ARTICLE Fuzzy Information and Engineering

https://doi.org/10.26599/FIE.2024.9150035 ISSN: 1616-8658

Unveiling Internet Streaming Services: A Comparison Using

Neutrosophic Graphs
M. Kaviyarasu ✉

ABSTRACT
This paper investigates the inverse of the maximum result obtained by multiplying two unique graph types
known as neutrosophic graphs. The main goal is to comprehend a point’s degree in the opposite situation of a
neutrosophic graph’s maximum product. The study deals with two particular graph kinds and offers several
conclusions and evidence regarding the opposite of the highest product. The research also contains a practical
application of these ideas by locating an online streaming service utilizing a neutrosophic graph and a technique
known as normalized Hamming distance and normalized Euclidean distance. Finally, the comparison results
are given.

KEYWORDS
neutrosophic graphs; max product neutrosophic graph; complement neutrosophic graph

1 Introduction

G raphs are commonly understood to be essentially representations of relations. A good tool for
expressing information about item connections is a graph. Edges describe relationships, whereas
vertices represent things. The objects and the relationships between them are represented,
respectively, by the vertices and edges of the graph. The information that describes the conditions might
become ambiguous when it comes to global challenges. In a variety of disciplines, including topology,
optimization, network, and environmental science, neutrosophic models are useful mathematical
instruments for solving combinatorial issues. Neutrosophic models are more sophisticated than
straightforward graphical models due to the inherent vagueness and ambiguity they include. When
neutrosophic set theory was originally applied, it was utilized to solve several intricate problems for which
there was insufficient information.
When it comes to applying graph theory to dealing with real-life circumstances, it is seen to be crucial.
The use of fuzzy set[1] theory has no bounds; hence, the fuzzy graph theory has unique relevance. Rosenfeld[2]
presented the notion of fuzzy graphs in 1975, while independently Yeh and Bang also introduced the
concept of fuzzy graphs[3]. Fuzzy graphs are quite different from traditional graphs and are excellent for
representing interactions that deal with ambiguity. Numerous issues in the fields of computer science,
Department of Mathematics, Vel Tech Rangarajan Dr Sagunthala R&D Institute of Science and Technology, Chennai 600062, India
✉ Address correspondence to M. Kaviyarasu, [email protected]
© The author(s) 2024. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
 ARTICLE Unveiling Internet Streaming Services: A Comparison Using Neutrosophic Graphs

electrical engineering, system modeling, transportation, finance, etc. can be treated by using them.
The concept of intuitionistic fuzzy sets (IFS), introduced by Atanassov[4], and represents an extension of
fuzzy sets that effectively handle ambiguous conditions. Unlike traditional fuzzy sets, IFS structures are not
confined solely to membership grades, allowing for improved handling of uncertainty.
The concept of IFS has witnessed significant utilization across various domains. In 1994, Shannon and
Atanassov[5] made a notable contribution by introducing the concept of intuitionistic fuzzy graphs (IFG),
further enhancing the applicability and importance of this mathematical framework.
The concept of IFG that was initially introduced by Atanassov and Shannon was further elucidated by
Parvathi and Karunambigai[6]. Sahoo and Pal[7] classified IFG products into three categories: Strong, semi-
strong, and direct. Additionally, Yaqoob et al.[8] extensively investigated the four fundamental operations of
complex IFG, including the Cartesian product, join, union, and composition. Mohamed and Ali[9–11]
developed the terms modular, complement, and maximum product on IFG.
The neutrosophic sets were suggested by Smarandache[12, 13]. Using imprecise, ambiguous, and inconsistent
data in practical applications calls for a sophisticated mathematical approach. IFS and interval-valued IFS
are both included in this category of fuzzy set theory[14–17]. The truth, indeterminacy, and falsity membership
values (T, I, and F), which are independent and fall inside the real standard or non-standard unit interval [0,
1], are used to describe neutrosophic sets.
The subclass of neutrosophic sets called single-valued neutrosophic sets (SVNS) was introduced by Wang
et al.[18] with the purpose of facilitating practical implementation in real-world applications. In order to
create SVNS, IFS with independent membership values between [0, 1] were generalised. SVNS are a subset
of neutrosophic sets, which simplifies the utilization of neutrosophic sets in practical situations. One may
find similar research on the growth of the single-valued neutrosophic network in Refs. [19–21]. Kaviyarasu
et al.[22, 23] explained the concept of regularity in neutrosophic graph theory. Akram et al.[24] introduced the
notation of new concepts in neutrosophic graphs with application. According to the aforementioned
literature, the product’s classical, fuzzy, and intuitionistic fuzzy forms are employed in a number of
industries and provide practical answers to the problems. The max product and their complement in
neutrosophic graphs have also not been employed in the present study. The proposed method can also be
used to discover the online streaming service.
1.1 Motivation
Numerous uses of neutrosophic graphs and their expansions have been found recently in study. In the field
of applied mathematics, research on the combination of neutrosophic graphs and their products is
expanding. In this study, the maximum product of the complement of the neutrosophic graph is used as the
context. The following is a description of the study’s rationale:
(1) The max product and complement notions are foundational ideas in graph theory with numerous
applications in diverse disciplines.
(2) These ideas expand the options for conveying uncertainty when used in the context of neutrosophic
graphs.
104 Fuzzy Information and Engineering | VOL 16 | NO 2 | June 2024 | 103–120
 Fuzzy Information and Engineering ARTICLE

(3) These ideas expand the options for conveying uncertainty when used in the context of neutrosophic
graphs.
(4) More ambiguous information cannot be captured using this method.
(5) When used in the neutrosophic graph setting, it could produce a useful result.
(6) Additionally, there are issues with finding an online streaming provider.
It should be emphasized that earlier researches have not addressed these challenges, which fact inspired
us to offer a workable alternative. As a result, this article discusses these problems and suggests creative
solutions. The goal of the current study is to contribute significantly to society by accomplishing this.
1.2 Novelties
The concepts of the maximum product of neutrosophic graph are introduced in this work. We also give a
new meaning to the complement of a graph that is neutrosophic.
1. The notions of the maximum product of neutrosophic graph are defined in this work.
2. To offer a fresh definition of the neutrosophic graph complement.
3. This study also teaches the notions of the neutrosophic graph’s maximum product of complement.
4. To increase the amount of uncertainty that decision-making issues may represent, a max product of
complement of neutrosophic graph is used.
1.3 Structure of the paper
We investigate graphs produced by neutrosophic systems in this work, with particular attention to the
vertex degree. We address decision-making issues, namely in choosing an internet streaming provider, by
utilizing the complement of the maximum product of two neutrosophic graphs. We first discuss the
fundamental ideas behind neutrosophic graphs. In Section 3, we define the term “complement of max
product of neutrosophic graphs” and talk about degrees. In Sections 4 and 5, we employ normalized
Hamming distance to locate an online streaming service provider using neutrosophic graphs. We take into
account the signals provided by other users, choosing the one that most accurately reflects their preferred
streaming service. Using this method, we may ascertain which service each user prefers depending on how
well their signals match the options.

2 Preliminary
Definition 1[22] (1) A neutrosophic graph denoted as G = ((Tσ 1 , Iσ 2 , Fσ 3 ), (Tμ1 , Iμ2 , Fμ3 )) is represented
∗
by G = (V, E) , where V is the set of vertices, and E is the set of edges. The functions Tσ 1 , Iσ 2 , and Fσ 3
are mappings from V to the closed interval [0, 1] , signifying the degrees of true, intermediate, and false
membership, respectively, for each element xi ∈ V . It holds that 0 ⩽ Tσ 1 (xi ) + Iσ 2 (xi ) + Fσ 3 (xi ) ⩽ 3 for
all xi ∈ V .
(2) Moreover, in the context of G∗ , the functions Tμ1 , Iμ2 , and Fμ3 are mappings from V × V to the
closed interval [0, 1], representing the degrees of true, intermediate, and false membership, respectively, for
each edge (xi , xj ) ∈ E .
Fuzzy Information and Engineering | VOL 16 | NO 2 | June 2024 | 103–120 105
 ARTICLE Unveiling Internet Streaming Services: A Comparison Using Neutrosophic Graphs

Tμ1 (xi , xj ) ⩽ Tσ 1 (xi ) ∧ Tσ 1 (xj ),

Iμ1 (xi , xj ) ⩽ Iσ 1 (xi ) ∧ Iσ 1 (xj ),
Fμ1 (xi , xj ) ⩾ Fσ 1 (xi ) ∧ Fσ 1 (xj ),
0 ⩽ Tσ 1 (xi , xj ) + Iσ 2 (xi , xj ) + Fσ 3 (xi , xj ) ⩽ 3.

Definition 2[22] A neutrosophic graph G = ((Tσ 1 , Iσ 2 , Fσ 3 ), (Tμ1 , Iμ2 , Fμ3 )) is called strong
neurotsophic graph if
(1) Tμ1 (xi , xj ) = Tσ 1 (xi ) ∧ Tσ 1 (xj ) ,
(2) Iμ1 (xi , xj ) = Iσ 1 (xi ) ∧ Iσ 1 (xj ) ,
(3) Fμ1 (xi , xj ) = Fσ 1 (xi ) ∧ Fσ 1 (xj ) ,
for all xi , xj ∈ E, i ̸= j .
Definition 3[22] A neutrosophic graph G = ((Tσ 1 , Iσ 2 , Fσ 3 ), (Tμ1 , Iμ2 , Fμ3 )) is considered complete if
(1) Tμ1 (xi , xj ) = Tσ 1 (xi ) ∧ Tσ 1 (xj ) ,
(2) Iμ1 (xi , xj ) = Iσ 1 (xi ) ∧ Iσ 1 (xj ) ,
(3) Fμ1 (xi , xj ) = Fσ 1 (xi ) ∧ Fσ 1 (xj ) ,
for all xi , xj ∈ V, i ̸= j .
Definition 4[24] A neutrosophic graph G = ((Tσ 1 , Iσ 2 , Fσ 3 ), (Tμ1 , Iμ2 , Fμ3 )) . The order of G denoted
as O(G) is defined as O(G) = (OTσ 1 (G), OIσ 1 (G), OFσ 1 (G)) , where OTσ 1 (G) = Σx∈V Tσ 1 (x), OIσ 2 (G) =
Σx∈V Iσ 2 (x) and OFσ 3 (G) = Σx∈V Fσ 3 (x) .
Definition 5[24] A neurotsophic graph G = ((Tσ 1 , Iσ 2 , Fσ 3 ), (Tμ1 , Iμ2 , Fμ3 )) . The size of G , denoted as
S(G) , is defined as S(G) = (STμ1 (G), SIμ1 (G), SFμ1 (G)) , where STμ1 (G) = Σxy∈E Tμ1 (xy), SIμ2 (G) =
Σxy∈E Iμ2 (xy) , and SFμ3 (G) = Σxy∈E Fμ3 (xy) .
Definition 6[22] A neutrosophic graph G = ((Tσ 1 , Iσ 2 , Fσ 3 ), (Tμ1 , Iμ2 , Fμ3 )) . The degree of a vertex x
in G is denoted by dG (x) = (TdG1 (x), IdG2 (x), FdG3 (x)) and can be calculated as follows:
TdG1 (x) = ∑ TμG1 (xy) = ∑ TμG1 (xy) (1)
x̸=y xy∈E

IdG2 (x) = ∑ IμG2 (xy) = ∑ IμG2 (xy) (2)

x̸=y xy∈E

FdG3 (x) = ∑ FμG2 (xy) = ∑ FμG2 (xy) (3)

x̸=y xy∈E

where TdG1 (x) represents the total of type membership scores of the edges connected to vertex x , IdG2 (x)
represents the total of intermediate membership scores of the edges connected to vertex x , and FdG3 (x)
represents the sum of false membership scores of the edges connected to vertex x .

3 Neutrosophic Graphs’ Complement of the Maximum Product

Definition 7 The complement of a neutrosophic graph G = (V, E) is a neutrosophic graph
G = ((Tσ 1 , Iσ 2 , Fσ 3 ), (Tμ1 , Iμ2 , Fμ3 )) where (Tσ 1 , Iσ 2 , Fσ 3 ) = (Tσ 1 ), (Iσ 2 ), (Fσ 3 ) and (Tμ1 , Iμ2 , Fμ3 ) =
106 Fuzzy Information and Engineering | VOL 16 | NO 2 | June 2024 | 103–120
 Fuzzy Information and Engineering ARTICLE

(Tμ1 ), (Iμ2 ), (Fμ3 ) , where Tμ1 (x, y) = Tσ 1 (x) ∧ Tσ1(y) − Tσ 1 (xy), Iμ2 (x, y) = Iσ 2 (x) ∧ Iσ2(y) − Iσ 2 (xy)
and Fμ3 (x, y) = Fσ 3 (x) ∧ Fσ3(y) − Fσ 3 (xy) .
Definition 8 Let G1 = ((Tσ G1 1 , Iσ G2 1 , Fσ G3 1 ), (TμG1 1 , IμG2 1 , FμG3 1 )) and G2 = ((Tσ G1 2 , Iσ 2G2 , Fσ G3 2 ), (TμG1 2 ,
IμG2 2 , FμG3 2 )) be two neutrosophic graphs. The maxium product of G1 and G2 is defined as G1 ×m G2 =
(V1 ×m V2 , E1 ×m E2 ), E1 ×m E2 = {(x1 , y1 ), (x2 , y2 )/x1 = x2 , y1 , y2 ∈ E2 or y1 = y2 , x1 , x2 ∈ E1 }.
Tσ G1 ×m G2 (x1 , y2 ) = Tσ G1 1 (x1 ) ∧ Tσ G1 2 (y1 ) (4)

Iσ G1 ×m G2 (x1 , y2 ) = Iσ G1 1 (x1 ) ∧ Iσ G1 2 (y1 ) (5)

Fσ G1 ×m G2 (x1 , y2 ) = Fσ G1 1 (x1 ) ∨ Fσ G1 2 (y1 ) (6)

{
G1 ×m G2
Tσ G1 1 (x1 ) ∧ TμG1 2 (y1 , y2 ), if x1 = x2 , y1 , y2 ∈ E2 ;
Tμ1 ((x1 , y1 ), (x2 , y2 )) = (7)
TμG1 1 (x1 , x2 ) ∧ Tσ G1 2 (y1 ), if y1 = y2 , x1 , x2 ∈ E1
{
Iσ G2 1 (x1 ) ∧ IμG2 2 (y1 , y2 ), if x1 = x2 , y1 , y2 ∈ E2 ;
IμG2 1 ×m G2 ((x1 , y1 ), (x2 , y2 )) = (8)
IμG2 1 (x1 , x2 ) ∧ Iσ G2 2 (y1 ), if y1 = y2 , x1 , x2 ∈ E1
{
Fσ G3 1 (x1 ) ∨ FμG3 2 (y1 , y2 ), if x1 = x2 , y1 , y2 ∈ E2 ;
FμG3 1 ×m G2 ((x1 , y1 ), (x2 , y2 )) = (9)
FμG3 1 (x1 , x2 ) ∨ Fσ G3 2 (y1 ), if y1 = y2 , x1 , x2 ∈ E1

Example 1 In Figs. 1 and 2, Let G∗1 = (V1 , E1 ) and G∗2 = (V2 , E2 ) be two crisp graphs, such that
V1 = {u1 , u2 , u3 } , V2 = {v1 , v2 }, E1 = {u1 u3 , u2 u3 } , and E2 = {v1 v2 } . Take two neutrosophic graphs as
consideration G1 = ((Tσ G1 1 , Iσ G2 1 , Fσ G3 1 ), (TμG1 1 , IμG2 1 , FμG3 1 )) and G2 = ((Tσ G1 2 , Iσ G2 2 , Fσ G3 2 ), (TμG1 1 , IμG2 1 ,
u3 (0.7, 0.6, 0.4) v2 (0.7, 0.6, 0.4)

(0.7, 0.6, 0.5)

u2 (0.8, 0.7, 0.5)

u1 (0.7, 0.8, 0.5) v1 (0.7, 0.6, 0.5)

G1 G2

Fig. 1 Neutrosophic graphs.

(0.7, 0.7, 0.5) (0.7, 0.6, 0.5) (0.8, 0.7, 0.5)

ulv1 (0.6, 0.6, 0.7) ulv2 u2v1

(0
.6,
0.6 6)
,0 , 0.
.5) , 0.6
(0.5
(0
.6)

.3,
,0

0.5
0.5

,0
.5,

.6)
(0

u2v2 u3v2
(0.7, 0.6, 0.5) u3v1 (0.6, 0.5, 0.6) (0.7, 0.6, 0.4)
(0.7, 0.6, 0.5)

(0.4, 0.6, 0.7)

Max product G1XG2

Fig. 2 Max product of neutrosophic graph.

Fuzzy Information and Engineering | VOL 16 | NO 2 | June 2024 | 103–120 107

 ARTICLE Unveiling Internet Streaming Services: A Comparison Using Neutrosophic Graphs

FμG3 1 )) , and G1 ×m G2 , in Tables 1 and 2.

Definition 9 The maximum of two neutrosophic graphs’ products in complement G1 = ((Tσ G1 1 ,
Iσ G2 1 , Fσ G3 1 ), (TμG1 1 , IμG2 1 , FμG3 1 )) and G2 = ((Tσ G1 2 , Iσ G2 2 , Fσ G3 2 ), (TμG1 2 , IμG2 2 , FμG3 2 )) is a neutrosophic
graphs G1 ×m G2 = (((Tσ G1 1 ×m Tσ G1 2 ), (Iσ G2 1 ×m Iσ G2 2 ), (Iσ G3 1 ×m Iσ G3 2 )), ((TμG1 1 ×m TμG1 2 ), (IμG2 1 ×m IμG2 2 ),
(IμG3 1 ×m IμG3 2 ))) on G∗ = (V, E) .

 x1 = x2 , y1 y2 ∈ E2 or y1 = y2 , x1 x2 ∈ E1 or
E1 ×m E2 = (x1 , y1 )(x2 , y2 )|x1 x2 ∈ E1 , y1 y2 ∈
/ E2 or x1 x2 ∈ / E1 , y1 y2 ∈ E2 or

x1 x2 ∈ E1 , y1 y2 ∈ E2 or x1 x2 ∈ / E1 , y1 y2 ∈
/ E2

(Tσ G1 1 ×m Tσ G1 2 )(x1 , y2 ) = (Tσ G1 1 ×m Tσ G1 2 )(x1 , y1 ) = Tσ G1 1 (x1 ) ∨ Tσ G1 2 (y1 ) (10)

(Iσ G2 1 ×m Iσ G2 2 )(x1 , y2 ) = (Iσ G2 1 ×m Iσ G2 2 )(x1 , y1 ) = Iσ G2 1 (x1 ) ∨ Iσ G2 2 (y1 ) (11)

(Fσ G3 1 ×m Fσ G3 2 )(x1 , y2 ) = (Fσ G3 1 ×m Fσ G3 2 )(x1 , y1 ) = Fσ G3 1 (x1 ) ∧ Fσ G3 2 (y1 ) (12)

where x1 ∈ V1 and y1 ∈ V2 .
(TμG1 1 ×m TμG1 2 )((x1 , y1 ), (x2 , y2 )) =
 G1
(Tσ 1 ×m Tσ 1 )(x1 , y1 ) ∧ (Tσ 1 ×m Tσ 1 )(x2 , y2 )−(Tμ1 ×m Tμ1 )((x1 , y1 ), (x2 , y2 )), if x1 = x2 , y1 y2 ∈ E2 ;
G2 G1 G2 G1 G2

(Tσ G1 1 ×m Tσ G1 2 )(x1 , y1 ) ∧ (Tσ G1 1 ×m Tσ G1 2 )(x2 , y2 )−(TμG1 1 ×m TμG1 2 )((x1 , y1 ), (x2 , y2 )), if y1 = y2 , x1 x2 ∈ E1 ;

 G1
(Tσ 1 ×m Tσ G1 2 )(x1 , y1 ) ∧ (Tσ G1 1 ×m Tσ G1 2 )(x2 , y2 ), otherwise,

(IμG1 1 ×m IμG1 2 )((x1 , y1 ), (x2 , y2 )) =

 G1
(Iσ 1 ×m Iσ 1 )(x1 , y1 ) ∧ (Iσ 1 ×m Iσ 1 )(x2 , y2 ) − (Iμ1 ×m Iμ1 )((x1 , y1 ), (x2 , y2 )), if x1 = x2 , y1 y2 ∈ E2 ;
G2 G1 G2 G1 G2

(Iσ G1 1 ×m Iσ G1 2 )(x1 , y1 ) ∧ (Iσ G1 1 ×m Iσ G1 2 )(x2 , y2 ) − (IμG1 1 ×m IμG1 2 )((x1 , y1 ), (x2 , y2 )), if y1 = y2 , x1 x2 ∈ E1 ;

 G1
(Iσ 1 ×m Iσ G1 2 )(x1 , y1 ) ∧ (Iσ G1 1 ×m Iσ G1 2 )(x2 , y2 ), otherwise,

(FμG1 1 ×m FμG1 2 )((x1 , y1 ), (x2 , y2 )) =

 G1
(Fσ 1 ×m Fσ 1 )(x1 , y1 ) ∨ (Fσ 1 ×m Fσ 1 )(x2 , y2 ) − (Fμ1 ×m Fμ1 )((x1 , y1 ), (x2 , y2 )), if x1 = x2 , y1 y2 ∈ E2 ;
G2 G1 G2 G1 G2

(Fσ G1 1 ×m Fσ G1 2 )(x1 , y1 ) ∨ (Fσ G1 1 ×m Fσ G1 2 )(x2 , y2 ) − (FμG1 1 ×m FμG1 2 )((x1 , y1 ), (x2 , y2 )), if y1 = y2 , x1 x2 ∈ E1 ;

 G1
(Fσ 1 ×m Fσ G1 2 )(x1 , y1 ) ∨ (Fσ G1 1 ×m Fσ G1 2 )(x2 , y2 ), otherwise.

Table 1 Product of two vertex sets.

V1 ×m V2 u1 v1 u2 v1 u3 v1 u1 v2 u2 v2 u3 v2

Tσ G1 1 × Tσ G1 2 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7

Iσ G2 1 × Iσ G2 2 0.7 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6
Fσ G3 1 × Fσ G3 2 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4

Table 2 Product of two edge sets.

E1 ×m E2 u1 v1 , u3 v1 u2 v1 , u3 v1 u3 v1 , u3 v2 u1 v2 , u3 v2 u2 v2 , u3 v2 u2 v2 , u2 v1 u1 v1 , u1 v2

TμG1 1 × TμG1 2 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.7

IμG2 1 × IμG2 2 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.8
FμG3 1 × FμG3 2 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5

108 Fuzzy Information and Engineering | VOL 16 | NO 2 | June 2024 | 103–120

 Fuzzy Information and Engineering ARTICLE

Example 2 Examine the two neutrosophic diagrams as depicted in Fig. 1 and their respective
maximum product G1 ×m G2 illustrated in Fig. 2. Subsequently, the complement of the maximum product
of G1 and G2 is displayed in Fig. 3.
¯ = G.
Theorem 1 Prove that the complement of complement neutrosophic graph is G , i.e., Ḡ
Proof By Definition 7, we know that
T μ1 (x, y) = Tσ 1 (x) ∧ Tσ1 (y) − Tσ 1 (xy),
T μ1 (x, y) = Tσ 1 (x) ∧ Tσ 1 (y) − Tσ 1 (xy) =
Tσ 1 (x) ∧ Tσ1 (y) − (Tσ 1 (x) ∧ Tσ1 (y) − Tσ 1 (xy)) =
Tσ 1 (xy),
I μ1 (x, y) = Iσ 1 (x) ∧ Iσ 1 (y) − Iσ 1 (xy) =
Iσ 1 (x) ∧ Iσ1 (y) − (Iσ 1 (x) ∧ Iσ1 (y) − Iσ 1 (xy)) =
Iσ 1 (xy),
F μ1 (x, y) = Fσ 1 (x) ∧ Fσ 1 (y) − Fσ 1 (xy) =
Fσ 1 (x) ∧ Fσ1 (y) − (Fσ 1 (x) ∧ Fσ1 (y) − Fσ 1 (xy)) =
Fσ 1 (xy).
¯ = G.
Hence Ḡ □
Theorem 2 If G1 and G2 are two regular neutrosophic graphs of underlying crip graphs G∗1 and G∗2
with constants Tσ G1 1 , Iσ G2 1 , Fσ G3 1 , Tσ G1 2 , Iσ G2 2 , Fσ G3 2 and satisfying the following condition: Tσ G1 1 ⩾ TμG1 2 ,
Iσ G2 1 ⩾ IμG2 2 , Fσ G3 1 ⩽ TμG3 2 , Tσ G1 2 ⩾ TμG1 1 , Iσ G2 2 ⩾ IμG2 1 , Fσ G3 2 ⩽ TμG3 1 , Tσ G1 1 > TμG1 1 , Iσ G2 1 > IμG2 1 , Fσ G3 1 < TμG3 1 ,
Tσ G1 2 > TμG1 2 , Iσ G2 2 > IμG2 2 , Fσ 3G2 < TμG3 2 , Then the max product of two neutrosophic graphs G1 and G2 is
regular neutrosophic graph.
Proof Let G1 and G2 be two regular neutrosophic graphs. The underlying crisp graphs G∗1 and G∗2 are
complete graphs of degree d1 and d2 for every vertices of V1 and V2 . Given that Tσ G1 1 , Iσ G2 1 , Fσ G3 1 and
Tσ G1 2 , Iσ G2 2 , Fσ G3 2 are constants, say Tσ G1 1 (x) = C1 , Iσ G2 1 (x) = C2 , Fσ G3 1 (x) = C3 , ∀x ∈ V1 , Tσ G1 2 (y) =
C4 , Iσ G2 2 (y) = C5 , Fσ G3 2 (y) = C6 , ∀y ∈ V2 and Tσ G1 1 ⩾ TμG1 2 , Iσ G2 1 ⩾ IμG2 2 , Fσ G3 1 ⩽ TμG3 2 , Tσ G1 2 ⩾ TμG1 1 , Iσ G2 2 ⩾
IμG2 1 , Fσ G3 2 ⩽ Tμ3G1 . As per assumption the max product of two neutrosophic graphs is regular neutrosophic
(0.7, 0.6, 0.5)
(0.7, 0.7, 0.5) ulv2
ulv1 ( (0.
0.7, 0.7 7, 0
, 0.5) .6,
0.5 u v
) 1 1
)

(0.8, 0.7, 0.5)

, 0.5

(0.7, 0
(0.7, 0.6

(0.7
) , 0.6
(0

.5 , 0.5
.7,

.6, 0.5

,0 )
(0.7, 0.6, 0.5)

.6
0.6

,0
0.7
,0

(
.5)

u2v2 u3v2
(0.7, 0.6, 0.5) (0.7 (0.7, 0.6, 0.4)
, 0.6
, 0.5
)
u3v1
(0.7, 0.6, 0.5)

Fig. 3 Complement of max product G1 ×m G2 .

Fuzzy Information and Engineering | VOL 16 | NO 2 | June 2024 | 103–120 109

 ARTICLE Unveiling Internet Streaming Services: A Comparison Using Neutrosophic Graphs

graphs. Consider (x1 , y2 ) ∈ (Tσ G1 ×m Tσ G2 ) ,

∑
(Tσ G1 ×m Tσ G2 )
d1 (x1 , y1 ) = (Tσ G1 ×m Tσ G2 )((x1 , y1 )(x2 , y2 )) =
(x1 ,y1 )(x2 ,y2 )∈E
(
∑ (Tσ G1 1 ×m Tσ G1 2 )(x1 , y1 ) ∧ (Tσ G1 1 ×m Tσ G1 2 )(x2 , y2 )−
x1 =x2 ,y1 y2 ∈E1
)
(TμG1 1 ×m TμG1 2 )((x1 , y1 ), (x2 , y2 )) +
(
∑ (Tσ G1 1 ×m Tσ G1 2 )(x1, y1) ∧ (Tσ G1 1 ×m Tσ G1 2 )(x2, y2)−
y1 =y2 ,x1 x2 ∈E1
)
(TμG1 1 ×m TμG1 2 )((x1 , y1 ), (x2 , y2 )) +
( )
∑ (Tσ G1 1 ×m Tσ G1 2 )(x1 , y1 ) ∧ (Tσ G1 1 ×m Tσ G1 2 )(x2 , y2 ) +
x1 x2 ∈E1 ,y1 y2 ∈E
/ 2
( )
∑ (Tσ G1 1 ×m Tσ G1 2 )(x1 , y1 ) ∧ (Tσ G1 1 ×m Tσ G1 2 )(x2 , y2 ) +
x1 x2 ∈E
/ 1 ,y1 y2 ∈E2
( )
∑ (Tσ G1 1 ×m Tσ G1 2 )(x1 , y1 ) ∧ (Tσ G1 1 ×m Tσ G1 2 )(x2 , y2 ) +
x1 x2 ∈E1 ,y1 y2 ∈E2
( )
∑ (Tσ G1 1 ×m Tσ G1 2 )(x1 , y1 ) ∧ (Tσ G1 1 ×m Tσ G1 2 )(x2 , y2 ) .
x1 x2 ∈E
/ 1 ,y1 y2 ∈E
/ 2

Since G∗1 and G∗2 are complete graphs, then

(
d1 1 m 2 (x1 , y1 ) = ∑
(G × G )
(Tσ G1 1 ×m Tσ G1 2 )(x1 , y1 ) ∧ (Tσ G1 1 ×m Tσ G1 2 )(x2 , y2 )−
x1 =x2 ,y1 y2 ∈E2
)
(TμG1 1 ×m TμG1 2 )((x1 , y1 ), (x2 , y2 )) +
(
∑ (Tσ G1 1 ×m Tσ G1 2 )(x1, y1) ∧ (Tσ G1 1 ×m Tσ G1 2 )(x2, y2)−
y1 =y2 ,x1 x2 ∈E1
)
(TμG1 1 ×m TμG1 2 )((x1 , y1 ), (x2 , y2 )) +
(
∑ (Tσ G1 1 ×m Tσ G1 2 )(x1 , y1 ) ∧ (Tσ G1 1 ×m Tσ G1 2 )(x2 , y2 )−
x1 x2 ∈E1 ,y1 y2 ∈E2
)
(TμG1 1 ×m TμG1 2 )((x1 , y1 ), (x2 , y2 )) +
( )
∑ (Tσ G1 1 ×m Tσ G1 2 )(x1 , y1 ) ∧ (Tσ G1 1 ×m Tσ G1 2 )(x2 , y2 ) .
x1 x2 ∈E1 ,y1 y2 ∈E2

( G1
∑
(G1 ×m G2 )
d2 (x1 , y1 ) = (Iσ 1 ×m Iσ G1 2 )(x1 , y1 ) ∧ (Iσ G1 1 ×m Iσ G1 2 )(x2 , y2 )−
x1 =x2 ,y1 y2 ∈E2
)
(IμG1 1 ×m IμG1 2 )((x1 , y1 ), (x2 , y2 )) +
(
∑ (Iσ G1 1 ×m Iσ G1 2 )(x1, y1) ∧ (Iσ G1 1 ×m Iσ G1 2 )(x2, y2)−
y1 =y2 ,x1 x2 ∈E1
)
(IμG1 1 ×m IμG1 2 )((x1 , y1 ), (x2 , y2 )) +
( G1
∑ (Iσ 1 ×m Iσ G1 2 )(x1 , y1 ) ∧ (Iσ G1 1 ×m Iσ G1 2 )(x2 , y2 )−
x1 x2 ∈E1 ,y1 y2 ∈E2
)
(IμG1 1 ×m IμG1 2 )((x1 , y1 ), (x2 , y2 )) +
( G1 )
∑ (Iσ 1 ×m Iσ G1 2 )(x1 , y1 ) ∧ (Iσ G1 1 ×m Iσ G1 2 )(x2 , y2 ) .
x1 x2 ∈E1 ,y1 y2 ∈E2

110 Fuzzy Information and Engineering | VOL 16 | NO 2 | June 2024 | 103–120

 Fuzzy Information and Engineering ARTICLE

Similarly,
( G1
∑
(G1 ×m G2 )
d3 (x1 , y1 ) = (Fσ 1 ×m Iσ G1 2 )(x1 , y1 ) ∧ (Fσ G1 1 ×m Fσ G1 2 )(x2 , y2 )−
x1 =x2 ,y1 y2 ∈E2
)
(FμG1 1 ×m FμG1 2 )((x1 , y1 ), (x2 , y2 )) +
(
∑ (Fσ G1 1 ×m Fσ G1 2 )(x1, y1) ∧ (Fσ G1 1 ×m Fσ G1 2 )(x2, y2)−
y1 =y2 ,x1 x2 ∈E1
)
(FμG1 1 ×m FμG1 2 )((x1 , y1 ), (x2 , y2 )) +
( G1
∑ (Iσ 1 ×m Iσ G1 2 )(x1 , y1 ) ∧ (Fσ G1 1 ×m Iσ G1 2 )(x2 , y2 )−
x1 x2 ∈E1 ,y1 y2 ∈E2
)
(FμG1 1 ×m FμG1 2 )((x1 , y1 ), (x2 , y2 )) +
( G1 )
∑ (Fσ 1 ×m Fσ G1 2 )(x1 , y1 ) ∧ (Fσ G1 1 ×m Fσ G1 2 )(x2 , y2 ) .
x1 x2 ∈E1 ,y1 y2 ∈E2

Case 1 If Tσ G1 1 (x) ⩽ Tσ G1 2 (y), Iσ G1 1 (x) ⩽ Iσ G1 2 (y) , and Fσ G1 1 (x) ⩾ Fσ G1 2 (y) for all x ∈ V1 and y ∈ V2 .
(
TdG1 1 ×G2 (x1 , y1 ) = ∑ (Tσ G1 1 (x1 ) ∧ Tσ G1 2 (y1 )) ∧ (Tσ G1 1 (x2 ) ∧ Tσ G1 2 )(y2 )−
x1 =x2 ,y1 y2 ∈E2
)
(TμG1 1 ×m TμG1 2 )((x1 , y1 ), (x2 , y2 )) +
(
∑ (Tσ G1 1 (x1) ∧ Tσ G1 2 (y1)) ∧ (Tσ G1 1 (x2) ∧ Tσ G1 2 (y2))−
y1 =y2 ,x1 x2 ∈E1
)
(TμG1 1 ×m TμG1 2 )((x1 , y1 ), (x2 , y2 )) +
( )
∑ (Tσ G1 1 (x1 ) ∧ Tσ G1 2 (y1 )) ∧ (Tσ G1 1 (x2 ) ∧ Tσ G1 2 (y2 )) +
x1 x2 ∈E1 ,y1 y2 ∈E2
( )
∑ (Tσ G1 1 (x1 ) ∧ Tσ G1 2 (y1 )) ∧ (Tσ G1 1 (x2 ) ∧ Tσ G1 2 (y2 )) ,
x1 =x2 ,y1 y2 ∈E2

( G1
IdG2 1 ×G2 (x1 , y1 ) = ∑ (Iσ 1 (x1 ) ∧ Tσ G1 2 (y1 )) ∧ (Iσ G1 1 (x2 ) ∧ Iσ G1 2 )(y2 )−
x1 =x2 ,y1 y2 ∈E2
)
(IμG1 1 ×m IμG1 2 )((x1 , y1 ), (x2 , y2 )) +
(
∑ (Iσ G1 1 (x1) ∧ Iσ G1 2 (y1)) ∧ (Iσ G1 1 (x2) ∧ Iσ G1 2 (y2))−
y1 =y2 ,x1 x2 ∈E1
)
(IμG1 1 ×m IμG1 2 )((x1 , y1 ), (x2 , y2 )) +
( G1 )
∑ (Iσ 1 (x1 ) ∧ Iσ G1 2 (y1 )) ∧ (Iσ G1 1 (x2 ) ∧ Iσ G1 2 (y2 )) +
x1 x2 ∈E1 ,y1 y2 ∈E2
( G1 )
∑ (Iσ 1 (x1 ) ∧ Iσ G1 2 (y1 )) ∧ (Iσ G1 1 (x2 ) ∧ Iσ G1 2 (y2 )) ,
x1 =x2 ,y1 y2 ∈E2

Fuzzy Information and Engineering | VOL 16 | NO 2 | June 2024 | 103–120 111

 ARTICLE Unveiling Internet Streaming Services: A Comparison Using Neutrosophic Graphs

( G1
FdG3 1 ×G2 (x1 , y1 ) = ∑ (Fσ 1 (x1 ) ∨ Fσ G1 2 (y1 )) ∨ (Fσ G1 1 (x2 ) ∨ Fσ G1 2 )(y2 )−
x1 =x2 ,y1 y2 ∈E2
)
(FμG1 1 ×m FμG1 2 )((x1 , y1 ), (x2 , y2 )) +
(
∑ (Fσ G1 1 (x1) ∨ Fσ G1 2 (y1)) ∧ (Fσ G1 1 (x2) ∨ Fσ G1 2 (y2))−
y1 =y2 ,x1 x2 ∈E1
)
(FμG1 1 ×m FμG1 2 )((x1 , y1 ), (x2 , y2 )) +
( G1 )
∑ (Fσ 1 (x1 ) ∨ Fσ G1 2 (y1 )) ∨ (Fσ G1 1 (x2 ) ∨ Fσ G1 2 (y2 )) +
x1 x2 ∈E1 ,y1 y2 ∈E2
( G1 )
∑ (Fσ 1 (x1 ) ∨ Fσ G1 2 (y1 )) ∨ (Fσ G1 1 (x2 ) ∨ Fσ G1 2 (y2 )) .
x1 =x2 ,y1 y2 ∈E2

Since by the definition of project of two neutrosophic graphs,

TdG1 1 ×G2 (x1 , y1 ) = ∑ Tσ G1 2 (y1 ) − (TμG1 1 ×m TμG1 2 )((x1 , y1 ), (x2 , y2 ))+
x1 =x2 ,y1 y2 ∈E2

∑ Tσ G1 2 (y1 ) − (TμG1 1 ×m TμG1 2 )((x1 , y1 ), (x2 , y2 )) + ∑ C3 =

y1 =y2 ,x1 x2 ∈E1 x1 ,x2 ∈E1 y1 y2 ∈E2

∑ Tσ G1 2 (y1 ) − Tσ G1 2 (x1 ) ∧ TμG1 2 (y1 , y2 )+

x1 =x2 ,y1 y2 ∈E2

∑ Tσ G1 2 (y1 ) − TμG1 1 (x1 , x2 ) ∨ Tσ G1 2 (y1 ) + ∑ C3 =

y1 =y2 ,x1 x2 ∈E1 x1 ,x2 ∈E1 y1 y2 ∈E2

∑ C3 − Tσ G1 1 (x1 ) + ∑ C3 − Tσ G1 2 (y1 ) + C3 d∗G2 (y1 )d∗G1 (x1 ),

x1 =x2 ,y1 y2 ∈E2 y1 =y2 ,x1 x2 ∈E1

TdG1 1 ×G2 (x1 , y1 ) =(C3 − C1 )d2 + C3 d1 d2 .

Similarly we can find

IdG1 1 ×m G2 (x1 , y1 ) = (C3 − C1 )d2 + C3 d1 d2 ,
FdG1 1 ×m G2 (x1 , y1 ) = (C4 − C1 )d2 + C4 d1 d2 .

Since G1 and G2 are two regular neutrosophic graphs, G∗1 and G∗2 represent complete graphs, with
membership functions denoted by μG1 1 and μG1 2 . These membership functions are constants, namely,
(C1 , C2 ) for μG1 1 and (C3 , C4 ) for μG1 2 .
Case 2 If Tσ G1 1 (x) ⩾ Tσ G1 2 (y), Iσ G1 1 (x) ⩾ Iσ G1 2 (y) and Fσ G1 1 (x) ⩽ Fσ G1 2 (y) for all x ∈ V1 and y ∈ V2 ,
( G1 )
TdG1 1 ×m G2 (x1 , y1 ) = ∑ Tσ 1 (x1 ) − {(Tσ G1 1 (x1 ) ∨ TμG1 2 (y1 , y2 )} +
x1 =x2 ,y1 y2 ∈E2
( G1 )
∑ Tσ 1 (y1 ) − {(Tσ G1 1 (y1 ) ∨ TμG1 2 (x1 , x2 )} +
y1 =y2 ,x1 x2 ∈E1

∑ Tσ G1 1 (x1 ) =
x1 x2 ∈E1 ,y1 y2 ∈E2

∑ C1 − (Tσ G1 1 (x1 )) + ∑ C1 − (Tσ G1 1 (y1 ))+

x1 =x2 ,y1 y2 ∈E2 y1 =y2 ,x1 x2 ∈E1

C1 d∗G2 (y1 )d∗G2 (x1 ),

TdG1 1 ×m G2 (x1 , y1 ) =(C1 − C3 )d2 + C3 d1 d2 .

112 Fuzzy Information and Engineering | VOL 16 | NO 2 | June 2024 | 103–120

 Fuzzy Information and Engineering ARTICLE

Similarly we can find

IdG1 1 ×m G2 (x1 , y1 ) = (C1 − C3 )d2 + C3 d1 d2 ,
FdG1 1 ×m G2 (x1 , y1 ) = (C4 − C2 )d1 + C4 d1 d2 .

Because of this, normal neutrosophic graphs have a regular complement of their maximum product.
Theorem 3 Let G1 and G2 be a pair of regular neutrosophic graphs derived from the underlying crip
graph G∗1 and G∗2 , respectively. The vertex sets and edges sets of G1 and G2 are complete graphs, and the
regular netrosphic graphs are associated with them. If Tσ G1 1 > TμG1 2 , Iσ G2 1 > IμG2 2 , Fσ G3 1 < TμG3 2 ,
Tσ G1 2 > TμG1 1 , Iσ G2 2 > IμG2 1 , Fσ G3 2 < FμG3 1 , Tσ G1 1 > TμG1 1 , Iσ G2 1 > IμG2 1 , Fσ G3 1 < FμG3 1 and Tσ G1 2 < TμG1 2 , Iσ G2 2 <
IμG2 2 , Fσ G3 2 > FμG3 2 , a complement graph is a regular neutrosophic graph when it is the maximum product
of two regular netrosophic graphs.
Proof The underlying crisp graphs G∗1 and G∗2 are regular graphs, with every vertex in V1 and V2
having degrees g1 and g2 , respectively. Given that Tσ G1 , Iσ G1 , Fσ G1 , TμG2 , IμG2 , and FμG2 are constants, say
Tσ G1 1 (x) = C1 , Iσ G2 1 (x) = C2 , Fσ G3 1 (x) = C3 ∀x ∈ V1 , Tσ G1 2 (x) = C4 , Iσ G2 2 (x) = C5 , Fσ G3 2 (x) = C6 ∀y ∈ V2 ,
TμG1 1 (x1 , y1 ) = e1 , Iμe21 (x1 , y1 ) = e2 , FμG3 1 (x1 , y1 ) = e3 , TμG1 2 (x1 y1 ) = e4 , IμG2 2 (x1 , y1 ) = e5 , FμG3 2 (x1 , y1 ) = e6 ,
and Tσ G1 1 > TμG1 2 , Iσ G2 1 > IμG2 2 , Fσ G3 1 < FμG3 2 ; Tσ G1 2 > TμG1 1 , Iσ G2 2 > IμG2 1 , Fσ G3 2 < FμG3 1 .
Consider (x1 , y2 )ε(Tσ G1 1 × Tσ G1 2 ) :
Case 1 If Tσ G1 1 (x) ⩽ Tσ G1 2 (y), Iσ G1 1 (x) ⩽ Iσ G1 2 (y) and Fσ G1 2 (x) ⩾ Fσ G3 2 (y), ∀x ∈ V1 and y ∈ V2 ,
(
TdG1 1 ×G2 (x1 , y1 ) = ∑ (Tσ G1 1 (x1 ) ∨ Tσ G1 2 (y1 )) ∧ (Tσ G1 1 (x2 ) ∨ Tσ G1 2 (y2 ))−
x1 =x2 ,y1 y2 ∈E2
)
(TμG1 1 ×m TμG1 2 )((x1 , y1 ), (x2 , y2 )) +
(
∑ (Tσ G1 1 (x1) ∨ Tσ G1 2 (y1)) ∧ (Tσ G1 1 (x2) ∨ Tσ G1 2 (y2))−
y1 =y2 ,x1 x2 ∈E1
)
(TμG1 1 ×m TμG1 2 )((x1 , y1 ), (x2 , y2 )) +
(
∑ (Tσ G1 1 (x1 ) ∨ Tσ G1 2 (y1 )) ∧ (Tσ G1 1 (x2 ) ∨ Tσ G1 2 )(y2 )+
x1 ,x2 ∈E1 ,y1 y2 ∈E
/ 2
(
∑ (Tσ G1 1 (x1 ) ∨ Tσ G1 2 (y1 )) ∧ (Tσ G1 1 (x2 ) ∨ Tσ G1 2 )(y2 )+
x1 ,x2 ∈E
/ 1 ,y1 y2 ∈E2
(
∑ (Tσ G1 1 (x1 ) ∨ Tσ G1 2 (y1 )) ∧ (Tσ G1 1 (x2 ) ∨ Tσ G1 2 )(y2 )+
x1 ,x2 ∈E
/ 1 ,y1 y2 ∈E
/ 2
(
∑ (Tσ G1 1 (x1 ) ∨ Tσ G1 2 (y1 )) ∧ (Tσ G1 1 (x2 ) ∨ Tσ G1 2 )(y2 ) =
x1 ,x2 ∈E1 ,y1 y2 ∈E2

∑ Tσ G1 2 (y1 ) − {Tσ G1 1 (x1 ) ∨ Tσ G1 2 (y1 , y2 )}+

x1 =x2 ,y1 y2 ∈E2

∑ Tσ G1 2 (y1 ) − {Tσ G1 2 (x2 ) ∨ Tσ G1 2 (x1 , x2 )}+

y1 =y2 ,x1 x2 ∈E1

∑ C4 + ∑ C4 + ∑ C4 + ∑ C4 =
x1 x2 ∈E1 ,y1 y2 ∈E
/ 2 x1 x2 ∈E
/ 1 ,y1 y2 ∈E2 x1 x2 ∈E
/ 1 ,y1 y2 ∈E
/ 2 x1 x2 ∈E1 ,y1 y2 ∈E2

(C4 − C1 )g2 + (C1 − C1 )g1 + C4 dG∗1 (x1 ) + |E2 | + C3 |E1 |dG∗2 (y1 ) + C4 |E1 ||E2 |+
C4 dG∗2 (x2 )dG∗1 (y4 ).

Fuzzy Information and Engineering | VOL 16 | NO 2 | June 2024 | 103–120 113

 ARTICLE Unveiling Internet Streaming Services: A Comparison Using Neutrosophic Graphs

where |E1 | and |E2 | are the degrees of vertex of complement graphs G∗1 and G∗2 .
TdG1 1 ×G2 (x1 , y1 ) = (C4 − C1 )g2 + C4 g1 |E2 | + C4 g2 |E1 | + C4 |E1 ||E2 | + C1 g1 g2 .
Id2G1 ×G2 (x1 , y1 ) = (C4 − C1 )g2 + C4 g1 |E2 | + C4 g2 |E1 | + C4 |E1 ||E2 | + C1 g1 g2 .
FdG3 1 ×G2 (x1 , y1 ) = (C5 − C2 )g2 + C5 g1 |E2 | + C5 g2 |E1 | + C5 |E1 ||E2 | + C2 g1 g2 .

For all vertices, this is accurately V1 ×m V2 .

Case 2 If Tσ G1 2 (x) ⩽ Tσ G1 1 (y), Iσ G1 2 (x) ⩽ Iσ G1 1 (y) and Fσ G1 2 (x) ⩾ Fσ G3 1 (y), ∀x ∈ V1 and y ∈ V2 ,
(
TdG1 1 ×G2 (x1 , y1 ) = ∑ (Tσ G1 1 (x1 ) ∨ Tσ G1 2 (y1 )) ∧ (Tσ G1 1 (x2 ) ∨ Tσ G1 2 (y2 ))−
x1 =x2 ,y1 y2 ∈E2
)
(TμG1 1 ×m TμG1 2 )((x1 , y1 ), (x2 , y2 )) +
(
∑ (Tσ G1 1 (x1) ∨ Tσ G1 2 (y1)) ∧ (Tσ G1 1 (x2) ∨ Tσ G1 2 (y2))−
y1 =y2 ,x1 x2 ∈E1
)
(TμG1 1 ×m TμG1 2 )((x1 , y1 ), (x2 , y2 )) +
( )
∑ (Tσ G1 1 (x1 ) ∨ Tσ G1 2 (y1 )) ∧ (Tσ G1 1 (x2 ) ∨ Tσ G1 2 (y2 ) +
x1 x2 ∈E1 ,y1 y2 ∈E
/ 2
(
∑ (Tσ G1 1 (x1 ) ∨ Tσ G1 2 (y1 )) ∧ (Tσ G1 1 (x2 ) ∨ Tσ G1 2 (y2 ))−
x1 x2 ∈E
/ 1 ,y1 y2 ∈E
/ 2
)
(TμG1 1 ×m TμG1 2 )((x1 , y1 ), (x2 , y2 )) +
( )
∑ (Tσ G1 1 (x1 ) ∨ Tσ G1 2 (y1 )) ∧ (Tσ G1 1 (x2 ) ∨ Tσ G1 2 (y2 ) +
x1 x2 ∈E
/ 1 ,y1 y2 ∈E
/ 2
( )
∑ (Tσ G1 1 (x1 ) ∨ Tσ G1 2 (y1 )) ∧ (Tσ G1 1 (x2 ) ∨ Tσ G1 2 (y2 ) ,
x1 x2 ∈E1 ,y1 y2 ∈E2

TdG1 1 ×G2 (x1 , y1 ) = ∑ (Tσ G1 1 (x2 ) − Tσ G1 1 (x1 )) + ∑ (Tσ G1 1 (x2 ) − Tσ G1 2 (y1 ))+
x1 =x2 ,y1 y2 ∈E2 y1 =y2 ,x1 x2 ∈E2

∑ Tσ G1 2 (x1 ) + ∑ Tσ G1 2 (x1 )+
x1 x2 ∈E1 ,y1 y2 ∈E
/ 2 x1 x2 ∈E
/ 1 ,y1 y2 ∈E
/ 2

∑ Tσ G1 2 (x1 ) + ∑ Tσ G1 2 (x1 ),
x1 x2 ∈E
/ 1 ,y1 y2 ∈E
/ 2 x1 x2 ∈E1 ,y1 y2 ∈E2

where E1 and E2 are the degrees of the vertices of complement graphs G∗1 and G∗2 , respectively.
TdG1 1 ×G2 (x1 , y1 ) =(C1 − C1 )g1 + (C1 − C4 )g2 + C1 g1 |E2 | + C1 g2 |E1 | + C1 |E1 ||E2 | + C1 g1 g2 =
(C1 − C3 )g2 + C1 g1 |E2 | + C1 g2 |E1 | + C1 |E1 ||E2 | + C1 g1 g2 .

Similarly,
IdG2 1 ×G2 (x1 , y1 ) =(C1 − C3 )g2 + C1 g1 |E2 | + C1 g2 |E1 | + C1 |E1 ||E2 | + C1 g1 g2 ,
FdG3 1 ×G2 (x1 , y1 ) =(C2 − C4 )g2 + C2 g1 |E2 | + C2 g2 |E1 | + C2 |E1 ||E2 | + C2 g1 g2 .

For all vertices, this is accurately V1 ×m V2 . As a result, the complement of the modular product of two
regular neutrosophic graphs is also regular.

4 Application 1
We want to identify the internet streaming service that particular demographic favors based on their usage
114 Fuzzy Information and Engineering | VOL 16 | NO 2 | June 2024 | 103–120
 Fuzzy Information and Engineering ARTICLE

trends. We will examine the streaming behaviors of our eight users, U = {u1 , u2 , u3 , u4 , u5 , u6 , u7 , u8 }
(depicted in Fig. 4) utilizing a series of symptoms or indicators, I = {Video and picture quality, Content
variety, User interface, Price, Device compatibility}.
Every individual may have distinct encounters and inclinations, and our goal is to ascertain the
fundamental factor that sets apart their choice of streaming service from a selection of well-known
platforms, P = {Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, Hulu, Disney+, HBO Max }(depicted in Fig. 5).
By utilizing the neutrosophic normalized Hamming distance, we can evaluate the resemblance between
every user’s inclinations and the accessible streaming platforms. The metric with the minimum distance for
each user can subsequently be regarded as the fundamental indication or preference that has the greatest
impact on their selection of streaming service.
For example, suppose user u1 encounters the subsequent indications: Excellent video quality, extensive
range of content, easy-to-use interface, cost-effective pricing, and support for numerous devices. By
contrasting their indications with the characteristics of various streaming services, we can establish that the
primary factor for u1 is “Content variety” as it closely corresponds with the offerings of platforms such as
Netflix or Amazon Prime Video. Likewise, in Tables 3–5 and Fig. 6, we can examine the signs of other users
and identify the fundamental sign that most accurately reflects their streaming service inclination. This
method enables us to make inferences about the type of service each user favors by considering their
symptom resemblances to the accessible choices. For this purpose we need two kinds of observations:
1. The multiple indicators found in each streaming.
2. The type of indications found for each stream in a typical given circumcision. Both of these facts are
noted in a neutrosophic set, which includes descriptions of the membership, indeterminacy, and non-
membership functions μ, σ, and δ , among other things.
To find the core attribute by utilizing neutrosophic normalized Hamming distance formula (Table 5) for
u2
u1 u3

u4
u8

u5
u7
u6

Fig. 4 Neuturosophic cyclic graph C8.

Netf lix
Amazon prime video

HBO Max
Hulu

Disney+

Fig. 5 Neuturosophic cyclic graph C5.

Fuzzy Information and Engineering | VOL 16 | NO 2 | June 2024 | 103–120 115

 ARTICLE Unveiling Internet Streaming Services: A Comparison Using Neutrosophic Graphs

Table 3 User encounters the subsequent indications.

User Video quality Content variety User interface Price Device compatibility
u1 (0.5, 0.4, 0.4) (0.4, 0.3, 0.3) (0.4, 0.5, 0.3) (0.5, 0.5, 0.5) (0.4, 0.5, 0.6)
u2 (0.2, 0.7, 0.3) (0.5, 0.7, 0.4) (0.4, 0.6, 0.5) (0.4, 0.6, 0.5) (0.4, 0.5, 0.6)
u3 (0.5, 0.4, 0.2) (0.7, 0.3, 0.5) (0.5, 0.6, 0.6) (0.4, 0.6, 0.5) (0.3, 0.5, 0.4)
u4 (0.6, 0.5, 0.3) (0.5, 0.5, 0.5) (0.3, 0.5, 0.6) (0.6, 0.3, 0.5) (0.5, 0.6, 0.8)
u5 (0.3, 0.5, 0.7) (0.3, 0.7, 0.1) (0.8, 0.5, 0.2) (0.3, 0.5, 0.8) (0.4, 0.3, 0.8)
u6 (0.4, 0.5, 0.6) (0.7, 0.5, 0.4) (0.7, 0.4, 0.2) (0.6, 0.5, 0.8) (0.7, 0.6, 0.5)
u7 (0.3, 0.6, 0.3) (0.5, 0.6, 0.5) (0.2, 0.8, 0.3) (0.5, 0.5, 0.6) (0.7, 0.6, 0.4)
u8 (0.2, 0.5, 0.6) (0.3, 0.6, 0.4) (0.2, 0.5, 0.6) (0.2, 0.6, 0.5) (0.6, 0.3, 0.4)

Table 4 Contrasting indications with the characteristic of various streaming service.

Characteristic Netflix HBO Max Hulu Disney+ Amazon Prime Video
Video quality (0.7, 0.4, 0.4) (0.3, 0.6, 0.4) (0.3, 0.7, 0.5) (0.2, 0.6, 0.7) (0.2, 0.7,0.3)
Content Variety (0.5, 0.6, 0.4) (0.3, 0.7, 0.5) (0.3, 0.6, 0.5) (0.3, 0.5, 0.7) (0.2, 0.7, 0.5)
User interface (0.2, 0.7, 0.4) (0.1, 0.7, 0.5) (0.4, 0.6, 0.7) (0.8, 0.4, 0.4) (0.2, 0.8, 0.2)
Price (0.4, 0.4, 0.5) (0.5, 0.2, 0.6) (0.4, 0.6, 0.7) (0. 2, 0.6, 0.5) (0.5,0.6, 0.5)
Device compatibility (0.2, 0.6, 0.5) (0.2, 0.7, 0.4) (0.0, 0.7, 0.5) (0. 2, 0.6, 0.5) (0.6, 0.3, 0.3)

Table 5 Shortest normalized Hamming distance.

User Netflix HBO Max Hulu Disney+ Amazon Prime Video
u1 0.2000 0.2600 0.2800 0.3200 0.2800
u2 0.2600 0.2800 0.2200 0.3000 0.2400
u3 0.1600 0.1800 0.2200 0.3400 0.3000
u4 0.1800 0.2400 0.2400 0.3600 0.3200
u5 0.3800 0.4200 0.3200 0.3000 0.4400
u6 0.2000 0.2800 0.2800 0.3400 0.2800
u7 0.2400 0.2600 0.2600 0.4000 0.1800
u8 0.3000 0.3000 0.2200 0.2800 0.2200

every indicators of i -th stream from k -th platform is

1 n
LNH(S(Pi ), dk ) = ∑ max{|μj (pi ) − μj (dk )|, |μj (pi ) − μj (dk )|, |μj (pi ) − μj (dk )|}.
2 j=1

5 Application 2
Let’s look at a situation where we wish to determine, based on the ordering patterns of a group of clients,
which meal delivery service they prefer. We have an array of indicators, I = {Delivery speed, Menu variety,
User-friendly app, Price competitiveness, Customer support satisfaction}, and a collection of customers,
C = {customer 1, customer 2, customer 3, …, customer N }. Our objective is to identify the critical
element influencing each customer’s choice of meal delivery service, taking into account their distinct
experiences and preferences. Here is a list of well-known platforms: P = {Instacart, Grubhub, Postmates,
DoorDash, Uber Eats}. A metric such as the food delivery normalized satisfaction score allows us to evaluate
the degree to which the features provided by various food delivery services and the preferences of individual
customers are comparable. When choosing a meal delivery platform, customers’ primary preference or
116 Fuzzy Information and Engineering | VOL 16 | NO 2 | June 2024 | 103–120
 Fuzzy Information and Engineering ARTICLE

u1, HBO Max u1, Hulu u1, Disney+

u1, Netf lix u1, Amazon Prime Video
+
lu ney
Ma
x Hu Dis
u2, Netf lix BO u 2, u 2, u2, Amazon Prime Video
H
u 2,
ey+
x ulu isn
O Ma u3 ,H u3 ,D
u3, Netf lix HB u3, Amazon Prime Video
u 3,
+
lu ney
Ma
x Hu Dis
u4, Netf lix BO u 4, u 4, u4, Amazon Prime Video
H
u,4

lu ey+
x Hu isn
O Ma u 5, u5 , D
u5, Netf lix HB u5, Amazon Prime Video
u 5,
+
lu ney
ax Hu Dis
OM u 6, u6 ,
u6, Amazon Prime Video
u6, Netf lix HB
u 6, ey+
ax ulu isn
OM u7 ,H u 7,
D
u7, Netf lix HB u7, Amazon Prime Video
u 7,

u8, Netf lix u8, Amazon Prime Video

u8, HBO Max u8, Hulu u8, Disney+

Fig. 6 Neuturosophic graph G1 ×m G2

underlying factor can be determined by looking at the measure with the lowest score for each individual
consumer. Let us take an example where customer 1 is looking for reasonable pricing, fast delivery, a wide
selection, an easy-to-use app, and excellent customer service. These preferences closely match the features
offered by several meal delivery services, therefore we can determine that the most important element for
customer1 is “Menu variety”, given how well it matches the offerings of Uber Eats and other similar
platforms. In a comparable manner, we can examine other consumers’ preferences (Table of customer
preferences) to determine which important aspect most accurately captures their propensity to use a specific
meal delivery service. Based on how well a client’s tastes match the options, we can use this method to draw
conclusions about the kind of food delivery service that each individual consumer prefers.
To find the core attribute by utilizing neutrosophic normalized Euclidean distance formula (Table 6) for
every indicators of i -th stream from k -th platform is
√
1 n
3n ∑
NED(A, B) = (((TN1 (xi ) − TN2 (xi ))2 + ((IN1 (xi ) − IN2 (xi ))2 + (FN1 (xi ) − FN2 (xi ))2 ).
i=1

Table 6 Shortest normalized Euclidean distance.

User Netflix HBO Max Hulu Disney+ Amazon Prime Video
u1 0.1751 0.2129 0.219 0.2265 0.2236
u2 0.1861 0.1788 0.1366 0.2018 0.2265
u3 0.1693 0.238 0.2113 0.2394 0.2633
u4 0.157 0.1949 0.2756 0.2756 0.2633
u5 0.2792 0.3065 0.272 0.2309 0.2898
u6 0.2755 0.2851 0.2847 0.2529 0.2744
u7 0.1861 0.1788 0.2422 0.284 0.1841
u8 0.2542 0.2408 0.2265 0.2581 0.2366

Fuzzy Information and Engineering | VOL 16 | NO 2 | June 2024 | 103–120 117

 ARTICLE Unveiling Internet Streaming Services: A Comparison Using Neutrosophic Graphs

6 Result Comparison
This analysis compares the streaming preferences of eight users (u1 to u8 ) across five major platforms:
Netflix, HBO Max, Hulu, Disney+, and Amazon Prime Video. Normalized Hamming distance formula and
normalized Euclidean distance formula methods contribute valuable insights, but the choice of the “best”
method depends on the specific analysis goals. If a quick overview of individual preferences is needed,
normalized Hamming distance formula method is effective, and we given graphical representation in Figs. 7
and 8.

7 Result Analysis
The streaming platforms that user’s u1 , u2 , u3 , u4 , u6 , and u8 prefer vary, and no single platform
predominates in their usage. Amazon Prime Video (44%) and Netflix (38%) are the platforms of choice for
user u5 , as evidenced by their clear preferences. Users u3 and u7 assign the largest percentages of their
streaming time to Hulu (24.22% and 28.4%, respectively), indicating their preference for this platform.
Users u1 and u3 strongly prefer Disney+, with u3 dedicating the largest portion of their streaming time to
this platform (23.94%). When compared to other users, user u5 has a noticeably higher preference for HBO
Max (30.65%). Amazon Prime Video is the most favored platform overall, as indicated by the overwhelming
preference of u5 among users. By capturing the wide range of individual preferences, the LNH(S(Pi),dk)
method offers insights into the distribution of streaming time. It is clear from comparing the two tables that
Netf lix HBO Max Hulu
0.50 Disney+ Amazon Prime Video
Normalized Hamming distance

0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0
u1 u2 u3 u4 u5 u6 u7 u8

Fig. 7 Neutrosophic graphs of normalized Hamming distance.

Netf lix HBO Max Hulu

0.35 Disney+ Amazon prime video
Linear (Amazon prime video)
Normalized Euclidean distance

0.30

0.25

0.20

0.15

0.10

0.05

0
u1 u2 u3 u4 u5 u6 u7 u8

Fig. 8 Neutrosophic graphs of normalized Euclidean distance.

118 Fuzzy Information and Engineering | VOL 16 | NO 2 | June 2024 | 103–120

 Fuzzy Information and Engineering ARTICLE

user u5 consistently prefers Amazon Prime Video in both analyses. The information emphasizes how
crucial it is to comprehend unique user preferences in order to customize content and enhance the
streaming platform user experience. The analysis emphasizes how platforms must plan their content
offerings to take into account the variety of user preferences.

8 Conclusion
Graph theory is an useful tool for resolving networking issues in a variety of domains, including
transportation and signal processing. It frequently deals with the issue of determining the shortest path
within a network. Neutrosophic graph models have gained traction in real-world scenarios where
information is not clear. These models yield membership data that is true, ambiguous, and false. This paper
presents the notion of the maximum product of the complement of two neutrosophic graphs, an efficient
way to combine various structural models. It is useful to investigate the regularity in the complement of two
neutrosophic graphs when developing dependable network and communication systems. Furthermore,
neutrosophic graphs are useful for making decisions. For example, they can be used to compare internet
streaming services and make well-informed choices.
Reference [13] introduces the n-SuperHyperGraph, the most general form of graph today. We are going
to extend our work in:
(1) Different type product of complement n-SuperHyperGraph;
(2) Product of Neutrosophic graph and its applications on medical flied;
(3) Product of Neutrosophic graph and its applications on textile industry;
(4) Neutrosophic coloring graph and their applications.

Publication History
Received: 10 November 2023; Revised: 31 January 2024; Accepted: 28 April 2024

References
[1] L. A. Zadeh, Fuzzy sets, Inf. Control, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 338–353, 1965.
[2] A. Rosenfeld, Fuzzy graphs, in Proc. US–Japan Seminar on Fuzzy Sets and Their Applications, Berkeley, CA, USA, 1974, pp. 77–95.
[3] R. T. Yeh and S. Y. Bang, Fuzzy relations, fuzzy graphs, and their applications to clustering analysis, in Proc. US–Japan Seminar on Fuzzy Sets and
Their Applications, Berkeley, CA, USA, 1974, pp. 125–149.
[4] K. T. Atanassov, Intuitionistic fuzzy sets, Fuzzy Sets Syst., vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 87–96, 1986.
[5] A. Shannon and K. T. Atanassov, A first step to a theory of the intuitionistic fuzzy graphs, in Proc. 1st Workshop on Fuzzy Based Expert Systems,
Sofia, Bulgaria, 1994, pp. 59–61
[6] R. Parvathi and M. G. Karunambigai, Intuitionistic fuzzy graphs, in Proc. Int. Conf. 9th Fuzzy Days, Dortmund, Germany, 2006.
[7] S. Sahoo and M. Pal, Diferent types of products on intuitionistic fuzzy graphs, Pac. Sci. Rev. A: Nat. Sci. Eng., vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 87–96, 2015.
[8] N. Yaqoob, M. Gulistan, S. Kadry, and H. A. Wahab, Complex intuitionistic fuzzy graphs with application in cellular network provider companies,
Mathematics, vol. 7, no. 1, p. 35, 2019.
[9] S. Y. Mohamed and A. M. Ali, Max-product on intuitionistic fuzzy graph, in Proc. 1st Int. Conf. Collaborative Research in Mathematical Sciences
(ICCRM’S17), Coimbatore, India, 2017, pp. 181–185.
[10] S. Y. Mohamed, and A. M. Ali, Complement of max product of intuitionistic fuzzy graphs, Complex Intell. Syst., vol. 7, pp. 2895–2905, 2021.
[11] S. Y. Mohamed and A. M. Ali, Modular product on intuitionistic fuzzy graphs, Int. J. Innov. Res. Sci. Eng. Technol., vol. 6, no. 9, pp. 19258–19263,
2017.
[12] F. Smarandache, Neutrosophic set - A generalization of the intuitionistic fuzzy set, in Proc. 2006 IEEE Int. Conf. Granular Computing, Atlanta, GA,
USA, 2006, pp. 38–42
[13] F. Smarandache, Introduction to the n-SuperHyperGraph - The most general form of graph today, Neutrosophic Sets Syst., vol. 48, pp. 483–485,

Fuzzy Information and Engineering | VOL 16 | NO 2 | June 2024 | 103–120 119

 ARTICLE Unveiling Internet Streaming Services: A Comparison Using Neutrosophic Graphs

2022.
[14] H. Rashmanlou, R. A. Borzooei, S. Samanta, M. Pal, Properties of interval valued intuitionistic (S,T) – Fuzzy graphs, Pac. Sci. Rev. A: Nat. Sci.
Eng., vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 30–37, 2016.
[15] H. Rashmanlou and M. Pal, Balanced interval-valued fuzzy graphs, J. Phys. Sci., vol. 17, pp. 43–57, 2013.
[16] H. Rashmanlou, S. Samanta, M. Pal, and R. A. Borzooei, Bipolar fuzzy graphs with categorical properties, Int. J. Comput. Intell. Syst., vol. 8, no. 5,
pp. 808–818, 2015.
[17] A. A. Talebi, H. Rashmanlou, and S. H. Sadati, New concepts on m-polar interval-valued intuitionistic fuzzy graph, TWMS J. App. Eng. Math., vol.
10, no. 3, pp. 806–818, 2020.
[18] H. Wang, F. Smarandache, Y. Zhang, and R. Sunderraman, Single valued neutrosophic sets, in Multispace & Multistructure. Neutrosophic
Transdisciplinarity (100 Collected Papers of Sciences), Vol. IV, F. Smarandache Ed. Hanko, Finland: North-European Scientific Publishers, 2010,
pp. 410–413
[19] A. Q. Ansari, R. Biswas, and S. Aggarwal, Neutrosophic classifier: An extension of fuzzy classifer, Appl. Soft Comput., vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 563–573,
2013.
[20] S. Broumi and F. Smarandache, New distance and similarity measures of interval neutrosophic sets, in Proc. 17th Int. Conf. Information Fusion
(FUSION), Salamanca, Spain, 2014, pp. 1–7.
[21] H. L. Yang, Z. L. Guo, Y. She, and X. Liao, On single valued neutrosophic relations, J. Intell. Fuzzy Syst., vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 1045–1056, 2016.
[22] M. Kaviyarasu, On r-edge regular neutrosophic graphs, Neutrosophic Sets Syst., vol. 53, 239–250, 2023.
[23] M. Alqahtani, M. Kaviyarasu, A. Al-Masarwah, and M. Rajeshwari, Application of complex neutrosophic graphs in hospital infrastructure design,
Mathematics, vol. 12, no. 5, pp. 719, 2024.
[24] M. Akram, S. Siddique, and B. Davvaz, New concepts in neutrosophic graphs with application, J. Appl. Math. Comput., vol. 57, pp. 279–302, 2018.

M. Kaviyarasu received the PhD degree in mathematics from Vellore Institute of Technology, Tamil Nadu, India, in 2020. He
is currently an assistant professor at the Department of Mathematics, Vel Tech Rangarajan Dr. Sagunthala R&D Institute of
Science and Technology, Chennai, India, His research interests include fuzzy algebra, fuzzy graph theory, and soft set theory.

120 Fuzzy Information and Engineering | VOL 16 | NO 2 | June 2024 | 103–120