminate for locating the place and sometimes, they’re obstacle but
sometimes, they’re determinate to locate that place. Third number is about
a model concerning attributes which titled to be determinate for locating the
place. For example, (0.2, 0.5, 0.8) is assigned to a place v as information about
its location. This is a brief outline of this application. To get it more precisely,
I use some steps to clarify about them.

Step 1. (Definition) Located place is a term to categorize places into two

classes. Applications for this function are too many but they’ve noticed
to some parameters like decreasing costs, precise analysis, decreasing the
ranges of analysis, restrictions on cases, low amount of selective data as
possible, et cetera. Selective points as possible to distinguish about every
couple of points out of them, are optimal case as possibilities allow.

Step 2. (Issue) A train has some stops which every stop has some attributes.
A couple of stops are given but they’re impossible to locate by their
attributes.

Step 3. (Model) I use attributes of stops to get a model with three numbers
chosen from real numbers amid zero and one. Every number illustrates
every aspect of their attributes. The first number is obstacle means
bad attributes, the second number is indeterminate and third number is
determinate means good attributes. But to use sensible clarification, I use
a fuzzy model as Figure (3.1). To get it more precisely, consider Table
(3.1) as a fuzzy model which assigns to every stations and connections a

39
3. Applications

value, separately. In fact, set of stations and set of connections are used
to make fuzzy sets from them.

Figure 3.1: Black vertex {s1 } is only fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric set amid all
sets of vertices for fuzzy(neutrosophic) graph T. F3

Table 3.1: A Train concerning its Stations and its Connections as a Fuzzy
Graph in a Model. T3

Stations of T s1 s2 s3 s4 s5 s6 s7 s8 s9 , s10
Values 0.1 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.1 0.3 0.6 0.5 0.2
Connections of T s1 s2 s2 s3 s3 s4 s4 s5 s5 s6 s6 s7 s7 s8 s8 s9 s9 s10
Values 0.1 0.6 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.1

Step 4. (Solution) As figure (3.1) shows, I study this fuzzy model. By

Proposition (2.5.1), the stop s1 locates every given couple of stations.
To get beyond this result, If I’ve a family of fuzzy(neutrosophic) paths
excerpt from family of trains with fuzzy(neutrosophic) common and s1 in
common, then by Corollary (2.5.8), the stop s1 locates every given couple
of stations in every fuzzy(neutrosophic) graph excerpt from any trains,
simultaneously.

Covid-19 and Identifying Infected People

Dark network is description for infected people who are anonymous in the
matter of Covid-19. Virus and its anonymously style to transmit the virus from
one person to another person, could make a dark network involving people.
Consider everyone as network titled fuzzy(neutrosophic). It means that the
person and his networks containing his connections make two models, fixed-edge
fuzzy(neutrosophic) and fixed-vertex strong fuzzy(neutrosophic). Now, I have a
family of people which everyone is a model in the terms of Covid-19.

Step 1. (Definition) Covid-19 is well-known disease which like every disease

has general parameters. Parameters are intensity of symptom, decreasing
impacts, relatively treatments, complete treatments and et cetera. But
Covid-19 has specific ways which they transmit this disease. It’s coming
up with finding impressive networks of people to identify infected people.
People and their connections are important cases to develop this notion.

Step 2. (Issue) A person has been infected and I try to find the connections
and the people which transmit this disease.

40
 3.1. Applications

Step 3. (Model) A person and his connections are a network which are a fuzzy
model. Two numbers are assigned to a person and his connections. To do
this, I need to identify a couple of people which are given in a network of
this person. I proposed two fuzzy models. Firstly, as Figure (3.2), a fuzzy
graph containing the people who connect to this person, is proposed in
Table (3.2). Secondly, as Figure (3.2), a fuzzy model including person
with his two selective connections and other people with two selective
connections of them, is posed in Table (3.3). The attributes are like the
iterations of connections, the intensity of infected people, serious symptom,
locations of people and et cetera, are used to have couple of people who
are selected. Capable for being infected and infected people are used to
make these models.

Figure 3.2: Black vertices {i1 , i2 } are only fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric set

amid all sets of vertices for fuzzy(neutrosophic) graph T. Black vertices
V \ {c1 , c2 } are only fuzzy(neutrosophic)-metric set amid all sets of vertices for
fuzzy(neutrosophic) graph T 0 . F4

Table 3.2: An Infected Person concerning his two selective Connections and his
Partners With their two selective Connections as a Fuzzy Graph T in a Model. T4

People of T i1 i2 c1 c2 c3 i3
Values 0.7 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.9
Connections of T i1 i2 i2 c1 c1 c2 c2 c3 c3 i3 i3 i1
Values 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6

Table 3.3: An Infected Person concerning his Connections and his Partners as
a Fuzzy Graph T 0 in a Model. T5

People of T 0 i1 c1 c2 c3
Values 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.9
Connections of T 0 i1 c1 i1 c2 i1 c3 c3 i1
Values 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6

41
 3. Applications

Step 4. (Solution) By Corollary (2.4.10), a person i1 and his partner i2 identify

every given couple of partners which are in Figure (3.2) as T . To get
beyond this result, if a person i1 and the partner i2 aren’t antipodal vertices
in every fuzzy cycles are contained in a family of person’s networks, then
by Corollary (2.4.11), a person i1 and the partner i2 identify every given
couple of partners in every fuzzy cycles, simultaneously. By Corollary
(2.5.14), {c1 , c2 } identify couple of person i1 and his partner c3 , in Figure
(3.2) as T 0 in optimal way and this set is unique.

3.2 Open Problems

sec8
The crisp notion of dimension is defined on fuzzy(neutrosophic) graphs. Thus
Question 3.2.1. Is it possible to define fuzzy(neutrosophic) notion of dimension
on fuzzy(neutrosophic) graphs?
There are too many limitations on the classes of fuzzy(neutrosophic)
graphs by using fixed-edge fuzzy(neutrosophic) graphs and fixed-vertex strong
fuzzy(neutrosophic) graphs.
Question 3.2.2. Is an approach existed to compute current dimension for
specific classes of fuzzy(neutrosophic) graphs?
Question 3.2.3. What are basic attributes of current dimension for general
classes of fuzzy(neutrosophic) graphs?
Finding other classes of fuzzy(neutrosophic) graphs has an ordinary approach
to develop this study.
Question 3.2.4. Which new classes of fuzzy(neutrosophic) graphs are existed
to develop this notion of current dimension?
Question 3.2.5. Which new classes of fuzzy(neutrosophic) graphs are existed
to compute this notion of current dimension?
Question 3.2.6. Which general approaches are existed to study this notion of
current dimension in fuzzy(neutrosophic) graphs?
Question 3.2.7. Which specific approaches are existed to study this notion of
current dimension in fuzzy(neutrosophic) graphs?
Problem 3.2.8. Are there special crisp sets of vertices, e.g. antipodal vertices for
fuzzy(neutrosophic) cycles, which have key role to study this notion of current
dimension in fuzzy(neutrosophic) graphs?
Problem 3.2.9. Are there fuzzy(neutrosophic) special sets of vertices, e.g.
fuzzy(neutrosophic) twin vertices for general classes, which have key role to
study this notion of current dimension in fuzzy(neutrosophic) graphs?

3.3 Conclusion and Closing Remarks

sec10
This study uses mixed combinations of fuzzy concepts and crisp concepts to
explore new notion of crisp dimension in fuzzy(neutrosophic) graphs as individual
and as family. In this way, some crisp notions like antipodal vertices are defined

42
 3.3. Conclusion and Closing Remarks

to use as a tool to study fuzzy(neutrosophic) cycles as individual and as family.

Also, some fuzzy(neutrosophic) notions like fuzzy(neutrosophic) twin vertices
are defined to use as a tool to study general classes of fuzzy(neutrosophic)
graphs as individual and as family. Mixed family of fuzzy(neutrosophic) graphs
are slightly studied by using fuzzy(neutrosophic) twin vertices and other ideas
as individual and as family. In Table (3.4), I mention some advantages and
limitations concerning this article and its proposed notions.

Table 3.4: A Brief Overview about Advantages and Limitations of this study tbl5

Advantages Limitations
1. Using crisp and fuzzy(neutrosophic) 1. The most usages of fixed-edge
notions in one framework fuzzy(neutrosophic) graphs
together simultaneously. and fixed-vertex strong
2. Study on fuzzy(neutrosophic) fuzzy(neutrosophic) graphs.
as individual and as family.
3. Involved classes as complete, 2. Study on family of different models
strong, path, cycle, t-partite,
bipartite, star, wheel.
4. Characterizing classes of 3. Characterizing classes of
fuzzy(neutrosophic) graphs fuzzy(neutrosophic) graphs
with smallest metric number with smallest dimension number
and largest metric number. and largest dimension number.

43
 Bibliography

Ref1 [1] Henry Garrett, Big Sets Of Vertices, Preprints 2021, 2021060189 (doi:
10.20944/preprints202106.0189.v1).
Ref2 [2] Henry Garrett, Locating And Location Number, Preprints 2021,
2021060206 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202106.0206.v1).
Ref3 [3] Henry Garrett, Metric Dimension in Fuzzy Graphs and Neutro-
sophic Graphs, Preprints 2021, 2021110142 (doi: 10.20944/pre-
prints202111.0142.v1).
Ref4 [4] Henry Garrett, Metric Dimension in fuzzy (neutrsophic) Graphs-II,
Preprints 2021, 2021110142 (doi: 10.20944/preprints202111.0142.v2).
Ref5 [5] Henry Garrett, Metric Dimensions Of Graphs #12, ResearchGate 2021
(doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.20690.48322).
Ref6 [6] Henry Garrett, Metric Dimensions Of Graphs, Preprints 2021, 2021060392
(doi: 10.20944/preprints202106.0392.v1).
Ref7 [7] Henry Garrett, New Graph Of Graph, Preprints 2021, 2021060323 (doi:
10.20944/preprints202106.0323.v1).
Ref8 [8] Henry Garrett, Numbers Based On Edges, Preprints 2021, 2021060315
(doi: 10.20944/preprints202106.0315.v1).
Ref9 [9] Henry Garrett, Matroid And Its Outlines, Preprints 2021, 2021060146
(doi: 10.20944/preprints202106.0146.v1).
Ref10 [10] Henry Garrett, Matroid And Its Relations, Preprints 2021, 2021060080
(doi: 10.20944/preprints202106.0080.v1).

45