0036 - Clique Number in Neutrosophic Graphs

Clique Number in
Neutrosophic Graphs
Ideas | Approaches | Accessibility | Availability
Dr. Henry Garrett

Report | Exposition | References | Research #22 2022
Abstract
In this book, some notions are introduced about “Independence in Neutrosophic

Graphs.” Three chapters are devised as “Common Notions”, “Modified Notions”
and “Extended Notions”. Three manuscripts are cited as the references of these
chapters which are my 53rd, 54th, and 55th manuscripts. I’ve used my 53rd,
54th, and 55th manuscripts to write this book.
In first chapter, there are some points as follow. New setting is introduced
to study neutrosophic clique number and clique neutrosophic-number arising
neighborhood of different vertices. Neighbor is a key term to have these
notions. Having all possible edges amid vertices in a set is a key type
of approach to have these notions namely neutrosophic clique number and
clique neutrosophic-number. Two numbers are obtained but now both settings
leads to approach is on demand which is finding biggest set which have all
vertices which are neighbors. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a neutrosophic graph.
Then clique number C(N T G) for a neutrosophic graph N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) is
maximum cardinality of a set S of vertices such that every two vertices of S are
endpoints for an edge, simultaneously; clique neutrosophic-number Cn (N T G) for
a neutrosophic graph N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) is maximum neutrosophic cardinality
of a set S of vertices such that every two vertices of S are endpoints for an edge,
simultaneously. As concluding results, there are some statements, remarks,
examples and clarifications about some classes of neutrosophic graphs namely
path-neutrosophic graphs, cycle-neutrosophic graphs, complete-neutrosophic
graphs, star-neutrosophic graphs, complete-bipartite-neutrosophic graphs and
complete-t-partite-neutrosophic graphs. The clarifications are also presented in
both sections “Setting of Neutrosophic clique Number,” and “Setting of clique
Neutrosophic-Number,” for introduced results and used classes. Neutrosophic
number is reused in this way. It’s applied to use the type of neutrosophic
number in the way that, three values of a vertex are used and they’ve same
share to construct this number to compare with other vertices. Summation
of three values of vertex makes one number and applying it to a comparison.
This approach facilitates identifying vertices which form neutrosophic clique
number and clique neutrosophic-number arising neighborhoods of vertices. In
path-neutrosophic graphs, two neighbors, form maximal set but with slightly
differences, in cycle-neutrosophic graphs, two neighbors forms maximal set.
Other classes have same approaches. In complete-neutrosophic graphs, a set
of all vertices leads us to neutrosophic clique number and clique neutrosophic-
number. In star-neutrosophic graphs, a set of vertices containing only center
and one other vertex, makes maximal set. In complete-bipartite-neutrosophic
i
Abstract
graphs, a set of vertices including two vertices from different parts makes
intended set but with slightly differences, in complete-t-partite-neutrosophic
graphs, a set of t vertices from different parts makes intended set. In both
settings, some classes of well-known neutrosophic graphs are studied. Some
clarifications for each result and each definition are provided. Using basic set
to extend this set to set of all vertices has key role to have these notions in the
form of neutrosophic clique number and clique neutrosophic-number arising
neighborhood of vertices. The cardinality of a set has eligibility to neutrosophic
clique number but the neutrosophic cardinality of a set has eligibility to call
clique neutrosophic-number. Some results get more frameworks and perspective
about these definitions. The way in that, two vertices have connections amid
each other, opens the way to do some approaches. A vertex could affect on
other vertex but there’s no usage of edges. These notions are applied into
neutrosophic graphs as individuals but not family of them as drawbacks for
these notions. Finding special neutrosophic graphs which are well-known, is
an open way to pursue this study. Some problems are proposed to pursue this
study. Basic familiarities with graph theory and neutrosophic graph theory are
proposed for this chapter.
In second chapter, there are some points as follow. New setting is introduced
to study neutrosophic failed-clique number and failed clique neutrosophic-
number arising being out of neighborhood of vertices. Being out of neighbor
is a key term to have these notions. Not having all possible edges amid
vertices in a set is a key type of approach to have these notions namely
neutrosophic failed-clique number and failed clique neutrosophic-number. Two
numbers are obtained but now both settings leads to approach is on demand
which is finding smallest set which doesn’t have any vertex which is neighbor.
Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a neutrosophic graph. Then failed clique number
C F (N T G) for a neutrosophic graph N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) is minimum cardinality
of a set S of vertices such that there are two vertices in S aren’t endpoints
for an edge, simultaneously; failed clique neutrosophic-number CnF (N T G) for a
neutrosophic graph N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) is minimum neutrosophic cardinality of
a set S of vertices such that there are two vertices in S aren’t endpoints for an
edge, simultaneously. As concluding results, there are some statements, remarks,
both sections “Setting of Neutrosophic Failed-Clique Number,” and “Setting of
Failed Clique Neutrosophic-Number,” for introduced results and used classes.
Neutrosophic number is reused in this way. It’s applied to use the type of
neutrosophic number in the way that, three values of a vertex are used and
they’ve same share to construct this number to compare with other vertices.
Summation of three values of vertex makes one number and applying it
to a comparison. This approach facilitates identifying vertices which form
neutrosophic failed-clique number and failed clique neutrosophic-number arising
being out of neighborhood of vertices. In path-neutrosophic graphs, two vertices
which aren’t neighbors, form minimal set but with slightly differences, in
cycle-neutrosophic graphs, two vertices which aren’t neighbors form minimal
set. Other classes have same approaches. In complete-neutrosophic graphs,
an empty set leads us to neutrosophic failed-clique number and failed clique
ii
neutrosophic-number. In star-neutrosophic graphs, a set of vertices containing
only two vertices which aren’t neighbors, makes minimal set. In complete-
bipartite-neutrosophic graphs, a set of vertices including two vertices from same
part makes intended set but with slightly differences, in complete-t-partite-
neutrosophic graphs, a set of two vertices from same part makes intended set. In
both settings, some classes of well-known neutrosophic graphs are studied. Some
clarifications for each result and each definition are provided. Using basic set to
extend this set to set of all vertices has key role to have these notions in the form
of neutrosophic failed-clique number and failed clique neutrosophic-number
arising being out of neighborhood of vertices. The cardinality of a set has
eligibility to neutrosophic failed-clique number but the neutrosophic cardinality
of a set has eligibility to call failed clique neutrosophic-number. Some results
get more frameworks and perspective about these definitions. The way in that,
two vertices have no connection amid each other, opens the way to do some
approaches. A vertex could affect on other vertex but there’s no usage of edges.
These notions are applied into neutrosophic graphs as individuals but not family
of them as drawbacks for these notions. Finding special neutrosophic graphs
which are well-known, is an open way to pursue this study. Some problems
are proposed to pursue this study. Basic familiarities with graph theory and
neutrosophic graph theory are proposed for this chapter.
In third chapter, there are some points as follow. New setting is introduced to
study 1-clique number, 1-clique neutrosophic-number, failed 1-clique number
and failed 1-clique neutrosophic-number arising being (out of) neighborhood
of vertices. Being (out of) neighbor is a key term to have these notions. Not
having all possible edges amid vertices in a set is a key type of approach to
have these notions namely neutrosophic failed-1-clique number and failed 1-
clique neutrosophic-number. Two numbers are obtained but now both settings
leads to approach is on demand which is finding (biggest) smallest set which
(doesn’t) have any vertex which is neighbor. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a
neutrosophic graph. Then 1-clique number C(N T G) for a neutrosophic graph
N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) is maximum cardinality of a set S of vertices such that every
two vertices of S are endpoints for an edge, simultaneously. It holds extra
condition which is as follows: two vertices have no edge in common are considered
as exception but only for one time; 1-clique neutrosophic-number Cn (N T G) for
of a set S of vertices such that every two vertices of S are endpoints for an
edge, simultaneously. It holds extra condition which is as follows: two vertices
have no edge in common are considered as exception but only for one time;
failed 1-clique number C F (N T G) for a neutrosophic graph N T G : (V, E, σ, µ)
is minimum cardinality of a set S of vertices such that there are two vertices in
S aren’t endpoints for an edge, simultaneously. It holds extra condition which
is as follows: two vertices have no edge in common are considered as exception
but only for one time; failed 1-clique neutrosophic-number CnF (N T G) for a
neutrosophic graph N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) is minimum neutrosophic cardinality
for an edge, simultaneously. It holds extra condition which is as follows: two
vertices have no edge in common are considered as exception but only for one
time. As concluding results, there are some statements, remarks, examples
and clarifications about some classes of neutrosophic graphs namely path-
neutrosophic graphs, cycle-neutrosophic graphs, complete-neutrosophic graphs,
iii
Abstract
star-neutrosophic graphs, complete-bipartite-neutrosophic graphs and complete-

t-partite-neutrosophic graphs. The clarifications are also presented in both
sections “Setting of Neutrosophic (Failed)1-clique Number,” and “Setting of
(Failed) 1-clique Neutrosophic-Number,” for introduced results and used classes.
Summation of three values of vertex makes one number and applying it to a
comparison. This approach facilitates identifying vertices which form 1-clique
number, 1-clique neutrosophic-number, failed 1-clique number and failed 1-
clique neutrosophic-number arising being (out of) neighborhood of vertices.
In both settings, some classes of well-known neutrosophic graphs are studied.
Some clarifications for each result and each definition are provided. Using
basic set to extend this set to set of all vertices has key role to have these
notions in the form of 1-clique number, 1-clique neutrosophic-number, failed
1-clique number and failed 1-clique neutrosophic-number arising being (out of)
(failed)-1-clique number but the neutrosophic cardinality of a set has eligibility
to call (failed) 1-clique neutrosophic-number. Some results get more frameworks
and perspective about these definitions. The way in that, two vertices have
no connection amid each other, opens the way to do some approaches. A
vertex could affect on other vertex but there’s no usage of edges. These notions
are applied into neutrosophic graphs as individuals but not family of them as
drawbacks for these notions. Finding special neutrosophic graphs which are
well-known, is an open way to pursue this study. Some problems are proposed
to pursue this study. Basic familiarities with graph theory and neutrosophic
graph theory are proposed for this chapter.
The following references are cited by chapters.
[Ref1] Henry Garrett, “Clique Number in Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate
2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28338.68800).
[Ref2] Henry Garrett, “Failed Clique Number in Neutrosophic Graphs”,
ResearchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.36039.16800).
[Ref3] Henry Garrett, “(Failed) 1-Clique Number in Neutrosophic Graphs”,
Three chapters are devised as “Common Notions”, “Modified Notions” and “Extended
Notions”.
iv
Acknowledgements
The author is going to express 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 from the words, notions, ideas and approaches to have the material The words of mind and the
and the contents which are only the way to flourish the minds, to grow the minds of words, are too
eligible to be in the stage
notions, to advance the ways and to make the stable ways to be amid events of acknowledgements
and storms of minds for surviving from them and making the outstanding
experiences about the tools and the ideas to be on the star lines of words and
shining like stars, forever.
v
Contents
Abstract i
Acknowledgements v
Contents vii
List of Figures ix
List of Tables xii
1 Common Notions 1
1.1 Clique Number in Neutrosophic Graphs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.3 Motivation and Contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.4 Preliminaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.5 Setting of Neutrosophic clique Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.6 Setting of clique Neutrosophic-Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
1.7 Applications in Time Table and Scheduling . . . . . . . . . . . 28
1.8 Case 1: Complete-t-partite Model alongside its clique Number
and its clique Neutrosophic-Number . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
1.9 Case 2: Complete Model alongside its A Neutrosophic Graph in
the Viewpoint of its clique Number and its clique Neutrosophic-
Number. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
1.10 Open Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
1.11 Conclusion and Closing Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2 Modified Notions 35
2.1 Failed Clique Number in Neutrosophic Graphs . . . . . . . . . 35
2.2 Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
2.4 Preliminaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
2.5 Setting of Neutrosophic Failed-Clique Number . . . . . . . . . 40
2.6 Setting of Failed Clique Neutrosophic-Number . . . . . . . . . 54
2.8 Case 1: Complete-t-partite Model alongside its failed clique
number and its failed clique neutrosophic-number . . . . . . . 70
vii
Contents
2.9 Case 2: Complete Model alongside its A Neutrosophic Graph

in the Viewpoint of its failed clique number and its failed clique
neutrosophic-number. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
2.10 Open Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
3 Extended Notions 75
3.1 (Failed) 1-Clique Number in Neutrosophic Graphs . . . . . . . 75
3.2 Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
3.4 Preliminaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
3.5 Setting of Neutrosophic 1-Clique Number . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
3.6 Setting of 1-Clique Neutrosophic-Number . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
3.7 Setting of Neutrosophic Failed-1-Clique Number . . . . . . . . 104
3.8 Setting of Failed 1-Clique Neutrosophic-Number . . . . . . . . 119
3.10 Case 1: Complete-t-partite Model alongside its failed 1-clique
number and its failed 1-clique neutrosophic-number . . . . . . 135
3.11 Case 2: Complete Model alongside its A Neutrosophic Graph
in the Viewpoint of its failed 1-clique number and its failed
1-clique neutrosophic-number. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
3.12 Open Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
Bibliography 141
viii
List of Figures
1.1 A Neutrosophic Graph in the Viewpoint of its clique Number and

its clique Neutrosophic-Number. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.2 A Neutrosophic Graph in the Viewpoint of its clique Number. . . . 7
1.10 A Neutrosophic Graph in the Viewpoint of its clique Neutrosophic-
Number. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Number. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Number. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Number. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Number. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Number. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Number. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Number. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
2.1 A Neutrosophic Graph in the Viewpoint of its Failed Clique number

and its Failed Clique neutrosophic-number. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
2.2 A Neutrosophic Graph in the Viewpoint of its Failed Clique Number. 41
ix
List of Figures

2.18 A Neutrosophic Graph in the Viewpoint of its failed clique number
and its failed clique neutrosophic-number. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
2.19 A Neutrosophic Graph in the Viewpoint of its failed clique number
and its failed clique neutrosophic-number. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
3.1 A Neutrosophic Graph in the Viewpoint of its 1-Clique Number

and its 1-Clique Neutrosophic-Number. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
3.2 A Neutrosophic Graph in the Viewpoint of its Failed 1-Clique
number and its Failed 1-Clique neutrosophic-number. . . . . . . . 81
3.3 A Neutrosophic Graph in the Viewpoint of its 1-Clique Number. . 83
3.11 A Neutrosophic Graph in the Viewpoint of its 1-Clique
Neutrosophic-Number. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Number. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Number. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
x
List of Figures

Number. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Number. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
Number. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
Number. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
Number. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
Number. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
Number. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
Number. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
Number. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
Number. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
xi
List of Tables
1.1 Scheduling concerns its Subjects and its Connections as a neutro-

sophic graph in a Model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
1.2 A Brief Overview about Advantages and Limitations of this study 33

2.2 A Brief Overview about Advantages and Limitations of this Study 74

3.2 A Brief Overview about Advantages and Limitations of this Study 139
xii
CHAPTER 1
Common Notions
The following sections are cited as [Ref1] which is my 53rd manuscript and I
use prefix 53 as number before any labelling for items.
1.1 Clique Number in Neutrosophic Graphs
1.2 Abstract
New setting is introduced to study neutrosophic clique number and clique
neutrosophic-number arising neighborhood of different vertices. Neighbor is a
key term to have these notions. Having all possible edges amid vertices in a set is
a key type of approach to have these notions namely neutrosophic clique number
and clique neutrosophic-number. Two numbers are obtained but now both
settings leads to approach is on demand which is finding biggest set which have
all vertices which are neighbors. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a neutrosophic graph.
Then clique number C(N T G) for a neutrosophic graph N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) is
maximum cardinality of a set S of vertices such that every two vertices of S are
endpoints for an edge, simultaneously; clique neutrosophic-number Cn (N T G) for
of a set S of vertices such that every two vertices of S are endpoints for an edge,
simultaneously. As concluding results, there are some statements, remarks,
both sections “Setting of Neutrosophic clique Number,” and “Setting of clique
Neutrosophic-Number,” for introduced results and used classes. Neutrosophic
number is reused in this way. It’s applied to use the type of neutrosophic
number in the way that, three values of a vertex are used and they’ve same
share to construct this number to compare with other vertices. Summation
of three values of vertex makes one number and applying it to a comparison.
This approach facilitates identifying vertices which form neutrosophic clique
number and clique neutrosophic-number arising neighborhoods of vertices. In
path-neutrosophic graphs, two neighbors, form maximal set but with slightly
differences, in cycle-neutrosophic graphs, two neighbors forms maximal set.
Other classes have same approaches. In complete-neutrosophic graphs, a set
of all vertices leads us to neutrosophic clique number and clique neutrosophic-
1
1. Common Notions
number. In star-neutrosophic graphs, a set of vertices containing only center

and one other vertex, makes maximal set. In complete-bipartite-neutrosophic
graphs, a set of vertices including two vertices from different parts makes
intended set but with slightly differences, in complete-t-partite-neutrosophic
graphs, a set of t vertices from different parts makes intended set. In both
settings, some classes of well-known neutrosophic graphs are studied. Some
clarifications for each result and each definition are provided. Using basic set
to extend this set to set of all vertices has key role to have these notions in the
form of neutrosophic clique number and clique neutrosophic-number arising
clique number but the neutrosophic cardinality of a set has eligibility to call
about these definitions. The way in that, two vertices have connections amid
proposed for this article.
Keywords: Neutrosophic clique Number, clique Neutrosophic-Number,
Maximal Set
AMS Subject Classification: 05C17, 05C22, 05E45
1.3 Motivation and Contributions

In this study, there’s an idea which could be considered as a motivation.
Question 1.3.1. Is it possible to use mixed versions of ideas concerning
“Neutrosophic clique Number”, “clique Neutrosophic-Number” and “Neutrosophic
Graph” to define some notions which are applied to neutrosophic graphs?
It’s motivation to find notions to use in any classes of neutrosophic graphs.
Real-world applications about time table and scheduling are another thoughts
which lead to be considered as motivation. One connection amid two vertices
have key roles to assign neutrosophic clique number, clique neutrosophic-number
arising neighborhood of vertices. Thus they’re used to define new ideas which
conclude to the structure neutrosophic clique number and clique neutrosophic-
number arising neighborhood of vertices. The concept of having edge and extra
condition inspire us to study the behavior of vertices in the way that, some types
of numbers, neutrosophic clique number, clique neutrosophic-number arising
neighborhood of vertices are the cases of study in the setting of individuals. In
both settings, a corresponded number concludes the discussion. Also, there are
some avenues to extend these notions.
The framework of this study is as follows. In the beginning, I introduce
basic definitions to clarify about preliminaries. In subsection “Preliminaries”,
new notions of neutrosophic clique number, clique neutrosophic-number are
highlighted, are introduced and are clarified as individuals. In section
“Preliminaries”, sets of vertices have the key role in this way. General results
2
1.4. Preliminaries
are obtained and also, the results about the basic notions of neutrosophic clique
number, clique neutrosophic-number are elicited. Some classes of neutrosophic
graphs are studied in the terms of neutrosophic clique number, in section
“Setting of Neutrosophic clique Number,” as individuals. In section “Setting
of clique Neutrosophic-Number,” clique neutrosophic-number is applied into
individuals. As concluding results, there are some statements, remarks, examples
sections “Setting of Neutrosophic clique Number,” and “Setting of clique
Neutrosophic-Number,” for introduced results and used classes. In section
“Applications in Time Table and Scheduling”, two applications are posed for
quasi-complete and complete notions, namely complete-t-neutrosophic graphs
and complete-neutrosophic graphs concerning time table and scheduling when
the suspicions are about choosing some subjects and the mentioned models
are considered as individual. In section “Open Problems”, some problems
and questions for further studies are proposed. In section “Conclusion and
Closing Remarks”, gentle discussion about results and applications is featured.
In section “Conclusion and Closing Remarks”, a brief overview concerning
advantages and limitations of this study alongside conclusions is formed.
1.4 Preliminaries
In this subsection, basic material which is used in this article, is presented.
Also, new ideas and their clarifications are elicited.
Basic idea is about the model which is used. First definition introduces basic
model.
Definition 1.4.1. (Graph).
G = (V, E) is called a graph if V is a set of objects and E is a subset of V × V
(E is a set of 2-subsets of V ) where V is called vertex set and E is called
edge set. Every two vertices have been corresponded to at most one edge.
Neutrosophic graph is the foundation of results in this paper which is defined
as follows. Also, some related notions are demonstrated.
Definition 1.4.2. (Neutrosophic Graph And Its Special Case).
N T G = (V, E, σ = (σ1 , σ2 , σ3 ), µ = (µ1 , µ2 , µ3 )) is called a neutrosophic
graph if it’s graph, σi : V → [0, 1], and µi : E → [0, 1]. We add one condition
on it and we use special case of neutrosophic graph but with same name. The
added condition is as follows, for every vi vj ∈ E,
µ(vi vj ) ≤ σ(vi ) ∧ σ(vj ).
(i) : σ is called neutrosophic vertex set.

(ii) : µ is called neutrosophic edge set.
(iii) : |V | is called order of NTG and it’s denoted by O(N T G).
P
(iv) : v∈V σ(v) is called neutrosophic order of NTG and it’s denoted by
On (N T G).
3
1. Common Notions
(v) : |E| is called size of NTG and it’s denoted by S(N T G).
P P3
(vi) : e∈E i=1 µi (e) is called neutrosophic size of NTG and it’s denoted
by Sn (N T G).
Some classes of well-known neutrosophic graphs are defined. These classes

of neutrosophic graphs are used to form this study and the most results are
about them.
Definition 1.4.3. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a neutrosophic graph. Then
(i) : a sequence of vertices P : x0 , x1 , · · · , xO is called path where xi xi+1 ∈

E, i = 0, 1, · · · , n − 1;
V
(ii) : strength of path P : x0 , x1 , · · · , xO is i=0,··· ,n−1 µ(xi xi+1 );
(iii) : connectedness amid vertices x0 and xt is

_ ^
µ∞ (x0 , xt ) = µ(xi xi+1 );
P :x0 ,x1 ,··· ,xt i=0,··· ,t−1
(iv) : a sequence of vertices P : x0 , x1 , · · · , xO is called cycle where xi xi+1 ∈

E, i = 0, 1, · · · , V
n − 1 and there are two edges xy and uv such that
µ(xy) = µ(uv) = i=0,1,··· ,n−1 µ(vi vi+1 );
(v) : it’s t-partite where V is partitioned to t parts, V1s1 , V2s2 , · · · , Vtst and
s
the edge xy implies x ∈ Visi and y ∈ Vj j where i 6= j. If it’s complete,
then it’s denoted by Kσ1 ,σ2 ,··· ,σt where σi is σ on Visi instead V which
mean x 6∈ Vi induces σi (x) = 0. Also, |Vjsi | = si ;
(vi) : t-partite is complete bipartite if t = 2, and it’s denoted by Kσ1 ,σ2 ;
(vii) : complete bipartite is star if |V1 | = 1, and it’s denoted by S1,σ2 ;
(viii) : a vertex in V is center if the vertex joins to all vertices of a cycle. Then
it’s wheel and it’s denoted by W1,σ2 ;
(ix) : it’s complete where ∀uv ∈ V, µ(uv) = σ(u) ∧ σ(v);
(x) : it’s strong where ∀uv ∈ E, µ(uv) = σ(u) ∧ σ(v).
The natural way proposes us to use the restriction “maximum” instead of

“minimum.”
Definition 1.4.4. (Clique Number).
Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a neutrosophic graph. Then
(i) clique number C(N T G) for a neutrosophic graph N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) is

maximum cardinality of a set S of vertices such that every two vertices of
S are endpoints for an edge, simultaneously;
(ii) clique neutrosophic-number Cn (N T G) for a neutrosophic graph

N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) is maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a set S of
vertices such that every two vertices of S are endpoints for an edge,
simultaneously.
4
1.5. Setting of Neutrosophic clique Number
For convenient usages, the word neutrosophic which is used in previous

definition, won’t be used, usually.
In next part, clarifications about main definition are given. To avoid confusion
and for convenient usages, examples are usually used after every part and names
are used in the way that, abbreviation, simplicity, and summarization are the
matters of mind.
Example 1.4.5. In Figure (1.1), a complete neutrosophic graph is illustrated.
Some points are represented in follow-up items as follows.
(i) If S = {n1 , n2 } is a set of vertices, then there’s no vertex in S but n1 and

n2 . In other side, for having an edge, there’s a need to have two vertices.
So by using the members of S, it’s possible to have endpoints of an edge.
There’s one edge to have exclusive endpoints from S. But it implies that
S = {n1 , n2 } isn’t corresponded to both of clique number C(N T G) and
clique neutrosophic-number Cn (N T G);
(ii) if S = {n2 , n4 } is a set of vertices, then there’s no vertex in S but n2 and

S = {n2 , n4 } isn’t corresponded to both of clique number C(N T G) and
(iii) if S = {n1 } is a set of vertices, then there’s no vertex in S but n1 . In

other side, for having an edge, there’s a need to have two vertices. So
by using the members of S, it’s impossible to have endpoints of an edge.
Furthermore, There’s no edge to have exclusive endpoints from S. But
it implies that S = {n1 } isn’t corresponded to both of clique number
C(N T G) and clique neutrosophic-number Cn (N T G);
(iv) if S = {n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 } is a set of vertices, then there’s no vertex in S but

n1 , n2 , n3 , and n4 . In other side, for having an edge, there’s a need to
have two vertices. So by using the members of S, it’s possible to have
endpoints of an edge. There are twelve edges to have exclusive endpoints
from S. It implies that S = {n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 } is corresponded to both clique
number C(N T G) and clique neutrosophic-number Cn (N T G);
(v) 4 is clique number and its corresponded sets is {n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 };
(vi) On (N T G) = 5.9 is clique neutrosophic-number and its corresponded set

is {n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 }.
1.5 Setting of Neutrosophic clique Number

In this section, I provide some results in the setting of neutrosophic clique
number. Some classes of neutrosophic graphs are chosen. Complete-
neutrosophic graph, path-neutrosophic graph, cycle-neutrosophic graph,
and star-neutrosophic graph, bipartite-neutrosophic graph, and t-partite-
neutrosophic graph, are both of cases of study and classes which the results are
about them.
5
1. Common Notions
Figure 1.1: A Neutrosophic Graph in the Viewpoint of its clique Number and
its clique Neutrosophic-Number. 53NTG1
Proposition 1.5.1. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a complete-neutrosophic graph.

Then
C(N T G) = O(N T G).
Proof. Suppose N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) is a complete-neutrosophic graph. Every

vertex is a neighbor for every given vertex. Assume |S| > 2. Then there are x, y
and z in S such that they’re endpoints of an edge, simultaneously, and they
form a triangle. In other side, for having an edge, there’s a need to have two
vertices. So by using the members of S, it’s possible to have endpoints of an
edge. There are all possible edges to have exclusive endpoints from S. It implies
that S = {ni }|S|=O(N T G) is corresponded to clique number. Thus
The clarifications about results are in progress as follows. A complete-

neutrosophic graph is related to previous result and it’s studied to apply the
definitions on it. To make it more clear, next part gives one special case to
apply definitions and results on it. Some items are devised to make more sense
about new notions. A complete-neutrosophic graph is related to previous result
and it’s studied to apply the definitions on it, too.

There’s one edge to have exclusive endpoints from S. S = {ni }|S|6=O(N T G) .
Thus it implies that S = {n1 , n2 } isn’t corresponded to both of clique

6
Figure 1.2: A Neutrosophic Graph in the Viewpoint of its clique Number. 53NTG2
Thus it implies that S = {n2 , n4 } is corresponded to neither clique number

C(N T G) nor clique neutrosophic-number Cn (N T G);
(iii) if S = {n1 } is a set of vertices, then there’s no vertex in S but n1 . In other

side, for having an edge, there’s a need to have two vertices. So by using the
members of S, it’s impossible to have endpoints of an edge. Furthermore,
There’s no edge to have exclusive endpoints from S. S = {ni }|S|6=O(N T G) .
Thus it implies that S = {n1 } is corresponded to neither clique number

endpoints of an edge. S = {ni }|S|=O(N T G) . Thus there are twelve edges
to have exclusive endpoints from S. It implies that S = {n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 }
is corresponded to both clique number C(N T G) and clique neutrosophic-
number Cn (N T G);

is {n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 }.
Proposition 1.5.3. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a path-neutrosophic graph. Then
C(N T G) = 2.
Proof. Suppose N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) is a path-neutrosophic graph. Every vertex

isn’t a neighbor for every given vertex. If |S| > 2, then there are at least three
vertices x, y and z such that if x is a neighbor for y and z, then y and z aren’t
neighbors. Thus there is no triangle but there’s one edge. One edge has two
endpoints. These endpoints are corresponded to clique number C(N T G). So
C(N T G) = 2.
Example 1.5.4. There are two sections for clarifications.
7
1. Common Notions
(a) In Figure (1.3), an odd-path-neutrosophic graph is illustrated. Some

points are represented in follow-up items as follows.
(i) If S = {n2 , n4 } is a set of vertices, then there’s no vertex in S but
n2 and n4 . In other side, for having an edge, there’s a need to have
two vertices. So by using the members of S, it’s impossible to have
endpoints of an edge. There’s no edge to have exclusive endpoints
from S. S = {ni }|S|=2 but it doesn’t imply that S = {n2 , n4 } is
corresponded to either clique number C(N T G) or clique neutrosophic-
number Cn (N T G);
(ii) if S = {n1 , n3 } is a set of vertices, then there’s no vertex in S but
number Cn (N T G);
(iii) if S = {n1 , n3 , n4 , n5 } is a set of vertices, then there’s no vertex in
S but n1 , n3 , n4 and n5 . In other side, for having an edge, there’s
a need to have two vertices which are consecutive. So by using
the members either n3 , n4 or n4 , n5 of S, it’s possible to have
endpoints of an edge either n3 n4 or n4 n5 . There are two edges
to have exclusive endpoints from S. S = {ni }|S|6=2 thus it implies
that S = {n1 , n3 , n4 , n5 } is corresponded to neither clique number
(iv) if S = {n5 , n6 } is a set of vertices, then there’s no vertex in S but n5
and n6 . In other side, for having an edge, there’s a need to have two
vertices. So by using the members of S, it’s possible to have endpoints
of an edge. There’s one edge to have exclusive endpoints from S.
S = {ni }|S|6=2 thus it implies that S = {n5 , n6 } is corresponded
to both clique number C(N T G) and clique neutrosophic-number
Cn (N T G);
(v) 2 is clique number and its corresponded set is {n1 , n2 }, {n1 , n3 },
{n1 , n4 }, {n1 , n5 }, {n2 , n3 }, {n2 , n4 }, {n2 , n5 }, {n3 , n4 }, {n3 , n5 },
and {n4 , n5 };
(vi) 3.2 is clique neutrosophic-number and its corresponded set is {n1 , n2 }.
(b) In Figure (1.4), an even-path-neutrosophic graph is illustrated. Some
number Cn (N T G);
8

number Cn (N T G);
Cn (N T G);
{n1 , n4 }, {n1 , n5 }, {n1 , n6 }, {n2 , n3 }, {n2 , n4 }, {n2 , n5 }, {n2 , n6 },
{n3 , n4 }, {n3 , n5 }, {n3 , n6 }, {n4 , n5 }, {n4 , n6 }, and {n5 , n6 };
Proposition 1.5.5. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a cycle-neutrosophic graph. Then
C(N T G) = 2.
Proof. Suppose N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) is a cycle-neutrosophic graph. Every vertex

9
1. Common Notions
C(N T G) = 2.
The clarifications about results are in progress as follows. An odd-cycle-

about new notions. An even-cycle-neutrosophic graph is related to previous
result and it’s studied to apply the definitions on it, too.
(a) In Figure (1.5), an even-cycle-neutrosophic graph is illustrated. Some
number Cn (N T G);
number Cn (N T G);
10

Cn (N T G);
{n1 , n4 }, {n1 , n5 }, {n1 , n6 }, {n2 , n3 }, {n2 , n4 }, {n2 , n5 }, {n2 , n6 },
{n3 , n4 }, {n3 , n5 }, {n3 , n6 }, {n4 , n5 }, {n4 , n6 }, {n5 , n6 }, and
{n6 , n1 };
(vi) 4 is clique neutrosophic-number and its corresponded set is {n2 , n3 }.
(b) In Figure (1.6), an odd-cycle-neutrosophic graph is illustrated. Some


number Cn (N T G);
number Cn (N T G);
11
1. Common Notions

Cn (N T G);
{n1 , n4 }, {n1 , n5 }, {n2 , n3 }, {n2 , n4 }, {n2 , n5 }, {n3 , n4 }, {n3 , n5 },
{n4 , n5 }, and {n5 , n1 };
Proposition 1.5.7. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a star-neutrosophic graph with

center c. Then
C(N T G) = 2.
Proof. Suppose N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) is a star-neutrosophic graph. Every vertex

isn’t a neighbor for every given vertex. Every vertex is a neighbor for center.
Furthermore, center is only neighbor for any given vertex. So center is only
neighbor for all vertices. Hence all vertices including center and one other
vertex are only members of S is a set which its cardinality is clique number
C(N T G). In other words, if |S| > 2, then there are at least three vertices x, y
and z such that if x is a neighbor for y and z, then y and z aren’t neighbors
and x is center. Thus there is no triangle but there’s one edge. One edge has
12
two endpoints which one of them is center. These endpoints are corresponded
to clique number C(N T G). So
C(N T G) = 2.
The clarifications about results are in progress as follows. A star-neutrosophic

graph is related to previous result and it’s studied to apply the definitions on it.
To make it more clear, next part gives one special case to apply definitions and
results on it. Some items are devised to make more sense about new notions. A
star-neutrosophic graph is related to previous result and it’s studied to apply
the definitions on it, too.
Example 1.5.8. There is one section for clarifications. In Figure (1.7), a star-
neutrosophic graph is illustrated. Some points are represented in follow-up
items as follows.

So by using the members of S, it’s impossible to have endpoints of an
edge. There’s no edge to have exclusive endpoints from S. S = {ni }|S|=2
but it doesn’t imply that S = {n2 , n4 } is corresponded to either clique
number C(N T G) or clique neutrosophic-number Cn (N T G);
(ii) if S = {n3 , n4 , n5 } is a set of vertices, then there’s no vertex in S but

n3 , n4 and n5 . In other side, for having an edge, there’s a need to have
endpoints of an edge. There’s no edge to have exclusive endpoints from S.
S = {ni }|S|6=2 thus It doesn’t imply that S = {n3 , n5 } is corresponded to
either clique number C(N T G) or clique neutrosophic-number Cn (N T G);
(iii) if S = {n1 , n3 , n4 , n5 } is a set of vertices, then there’s no vertex in S but

n1 , n3 , n4 and n5 . In other side, for having an edge, there’s a need to have
two vertices which are consecutive. S = {ni }|S|=O(N T G)−1 so by using
the members either n1 , n3 or n1 , n4 or n1 , n5 of S, it’s possible to have
endpoints of an edge either n1 n3 or n1 n4 or n1 n5 . There are three edges
to have exclusive endpoints from S. S = {ni }|S|6=2 thus it doesn’t imply
that S = {n1 , n3 , n4 , n5 } is corresponded to either clique number C(N T G)
or clique neutrosophic-number Cn (N T G);
(iv) if S = {n1 , n4 } is a set of vertices, then there’s no vertex in S but n1 and

There’s one edge to have exclusive endpoints from S. S = {ni }|S|=2 thus
it implies that S = {n1 , n4 } is corresponded to both of clique number
(v) 2 is clique number and its corresponded sets are {n1 , n2 }, {n1 , n3 },
{n1 , n4 }, and {n1 , n5 };
(vi) 3.7 is clique neutrosophic-number and its corresponded set is

{n2 , n3 , n4 , n5 }.
13
1. Common Notions
Proposition 1.5.9. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a complete-bipartite-neutrosophic

graph. Then
C(N T G) = 2.
Proof. Suppose N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) is a complete-bipartite-neutrosophic graph.

Every vertex is a neighbor for all vertices in another part. Hence from any part,
one vertex is chosen to be only members of S is a set which its cardinality is
clique number C(N T G). There are two parts. Thus
C(N T G) = 2.

bipartite-neutrosophic graph is related to previous result and it’s studied to
apply the definitions on it. To make it more clear, next part gives one special
case to apply definitions and results on it. Some items are devised to make
more senses about new notions. A complete-bipartite-neutrosophic graph is
related to previous result and it’s studied to apply the definitions on it, too.
Example 1.5.10. There is one section for clarifications. In Figure (1.8),
a complete-bipartite-neutrosophic graph is illustrated. Some points are
represented in follow-up items as follows.

So by using the members of S, it’s possible to have endpoints n2 and
n4 of an edge n2 n4 . There’s one edge to have exclusive endpoints from
S. S = {ni }|S|=2=The number of parts. . Thus it implies that S = {n2 , n4 }
is corresponded to clique number C(N T G) but not clique neutrosophic-
number Cn (N T G);

n2 , n3 and n4 . In other side, for having an edge, there’s a need to have two
vertices. So by using the members of S, it’s possible to have endpoints n2
and n4 of an edge n2 n4 . There are two edges to have exclusive endpoints
from S. S = {ni }|S|=2=The number of parts. . Thus it doesn’t imply that
14
S = {n2 , n3 , n4 } is corresponded to either clique number C(N T G) or


side, for having an edge, there’s a need to have two vertices. So by using
the members of S, it’s impossible to have endpoints of an edge. There is no
edge to have exclusive endpoints from S. S = {ni }|S|=2=The number of parts. .
Thus it doesn’t imply that S = {n1 } is corresponded to either clique

of an edge. There is one edge to have exclusive endpoints from S.
S = {ni }|S|=2=The number of parts. . Thus it implies that S = {n1 , n3 } is
corresponded to both clique number C(N T G) and clique neutrosophic-
number Cn (N T G);
{n2 , n4 }, and {n3 , n4 };
Proposition 1.5.11. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a complete-t-partite-neutrosophic

graph such that t 6= 2. Then
C(N T G) = t.
Proof. Suppose N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) is a complete-t-partite-neutrosophic graph.

clique number C(N T G). There are t parts. Thus
C(N T G) = t.
15
1. Common Notions
The clarifications about results are in progress as follows. A complete-t-

partite-neutrosophic graph is related to previous result and it’s studied to apply
the definitions on it. To make it more clear, next part gives one special case
to apply definitions and results on it. Some items are devised to make more
sense about new notions. A complete-t-partite-neutrosophic graph is related to
previous result and it’s studied to apply the definitions on it, too.
Example 1.5.12. There is one section for clarifications. In Figure (1.9), a
complete-t-partite-neutrosophic graph is illustrated. Some points are represented
in follow-up items as follows.
number Cn (N T G);
number Cn (N T G);
{n2 , n4 }, and {n3 , n4 };
1.6 Setting of clique Neutrosophic-Number

In this section, I provide some results in the setting of clique neutrosophic-
16
1.6. Setting of clique Neutrosophic-Number

about them.
Then
Cn (N T G) = On (N T G).

that S = {ni }|S|=O(N T G) is corresponded to clique number. Thus


17
1. Common Notions
Figure 1.10: A Neutrosophic Graph in the Viewpoint of its clique Neutrosophic-

Number. 53NTG10
Thus it implies that S = {n1 , n2 } isn’t corresponded to both of clique

Thus it implies that S = {n2 , n4 } is corresponded to neither clique number
side, for having an edge, there’s a need to have two vertices. So by using the
members of S, it’s impossible to have endpoints of an edge. Furthermore,
There’s no edge to have exclusive endpoints from S. S = {ni }|S|6=O(N T G) .
Thus it implies that S = {n1 } is corresponded to neither clique number
to have exclusive endpoints from S. It implies that S = {n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 }
is corresponded to both clique number C(N T G) and clique neutrosophic-
number Cn (N T G);
is {n3 , n4 }.

3
X
Cn (N T G) = max{ (σi (xj ) + σi (xj+1 ))}xj xj+1 ∈E .
i=1

18
3
X
i=1


number Cn (N T G);
number Cn (N T G);
Cn (N T G);
{n1 , n4 }, {n1 , n5 }, {n2 , n3 }, {n2 , n4 }, {n2 , n5 }, {n3 , n4 }, {n3 , n5 },
and {n4 , n5 };

19
1. Common Notions

number Cn (N T G);
number Cn (N T G);
Cn (N T G);
{n1 , n4 }, {n1 , n5 }, {n1 , n6 }, {n2 , n3 }, {n2 , n4 }, {n2 , n5 }, {n2 , n6 },
{n3 , n4 }, {n3 , n5 }, {n3 , n6 }, {n4 , n5 }, {n4 , n6 }, and {n5 , n6 };

3
X
i=1

3
X
i=1
20

Number. 53NTG11

Number. 53NTG12



number Cn (N T G);
21
1. Common Notions

number Cn (N T G);
Cn (N T G);
{n1 , n4 }, {n1 , n5 }, {n1 , n6 }, {n2 , n3 }, {n2 , n4 }, {n2 , n5 }, {n2 , n6 },
{n3 , n4 }, {n3 , n5 }, {n3 , n6 }, {n4 , n5 }, {n4 , n6 }, {n5 , n6 }, and
{n6 , n1 };
(vi) 4 is clique neutrosophic-number and its corresponded set is {n2 , n3 }.
number Cn (N T G);
number Cn (N T G);
22

Number. 53NTG13

Number. 53NTG14

Cn (N T G);
{n1 , n4 }, {n1 , n5 }, {n2 , n3 }, {n2 , n4 }, {n2 , n5 }, {n3 , n4 }, {n3 , n5 },
{n4 , n5 }, and {n5 , n1 };
23
1. Common Notions

center c. Then
3
X 3
X
Cn (N T G) = σi (c) + max{ σi (xj )}.
i=1 i=1

vertex are only members of S is a set which its cardinality is clique number
to clique number C(N T G). So
3
X 3
X
Cn (N T G) = σi (c) + max{ σi (xj )}.
i=1 i=1

items as follows.
edge. There’s no edge to have exclusive endpoints from S. S = {ni }|S|=2
but it doesn’t imply that S = {n2 , n4 } is corresponded to either clique
either clique number C(N T G) or clique neutrosophic-number Cn (N T G);
24

Number. 53NTG15
to have exclusive endpoints from S. S = {ni }|S|6=2 thus it doesn’t imply

that S = {n1 , n3 , n4 , n5 } is corresponded to either clique number C(N T G)
or clique neutrosophic-number Cn (N T G);

There’s one edge to have exclusive endpoints from S. S = {ni }|S|=2 thus
it implies that S = {n1 , n4 } is corresponded to both of clique number
{n1 , n4 }, and {n1 , n5 };
(vi) 3.7 is clique neutrosophic-number and its corresponded set is

{n2 , n3 , n4 , n5 }.

graph. Then
3
X
Cn (N T G) = max{ (σi (xj ) + σi (xj 0 ))}xj ∈V1 , xj 0 ∈V2 .
i=1

clique number C(N T G). There are two parts. Thus
3
X
Cn (N T G) = max{ (σi (xj ) + σi (xj 0 ))}xj ∈V1 , xj 0 ∈V2 .
i=1

25
1. Common Notions

number Cn (N T G);



number Cn (N T G);
{n2 , n4 }, and {n3 , n4 };

3
X
Cn (N T G) = max{ (σi (xj1 ) + σi (xj2 ) + · · · + σi (xjt ))}xj1 ∈V1 ,xj2 ∈V2 ,··· , xjt ∈Vt .
i=1
26

Number. 53NTG16

clique number C(N T G). There are t parts. Thus
3
X
Cn (N T G) = max{ (σi (xj1 ) + σi (xj2 ) + · · · + σi (xjt ))}xj1 ∈V1 ,xj2 ∈V2 ,··· , xjt ∈Vt .
i=1

number Cn (N T G);
27
1. Common Notions

Number. 53NTG17

number Cn (N T G);
{n2 , n4 }, and {n3 , n4 };
1.7 Applications in Time Table and Scheduling

In this section, two applications for time table and scheduling are provided where
the models are either complete models which mean complete connections are
formed as individual and family of complete models with common neutrosophic
vertex set or quasi-complete models which mean quasi-complete connections
are formed as individual and family of quasi-complete models with common
neutrosophic vertex set.
Designing the programs to achieve some goals is general approach to apply on
some issues to function properly. Separation has key role in the context of this
28
1.8. Case 1: Complete-t-partite Model alongside its clique Number and its
clique Neutrosophic-Number
style. Separating the duration of work which are consecutive, is the matter and
it has importance to avoid mixing up.
Step 1. (Definition) Time table is an approach to get some attributes to do

the work fast and proper. The style of scheduling implies special attention
to the tasks which are consecutive.
Step 2. (Issue) Scheduling of program has faced with difficulties to differ amid
consecutive sections. Beyond that, sometimes sections are not the same.
Step 3. (Model) The situation is designed as a model. The model uses data to
assign every section and to assign to relation amid sections, three numbers
belong unit interval to state indeterminacy, possibilities and determinacy.
There’s one restriction in that, the numbers amid two sections are at least
the number of the relations amid them. Table (1.1), clarifies about the
assigned numbers to these situations.
Table 1.1: Scheduling concerns its Subjects and its Connections as a neutrosophic
graph in a Model. 53tbl1
Sections of N T G n1 n2 · · · n5
Values (0.7, 0.9, 0.3) (0.4, 0.2, 0.8)· · · (0.4, 0.2, 0.8)
Connections of N T G E1 E2 · · · E6
Values (0.4, 0.2, 0.3) (0.5, 0.2, 0.3)· · · (0.3, 0.2, 0.3)
1.8 Case 1: Complete-t-partite Model alongside its

clique Number and its clique Neutrosophic-Number
Step 4. (Solution) The neutrosophic graph alongside its clique number and
its clique neutrosophic-number as model, propose to use specific number.
Every subject has connection with some subjects. Thus the connection
29
1. Common Notions
is applied as possible and the model demonstrates quasi-full connections

as quasi-possible. Using the notion of strong on the connection amid
subjects, causes the importance of subject goes in the highest level such
that the value amid two consecutive subjects, is determined by those
subjects. If the configuration is star, the number is different. Also, it
holds for other types such that complete, wheel, path, and cycle. The
collection of situations is another application of clique number and its
clique neutrosophic-number when the notion of family is applied in the way
that all members of family are from same classes of neutrosophic graphs.
As follows, There are five subjects which are represented as Figure (1.18).
This model is strong and even more it’s quasi-complete. And the study
proposes using specific number which is called clique number and clique
neutrosophic-number. There are also some analyses on other numbers in
the way that, the clarification is gained about being special number or
not. Also, in the last part, there is one neutrosophic number to assign
to this model and situation to compare them with same situations to get
more precise. Consider Figure (1.18). In Figure (1.18), an complete-t-
partite-neutrosophic graph is illustrated. Some points are represented in
follow-up items as follows.
(i) If S = {n2 , n4 } is a set of vertices, then there’s no vertex in S

but n2 and n4 . In other side, for having an edge, there’s a need
to have two vertices. So by using the members of S, it’s possible
to have endpoints n2 and n4 of an edge n2 n4 . There’s one edge to
have exclusive endpoints from S. S = {ni }|S|=2=The number of parts. .
Thus it implies that S = {n2 , n4 } is corresponded to clique number
C(N T G) but not clique neutrosophic-number Cn (N T G);
(ii) if S = {n2 , n3 , n4 } is a set of vertices, then there’s no vertex in S
but n2 , n3 and n4 . In other side, for having an edge, there’s a need
to have two vertices. So by using the members of S, it’s possible to
have endpoints n2 and n4 of an edge n2 n4 . There are two edges to
have exclusive endpoints from S. S = {ni }|S|=2=The number of parts. .
Thus it doesn’t imply that S = {n2 , n3 , n4 } is corresponded to either
clique number C(N T G) or clique neutrosophic-number Cn (N T G);
(iii) if S = {n1 } is a set of vertices, then there’s no vertex in S but
n1 . In other side, for having an edge, there’s a need to have two
vertices. So by using the members of S, it’s impossible to have
endpoints of an edge. There is no edge to have exclusive endpoints
S = {n1 } is corresponded to either clique number C(N T G) or clique
neutrosophic-number Cn (N T G);
(iv) if S = {n1 , n3 } is a set of vertices, then there’s no vertex in S
to have endpoints of an edge. There is one edge to have exclusive
endpoints from S. S = {ni }|S|=2=The number of parts. . Thus it implies
that S = {n1 , n3 } is corresponded to both clique number C(N T G)
and clique neutrosophic-number Cn (N T G);
30
1.9. Case 2: Complete Model alongside its A Neutrosophic Graph in the
Viewpoint of its clique Number and its clique Neutrosophic-Number.
{n2 , n4 }, and {n3 , n4 };
1.9 Case 2: Complete Model alongside its A

Neutrosophic Graph in the Viewpoint of its clique
Number and its clique Neutrosophic-Number.
Step 4. (Solution) The neutrosophic graph alongside its clique number and
its clique neutrosophic-number as model, propose to use specific number.
Every subject has connection with every given subject in deemed way.
Thus the connection applied as possible and the model demonstrates
full connections as possible between parts but with different view where
symmetry amid vertices and edges are the matters. Using the notion
of strong on the connection amid subjects, causes the importance of
subject goes in the highest level such that the value amid two consecutive
subjects, is determined by those subjects. If the configuration is complete
multipartite, the number is different. Also, it holds for other types such
that star, wheel, path, and cycle. The collection of situations is another
application of clique number and clique neutrosophic-number when the
notion of family is applied in the way that all members of family are
from same classes of neutrosophic graphs. As follows, There are four
subjects which are represented in the formation of one model as Figure
(1.19). This model is neutrosophic strong as individual and even more it’s
complete. And the study proposes using specific number which is called
clique number and clique neutrosophic-number for this model. There are
also some analyses on other numbers in the way that, the clarification is
gained about being special number or not. Also, in the last part, there
is one neutrosophic number to assign to these models as individual. A
model as a collection of situations to compare them with another model
as a collection of situations to get more precise. Consider Figure (1.19).
There is one section for clarifications.

31
1. Common Notions
two vertices. So by using the members of S, it’s possible to have

endpoints of an edge. There’s one edge to have exclusive endpoints
from S. But it implies that S = {n1 , n2 } isn’t corresponded to both of
clique number C(N T G) and clique neutrosophic-number Cn (N T G);
endpoints of an edge. There’s one edge to have exclusive endpoints
from S. But it implies that S = {n2 , n4 } isn’t corresponded to both of
(iii) if S = {n1 } is a set of vertices, then there’s no vertex in S but n1 .
In other side, for having an edge, there’s a need to have two vertices.
So by using the members of S, it’s impossible to have endpoints of
an edge. Furthermore, There’s no edge to have exclusive endpoints
from S. But it implies that S = {n1 } isn’t corresponded to both of
(iv) if S = {n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 } is a set of vertices, then there’s no vertex in
S but n1 , n2 , n3 , and n4 . In other side, for having an edge, there’s a
need to have two vertices. So by using the members of S, it’s possible
to have endpoints of an edge. There are twelve edges to have exclusive
endpoints from S. It implies that S = {n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 } is corresponded
Cn (N T G);
(vi) On (N T G) = 5.9 is clique neutrosophic-number and its corresponded
set is {n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 }.
1.10 Open Problems

In this section, some questions and problems are proposed to give some avenues
to pursue this study. The structures of the definitions and results give some
ideas to make new settings which are eligible to extend and to create new study.
Notion concerning clique number and clique neutrosophic-number are defined
in neutrosophic graphs. Neutrosophic number is also reused. Thus,
Question 1.10.1. Is it possible to use other types of clique number and clique
neutrosophic-number?
Question 1.10.2. Are existed some connections amid different types of clique
number and clique neutrosophic-number in neutrosophic graphs?
Question 1.10.3. Is it possible to construct some classes of neutrosophic graphs
which have “nice” behavior?
Question 1.10.4. Which mathematical notions do make an independent study
to apply these types in neutrosophic graphs?
Problem 1.10.5. Which parameters are related to this parameter?
Problem 1.10.6. Which approaches do work to construct applications to create
independent study?
32
1.11. Conclusion and Closing Remarks
Problem 1.10.7. Which approaches do work to construct definitions which use

all definitions and the relations amid them instead of separate definitions to
create independent study?
1.11 Conclusion and Closing Remarks

In this section, concluding remarks and closing remarks are represented. The
drawbacks of this article are illustrated. Some benefits and advantages of this
study are highlighted.
This study uses two definitions concerning clique number and clique
neutrosophic-number arising neighborhoods of vertices to study neutrosophic
graphs. New neutrosophic number is reused which is too close to the notion of
neutrosophic number but it’s different since it uses all values as type-summation
on them. Comparisons amid number and edges are done by using neutrosophic
tool. The connections of vertices which aren’t clarified by one edge differ them
from each other and put them in different categories to represent a number
Table 1.2: A Brief Overview about Advantages and Limitations of this study 53tbl2
Advantages Limitations
1. Neutrosophic clique Number 1. Wheel-Neutrosophic Graphs
2. clique Neutrosophic-Number
3. Neutrosophic Number 2. Study on Families
4. Study on Classes of Neutrosophic Graphs
5. Using Neighborhood of Vertices 3. Same Models in Family
which is called clique number and clique neutrosophic-number. Further studies

could be about changes in the settings to compare these notions amid different
settings of neutrosophic graphs theory. One way is finding some relations amid
all definitions of notions to make sensible definitions. In Table (1.2), some
limitations and advantages of this study are pointed out.
33
CHAPTER 2
Modified Notions
The following sections are cited as [Ref2] which is my 54th manuscript and I
2.1 Failed Clique Number in Neutrosophic Graphs
2.2 Abstract
New setting is introduced to study neutrosophic failed-clique number and
failed clique neutrosophic-number arising being out of neighborhood of vertices.
Being out of neighbor is a key term to have these notions. Not having all
possible edges amid vertices in a set is a key type of approach to have these
notions namely neutrosophic failed-clique number and failed clique neutrosophic-
number. Two numbers are obtained but now both settings leads to approach
is on demand which is finding smallest set which doesn’t have any vertex
which is neighbor. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a neutrosophic graph. Then
failed clique number C F (N T G) for a neutrosophic graph N T G : (V, E, σ, µ)
is minimum cardinality of a set S of vertices such that there are two vertices
in S aren’t endpoints for an edge, simultaneously; failed clique neutrosophic-
number CnF (N T G) for a neutrosophic graph N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) is minimum
neutrosophic cardinality of a set S of vertices such that there are two vertices
in S aren’t endpoints for an edge, simultaneously. As concluding results, there
are some statements, remarks, examples and clarifications about some classes
of neutrosophic graphs namely path-neutrosophic graphs, cycle-neutrosophic
graphs, complete-neutrosophic graphs, star-neutrosophic graphs, complete-
bipartite-neutrosophic graphs and complete-t-partite-neutrosophic graphs. The
clarifications are also presented in both sections “Setting of Neutrosophic Failed-
Clique Number,” and “Setting of Failed Clique Neutrosophic-Number,” for
introduced results and used classes. Neutrosophic number is reused in this
way. It’s applied to use the type of neutrosophic number in the way that,
three values of a vertex are used and they’ve same share to construct this
number to compare with other vertices. Summation of three values of vertex
makes one number and applying it to a comparison. This approach facilitates
identifying vertices which form neutrosophic failed-clique number and failed
clique neutrosophic-number arising being out of neighborhood of vertices. In
path-neutrosophic graphs, two vertices which aren’t neighbors, form minimal set
but with slightly differences, in cycle-neutrosophic graphs, two vertices which
35
2. Modified Notions
aren’t neighbors form minimal set. Other classes have same approaches. In
complete-neutrosophic graphs, an empty set leads us to neutrosophic failed-
clique number and failed clique neutrosophic-number. In star-neutrosophic
graphs, a set of vertices containing only two vertices which aren’t neighbors,
makes minimal set. In complete-bipartite-neutrosophic graphs, a set of vertices
including two vertices from same part makes intended set but with slightly
differences, in complete-t-partite-neutrosophic graphs, a set of two vertices from
same part makes intended set. In both settings, some classes of well-known
neutrosophic graphs are studied. Some clarifications for each result and each
definition are provided. Using basic set to extend this set to set of all vertices has
key role to have these notions in the form of neutrosophic failed-clique number
and failed clique neutrosophic-number arising being out of neighborhood of
vertices. The cardinality of a set has eligibility to neutrosophic failed-clique
number but the neutrosophic cardinality of a set has eligibility to call failed
about these definitions. The way in that, two vertices have no connection amid
proposed for this article.
Keywords: Neutrosophic Failed-Clique Number, Failed Clique Neutrosophic-
Number, Minimal Set


“Neutrosophic Failed-Clique Number”, “Failed Clique Neutrosophic-Number” and
“Neutrosophic Graph” to define some notions which are applied to neutrosophic
graphs?
which lead to be considered as motivation. Lack of connection amid two
vertices have key roles to assign neutrosophic failed-clique number and failed
clique neutrosophic-number arising being out of neighborhood of vertices. Thus
they’re used to define new ideas which conclude to the structure neutrosophic
failed-clique number and failed clique neutrosophic-number arising being out
of neighborhood of vertices. The concept of having edge and extra condition
inspire us to study the behavior of vertices in the way that, some types of
numbers, neutrosophic failed-clique number, failed clique neutrosophic-number
arising arising being out of neighborhood of vertices are the cases of study in
the setting of individuals. In both settings, a corresponded number concludes
the discussion. Also, there are some avenues to extend these notions.
36
2.4. Preliminaries
The framework of this study is as follows. In the beginning, I introduce

basic definitions to clarify about preliminaries. In subsection “Preliminaries”,
new notions of neutrosophic failed-clique number, failed clique neutrosophic-
number are highlighted, are introduced and are clarified as individuals.
In section “Preliminaries”, sets of vertices have the key role in this way.
General results are obtained and also, the results about the basic notions
of neutrosophic failed-clique number, failed clique neutrosophic-number are
elicited. Some classes of neutrosophic graphs are studied in the terms
of neutrosophic failed-clique number, in section “Setting of Neutrosophic
Failed-Clique Number,” as individuals. In section “Setting of Failed Clique
Neutrosophic-Number,” failed clique neutrosophic-number is applied into
individuals. As concluding results, there are some statements, remarks, examples
sections “Setting of Neutrosophic Failed-Clique Number,” and “Setting of Failed
Clique Neutrosophic-Number,” for introduced results and used classes. In
section “Applications in Time Table and Scheduling”, two applications are
posed for quasi-complete and complete notions, namely complete-t-neutrosophic
graphs and complete-neutrosophic graphs concerning time table and scheduling
when the suspicions are about choosing some subjects and the mentioned models
are considered as individual. In section “Open Problems”, some problems and
questions for further studies are proposed. In section “Conclusion and Closing
Remarks”, gentle discussion about results and applications is featured. In section
“Conclusion and Closing Remarks”, a brief overview concerning advantages and
limitations of this study alongside conclusions is formed.
2.4 Preliminaries
model.
µ(vi vj ) ≤ σ(vi ) ∧ σ(vj ).
37
2. Modified Notions

P
On (N T G).
P P3
by Sn (N T G).
about them.
E, i = 0, 1, · · · , n − 1;
V
_ ^
µ∞ (x0 , xt ) = µ(xi xi+1 );
P :x0 ,x1 ,··· ,xt i=0,··· ,t−1

E, i = 0, 1, · · · , V
µ(xy) = µ(uv) = i=0,1,··· ,n−1 µ(vi vi+1 );
s
The natural way proposes us to use the restriction “minimum” instead of
“maximum.”
Definition 2.4.4. (Failed Clique Number).
(i) failed clique number C F (N T G) for a neutrosophic graph N T G :
(V, E, σ, µ) is minimum cardinality of a set S of vertices such that there
are two vertices in S aren’t endpoints for an edge, simultaneously;
38
2.4. Preliminaries
(ii) failed clique neutrosophic-number CnF (N T G) for a neutrosophic

graph N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) is minimum neutrosophic cardinality of a set S
of vertices such that there are two vertices in S aren’t endpoints for an
edge, simultaneously.

matters of mind.

S = {n1 , n2 } isn’t corresponded to both of failed clique number C F (N T G)
and failed clique neutrosophic-number CnF (N T G);

S = {n2 , n4 } isn’t corresponded to both of failed clique number C F (N T G)
and failed clique neutrosophic-number CnF (N T G);

Furthermore, There’s no edge to have exclusive endpoints from S. But it
implies that S = {n1 } isn’t corresponded to both of failed clique number
C F (N T G) and failed clique neutrosophic-number CnF (N T G);

from S. It implies that S = {n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 } isn’t corresponded to both
failed clique number C F (N T G) and failed clique neutrosophic-number
CnF (N T G);
(v) 0 is failed clique number and its corresponded sets is {};
(vi) On (N T G) = 0 is failed clique neutrosophic-number and its corresponded

set is {}.
39
2. Modified Notions
Figure 2.1: A Neutrosophic Graph in the Viewpoint of its Failed Clique number
and its Failed Clique neutrosophic-number. 54NTG1
2.5 Setting of Neutrosophic Failed-Clique Number

In this section, I provide some results in the setting of neutrosophic
failed-clique number. Some classes of neutrosophic graphs are chosen.
Complete-neutrosophic graph, path-neutrosophic graph, cycle-neutrosophic
graph, and star-neutrosophic graph, bipartite-neutrosophic graph, and t-partite-
about them.
Then
C F (N T G) = 0.

that S = {ni }|S|=0 is corresponded to clique number. Thus
C F (N T G) = 0.


40
2.5. Setting of Neutrosophic Failed-Clique Number
Figure 2.2: A Neutrosophic Graph in the Viewpoint of its Failed Clique Number. 54NTG2

There’s one edge to have exclusive endpoints from S. S = {ni }|S|6=0 . Thus
it implies that S = {n1 , n2 } isn’t corresponded to both of failed clique
number C F (N T G) and failed clique neutrosophic-number CnF (N T G);

There’s one edge to have exclusive endpoints from S. S = {ni }|S|6=0 .
Thus it implies that S = {n2 , n4 } is corresponded to neither failed clique
number C F (N T G) nor failed clique neutrosophic-number CnF (N T G);

edge. Furthermore, There’s no edge to have exclusive endpoints from S.
S = {ni }|S|6=0 . Thus it implies that S = {n1 } is corresponded to neither
failed clique number C F (N T G) nor failed clique neutrosophic-number
CnF (N T G);

endpoints of an edge. S = {ni }|S|6=0 . Thus there are twelve edges to
have exclusive endpoints from S. It implies that S = {n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 } isn’t
corresponded to both failed clique number C F (N T G) and failed clique
neutrosophic-number CnF (N T G);

set is {}.
(i) if O(N T G) = 0, then

C F (N T G) = 0;
41
2. Modified Notions
(ii) if O(N T G) = 1, then
C F (N T G) = 0;
(iii) if O(N T G) = 2, then
C F (N T G) = 0;
(iv) if O(N T G) ≥ 3, then

C F (N T G) = 2.

isn’t a neighbor for every given vertex.
(i) If O(N T G) = 0, then there’s no vertex to be considered. So minimum

cardinality of a set is zero. It implies
C F (N T G) = 0;
(ii) if O(N T G) = 1, then by using Definition, there aren’t two vertices. Thus
it implies
C F (N T G) = 0;
(iii) if O(N T G) = 2, then there are two vertices. By it’s path-neutrosophic

graph, two vertices are neighbors. So they’re endpoints of an edge. At
least two vertices are needed to have new notion. Thus
C F (N T G) = 0;
(iv) if O(N T G) ≥ 3, then there’re two vertices x and y such that x and y
aren’t endpoints of an edge. So lower bound is obtained for failed clique
number. It implies
C F (N T G) = 2.


from S. S = {ni }|S|=2 implies that S = {n2 , n4 } is corresponded to
failed clique number C F (N T G) but not failed clique neutrosophic-
number CnF (N T G);
42

number CnF (N T G);
a need to have two vertices which are consecutive. So by using the
members either n3 , n4 or n4 , n5 of S, it’s possible to have endpoints
of an edge either n3 n4 or n4 n5 . There are two edges to have exclusive
endpoints from S. n1 and n3 aren’t endpoints for every given edge
but S = {ni }|S|6=2 thus it implies that S = {n1 , n3 , n4 , n5 } is
corresponded to neither failed clique number C F (N T G) nor failed
clique neutrosophic-number CnF (N T G);
(iv) if S = {n3 , n5 } is a set of vertices, then there’s no vertex in S but
both failed clique number C F (N T G) and failed clique neutrosophic-
number CnF (N T G);
(v) 2 is failed clique number and its corresponded sets are {n1 , n3 },
{n1 , n4 }, {n1 , n5 }, {n2 , n4 }, {n2 , n5 }, and {n3 , n5 };
(vi) 1.9 is failed clique neutrosophic-number and its corresponded set is
{n3 , n5 }.
number CnF (N T G);
number CnF (N T G);
43
2. Modified Notions

endpoints from S but n1 and n3 aren’t endpoints for every given edge.
S = {ni }|S|6=2 implies that S = {n1 , n3 , n4 , n5 } is corresponded to
neither failed clique number C F (N T G) nor failed clique neutrosophic-
number CnF (N T G);
to have endpoints of an edge. There’s one edge to have exclusive
endpoints from S. S = {ni }|S|6=2 thus it implies that S = {n3 , n6 }
is corresponded to both failed clique number C F (N T G) and failed
{n1 , n4 }, {n1 , n5 }, {n1 , n6 }, {n2 , n4 }, {n2 , n5 }, {n2 , n6 }, {n3 , n5 },
{n3 , n6 }, and {n4 , n6 };
(vi) 2.6 is failed clique neutrosophic-number and its corresponded sets
are {n2 , n4 } and {n3 , n6 }.
44

C F (N T G) = 0;
C F (N T G) = 0;
C F (N T G) = 0;
(iv) if O(N T G) = 3, then

C F (N T G) = 0;
(v) if O(N T G) ≥ 4, then

C F (N T G) = 2.


C F (N T G) = 0;
it implies
C F (N T G) = 0;
(iii) if O(N T G) = 2, then there are two vertices. By it’s cycle-neutrosophic

graph, it’s contradiction. Since if it’s cycle-neutrosophic graph, then
O(N T G) 6= 2. In other words, it’s cycle-neutrosophic graph, then
O(N T G) ≥ 3. At least two vertices are needed to have new notion
but at least three vertices are needed to have cycle-neutrosophic graph.
Thus
C F (N T G) = 0;
(iv) if O(N T G) = 3, then, by it’s cycle-neutrosophic graph, there aren’t two

vertices x and y such that x and y aren’t endpoints of an edge. It implies
C F (N T G) = 0;
(v) if O(N T G) ≥ 4, then, by it’s cycle-neutrosophic graph, there are two

vertices x and y such that x and y aren’t endpoints of an edge. Thus
lower bound is achieved for failed clique number. It implies
C F (N T G) = 2.
45
2. Modified Notions

number CnF (N T G);
number CnF (N T G);
endpoints from S. But n1 and n3 aren’t endpoints for any given
edge. S = {ni }|S|6=2 thus it implies that S = {n1 , n3 , n4 , n5 } is
but n1 and n5 . In other side, for having an edge, there’s a need to
have two vertices. So by using the members of S, it’s impossible
to have endpoints of an edge. There’s no edge to have exclusive
endpoints from S. S = {ni }|S|=2 thus it implies that S = {n1 , n5 }
(v) 2 is failed clique number and its corresponded set is {n1 , n3 },
{n1 , n4 }, {n1 , n5 }, {n2 , n4 }, {n2 , n5 }, {n2 , n6 }, {n3 , n5 }, {n3 , n6 },
and {n4 , n6 };
{n1 , n5 }.
46

number CnF (N T G);
number CnF (N T G);
endpoints from S. But n1 and n3 aren’t endpoints for every given
(v) 2 is failed clique number and its corresponded set is {n1 , n3 }, {n1 , n4 },
{n2 , n4 }, {n2 , n5 }, and {n3 , n5 };
{n2 , n5 }.

center c. Then

C F (N T G) = 0;
C F (N T G) = 0;
C F (N T G) = 0;
47
2. Modified Notions

C F (N T G) = 2.

neighbor for all vertices. There are at least three vertices x, y and z such that
if x is a neighbor for y and z, then y and z aren’t neighbors and x is center.
Thus there is no triangle but there’s two edges. One edge has two endpoints
which one of them is always center.
C F (N T G) = 0;
it implies
C F (N T G) = 0;
(iii) if O(N T G) = 2, then there are two vertices such that one of them is
center and these two vertices are neighbors. At least two vertices are
48
needed to have new notion. Thus

C F (N T G) = 0;
(iv) if O(N T G) ≥ 3, then, by it’s star-neutrosophic graph, there are two

C F (N T G) = 2.

items as follows.
So by using the members of S, it’s impossible to have endpoints of an edge.
There’s no edge to have exclusive endpoints from S. S = {ni }|S|=2 implies
that S = {n2 , n4 } is corresponded to failed clique number C F (N T G) but
not failed clique neutrosophic-number CnF (N T G);
either failed clique number C F (N T G) or failed clique neutrosophic-number
CnF (N T G);
endpoints of an edge either n1 n3 or n1 n4 or n1 n5 . There are three edges to
have exclusive endpoints from S. n3 and n4 aren’t endpoints for every given
edge. But S = {ni }|S|6=2 thus it doesn’t imply that S = {n1 , n3 , n4 , n5 }
is corresponded to either failed clique number C F (N T G) or failed clique
edge. There’s one edge to have exclusive endpoints from S. S = {ni }|S|=2
thus it implies that S = {n2 , n5 } is corresponded to both of failed clique
49
2. Modified Notions
(v) 2 is failed clique number and its corresponded sets are {n2 , n3 }, {n2 , n4 },
{n2 , n5 }, {n3 , n4 }, {n3 , n5 }, and {n4 , n5 };

{n2 , n5 }.

graph. Then

C F (N T G) = 0;
C F (N T G) = 0;
C F (N T G) = 0;

C F (N T G) = 2.

Every vertex is a neighbor for all vertices in another part. Hence from a part,
two vertices are chosen to be only members of S is a set which its cardinality is
failed clique number C F (N T G). There are two parts. Thus there is no triangle.

C F (N T G) = 0;
it implies
C F (N T G) = 0;
50
(iii) if O(N T G) = 2, then there are two vertices such these two vertices are
neighbors since they’re from different parts. At least two vertices are
C F (N T G) = 0;
(iv) if O(N T G) ≥ 3, then, by it’s complete-bipartite-neutrosophic graph, there

are two vertices x and y such that x and y aren’t endpoints of an edge
since they belong to same part. Thus lower bound is achieved for failed
clique number. It implies
C F (N T G) = 2.


So by using the members of S, it’s possible to have endpoints n2 and n4
of an edge n2 n4 . There’s one edge to have exclusive endpoints from S.
S = {ni }|S|=2 but it doesn’t imply that S = {n2 , n4 } is corresponded to
CnF (N T G);
(ii) if S = {n2 , n3 , n4 } is a set of vertices, then there’s no vertex in S but n2 , n3

and n4 . In other side, for having an edge, there’s a need to have two vertices.
of an edge n2 n4 . There are two edges to have exclusive endpoints from S.
S = {ni }|S|6=2 . Thus it implies that S = {n2 , n3 , n4 } isn’t corresponded to
CnF (N T G);

There is no edge to have exclusive endpoints from S. S = {ni }|S|=2 . Thus
it implies that S = {n1 } isn’t corresponded to either failed clique number
C F (N T G) or failed clique neutrosophic-number CnF (N T G);

51
2. Modified Notions
edge. There is no edge to have exclusive endpoints from S. S = {ni }|S|=2 .

Thus it implies that S = {n1 , n4 } is corresponded to both failed clique
(v) 2 is failed clique number and its corresponded sets are {n1 , n4 }, and
{n2 , n3 };
(vi) 2.4 is failed clique neutrosophic-number and its corresponded sets are
{n1 , n4 }, and {n2 , n3 }.


C F (N T G) = 0;
C F (N T G) = 0;
C F (N T G) = 0;

C F (N T G) = 2.

Every vertex is a neighbor for all vertices in another part. Hence from one part,
two vertices are chosen to be only members of S is a set which its cardinality is
failed clique number C F (N T G). There are t parts. But it doesn’t matter when
t ≥ 2.
52

C F (N T G) = 0;
it implies
C F (N T G) = 0;
(iii) if O(N T G) = 2, then there are two vertices such that these two vertices
are neighbors. At least two vertices are needed to have new notion. Thus
C F (N T G) = 0;
(iv) if O(N T G) ≥ 3, then, by it’s complete-t-neutrosophic graph, there are

two vertices x and y such that x and y aren’t endpoints of an edge since
they belong to same part. Thus lower bound is achieved for failed clique
number. It implies
C F (N T G) = 2.


CnF (N T G);

CnF (N T G);

53
2. Modified Notions


{n2 , n3 };
{n1 , n4 }, and {n2 , n3 }.
2.6 Setting of Failed Clique Neutrosophic-Number

In this section, I provide some results in the setting of failed clique
neutrosophic-number. Some classes of neutrosophic graphs are chosen.
about them.
Then
CnF (N T G) = 0.

54
2.6. Setting of Failed Clique Neutrosophic-Number
that S = {ni }|S|=0 is corresponded to clique number. Thus
CnF (N T G) = 0.


it implies that S = {n1 , n2 } isn’t corresponded to both of failed clique

There’s one edge to have exclusive endpoints from S. S = {ni }|S|6=0 .
Thus it implies that S = {n2 , n4 } is corresponded to neither failed clique
number C F (N T G) nor failed clique neutrosophic-number CnF (N T G);

failed clique number C F (N T G) nor failed clique neutrosophic-number
CnF (N T G);

corresponded to both failed clique number C F (N T G) and failed clique

set is {}.
55
2. Modified Notions
Figure 2.10: A Neutrosophic Graph in the Viewpoint of its Failed Clique

Number. 54NTG10

CnF (N T G) = 0;
CnF (N T G) = 0;
CnF (N T G) = 0;
X3 3
X
CnF (N T G) = min{ σi (x) + σi (y)}xy6∈E .
i=1 i=1


CnF (N T G) = 0;
it implies
CnF (N T G) = 0;

CnF (N T G) = 0;
56
(iv) if O(N T G) ≥ 3, then there’re two vertices x and y such that x and y
aren’t endpoints of an edge. So lower bound is obtained for failed clique
number. It implies
3
X 3
X
i=1 i=1


number CnF (N T G);
number CnF (N T G);
(iv) if S = {n3 , n5 } is a set of vertices, then there’s no vertex in S but
both failed clique number C F (N T G) and failed clique neutrosophic-
number CnF (N T G);
{n1 , n4 }, {n1 , n5 }, {n2 , n4 }, {n2 , n5 }, and {n3 , n5 };
{n3 , n5 }.
57
2. Modified Notions


number CnF (N T G);
number CnF (N T G);
endpoints from S but n1 and n3 aren’t endpoints for every given edge.
S = {ni }|S|6=2 implies that S = {n1 , n3 , n4 , n5 } is corresponded to
number CnF (N T G);
endpoints from S. S = {ni }|S|6=2 thus it implies that S = {n3 , n6 }
{n1 , n4 }, {n1 , n5 }, {n1 , n6 }, {n2 , n4 }, {n2 , n5 }, {n2 , n6 }, {n3 , n5 },
{n3 , n6 }, and {n4 , n6 };
are {n2 , n4 } and {n3 , n6 }.

CnF (N T G) = 0;
CnF (N T G) = 0;
58

Number. 54NTG11

Number. 54NTG12
CnF (N T G) = 0;

CnF (N T G) = 0;

3
X 3
X
i=1 i=1

CnF (N T G) = 0;
59
2. Modified Notions
it implies
CnF (N T G) = 0;

Thus
CnF (N T G) = 0;

CnF (N T G) = 0;

X3 3
X
i=1 i=1

number CnF (N T G);
number CnF (N T G);
60

endpoints from S. But n1 and n3 aren’t endpoints for any given
(v) 2 is failed clique number and its corresponded set is {n1 , n3 },
{n1 , n4 }, {n1 , n5 }, {n2 , n4 }, {n2 , n5 }, {n2 , n6 }, {n3 , n5 }, {n3 , n6 },
and {n4 , n6 };
{n1 , n5 }.


number CnF (N T G);
number CnF (N T G);
endpoints from S. But n1 and n3 aren’t endpoints for every given
61
2. Modified Notions

Number. 54NTG13

Number. 54NTG14

(v) 2 is failed clique number and its corresponded set is {n1 , n3 }, {n1 , n4 },
{n2 , n4 }, {n2 , n5 }, and {n3 , n5 };
{n2 , n5 }.

center c. Then
CnF (N T G) = 0;
62
CnF (N T G) = 0;
CnF (N T G) = 0;

3
X 3
X
i=1 i=1

CnF (N T G) = 0;
it implies
CnF (N T G) = 0;
CnF (N T G) = 0;

3
X 3
X
i=1 i=1

63
2. Modified Notions
items as follows.

There’s no edge to have exclusive endpoints from S. S = {ni }|S|=2 implies
that S = {n2 , n4 } is corresponded to failed clique number C F (N T G) but
not failed clique neutrosophic-number CnF (N T G);

CnF (N T G);

endpoints of an edge either n1 n3 or n1 n4 or n1 n5 . There are three edges to
have exclusive endpoints from S. n3 and n4 aren’t endpoints for every given
edge. But S = {ni }|S|6=2 thus it doesn’t imply that S = {n1 , n3 , n4 , n5 }
is corresponded to either failed clique number C F (N T G) or failed clique

thus it implies that S = {n2 , n5 } is corresponded to both of failed clique
(v) 2 is failed clique number and its corresponded sets are {n2 , n3 }, {n2 , n4 },
{n2 , n5 }, {n3 , n4 }, {n3 , n5 }, and {n4 , n5 };

{n2 , n5 }.

graph. Then

CnF (N T G) = 0;
CnF (N T G) = 0;
64

Number. 54NTG15
CnF (N T G) = 0;
3
X 3
X
i=1 i=1

two vertices are chosen to be only members of S is a set which its neutrosophic
cardinality is failed clique neutrosophic-number CnF (N T G). There are two parts.
Thus there is no triangle.
CnF (N T G) = 0;
it implies
CnF (N T G) = 0;
CnF (N T G) = 0;

are two vertices x and y such that x and y aren’t endpoints of an edge
clique number. It implies
3
X 3
X
i=1 i=1
65
2. Modified Notions


CnF (N T G);

CnF (N T G);


{n2 , n3 };
{n1 , n4 }, and {n2 , n3 }.

66

CnF (N T G) = 0;
CnF (N T G) = 0;
CnF (N T G) = 0;

3
X 3
X
i=1 i=1

two vertices are chosen to be only members of S is a set which its neutrosophic
cardinality is failed clique neutrosophic-number CnF (N T G). There are t parts.
But it doesn’t matter when t ≥ 2.
CnF (N T G) = 0;
it implies
CnF (N T G) = 0;
CnF (N T G) = 0;
67
2. Modified Notions

two vertices x and y such that x and y aren’t endpoints of an edge since
they belong to same part. Thus lower bound is achieved for failed clique
number. It implies
X3 3
X
i=1 i=1

CnF (N T G);
CnF (N T G);
{n2 , n3 };
68
2.7. Applications in Time Table and Scheduling
{n1 , n4 }, and {n2 , n3 }.


69
2. Modified Notions
Values (0.7, 0.9, 0.3) (0.4, 0.2, 0.8)· · · (0.4, 0.2, 0.8)
Values (0.4, 0.2, 0.3) (0.5, 0.2, 0.3)· · · (0.3, 0.2, 0.3)
Figure 2.18: A Neutrosophic Graph in the Viewpoint of its failed clique number
and its failed clique neutrosophic-number. 54NTG18

failed clique number and its failed clique
neutrosophic-number
Step 4. (Solution) The neutrosophic graph alongside its failed clique number
and its failed clique neutrosophic-number as model, propose to use specific
number. Every subject has connection with some subjects. Thus the
connection is applied as possible and the model demonstrates quasi-full
connections as quasi-possible. Using the notion of strong on the connection
amid subjects, causes the importance of subject goes in the highest level
such that the value amid two consecutive subjects, is determined by those
subjects. If the configuration is star, the number is different. Also, it holds
for other types such that complete, wheel, path, and cycle. The collection
of situations is another application of failed clique number and its failed
clique neutrosophic-number when the notion of family is applied in the
way that all members of family are from same classes of neutrosophic
graphs. As follows, There are five subjects which are represented as Figure
(2.18). This model is strong and even more it’s quasi-complete. And the
study proposes using specific number which is called failed clique number
and failed clique neutrosophic-number. There are also some analyses on
other numbers in the way that, the clarification is gained about being
special number or not. Also, in the last part, there is one neutrosophic
number to assign to this model and situation to compare them with same
70
Viewpoint of its failed clique number and its failed clique neutrosophic-number.
situations to get more precise. Consider Figure (2.18). In Figure (2.18),
an complete-t-partite-neutrosophic graph is illustrated. Some points are
to have endpoints n2 and n4 of an edge n2 n4 . There’s one edge to
have exclusive endpoints from S. S = {ni }|S|=2 but it doesn’t imply
that S = {n2 , n4 } is corresponded to either failed clique number
have exclusive endpoints from S. S = {ni }|S|6=2 . Thus it implies that
S = {n2 , n3 , n4 } isn’t corresponded to either failed clique number
So by using the members of S, it’s impossible to have endpoints
of an edge. There is no edge to have exclusive endpoints from S.
S = {ni }|S|=2 . Thus it implies that S = {n1 } isn’t corresponded to
either failed clique number C F (N T G) or failed clique neutrosophic-
number CnF (N T G);
to have endpoints of an edge. There is no edge to have exclusive
endpoints from S. S = {ni }|S|=2 . Thus it implies that S = {n1 , n4 }
{n2 , n3 };
are {n1 , n4 }, and {n2 , n3 }.

Neutrosophic Graph in the Viewpoint of its failed clique
number and its failed clique neutrosophic-number.
Step 4. (Solution) The neutrosophic graph alongside its failed clique number
and its failed clique neutrosophic-number as model, propose to use specific
number. Every subject has connection with every given subject in deemed
way. Thus the connection applied as possible and the model demonstrates
full connections as possible between parts but with different view where
symmetry amid vertices and edges are the matters. Using the notion
of strong on the connection amid subjects, causes the importance of
71
2. Modified Notions
Figure 2.19: A Neutrosophic Graph in the Viewpoint of its failed clique number
and its failed clique neutrosophic-number. 54NTG19
application of failed clique number and failed clique neutrosophic-number
when the notion of family is applied in the way that all members of family
are from same classes of neutrosophic graphs. As follows, There are four
subjects which are represented in the formation of one model as Figure
(2.19). This model is neutrosophic strong as individual and even more
it’s complete. And the study proposes using specific number which is
called failed clique number and failed clique neutrosophic-number for this
model. There are also some analyses on other numbers in the way that,
the clarification is gained about being special number or not. Also, in the
last part, there is one neutrosophic number to assign to these models as
individual. A model as a collection of situations to compare them with
another model as a collection of situations to get more precise. Consider
Figure (2.19). There is one section for clarifications.
endpoints from S. S = {ni }|S|6=0 . Thus it implies that S = {n1 , n2 }
isn’t corresponded to both of failed clique number C F (N T G) and
failed clique neutrosophic-number CnF (N T G);
(ii) if S = {n2 , n4 } is a set of vertices, then there’s no vertex in S
is corresponded to neither failed clique number C F (N T G) nor failed
edge. Furthermore, There’s no edge to have exclusive endpoints from
72
2.10. Open Problems
S. S = {ni }|S|6=0 . Thus it implies that S = {n1 } is corresponded to

number CnF (N T G);
S but n1 , n2 , n3 , and n4 . In other side, for having an edge, there’s
a need to have two vertices. So by using the members of S, it’s
possible to have endpoints of an edge. S = {ni }|S|6=0 . Thus there
are twelve edges to have exclusive endpoints from S. It implies that
S = {n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 } isn’t corresponded to both failed clique number
C F (N T G) and failed clique neutrosophic-number CnF (N T G);
(vi) On (N T G) = 0 is failed clique neutrosophic-number and its
corresponded set is {}.
2.10 Open Problems

Notion concerning failed clique number and failed clique neutrosophic-number
are defined in neutrosophic graphs. Neutrosophic number is also reused. Thus,
Question 2.10.1. Is it possible to use other types of failed clique number and
failed clique neutrosophic-number?
Question 2.10.2. Are existed some connections amid different types of failed
clique number and failed clique neutrosophic-number in neutrosophic graphs?
independent study?

This study uses two definitions concerning failed clique number and failed clique
neutrosophic-number arising neighborhoods of vertices to study neutrosophic
graphs. New neutrosophic number is reused which is too close to the notion of
neutrosophic number but it’s different since it uses all values as type-summation
73
2. Modified Notions
on them. Comparisons amid number and edges are done by using neutrosophic
tool. The connections of vertices which aren’t clarified by one edge differ them
from each other and put them in different categories to represent a number
Table 2.2: A Brief Overview about Advantages and Limitations of this Study 54tbl2
1. Neutrosophic Failed-Clique Number 1. Wheel-Neutrosophic Graphs
2. Failed Clique Neutrosophic-Nnumber
3. Neutrosophic Number 2. Study on Families
5. Using Neighborhood of Vertices 3. Same Models in Family
which is called failed clique number and failed clique neutrosophic-number.

Further studies could be about changes in the settings to compare these notions
amid different settings of neutrosophic graphs theory. One way is finding some
relations amid all definitions of notions to make sensible definitions. In Table
(2.2), some limitations and advantages of this study are pointed out.
74
CHAPTER 3
Extended Notions
The following sections are cited as [Ref3] which is my 55th manuscript and I
3.1 (Failed) 1-Clique Number in Neutrosophic Graphs
3.2 Abstract
New setting is introduced to study 1-clique number, 1-clique neutrosophic-
number, failed 1-clique number and failed 1-clique neutrosophic-number arising
being (out of) neighborhood of vertices. Being (out of) neighbor is a key
term to have these notions. Not having all possible edges amid vertices in
a set is a key type of approach to have these notions namely neutrosophic
failed-1-clique number and failed 1-clique neutrosophic-number. Two numbers
are obtained but now both settings leads to approach is on demand which
is finding (biggest) smallest set which (doesn’t) have any vertex which is
neighbor. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a neutrosophic graph. Then 1-clique
number C(N T G) for a neutrosophic graph N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) is maximum
cardinality of a set S of vertices such that every two vertices of S are endpoints
vertices have no edge in common are considered as exception but only for
one time; 1-clique neutrosophic-number Cn (N T G) for a neutrosophic graph
N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) is maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a set S of vertices
such that every two vertices of S are endpoints for an edge, simultaneously.
It holds extra condition which is as follows: two vertices have no edge in
common are considered as exception but only for one time; failed 1-clique
number C F (N T G) for a neutrosophic graph N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) is minimum
cardinality of a set S of vertices such that there are two vertices in S aren’t
endpoints for an edge, simultaneously. It holds extra condition which is as
follows: two vertices have no edge in common are considered as exception
but only for one time; failed 1-clique neutrosophic-number CnF (N T G) for a
neutrosophic graph N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) is minimum neutrosophic cardinality
vertices have no edge in common are considered as exception but only for one
time. As concluding results, there are some statements, remarks, examples
75
3. Extended Notions

sections “Setting of Neutrosophic (Failed)1-clique Number,” and “Setting of
(Failed) 1-clique Neutrosophic-Number,” for introduced results and used classes.
Summation of three values of vertex makes one number and applying it to a
comparison. This approach facilitates identifying vertices which form 1-clique
number, 1-clique neutrosophic-number, failed 1-clique number and failed 1-
clique neutrosophic-number arising being (out of) neighborhood of vertices.
In both settings, some classes of well-known neutrosophic graphs are studied.
Some clarifications for each result and each definition are provided. Using
basic set to extend this set to set of all vertices has key role to have these
notions in the form of 1-clique number, 1-clique neutrosophic-number, failed
1-clique number and failed 1-clique neutrosophic-number arising being (out of)
(failed)-1-clique number but the neutrosophic cardinality of a set has eligibility
to call (failed) 1-clique neutrosophic-number. Some results get more frameworks
and perspective about these definitions. The way in that, two vertices have
no connection amid each other, opens the way to do some approaches. A
vertex could affect on other vertex but there’s no usage of edges. These notions
are applied into neutrosophic graphs as individuals but not family of them as
drawbacks for these notions. Finding special neutrosophic graphs which are
well-known, is an open way to pursue this study. Some problems are proposed
to pursue this study. Basic familiarities with graph theory and neutrosophic
graph theory are proposed for this article.
Keywords: Neutrosophic (Failed-)1-clique Number, (Failed) 1-clique
Neutrosophic-Number, (Maximal) Minimal Set


“Neutrosophic (Failed)-1-clique Number”, “(Failed) 1-clique Neutrosophic-
Number” and “Neutrosophic Graph” to define some notions which are applied
to neutrosophic graphs?
which lead to be considered as motivation. Lack of connection amid two vertices
have key roles to assign neutrosophic (failed)-1-clique number and (failed) 1-
clique neutrosophic-number arising being out of neighborhood of vertices. Thus
they’re used to define new ideas which conclude to the structure neutrosophic
(failed)-1-clique number and (failed) 1-clique neutrosophic-number arising being
out of neighborhood of vertices. The concept of having edge and extra condition
76
3.4. Preliminaries
inspire us to study the behavior of vertices in the way that, some types of
numbers, neutrosophic (failed)-1-clique number, (failed) 1-clique neutrosophic-
number arising arising being out of neighborhood of vertices are the cases of
study in the setting of individuals. In both settings, a corresponded number
concludes the discussion. Also, there are some avenues to extend these notions.
The framework of this study is as follows. In the beginning, I introduce basic
definitions to clarify about preliminaries. In subsection “Preliminaries”, new
notions of neutrosophic (failed)-1-clique number, (failed) 1-clique neutrosophic-
number are highlighted, are introduced and are clarified as individuals. In section
“Preliminaries”, sets of vertices have the key role in this way. General results are
obtained and also, the results about the basic notions of neutrosophic (failed)-1-
clique number, (failed) 1-clique neutrosophic-number are elicited. Some classes
of neutrosophic graphs are studied in the terms of neutrosophic (failed)-1-clique
number, in section “Setting of Neutrosophic (Failed)-1-clique Number,” as
individuals. In section “Setting of (Failed) 1-clique Neutrosophic-Number,”
(failed) 1-clique neutrosophic-number is applied into individuals. As concluding
results, there are some statements, remarks, examples and clarifications about
some classes of neutrosophic graphs namely path-neutrosophic graphs, cycle-
neutrosophic graphs, complete-neutrosophic graphs, star-neutrosophic graphs,
complete-bipartite-neutrosophic graphs and complete-t-partite-neutrosophic
graphs. The clarifications are also presented in both sections “Setting of
Neutrosophic (Failed)-1-clique Number,” and “Setting of (Failed) 1-clique
Neutrosophic-Number,” for introduced results and used classes. In section
“Applications in Time Table and Scheduling”, two applications are posed for
quasi-complete and complete notions, namely complete-t-neutrosophic graphs
and complete-neutrosophic graphs concerning time table and scheduling when
the suspicions are about choosing some subjects and the mentioned models
are considered as individual. In section “Open Problems”, some problems
and questions for further studies are proposed. In section “Conclusion and
Closing Remarks”, gentle discussion about results and applications is featured.
In section “Conclusion and Closing Remarks”, a brief overview concerning
advantages and limitations of this study alongside conclusions is formed.
3.4 Preliminaries
model.
77
3. Extended Notions
µ(vi vj ) ≤ σ(vi ) ∧ σ(vj ).

P
On (N T G).
P P3
by Sn (N T G).
about them.
E, i = 0, 1, · · · , n − 1;
V
_ ^
µ∞ (x0 , xt ) = µ(xi xi+1 );
P :x0 ,x1 ,··· ,xt i=0,··· ,t−1

E, i = 0, 1, · · · , V
µ(xy) = µ(uv) = i=0,1,··· ,n−1 µ(vi vi+1 );
s
Definition 3.4.4. (1-clique Number).
78
3.4. Preliminaries
(i) 1-clique number C(N T G) for a neutrosophic graph N T G : (V, E, σ, µ)

is maximum cardinality of a set S of vertices such that every two vertices
of S are endpoints for an edge, simultaneously. It holds extra condition
which is as follows: two vertices have no edge in common are considered
as exception but only for one time;
(ii) 1-clique neutrosophic-number Cn (N T G) for a neutrosophic graph

N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) is maximum neutrosophic cardinality of a set S of
vertices such that every two vertices of S are endpoints for an edge,
simultaneously. It holds extra condition which is as follows: two vertices
have no edge in common are considered as exception but only for one
time.

matters of mind.

S = {n1 , n2 } isn’t corresponded to both of 1-clique number C(N T G) and
1-clique neutrosophic-number Cn (N T G);

S = {n2 , n4 } isn’t corresponded to both of 1-clique number C(N T G) and
1-clique neutrosophic-number Cn (N T G);

it implies that S = {n1 } isn’t corresponded to both of 1-clique number
C(N T G) and 1-clique neutrosophic-number Cn (N T G);

n1 , n2 , n3 , and n4 . In other side, for having an edge, there’s a need to have
two vertices. So by using the members of S, it’s possible to have endpoints
of an edge. There are twelve edges to have exclusive endpoints from S. It
implies that S = {n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 } is corresponded to both 1-clique number
(v) 4 is 1-clique number and its corresponded sets is {n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 };
79
3. Extended Notions
Figure 3.1: A Neutrosophic Graph in the Viewpoint of its 1-Clique Number

and its 1-Clique Neutrosophic-Number. 55NTG1
(vi) On (N T G) = 5.9 is 1-clique neutrosophic-number and its corresponded

set is {n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 }.
Definition 3.4.6. (Failed 1-clique Number).

(i) failed 1-clique number C F (N T G) for a neutrosophic graph N T G :

(V, E, σ, µ) is minimum cardinality of a set S of vertices such that there
are two vertices in S aren’t endpoints for an edge, simultaneously. It
holds extra condition which is as follows: two vertices have no edge in
common are considered as exception but only for one time;
(ii) failed 1-clique neutrosophic-number CnF (N T G) for a neutrosophic

graph N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) is minimum neutrosophic cardinality of a set S
of vertices such that there are two vertices in S aren’t endpoints for an
edge, simultaneously. It holds extra condition which is as follows: two
vertices have no edge in common are considered as exception but only for
one time.

matters of mind.
(i) If S = {n1 , n2 } is a set of vertices, then there’s no vertex in S but n1

of an edge. There’s one edge to have exclusive endpoints from S. But it
implies that S = {n1 , n2 } isn’t corresponded to both of failed 1-clique
number C F (N T G) and failed 1-clique neutrosophic-number CnF (N T G);
(ii) if S = {n2 , n4 } is a set of vertices, then there’s no vertex in S but n2

80
3.5. Setting of Neutrosophic 1-Clique Number
Figure 3.2: A Neutrosophic Graph in the Viewpoint of its Failed 1-Clique

number and its Failed 1-Clique neutrosophic-number. 55NTG1

of an edge. There’s one edge to have exclusive endpoints from S. But it
implies that S = {n2 , n4 } isn’t corresponded to both of failed 1-clique

it implies that S = {n1 } isn’t corresponded to both of failed 1-clique

from S. It implies that S = {n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 } isn’t corresponded to both
failed 1-clique number C F (N T G) and failed 1-clique neutrosophic-number
CnF (N T G);
(v) 0 is failed 1-clique number and its corresponded sets is {};
(vi) On (N T G) = 0 is failed 1-clique neutrosophic-number and its corresponded

set is {}.
3.5 Setting of Neutrosophic 1-Clique Number

In this section, I provide some results in the setting of neutrosophic 1-
clique number. Some classes of neutrosophic graphs are chosen. Complete-
about them.
Then
81
3. Extended Notions

that S = {ni }|S|=O(N T G) is corresponded to 1-clique number. Thus

Thus it implies that S = {n1 , n2 } isn’t corresponded to both of 1-clique
number C(N T G) and 1-clique neutrosophic-number Cn (N T G);
Thus it implies that S = {n2 , n4 } is corresponded to neither 1-clique
number C(N T G) nor 1-clique neutrosophic-number Cn (N T G);
S. S = {ni }|S|6=O(N T G) . Thus it implies that S = {n1 } is corresponded
to neither 1-clique number C(N T G) nor 1-clique neutrosophic-number
Cn (N T G);
to have exclusive endpoints from S. It implies that S = {n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 } is
corresponded to both 1-clique number C(N T G) and 1-clique neutrosophic-
number Cn (N T G);
82
Figure 3.3: A Neutrosophic Graph in the Viewpoint of its 1-Clique Number. 55NTG2

set is {n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 }.
C(N T G) = 3.

endpoints. These endpoints are corresponded to 1-clique number C(N T G). Two
vertices could be satisfied in extra condition. So
C(N T G) = 3.

from S. S = {ni }|S|6=3 implies that S = {n2 , n4 } is corresponded to
neither 1-clique number C(N T G) nor 1-clique neutrosophic-number
Cn (N T G);
Cn (N T G);
83
3. Extended Notions
(iii) if S = {n3 , n4 , n2 } is a set of vertices, then there’s no vertex in S but

two vertices which are consecutive. So by using the members either
n3 , n4 or n2 , n3 of S, it’s possible to have endpoints of an edge either
n2 n3 or n3 n4 . There are two edges to have exclusive endpoints from
S. S = {ni }|S|=3 thus it implies that S = {n3 , n4 , n2 } is corresponded
to both 1-clique number C(N T G) and 1-clique neutrosophic-number
Cn (N T G);
S = {ni }|S|6=4 thus it implies that S = {n5 , n6 } is corresponded to
Cn (N T G);
(v) 3 is 1-clique number and its corresponded sets are like {n1 , n2 , n3 },
and {n2 , n3 , n4 } which contain two edges;
(vi) 6.3 is 1-clique neutrosophic-number and its corresponded set is
{n3 , n4 , n2 }.
Cn (N T G);
Cn (N T G);
(iii) if S = {n1 , n3 , n4 , n5 } is a set of vertices, then there’s no vertex in S
but n1 , n3 , n4 and n5 . In other side, for having an edge, there’s a need
to have two vertices which are consecutive. So by using the members
either n3 , n4 or n4 , n5 of S, it’s possible to have endpoints of an edge
either n3 n4 or n4 n5 . There are two edges to have exclusive endpoints
from S. S = {ni }|S|6=3 thus it implies that S = {n1 , n3 , n4 , n5 }
is corresponded to neither 1-clique number C(N T G) nor 1-clique
84

Cn (N T G);
{n1 , n2 , n3 }.
C(N T G) = 3.

C(N T G) = 3.
85
3. Extended Notions



Cn (N T G);
Cn (N T G);
Cn (N T G);
{n1 , n2 , n3 }.

86

Cn (N T G);
Cn (N T G);
Cn (N T G);
Cn (N T G);
{n3 , n4 , n2 }.

center c. Then
C(N T G) = 3.

vertex are only members of S is a set which its cardinality is 1-clique number
87
3. Extended Notions
to 1-clique number C(N T G). Two vertices could be satisfied in extra condition.
So
C(N T G) = 3.


items as follows.

There’s no edge to have exclusive endpoints from S. S = {ni }|S|6=3 implies
88
that S = {n2 , n4 } is corresponded to neither 1-clique number C(N T G)

nor 1-clique neutrosophic-number Cn (N T G);

S = {ni }|S|=3 but It implies that S = {n3 , n5 } is corresponded to neither
1-clique number C(N T G) nor 1-clique neutrosophic-number Cn (N T G);

to have exclusive endpoints from S. S = {ni }|S|6=3 thus it implies that
S = {n1 , n3 , n4 , n5 } is corresponded to neither 1-clique number C(N T G)
(iv) if S = {n1 , n3 , n4 } is a set of vertices, then there’s no vertex in S but

implies that S = {n1 , n3 , n4 } is corresponded to both of 1-clique number
(v) 3 is 1-clique number and its corresponded sets are {n1 , n2 , n3 },

{n1 , n2 , n4 }, and {n1 , n2 , n5 };

{n1 , n3 , n4 }.

graph. Then
C(N T G) = 3.
89
3. Extended Notions

1-clique number C(N T G). There are two parts. Two vertices could be satisfied
in extra condition. Thus
C(N T G) = 3.



endpoints n2 and n4 of an edge n2 n4 . There’s one edge to have exclusive
endpoints from S. S = {ni }|S|6=2+1=The number of parts+1 . Thus it implies

of an edge n2 n4 . There are two edges to have exclusive endpoints from
S. S = {ni }|S|=2+1=The number of parts+1 implies that S = {n2 , n3 , n4 } is
corresponded to 1-clique number C(N T G) but not 1-clique neutrosophic-
number Cn (N T G);

an edge. There is no edge to have exclusive endpoints from S. S =
{ni }|S|=2+1=The number of parts+1 implies that S = {n1 } is corresponded
Cn (N T G);
(iv) if S = {n1 , n2 , n3 } is a set of vertices, then there’s no vertex in S

endpoints from S. S = {ni }|S|=2+1=The number of parts+1 . Thus it implies
that S = {n1 , n2 , n3 } is corresponded to both 1-clique number C(N T G)
and 1-clique neutrosophic-number Cn (N T G);
90
(v) 3 is 1-clique number and its corresponded sets are {n1 , n2 , n3 },{n1 , n2 , n4 },
{n1 , n3 , n4 }, and {n4 , n2 , n3 };
{n1 , n2 , n3 }.

C(N T G) = t + 1.

1-clique number C(N T G). There are t parts. Two vertices could be satisfied in
extra condition. Thus
C(N T G) = t + 1.


91
3. Extended Notions


number Cn (N T G);

Cn (N T G);

{n1 , n3 , n4 }, and {n4 , n2 , n3 };
(vi) 4.8 is 1-clique neutrosophic-number and its corresponded sets are

{n1 , n2 , n3 } and {n1 , n5 , n3 }.
92
3.6. Setting of 1-Clique Neutrosophic-Number
3.6 Setting of 1-Clique Neutrosophic-Number

In this section, I provide some results in the setting of 1-clique neutrosophic-
about them.
Then

that S = {ni }|S|=O(N T G) is corresponded to 1-clique number. Thus


Thus it implies that S = {n1 , n2 } isn’t corresponded to both of 1-clique
number C(N T G) and 1-clique neutrosophic-number Cn (N T G);

Thus it implies that S = {n2 , n4 } is corresponded to neither 1-clique
number C(N T G) nor 1-clique neutrosophic-number Cn (N T G);

93
3. Extended Notions
Figure 3.11: A Neutrosophic Graph in the Viewpoint of its 1-Clique

Neutrosophic-Number. 55NTG10

S. S = {ni }|S|6=O(N T G) . Thus it implies that S = {n1 } is corresponded
Cn (N T G);

to have exclusive endpoints from S. It implies that S = {n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 } is
corresponded to both 1-clique number C(N T G) and 1-clique neutrosophic-
number Cn (N T G);

set is {n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 }.

3
X
Cn (N T G) = max{ (σi (xj ) + σi (xj+1 ) + σi (xj+2 ))}xj xj+1 ,xj+1 xj+2 ∈E .
i=1

3
X
i=1
94

Cn (N T G);
Cn (N T G);
Cn (N T G);
Cn (N T G);
{n3 , n4 , n2 }.
Cn (N T G);
95
3. Extended Notions


Cn (N T G);
Cn (N T G);
{n1 , n2 , n3 }.
3
X
i=1

96

3
X
i=1

Cn (N T G);
Cn (N T G);
97
3. Extended Notions

Cn (N T G);
{n1 , n2 , n3 }.

Cn (N T G);
Cn (N T G);
Cn (N T G);
98



Cn (N T G);
{n3 , n4 , n2 }.

center c. Then
3
X 3
X 3
X
Cn (N T G) = σi (c) + max{ σi (xj ) + σi (xj 0 )}.
i=1 i=1 i=1

99
3. Extended Notions
vertex are only members of S is a set which its cardinality is 1-clique number
to 1-clique number C(N T G). Two vertices could be satisfied in extra condition.
So
3
X X 3 3
X
Cn (N T G) = σi (c) + max{ σi (xj ) + σi (xj 0 )}.
i=1 i=1 i=1

items as follows.
There’s no edge to have exclusive endpoints from S. S = {ni }|S|6=3 implies
S = {ni }|S|=3 but It implies that S = {n3 , n5 } is corresponded to neither
1-clique number C(N T G) nor 1-clique neutrosophic-number Cn (N T G);
to have exclusive endpoints from S. S = {ni }|S|6=3 thus it implies that
S = {n1 , n3 , n4 , n5 } is corresponded to neither 1-clique number C(N T G)
implies that S = {n1 , n3 , n4 } is corresponded to both of 1-clique number
100

(v) 3 is 1-clique number and its corresponded sets are {n1 , n2 , n3 },

{n1 , n2 , n4 }, and {n1 , n2 , n5 };
{n1 , n3 , n4 }.

graph. Then
3
X
Cn (N T G) = max{ (σi (xj ) + σi (xj 0 ) + σi (xz ))}xj ∈V1 , xj 0 ∈V2 .
i=1

1-clique number C(N T G). There are two parts. Two vertices could be satisfied
in extra condition. Thus
3
X
Cn (N T G) = max{ (σi (xj ) + σi (xj 0 ) + σi (xz ))}xj ∈V1 , xj 0 ∈V2 .
i=1

101
3. Extended Notions

number Cn (N T G);
Cn (N T G);
{n1 , n3 , n4 }, and {n4 , n2 , n3 };
{n1 , n2 , n3 }.

3
X
Cn (N T G) = max{ (σi (xj1 )+σi (xj2 )+· · ·+σi (xjt )+σi (xz ))}xj1 ∈V1 ,xj2 ∈V2 ,··· , xjt ∈Vt .
i=1

1-clique number C(N T G). There are t parts. Two vertices could be satisfied in
extra condition. Thus
3
X
Cn (N T G) = max{ (σi (xj1 )+σi (xj2 )+· · ·+σi (xjt )+σi (xz ))}xj1 ∈V1 ,xj2 ∈V2 ,··· , xjt ∈Vt .
i=1
102


number Cn (N T G);
Cn (N T G);
103
3. Extended Notions


{n1 , n3 , n4 }, and {n4 , n2 , n3 };
(vi) 4.8 is 1-clique neutrosophic-number and its corresponded sets are
{n1 , n2 , n3 } and {n1 , n5 , n3 }.
3.7 Setting of Neutrosophic Failed-1-Clique Number

In this section, I provide some results in the setting of neutrosophic
failed-1-clique number. Some classes of neutrosophic graphs are chosen.
about them.
Then
C F (N T G) = 0.

104
3.7. Setting of Neutrosophic Failed-1-Clique Number
that S = {ni }|S|=0 is corresponded to 1-clique number. Thus
C F (N T G) = 0.


it implies that S = {n1 , n2 } isn’t corresponded to both of failed 1-clique

it implies that S = {n2 , n4 } is corresponded to neither failed 1-clique
number C F (N T G) nor failed 1-clique neutrosophic-number CnF (N T G);

failed 1-clique number C F (N T G) nor failed 1-clique neutrosophic-number
CnF (N T G);

corresponded to both failed 1-clique number C F (N T G) and failed 1-clique

set is {}.
105
3. Extended Notions

Number. 55NTG2

C F (N T G) = 0;
C F (N T G) = 0;
C F (N T G) = 0;

C F (N T G) = 3.


C F (N T G) = 0;
it implies
C F (N T G) = 0;

C F (N T G) = 0;
106
(iv) if O(N T G) ≥ 3, then there’re three vertices x, z and y such that x and y
are endpoints of an edge but, z and x are endpoints of an edge. z and y
are endpoints of an edge. It’s needed to have two edges to form triangle.
So lower bound is obtained for failed 1-clique number. It implies
C F (N T G) = 3.


endpoints from S. S = {ni }|S|6=3 implies that S = {n2 , n4 } is
corresponded to neither failed 1-clique number C F (N T G) nor failed
1-clique neutrosophic-number CnF (N T G);
endpoints of an edge. There are three edges not to have exclusive
endpoints from S. S = {ni }|S|=3 implies that S = {n1 , n3 , n4 } is
corresponded to both failed 1-clique number C F (N T G) and failed
(v) 3 is failed 1-clique number and its corresponded sets are like
{n1 , n3 , n4 } where there aren’t two edges via using these vertices;
(vi) 3.3 is failed 1-clique neutrosophic-number and its corresponded set
is {n1 , n3 , n4 }.
107
3. Extended Notions

is {n2 , n3 , n6 }.

C F (N T G) = 0;
C F (N T G) = 0;
C F (N T G) = 0;
108

Number. 55NTG3

Number. 55NTG4

C F (N T G) = 0;

C F (N T G) = 3.

C F (N T G) = 0;
it implies
C F (N T G) = 0;

109
3. Extended Notions

Thus
C F (N T G) = 0;

C F (N T G) = 0;

vertices x and y such that x and y aren’t endpoints of an edge. It’s needed
to have two edges to form triangle. Thus lower bound is achieved for
failed 1-clique number. It implies
C F (N T G) = 3.

110

is {n1 , n5 , n4 }.
111
3. Extended Notions

Number. 55NTG5

Number. 55NTG6
is {n1 , n2 , n4 }.

center c. Then

C F (N T G) = 0;
C F (N T G) = 0;
C F (N T G) = 0;
112

C F (N T G) = 3.

C F (N T G) = 0;
it implies
C F (N T G) = 0;
C F (N T G) = 0;

vertices x and y such that x and y aren’t endpoints of an edge. Another
vertex z has to be non-center. In other words, three vertices x, y and z are
non-centers. Extra condition implies one edge is exception but the set of
vertices forms lack of two edges to be triangle isn’t available. Hence the set
of three vertices which announce the lack of three edges to from triangle,
is chosen. Thus lower bound is achieved for failed 1-clique number. It
implies
C F (N T G) = 3.

items as follows.
113
3. Extended Notions

Number. 55NTG7
edge. There’s no edge to have exclusive endpoints from S. S = {ni }|S|6=2

implies that S = {n2 , n4 } is corresponded to neither failed 1-clique number
C F (N T G) nor failed 1-clique neutrosophic-number CnF (N T G);

endpoints of an edge. There’s no edge to have exclusive endpoints from
S. S = {ni }|S|=3 implies that S = {n3 , n4 , n5 } is corresponded to failed
1-clique number C F (N T G) but not failed 1-clique neutrosophic-number
CnF (N T G);

two vertices which are consecutive. S = {ni }|S|6=3 so by using the members
either n1 , n3 or n1 , n4 or n1 , n5 of S, it’s possible to have endpoints of an
edge either n1 n3 or n1 n4 or n1 n5 . There are three edges to have exclusive
endpoints from S. n3 and n4 aren’t endpoints for every given edge. But
S = {ni }|S|6=3 implies that S = {n1 , n3 , n4 , n5 } is corresponded to neither
CnF (N T G);

S. S = {ni }|S|=3 implies that S = {n2 , n3 , n5 } is corresponded to both of
CnF (N T G);
(v) 3 is failed 1-clique number and its corresponded set is like {n2 , n3 , n5 }
which its members aren’t endpoints for every given edge;
(vi) 3.9 is failed 1-clique neutrosophic-number and its corresponded set is

{n2 , n3 , n5 }.
114

graph. Then
C F (N T G) = 0;
C F (N T G) = 0;
C F (N T G) = 0;

C F (N T G) = 3
where there’s |Vi | ≥ 3 and otherwise,
C F (N T G) = 4.

two vertices are chosen to be only members of S is a set which its cardinality
is failed 1-clique number C F (N T G). There are two parts. Thus there is no
triangle.
C F (N T G) = 0;
it implies
C F (N T G) = 0;
C F (N T G) = 0;

are two vertices x, z and y such that x, z and y aren’t endpoints of an
edge since they belong to same part. Thus lower bound is achieved for
C F (N T G) = 3
C F (N T G) = 4.
115
3. Extended Notions


S. S = {ni }|S|6=3 implies that S = {n2 , n4 } is corresponded to neither
CnF (N T G);

from S. S = {ni }|S|=3 . But extra condition implies that S = {n2 , n3 , n4 }
is corresponded to neither failed 1-clique number C F (N T G) nor failed

the members of S, it’s impossible to have endpoints of an edge. There is
no edge to have exclusive endpoints from S. S = {ni }|S|6=3 implies that
S = {n1 } is corresponded to neither failed 1-clique number C F (N T G) nor
failed 1-clique neutrosophic-number CnF (N T G);

n1 , n2 , n3 and n4 . In other side, for having an edge, there’s a need to
endpoints of an edge. There are 4 edges to have exclusive endpoints
from S. S = {ni }|S|=4 and |Vi | ≤ 2 imply that S = {n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 } is
(v) 4 is failed 1-clique number and its corresponded set is {n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 };

{n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 };

116

C F (N T G) = 0;
C F (N T G) = 0;
C F (N T G) = 0;

C F (N T G) = 3
C F (N T G) = 4.

is failed 1-clique number C F (N T G). There are t parts. But it doesn’t matter
when t ≥ 2.

C F (N T G) = 0;
it implies
C F (N T G) = 0;
117
3. Extended Notions
C F (N T G) = 0;

two vertices x, z and y such that x, z and y aren’t endpoints of an edge
1-clique number. It implies
C F (N T G) = 3
C F (N T G) = 4.


CnF (N T G);


118
3.8. Setting of Failed 1-Clique Neutrosophic-Number

from S. S = {ni }|S|=4 and |Vi | ≥ 2 imply that S = {n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 }
(v) 3 is failed 1-clique number and its corresponded set is {n2 , n3 , n5 };

{n2 , n3 , n5 }.
3.8 Setting of Failed 1-Clique Neutrosophic-Number

In this section, I provide some results in the setting of failed 1-clique
neutrosophic-number. Some classes of neutrosophic graphs are chosen.
about them.
Then
CnF (N T G) = 0.

119
3. Extended Notions
that S = {ni }|S|=0 is corresponded to 1-clique number. Thus
CnF (N T G) = 0.


it implies that S = {n1 , n2 } isn’t corresponded to both of failed 1-clique

it implies that S = {n2 , n4 } is corresponded to neither failed 1-clique
number C F (N T G) nor failed 1-clique neutrosophic-number CnF (N T G);

CnF (N T G);


set is {}.
120

Number. 55NTG10

CnF (N T G) = 0;
CnF (N T G) = 0;
CnF (N T G) = 0;

3
X 3
X 3
X
CnF (N T G) = min{ σi (x) + σi (y) + σi (z)}xy,xz6∈E .
i=1 i=1 i=1


C F (N T G) = 0;
it implies
C F (N T G) = 0;

C F (N T G) = 0;
121
3. Extended Notions
(iv) if O(N T G) ≥ 3, then there’re three vertices x, z and y such that x and y
are endpoints of an edge but, z and x are endpoints of an edge. z and y
are endpoints of an edge. It’s needed to have two edges to form triangle.
So lower bound is obtained for failed 1-clique number. It implies
X3 3
X 3
X
i=1 i=1 i=1

is {n1 , n3 , n4 }.
122

is {n2 , n3 , n6 }.

CnF (N T G) = 0;
CnF (N T G) = 0;
CnF (N T G) = 0;
123
3. Extended Notions

Number. 55NTG11

Number. 55NTG12

CnF (N T G) = 0;
X3 3
X 3
X
i=1 i=1 i=1

C F (N T G) = 0;
it implies
C F (N T G) = 0;
124

Thus
C F (N T G) = 0;

C F (N T G) = 0;

vertices x and y such that x and y aren’t endpoints of an edge. It’s needed
to have two edges to form triangle. Thus lower bound is achieved for
3
X 3
X 3
X
i=1 i=1 i=1



125
3. Extended Notions

is {n1 , n5 , n4 }.
126

Number. 55NTG13

Number. 55NTG14

is {n1 , n2 , n4 }.

center c. Then
CnF (N T G) = 0;
CnF (N T G) = 0;
127
3. Extended Notions
CnF (N T G) = 0;
X3 3
X 3
X
CnF (N T G) = min{ σi (x) + σi (y) + σi (z)}x,y,z6=c .
i=1 i=1 i=1

C F (N T G) = 0;
it implies
C F (N T G) = 0;
C F (N T G) = 0;

vertices x and y such that x and y aren’t endpoints of an edge. Another
vertex z has to be non-center. In other words, three vertices x, y and z are
non-centers. Extra condition implies one edge is exception but the set of
vertices forms lack of two edges to be triangle isn’t available. Hence the set
of three vertices which announce the lack of three edges to from triangle,
is chosen. Thus lower bound is achieved for failed 1-clique number. It
implies
X3 3
X 3
X
CnF (N T G) = min{ σi (x) + σi (y) + σi (z)}x,y,z6=c .
i=1 i=1 i=1

128
items as follows.

edge. There’s no edge to have exclusive endpoints from S. S = {ni }|S|6=2
implies that S = {n2 , n4 } is corresponded to neither failed 1-clique number
S. S = {ni }|S|=3 implies that S = {n3 , n4 , n5 } is corresponded to failed
1-clique number C F (N T G) but not failed 1-clique neutrosophic-number
CnF (N T G);
two vertices which are consecutive. S = {ni }|S|6=3 so by using the members
either n1 , n3 or n1 , n4 or n1 , n5 of S, it’s possible to have endpoints of an
edge either n1 n3 or n1 n4 or n1 n5 . There are three edges to have exclusive
endpoints from S. n3 and n4 aren’t endpoints for every given edge. But
S = {ni }|S|6=3 implies that S = {n1 , n3 , n4 , n5 } is corresponded to neither
CnF (N T G);
S. S = {ni }|S|=3 implies that S = {n2 , n3 , n5 } is corresponded to both of
CnF (N T G);
(v) 3 is failed 1-clique number and its corresponded set is like {n2 , n3 , n5 }
which its members aren’t endpoints for every given edge;
{n2 , n3 , n5 }.

graph. Then

CnF (N T G) = 0;
CnF (N T G) = 0;
129
3. Extended Notions

Number. 55NTG15
CnF (N T G) = 0;
X3 3
X 3
X
CnF (N T G) = min{ σi (x) + σi (y) + σi (z)}x,y,z6inVi
i=1 i=1 i=1
X3 3
X 3
X 3
X
CnF (N T G) = min{ σi (x) + σi (y) + σi (z) + σi (t)}.
i=1 i=1 i=1 i=1

is failed 1-clique number C F (N T G). There are two parts. Thus there is no
triangle.

C F (N T G) = 0;
it implies
C F (N T G) = 0;
C F (N T G) = 0;
130

are two vertices x, z and y such that x, z and y aren’t endpoints of an
edge since they belong to same part. Thus lower bound is achieved for
3
X 3
X 3
X
i=1 i=1 i=1

3
X 3
X 3
X 3
X
i=1 i=1 i=1 i=1


CnF (N T G);



131
3. Extended Notions

from S. S = {ni }|S|=4 and |Vi | ≤ 2 imply that S = {n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 } is
(v) 4 is failed 1-clique number and its corresponded set is {n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 };
{n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 };

CnF (N T G) = 0;
CnF (N T G) = 0;
CnF (N T G) = 0;
X3 3
X 3
X
i=1 i=1 i=1
X3 3
X 3
X 3
X
i=1 i=1 i=1 i=1
132

is failed 1-clique number C F (N T G). There are t parts. But it doesn’t matter
when t ≥ 2.
C F (N T G) = 0;
it implies
C F (N T G) = 0;
C F (N T G) = 0;

two vertices x, z and y such that x, z and y aren’t endpoints of an edge
1-clique number. It implies
3
X 3
X 3
X
i=1 i=1 i=1
where there’s |Vi | ≥ | and otherwise,

3
X 3
X 3
X 3
X
i=1 i=1 i=1 i=1

CnF (N T G);
133
3. Extended Notions

from S. S = {ni }|S|=4 and |Vi | ≥ 2 imply that S = {n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 }
{n2 , n3 , n5 }.

134
3.10. Case 1: Complete-t-partite Model alongside its failed 1-clique number
and its failed 1-clique neutrosophic-number

Values (0.7, 0.9, 0.3) (0.4, 0.2, 0.8)· · · (0.4, 0.2, 0.8)
Values (0.4, 0.2, 0.3) (0.5, 0.2, 0.3)· · · (0.3, 0.2, 0.3)

failed 1-clique number and its failed 1-clique
neutrosophic-number
Step 4. (Solution) The neutrosophic graph alongside its failed 1-clique number
and its failed 1-clique neutrosophic-number as model, propose to use
specific number. Every subject has connection with some subjects. Thus
the connection is applied as possible and the model demonstrates quasi-full
connections as quasi-possible. Using the notion of strong on the connection
amid subjects, causes the importance of subject goes in the highest level
such that the value amid two consecutive subjects, is determined by those
subjects. If the configuration is star, the number is different. Also, it holds
for other types such that complete, wheel, path, and cycle. The collection
of situations is another application of failed 1-clique number and its failed
1-clique neutrosophic-number when the notion of family is applied in the
way that all members of family are from same classes of neutrosophic
graphs. As follows, There are five subjects which are represented as Figure
(3.35). This model is strong and even more it’s quasi-complete. And the
study proposes using specific number which is called failed 1-clique number
135
3. Extended Notions

and failed 1-clique neutrosophic-number. There are also some analyses

on other numbers in the way that, the clarification is gained about being
special number or not. Also, in the last part, there is one neutrosophic
number to assign to this model and situation to compare them with same
situations to get more precise. Consider Figure (3.35). In Figure (3.35),
an complete-t-partite-neutrosophic graph is illustrated. Some points are
endpoints n2 and n4 of an edge n2 n4 . There’s one edge to have
exclusive endpoints from S. S = {ni }|S|6=3 implies that S = {n2 , n4 }
is corresponded to neither failed 1-clique number C F (N T G) nor
have exclusive endpoints from S. S = {ni }|S|=3 . But extra condition
implies that S = {n2 , n3 , n4 } is corresponded to neither failed 1-
clique number C F (N T G) nor failed 1-clique neutrosophic-number
CnF (N T G);
So by using the members of S, it’s impossible to have endpoints
of an edge. There is no edge to have exclusive endpoints from S.
S = {ni }|S|6=3 implies that S = {n1 } is corresponded to neither failed
1-clique number C F (N T G) nor failed 1-clique neutrosophic-number
CnF (N T G);
136
Viewpoint of its failed 1-clique number and its failed 1-clique
neutrosophic-number.


possible to have endpoints of an edge. There are 4 edges to have
exclusive endpoints from S. S = {ni }|S|=4 and |Vi | ≥ 2 imply that
S = {n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 } is corresponded to neither failed 1-clique number
is {n2 , n3 , n5 }.

Neutrosophic Graph in the Viewpoint of its failed
1-clique number and its failed 1-clique
neutrosophic-number.
Step 4. (Solution) The neutrosophic graph alongside its failed 1-clique number
and its failed 1-clique neutrosophic-number as model, propose to use
specific number. Every subject has connection with every given subject
in deemed way. Thus the connection applied as possible and the model
demonstrates full connections as possible between parts but with different
view where symmetry amid vertices and edges are the matters. Using the
notion of strong on the connection amid subjects, causes the importance of
application of failed 1-clique number and failed 1-clique neutrosophic-
number when the notion of family is applied in the way that all members
of family are from same classes of neutrosophic graphs. As follows, There
are four subjects which are represented in the formation of one model as
Figure (3.36). This model is neutrosophic strong as individual and even
more it’s complete. And the study proposes using specific number which
is called failed 1-clique number and failed 1-clique neutrosophic-number
for this model. There are also some analyses on other numbers in the
way that, the clarification is gained about being special number or not.
137
3. Extended Notions
Also, in the last part, there is one neutrosophic number to assign to these
models as individual. A model as a collection of situations to compare
them with another model as a collection of situations to get more precise.
Consider Figure (3.36). There is one section for clarifications.
isn’t corresponded to both of failed 1-clique number C F (N T G) and
endpoints from S. S = {ni }|S|6=0 . Thus it implies that S = {n2 , n4 } is
(iii) if S = {n1 } is a set of vertices, then there’s no vertex in S but
n1 . In other side, for having an edge, there’s a need to have two
vertices. So by using the members of S, it’s impossible to have
endpoints of an edge. Furthermore, There’s no edge to have exclusive
endpoints from S. S = {ni }|S|6=0 . Thus it implies that S = {n1 } is
S but n1 , n2 , n3 , and n4 . In other side, for having an edge, there’s
possible to have endpoints of an edge. S = {ni }|S|6=0 . Thus there
are twelve edges to have exclusive endpoints from S. It implies that
S = {n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 } isn’t corresponded to both failed 1-clique number
C F (N T G) and failed 1-clique neutrosophic-number CnF (N T G);
(vi) On (N T G) = 0 is failed 1-clique neutrosophic-number and its
corresponded set is {}.
3.12 Open Problems

Notion concerning 1-clique number, 1-clique neutrosophic-number, failed 1-clique
number and failed 1-clique neutrosophic-number are defined in neutrosophic
graphs. Neutrosophic number is also reused. Thus,
Question 3.12.1. Is it possible to use other types of 1-clique number, 1-clique
neutrosophic-number, failed 1-clique number and failed 1-clique neutrosophic-
number?
138
3.13. Conclusion and Closing Remarks
Question 3.12.2. Are existed some connections amid different types of 1-clique
number, 1-clique neutrosophic-number, failed 1-clique number and failed 1-clique
neutrosophic-number in neutrosophic graphs?
independent study?

This study uses two definitions concerning 1-clique number, 1-clique
neutrosophic-number, failed 1-clique number and failed 1-clique neutrosophic-
number arising neighborhoods of vertices to study neutrosophic graphs. New
neutrosophic number is reused which is too close to the notion of neutrosophic
number but it’s different since it uses all values as type-summation on them.
Comparisons amid number and edges are done by using neutrosophic tool. The
connections of vertices which aren’t clarified by one edge differ them from each
other and put them in different categories to represent a number which is called
Table 3.2: A Brief Overview about Advantages and Limitations of this Study 55tbl2
1. Neutrosophic Failed-1-clique Number 1. Wheel-Neutrosophic Graphs
2. Failed 1-clique Neutrosophic-Number
3. Neutrosophic 1-Clique Number 2. Study on Families
5. 1-Clique Neutrosophic-Number 3. Same Models in Family
1-clique number, 1-clique neutrosophic-number, failed 1-clique number and

failed 1-clique neutrosophic-number. Further studies could be about changes in
the settings to compare these notions amid different settings of neutrosophic
graphs theory. One way is finding some relations amid all definitions of notions
to make sensible definitions. In Table (3.2), some limitations and advantages of
this study are pointed out.
139
Bibliography
Ref1 [1] Henry Garrett, “Clique Number in Neutrosophic Graphs”, ResearchGate

2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.28338.68800).
Ref2 [2] Henry Garrett, “Failed Clique Number in Neutrosophic Graphs”, Re-
searchGate 2022 (doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.36039.16800).
Ref3 [3] Henry Garrett, “(Failed) 1-Clique Number in Neutrosophic Graphs”,
141

0036 - Clique Number in Neutrosophic Graphs

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

0036 - Clique Number in Neutrosophic Graphs

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

0036 - Clique Number in Neutrosophic Graphs

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Clique Number in

Dr. Henry Garrett

In this book, some notions are introduced about “Independence in Neutrosophic

star-neutrosophic graphs, complete-bipartite-neutrosophic graphs and complete-

List of Tables xii

2.9 Case 2: Complete Model alongside its A Neutrosophic Graph

1.1 A Neutrosophic Graph in the Viewpoint of its clique Number and

2.1 A Neutrosophic Graph in the Viewpoint of its Failed Clique number

2.5 A Neutrosophic Graph in the Viewpoint of its Failed Clique Number. 48

3.1 A Neutrosophic Graph in the Viewpoint of its 1-Clique Number

3.21 A Neutrosophic Graph in the Viewpoint of its Failed 1-Clique

1.1 Scheduling concerns its Subjects and its Connections as a neutro-

2.1 Scheduling concerns its Subjects and its Connections as a neutro-

3.1 Scheduling concerns its Subjects and its Connections as a neutro-

1.1 Clique Number in Neutrosophic Graphs

number. In star-neutrosophic graphs, a set of vertices containing only center

1.3 Motivation and Contributions

µ(vi vj ) ≤ σ(vi ) ∧ σ(vj ).

(i) : σ is called neutrosophic vertex set.

Some classes of well-known neutrosophic graphs are defined. These classes

(i) : a sequence of vertices P : x0 , x1 , · · · , xO is called path where xi xi+1 ∈

(iii) : connectedness amid vertices x0 and xt is

(iv) : a sequence of vertices P : x0 , x1 , · · · , xO is called cycle where xi xi+1 ∈

(vi) : t-partite is complete bipartite if t = 2, and it’s denoted by Kσ1 ,σ2 ;

(vii) : complete bipartite is star if |V1 | = 1, and it’s denoted by S1,σ2 ;

(ix) : it’s complete where ∀uv ∈ V, µ(uv) = σ(u) ∧ σ(v);

(x) : it’s strong where ∀uv ∈ E, µ(uv) = σ(u) ∧ σ(v).

The natural way proposes us to use the restriction “maximum” instead of

(i) clique number C(N T G) for a neutrosophic graph N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) is

(ii) clique neutrosophic-number Cn (N T G) for a neutrosophic graph

For convenient usages, the word neutrosophic which is used in previous

(i) If S = {n1 , n2 } is a set of vertices, then there’s no vertex in S but n1 and

(ii) if S = {n2 , n4 } is a set of vertices, then there’s no vertex in S but n2 and

(iii) if S = {n1 } is a set of vertices, then there’s no vertex in S but n1 . In

(iv) if S = {n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 } is a set of vertices, then there’s no vertex in S but

(v) 4 is clique number and its corresponded sets is {n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 };

(vi) On (N T G) = 5.9 is clique neutrosophic-number and its corresponded set

1.5 Setting of Neutrosophic clique Number

Proposition 1.5.1. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a complete-neutrosophic graph.

C(N T G) = O(N T G).

Proof. Suppose N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) is a complete-neutrosophic graph. Every

C(N T G) = O(N T G).

The clarifications about results are in progress as follows. A complete-

(i) If S = {n1 , n2 } is a set of vertices, then there’s no vertex in S but n1 and

(ii) if S = {n2 , n4 } is a set of vertices, then there’s no vertex in S but n2 and

Thus it implies that S = {n2 , n4 } is corresponded to neither clique number

(iii) if S = {n1 } is a set of vertices, then there’s no vertex in S but n1 . In other

(iv) if S = {n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 } is a set of vertices, then there’s no vertex in S but

(v) 4 is clique number and its corresponded sets is {n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 };

(vi) On (N T G) = 5.9 is clique neutrosophic-number and its corresponded set

Proposition 1.5.3. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a path-neutrosophic graph. Then

Proof. Suppose N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) is a path-neutrosophic graph. Every vertex

Example 1.5.4. There are two sections for clarifications.

(a) In Figure (1.3), an odd-path-neutrosophic graph is illustrated. Some

two vertices. So by using the members of S, it’s impossible to have

Proposition 1.5.5. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a cycle-neutrosophic graph. Then

Proof. Suppose N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) is a cycle-neutrosophic graph. Every vertex

The clarifications about results are in progress as follows. An odd-cycle-