Unique Distance Differentiation by Collection of Vertices in Neutrosophic Graphs

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/362178412
Unique Distance Differentiation By Collection of Vertices in Neutrosophic

Graphs
Preprint · July 2022

DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.17692.77449
CITATIONS
0
1 author:
Henry Garrett
154 PUBLICATIONS 224 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
On Algebraic Structures and Algebraic Hyperstructures View project
Neutrosophic Graphs View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Henry Garrett on 22 July 2022.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Unique Distance Differentiation By Collection of Vertices in
Neutrosophic Graphs
Henry Garrett
Independent Researcher
DrHenryGarrett@gmail.com
Twitter’s ID: @DrHenryGarrett | DrHenryGarrett.wordpress.com

c
Abstract
New setting is introduced to study perfect-resolving number and neutrosophic
perfect-resolving number arising from perfect-resolved vertices in neutrosophic graphs
assigned to neutrosophic graphs. Minimum number of perfect-resolved vertices, is a
number which is representative based on those vertices. Minimum neutrosophic number
of perfect-resolved vertices corresponded to perfect-resolving set is called neutrosophic
perfect-resolving number. Forming sets from perfect-resolved vertices to figure out
different types of number of vertices in the sets from perfect-resolved sets in the terms
of minimum number of vertices to get minimum number to assign to neutrosophic
graphs is key type of approach to have these notions namely perfect-resolving number
and neutrosophic perfect-resolving number arising from perfect-resolved vertices in
neutrosophic graphs assigned to neutrosophic graphs. Two numbers and one set are
assigned to a neutrosophic graph, are obtained but now both settings lead to approach
is on demand which is to compute and to find representatives of sets having smallest
number of perfect-resolved vertices from different types of sets in the terms of minimum
number and minimum neutrosophic number forming it to get minimum number to
assign to a neutrosophic graph. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a neutrosophic graph. Then
for given vertices n and n0 if d(s, n) 6= d(s, n0 ), then s perfect-resolves n and n0 where s
is the unique vertex and d is minimum number of edges amid two vertices. Let S be a
set of neutrosophic vertices [a vertex alongside triple pair of its values is called
neutrosophic vertex.]. If for every neutrosophic vertices n and n0 in V \ S, there’s only
one neutrosophic vertex s in S such that s perfect-resolves n and n0 , then the set of
neutrosophic vertices, S is called perfect-resolving set. The minimum cardinality
between all perfect-resolving sets is called perfect-resolving number and it’s denoted by
P(N T G); for given vertices n and n0 if d(s, n) 6= d(s, n0 ), then s perfect-resolves n and
n0 where s is the unique vertex and d is minimum number of edges amid two vertices.
Let S be a set of neutrosophic vertices [a vertex alongside triple pair of its values is
called neutrosophic vertex.]. If for every neutrosophic vertices n and n0 in V \ S, there’s
only one neutrosophic vertex s in S such that s perfect-resolves n and n0 , then the set
of neutrosophic vertices, S is called perfect-resolving set. The minimum neutrosophic
cardinality between all perfect-resolving sets is called neutrosophic perfect-resolving
number and it’s denoted by Pn (N T G). 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,
1/55
complete-t-partite-neutrosophic graphs, and wheel-neutrosophic graphs. The
clarifications are also presented in both sections “Setting of perfect-resolving number,”
and “Setting of neutrosophic perfect-resolving number,” for introduced results and used
classes. This approach facilitates identifying sets which form perfect-resolving number
and neutrosophic perfect-resolving number arising from perfect-resolved vertices in
neutrosophic graphs assigned to neutrosophic graphs. In both settings, some classes of
well-known neutrosophic graphs are studied. Some clarifications for each result and each
definition are provided. The cardinality of set of perfect-resolved vertices and
neutrosophic cardinality of set of perfect-resolved vertices corresponded to
perfect-resolving set have eligibility to define perfect-resolving number and neutrosophic
perfect-resolving number but different types of set of perfect-resolved vertices to define
perfect-resolving sets. Some results get more frameworks and more perspectives about
these definitions. The way in that, different types of set of perfect-resolved vertices in
the terms of minimum number to assign to neutrosophic graphs, opens the way to do
some approaches. 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. Neutrosophic
perfect-resolving notion is applied to different settings and classes of neutrosophic
graphs. Some problems are proposed to pursue this study. Basic familiarities with
graph theory and neutrosophic graph theory are proposed for this article.
Keywords: Perfect-Resolving Number, Neutrosophic Perfect-Resolving Number,

Classes of Neutrosophic Graphs
AMS Subject Classification: 05C17, 05C22, 05E45
1 Background 1
Fuzzy set in Ref. [22] by Zadeh (1965), intuitionistic fuzzy sets in Ref. [3] by Atanassov 2
(1986), a first step to a theory of the intuitionistic fuzzy graphs in Ref. [19] by Shannon 3
and Atanassov (1994), a unifying field in logics neutrosophy: neutrosophic probability, 4
set and logic, rehoboth in Ref. [20] by Smarandache (1998), single-valued neutrosophic 5
sets in Ref. [21] by Wang et al. (2010), single-valued neutrosophic graphs in Ref. [5] by 6
Broumi et al. (2016), operations on single-valued neutrosophic graphs in Ref. [1] by 7
Akram and Shahzadi (2017), neutrosophic soft graphs in Ref. [18] by Shah and Hussain 8
(2016), bounds on the average and minimum attendance in preference-based activity 9
scheduling in Ref. [2] by Aronshtam and Ilani (2022), investigating the recoverable 10
robust single machine scheduling problem under interval uncertainty in Ref. [4] by Bold 11
and Goerigk (2022), the weighted perfect domination problem and its variants in 12
Ref. [6] by Y. Chain-Chin, and R.C.T. Lee (1996), perfect double Roman domination of 13
trees in Ref. [7] by A.T. Egunjobi, and T.W. Haynes (2020), perfect Italian domination 14
in trees in Ref. [8] by T.W. Haynes, and M.A. Henning (2019), perfect Roman 15
domination in trees in Ref. [9] by M.L. Henning et al. (2018), perfect domination sets 16
in Cayley graphs in Ref. [14] by Y.S. Kwon, and J. Lee (2014), perfect Italian 17
domination on planar and regular graphs in Ref. [15] by J. Lauri, and C. Mitillos 18
(2020), perfect edge domination and efficient edge domination in graphs in Ref. [16] by 19
S.L. Lu et al. (2002), perfect Italian domination in graphs: Complexity and algorithms 20
in Ref. [17] by D. Pradhan et al. (2021), dimension and coloring alongside domination 21
in neutrosophic hypergraphs in Ref. [11] by Henry Garrett (2022), three types of 22
neutrosophic alliances based on connectedness and (strong) edges in Ref. [13] by Henry 23
Garrett (2022), properties of SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph in 24
Ref. [12] by Henry Garrett (2022), are studied. Also, some studies and researches about 25
neutrosophic graphs, are proposed as a book in Ref. [10] by Henry Garrett (2022). 26
2/55
In this section, I use two subsections to illustrate a perspective about the 27
background of this study. 28
1.1 Motivation and Contributions 29
In this study, there’s an idea which could be considered as a motivation. 30
Question 1.1. Is it possible to use mixed versions of ideas concerning 31
“perfect-resolving number”, “neutrosophic perfect-resolving number” and “Neutrosophic 32
Graph” to define some notions which are applied to neutrosophic graphs? 33
It’s motivation to find notions to use in any classes of neutrosophic graphs. 34
Real-world applications about time table and scheduling are another thoughts which 35
lead to be considered as motivation. Having connection amid two vertices have key roles 36
to assign perfect-resolving number and neutrosophic perfect-resolving number arising 37
from perfect-resolved vertices in neutrosophic graphs assigned to neutrosophic graphs. 38
Thus they’re used to define new ideas which conclude to the structure of 39
perfect-resolving number and neutrosophic perfect-resolving number arising from 40
perfect-resolved vertices in neutrosophic graphs assigned to neutrosophic graphs. The 41
concept of having smallest number of perfect-resolved vertices in the terms of crisp 42
setting and in the terms of neutrosophic setting inspires us to study the behavior of all 43
perfect-resolved vertices in the way that, some types of numbers, perfect-resolving 44
number and neutrosophic perfect-resolving number arising from perfect-resolved vertices 45
in neutrosophic graphs assigned to neutrosophic graphs, are the cases of study in the 46
setting of individuals. In both settings, corresponded numbers conclude the discussion. 47
Also, there are some avenues to extend these notions. 48
The framework of this study is as follows. In the beginning, I introduce basic 49
definitions to clarify about preliminaries. In subsection “Preliminaries”, new notions of 50
perfect-resolved vertices in neutrosophic graphs assigned to neutrosophic graphs, are 52
highlighted, are introduced and are clarified as individuals. In section “Preliminaries”, 53
minimum number of perfect-resolved vertices, is a number which is representative based 54
on those vertices, have the key role in this way. General results are obtained and also, 55
the results about the basic notions of perfect-resolving number and neutrosophic 56
perfect-resolving number arising from perfect-resolved vertices in neutrosophic graphs 57
assigned to neutrosophic graphs, are elicited. Some classes of neutrosophic graphs are 58
studied in the terms of perfect-resolving number and neutrosophic perfect-resolving 59
number arising from perfect-resolved vertices in neutrosophic graphs assigned to 60
neutrosophic graphs, in section “Setting of perfect-resolving number,” as individuals. In 61
section “Setting of perfect-resolving number,” perfect-resolving number is applied into 62
individuals. As concluding results, there are some statements, remarks, examples and 63
clarifications about some classes of neutrosophic graphs namely path-neutrosophic 64
graphs, cycle-neutrosophic graphs, complete-neutrosophic graphs, star-neutrosophic 65
graphs, complete-bipartite-neutrosophic graphs, complete-t-partite-neutrosophic graphs, 66
and wheel-neutrosophic graphs. The clarifications are also presented in both sections 67
“Setting of perfect-resolving number,” and “Setting of neutrosophic perfect-resolving 68
number,” for introduced results and used classes. In section “Applications in Time 69
Table and Scheduling”, two applications are posed for quasi-complete and complete 70
notions, namely complete-neutrosophic graphs and complete-t-partite-neutrosophic 71
graphs concerning time table and scheduling when the suspicions are about choosing 72
some subjects and the mentioned models are considered as individual. In section “Open 73
Problems”, some problems and questions for further studies are proposed. In section 74
“Conclusion and Closing Remarks”, gentle discussion about results and applications is 75
3/55
featured. In section “Conclusion and Closing Remarks”, a brief overview concerning 76
advantages and limitations of this study alongside conclusions is formed. 77
1.2 Preliminaries 78
In this subsection, basic material which is used in this article, is presented. Also, new 79
ideas and their clarifications are elicited. 80
Basic idea is about the model which is used. First definition introduces basic model. 81
Definition 1.2. (Graph). 82
G = (V, E) is called a graph if V is a set of objects and E is a subset of V × V (E 83
is a set of 2-subsets of V ) where V is called vertex set and E is called edge set. 84
Every two vertices have been corresponded to at most one edge. 85
Neutrosophic graph is the foundation of results in this paper which is defined as 86
follows. Also, some related notions are demonstrated. 87
Definition 1.3. (Neutrosophic Graph And Its Special Case). 88
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. 89
(ii) : µ is called neutrosophic edge set. 90
(iii) : |V | is called order of NTG and it’s denoted by O(N T G). 91
P P3
(iv) : v∈V i=1 σi (v) is called neutrosophic order of NTG and it’s denoted by 92
On (N T G). 93
(v) : |E| is called size of NTG and it’s denoted by S(N T G). 94
P P3
(vi) : e∈E i=1 µi (e) is called neutrosophic size of NTG and it’s denoted by 95
Sn (N T G). 96
Some classes of well-known neutrosophic graphs are defined. These classes of 97
neutrosophic graphs are used to form this study and the most results are about them. 98
Definition 1.4. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a neutrosophic graph. Then 99
(i) : a sequence of consecutive vertices P : x0 , x1 , · · · , xO(N T G) is called path where 100
xi xi+1 ∈ E, i = 0, 1, · · · , O(N T G) − 1; 101
V
(ii) : strength of path P : x0 , x1 , · · · , xO(N T G) is i=0,··· ,O(N T G)−1 µ(xi xi+1 ); 102
(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 consecutive vertices P : x0 , x1 , · · · , xO(N T G) , x0 is called cycle 103
where xi xi+1 ∈ E, i = 0, 1, · · · , O(N T G) − 1,V xO(N T G) x0 ∈ E and there are two 104
edges xy and uv such that µ(xy) = µ(uv) = i=0,1,··· ,n−1 µ(vi vi+1 ); 105
4/55
(v) : it’s t-partite where V is partitioned to t parts, V1s1 , V2s2 , · · · , Vtst and the edge 106
s
xy implies x ∈ Visi and y ∈ Vj j where i 6= j. If it’s complete, then it’s denoted by 107
Kσ1 ,σ2 ,··· ,σt where σi is σ on Visi instead V which mean x 6∈ Vi induces σi (x) = 0. 108
Also, |Vjsi | = si ; 109
(vi) : t-partite is complete bipartite if t = 2, and it’s denoted by Kσ1 ,σ2 ; 110
(vii) : complete bipartite is star if |V1 | = 1, and it’s denoted by S1,σ2 ; 111
(viii) : a vertex in V is center if the vertex joins to all vertices of a cycle. Then it’s 112
wheel and it’s denoted by W1,σ2 ; 113
(ix) : it’s complete where ∀uv ∈ V, µ(uv) = σ(u) ∧ σ(v); 114
(x) : it’s strong where ∀uv ∈ E, µ(uv) = σ(u) ∧ σ(v). 115
To make them concrete, I bring preliminaries of this article in two upcoming 116
definitions in other ways. 117
Definition 1.5. (Neutrosophic Graph And Its Special Case). 118
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 ).
|V | is called order of NTG and it’s denoted by O(N T G). Σv∈V σ(v) is called 119
neutrosophic order of NTG and it’s denoted by On (N T G). 120
Definition 1.6. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a neutrosophic graph. Then it’s complete 121
and denoted by CM T σ if ∀x, y ∈ V,xy ∈ E and µ(xy) = σ(x) ∧ σ(y); a sequence of 122
consecutive vertices P : x0 , x1 , · · · , xO(N T G) is called path and it’s denoted by P T H 123
where xi xi+1 ∈ E, i = 0, 1, · · · , n − 1; a sequence of consecutive vertices 124
P : x0 , x1 , · · · , xO(N T G) , x0 is called cycle and denoted by CY C where 125
xi xi+1 ∈ E, i = 0, 1, · · · , n − V 1, xO(N T G) x0 ∈ E and there are two edges xy and uv 126
such that µ(xy) = µ(uv) = i=0,1,··· ,n−1 µ(vi vi+1 ); it’s t-partite where V is 127
s
partitioned to t parts, V1s1 , V2s2 , · · · , Vtst and the edge xy implies x ∈ Visi and y ∈ Vj j 128
where i 6= j. If it’s complete, then it’s denoted by CM T σ1 ,σ2 ,··· ,σt where σi is σ on Visi 129
instead V which mean x 6∈ Vi induces σi (x) = 0. Also, |Vjsi | = si ; t-partite is complete 130
bipartite if t = 2, and it’s denoted by CM T σ1 ,σ2 ; complete bipartite is star if 131
|V1 | = 1, and it’s denoted by ST R1,σ2 ; a vertex in V is center if the vertex joins to all 132
vertices of a cycle. Then it’s wheel and it’s denoted by W HL1,σ2 . 133
Remark 1.7. Using notations which is mixed with literatures, are reviewed. 134
1. N T G = (V, E, σ = (σ1 , σ2 , σ3 ), µ = (µ1 , µ2 , µ3 )), O(N T G), and On (N T G); 135
2. CM T σ , P T H, CY C, ST R1,σ2 , CM T σ1 ,σ2 , CM T σ1 ,σ2 ,··· ,σt , and W HL1,σ2 . 136
Definition 1.8. (perfect-resolving numbers). 137
Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a neutrosophic graph. Then 138
0 0 0
(i) for given vertices n and n if d(s, n) 6= d(s, n ), then s perfect-resolves n and n 139
where s is the unique vertex and d is minimum number of edges amid two vertices. 140
Let S be a set of neutrosophic vertices [a vertex alongside triple pair of its values 141
is called neutrosophic vertex.]. If for every neutrosophic vertices n and n0 in V \ S, 142
there’s only one neutrosophic vertex s in S such that s perfect-resolves n and n0 , 143
then the set of neutrosophic vertices, S is called perfect-resolving set. The 144
minimum cardinality between all perfect-resolving sets is called 145
perfect-resolving number and it’s denoted by P(N T G); 146
5/55
(ii) for given vertices n and n0 if d(s, n) 6= d(s, n0 ), then s perfect-resolves n and n0 147
minimum neutrosophic cardinality between all perfect-resolving sets is called 153
neutrosophic perfect-resolving number and it’s denoted by Pn (N T G). 154
For convenient usages, the word neutrosophic which is used in previous definition, 155
won’t be used, usually. 156
Proposition 1.9. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a neutrosophic graph and S has one 157
member. Then a vertex of S resolves if and only if it perfect-resolves. 158
Proposition 1.10. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a neutrosophic graph and resolving set 159
has one member. Then a vertex of resolving set corresponded to resolving number 160
resolves if and only if it perfect-resolves. 161
Proposition 1.11. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a neutrosophic graph. Then S is 162
corresponded to perfect-resolving number if and only if for all s in S, there are 163
neutrosophic vertices n and n0 in V \ S, such that {s0 | d(s0 , n) 6= d(s0 , n0 )} ∩ S = {s} 164
and for all neutrosophic vertices n and n0 in V \ S, there’s only one neutrosophic vertex 165
s in S, such that {s0 | d(s0 , n) 6= d(s0 , n0 )} ∩ S = {s}. 166
Proposition 1.12. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a neutrosophic graph. Then V and 167
V \ {x} are S. 168
In next part, clarifications about main definition are given. To avoid confusion and 169
for convenient usages, examples are usually used after every part and names are used in 170
the way that, abbreviation, simplicity, and summarization are the matters of mind. 171
Example 1.13. In Figure (1), a complete-neutrosophic graph is illustrated. Some 172
points are represented in follow-up items as follows. 173
(i) For given neutrosophic vertex, s, there’s an edge with other vertices; 174
(ii) in the setting of complete, a vertex of resolving set corresponded to resolving 175
number resolves if and only if it perfect-resolves, by no vertices could be resolved 176
in both settings of resolving and perfect-resolving. Thus, by Proposition (1.12), S 177
has either O(N T G) − 1 or O(N T G); 178
(iii) all perfect-resolving sets corresponded to perfect-resolving number are 179
{n1 , n2 , n3 }, {n1 , n2 , n4 }, {n1 , n3 , n4 }, and {n2 , n3 , n4 }. For given vertices n and 180
n0 if d(s, n) 6= d(s, n0 ), then s perfect-resolves n and n0 where s is the unique 181
vertex and d is minimum number of edges amid two vertices. Let S be a set of 182
neutrosophic vertices [a vertex alongside triple pair of its values is called 183
neutrosophic vertex.]. If for every neutrosophic vertices n and n0 in V \ S, there’s 184
only one neutrosophic vertex s in S such that s perfect-resolves n and n0 , then the 185
set of neutrosophic vertices, S is called perfect-resolving set. The minimum 186
cardinality between all perfect-resolving sets is called perfect-resolving number 187
and it’s denoted by P(N T G) = 3 and corresponded to perfect-resolving sets are 188
{n1 , n2 , n3 }, {n1 , n2 , n4 }, {n1 , n3 , n4 }, and {n2 , n3 , n4 }; 189
(iv) there are five perfect-resolving sets 190
{n1 , n2 , n3 }, {n1 , n2 , n4 }, {n1 , n3 , n4 },

{n2 , n3 , n4 }, {n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 },
6/55
Figure 1. A Neutrosophic Graph in the Viewpoint of its perfect-resolving number and
its neutrosophic perfect-resolving number.
as if it’s possible to have one of them as a set corresponded to neutrosophic 191
perfect-resolving number so as neutrosophic cardinality is characteristic; 192
(v) there are four perfect-resolving sets 193
{n1 , n2 , n3 }, {n1 , n2 , n4 }, {n1 , n3 , n4 },

{n2 , n3 , n4 },
corresponded to perfect-resolving number as if there’s one perfect-resolving set 194
corresponded to neutrosophic perfect-resolving number so as neutrosophic 195
cardinality is the determiner; 196
(vi) all perfect-resolving sets corresponded to perfect-resolving number are 197
neutrosophic cardinality between all perfect-resolving sets is called neutrosophic 205
perfect-resolving number and it’s denoted by Pn (N T G) = 3.9 and corresponded 206
to perfect-resolving sets are {n1 , n3 , n4 }. 207
2 Setting of perfect-resolving number 208
In this section, I provide some results in the setting of perfect-resolving number. Some 209
classes of neutrosophic graphs are chosen. Complete-neutrosophic graph, 210
path-neutrosophic graph, cycle-neutrosophic graph, star-neutrosophic graph, 211
bipartite-neutrosophic graph, t-partite-neutrosophic graph, and wheel-neutrosophic 212
graph, are both of cases of study and classes which the results are about them. 213
Proposition 2.1. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a complete-neutrosophic graph. Then 214
P(CM T σ ) = O(CM T σ ) − 1.
Proof. Suppose CM T σ : (V, E, σ, µ) is a complete-neutrosophic graph. By 215
CM T σ : (V, E, σ, µ) is a complete-neutrosophic graph, all vertices are connected to each 216
other. So there’s one edge between two vertices. In the setting of complete, a vertex of 217
resolving set corresponded to resolving number resolves if and only if it perfect-resolves, 218
by no vertices could be resolved in both settings of resolving and perfect-resolving. 219
7/55
Thus, by Proposition (1.12), S has either O(CM T σ ) − 1 or O(CM T σ ). All 220
perfect-resolving sets corresponded to perfect-resolving number are 221
{n1 , n2 , n3 , . . . , nO(CM T σ )−4 , nO(CM T σ )−3 , nO(CM T σ )−2 , nO(CM T σ )−1 },

{n1 , n2 , n3 , . . . , nO(CM T σ )−4 , nO(CM T σ )−3 , nO(CM T σ )−2 , nO(CM T σ ) },
...
{n2 , n3 , n4 , . . . , nO(CM T σ )−4 , nO(CM T σ )−3 , nO(CM T σ )−2 , nO(CM T σ )−1 , nO(CM T σ ) },
For given vertices n and n0 if d(s, n) 6= d(s, n0 ), then s perfect-resolves n and n0 where s
P(CM T σ ) = O(CM T σ ) − 1
and corresponded to perfect-resolving sets are 222

...
{n2 , n3 , n4 , . . . , nO(CM T σ )−4 , nO(CM T σ )−3 , nO(CM T σ )−2 , nO(CM T σ )−1 , nO(CM T σ ) }.
Thus
P(CM T σ ) = O(CM T σ ) − 1.
223
perfect-resolving number is equal to resolving number. 225
Proposition 2.3. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a complete-neutrosophic graph. Then the 226
number of perfect-resolving sets corresponded to perfect-resolving number is equal to 227
O(CM T σ ). 228
number of perfect-resolving sets is equal to O(CM T σ ) + 1. 230
The clarifications about results are in progress as follows. A complete-neutrosophic 231
graph is related to previous result and it’s studied to apply the definitions on it. To 232
make it more clear, next part gives one special case to apply definitions and results on 233
it. Some items are devised to make more sense about new notions. A 234
complete-neutrosophic graph is related to previous result and it’s studied to apply the 235
definitions on it, too. 236
Example 2.5. In Figure (2), a complete-neutrosophic graph is illustrated. Some points 237
are represented in follow-up items as follows. 238
8/55
has either O(CM T σ ) − 1 or O(CM T σ ); 243
and it’s denoted by P(CM T σ ) = 3 and corresponded to perfect-resolving sets are 253
{n1 , n2 , n3 }, {n1 , n2 , n4 }, {n1 , n3 , n4 },

{n2 , n3 , n4 }, {n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 },
{n1 , n2 , n3 }, {n1 , n2 , n4 }, {n1 , n3 , n4 },

{n2 , n3 , n4 },
perfect-resolving number and it’s denoted by Pn (CM T σ ) = 3.9 and corresponded 271
Another class of neutrosophic graphs is addressed to path-neutrosophic graph. 273
Proposition 2.6. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a path-neutrosophic graph. Then

P(P T H) = 1.
Proof. Suppose P T H : (V, E, σ, µ) is a path-neutrosophic graph. Let 274
n1 , n2 , . . . , nO(P T H) be a path-neutrosophic graph. For given two vertices, x and y, 275
there’s one path from x to y. All perfect-resolving sets corresponded to perfect-resolving 276
number are 277
{n1 }, {nO(P T H) }.
9/55
P(P T H) = 1.
{n1 }, {nO(P T H) }.
Thus
P(P T H) = 1.
279
Proposition 2.7. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a path-neutrosophic graph. Then 280
Proposition 2.8. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a path-neutrosophic graph. Then the 282
number of perfect-resolving sets corresponded to perfect-resolving number is equal to two. 283
number of perfect-resolving sets is equal to O(P T H) + 3. 285
Example 2.10. There are two sections for clarifications. 286
(a) In Figure (3), an odd-path-neutrosophic graph is illustrated. Some points are 287
represented in follow-up items as follows. 288
(i) For given neutrosophic vertex, s, there’s only one path with other vertices; 289
(ii) in the setting of path, two vertices couldn’t be resolved by more than one 290
vertex as if the structure of resolving and perfect-resolving are the same in 291
the terms of sets and numbers where only some sets coincide. in the setting 292
of complete, a vertex of resolving set corresponded to resolving number 293
resolves if and only if it perfect-resolves, by Proposition (1.9) and S has one 294
member in both settings of resolving and perfect-resolving. Thus, by 295
Proposition (1.12), S has either of one, O(P T H), O(P T H) − 1; 296
10/55
(iii) all perfect-resolving sets corresponded to perfect-resolving number are {n1 } 297
and {n5 }. For given vertices n and n0 if d(s, n) 6= d(s, n0 ), then s 298
perfect-resolves n and n0 where s is the unique vertex and d is minimum 299
number of edges amid two vertices. Let S be a set of neutrosophic vertices [a 300
vertex alongside triple pair of its values is called neutrosophic vertex.]. If for 301
every neutrosophic vertices n and n0 in V \ S, there’s only one neutrosophic 302
vertex s in S such that s perfect-resolves n and n0 , then the set of 303
neutrosophic vertices, S is called perfect-resolving set. The minimum 304
cardinality between all perfect-resolving sets is called perfect-resolving 305
number and it’s denoted by P(P T H) = 1 and corresponded to 306
perfect-resolving sets are {n1 } and {n5 }; 307
(iv) there are eight perfect-resolving sets 308
{n1 }, {n5 }, {n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 , n5 },

{n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 }, {n1 , n2 , n3 , n5 }, {n1 , n2 , n4 , n5 },
{n1 , n3 , n4 , n5 }, {n2 , n3 , n4 , n5 },
(v) there are two perfect-resolving sets 311
{n1 }, {n5 },
corresponded to perfect-resolving number as if there’s one perfect-resolving 312
set corresponded to neutrosophic perfect-resolving number so as neutrosophic 313
(vi) all perfect-resolving sets corresponded to perfect-resolving number are {n1 } 315
neutrosophic cardinality between all perfect-resolving sets is called 323
neutrosophic perfect-resolving number and it’s denoted by Pn (P T H) = 1.2 324
and corresponded to perfect-resolving sets are {n5 }. 325
(b) In Figure (4), an even-path-neutrosophic graph is illustrated. Some points are 326
11/55
(iv) there are nine perfect-resolving sets 347
{n1 }, {n6 }, {n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 , n5 , n6 },

{n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 , n5 }, {n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 , n6 }, {n1 , n2 , n3 , n5 , n6 },
{n1 }, {n6 },
Proposition 2.11. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a cycle-neutrosophic graph where

O(CY C) ≥ 3. Then
P(CY C) = O(CY C) − 1.
12/55
Proof. Suppose CY C : (V, E, σ, µ) is a cycle-neutrosophic graph. For given two vertices,

x and y, there are only two paths with distinct edges from x to y. Let
x1 , x2 , · · · , xO(CY C)−1 , xO(CY C) , x1
be a cycle-neutrosophic graph CY C : (V, E, σ, µ). In the setting of cycle, two vertices 365
couldn’t be resolved by more than one vertex so as the structure of resolving and 366
perfect-resolving are different in the terms of sets. In the setting of cycle, a vertex of 367
resolving set corresponded to resolving number resolves as if it doesn’t perfect-resolve, 368
by S has two members in settings of resolving as if these vertices aren’t unique in the 369
terms of resolving since some vertices are resolved by both of them and adding them to 370
intended growing set is useless. Thus, by Proposition (1.12), S has either O(CY C) or 371
O(CY C) − 1. All perfect-resolving sets corresponded to perfect-resolving number are 372
{n1 , n2 , n3 , . . . , nO(CY C)−4 , nO(CY C)−3 , nO(CY C)−2 , nO(CY C)−1 },

{n1 , n2 , n3 , . . . , nO(CY C)−4 , nO(CY C)−3 , nO(CY C)−2 , nO(CY C) },
...
{n2 , n3 , n4 , . . . , nO(CY C)−4 , nO(CY C)−3 , nO(CY C)−2 , nO(CY C)−1 , nO(CY C) },
P(CY C) = O(CY C) − 1

...
{n2 , n3 , n4 , . . . , nO(CY C)−4 , nO(CY C)−3 , nO(CY C)−2 , nO(CY C)−1 , nO(CY C) }.
13/55
Thus
P(CY C) = O(CY C) − 1.
374
Proposition 2.12. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a cycle-neutrosophic graph. Then 375
perfect-resolving number isn’t equal to resolving number. 376
Proposition 2.13. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a cycle-neutrosophic graph. Then the 377
O(CY C). 379
number of perfect-resolving sets is equal to O(CY C) + 1. 381
The clarifications about results are in progress as follows. An odd-cycle-neutrosophic 382
it. Some items are devised to make more sense about new notions. An 385
even-cycle-neutrosophic graph is related to previous result and it’s studied to apply the 386
(a) In Figure (5), an even-cycle-neutrosophic graph is illustrated. Some points are 389
(i) For given neutrosophic vertex, s, there are only two paths with other vertices; 391
(ii) in the setting of cycle, two vertices couldn’t be resolved by more than one 392
vertex so as the structure of resolving and perfect-resolving are different in 393
the terms of sets. In the setting of cycle, a vertex of resolving set 394
corresponded to resolving number resolves as if it doesn’t perfect-resolve, by 395
S has two members in settings of resolving as if these vertices aren’t unique 396
in the terms of resolving since some vertices are resolved by both of them 397
and adding them to intended growing set is useless. Thus, by Proposition 398
(1.12), S has either O(CY C) or O(CY C) − 1; 399

For given vertices n and n0 if d(s, n) 6= d(s, n0 ), then s perfect-resolves n and 401
n0 where s is the unique vertex and d is minimum number of edges amid two 402
vertices. Let S be a set of neutrosophic vertices [a vertex alongside triple pair 403
of its values is called neutrosophic vertex.]. If for every neutrosophic vertices 404
n and n0 in V \ S, there’s only one neutrosophic vertex s in S such that s 405
perfect-resolves n and n0 , then the set of neutrosophic vertices, S is called 406
perfect-resolving set. The minimum cardinality between all perfect-resolving 407
sets is called perfect-resolving number and it’s denoted by P(CY C) = 5 and 408
corresponded to perfect-resolving sets are 409

{n1 , n2 , n4 , n5 , n6 }, {n1 , n3 , n4 , n5 , n6 }, {n2 , n3 , n4 , n5 , n6 };
14/55
(iv) there are seven perfect-resolving sets 410

{n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 , n5 , n6 },
(v) there are six perfect-resolving sets 413

neutrosophic perfect-resolving number and it’s denoted by Pn (CY C) = 6 426
and corresponded to perfect-resolving sets are {n1 , n3 , n4 , n5 , n6 }. 427
(b) In Figure (6), an odd-cycle-neutrosophic graph is illustrated. Some points are 428
{n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 }, {n1 , n2 , n3 , n5 }, {n1 , n2 , n4 , n5 },

{n1 , n3 , n4 , n5 }, {n2 , n3 , n4 , n5 },
15/55
{n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 }, {n1 , n2 , n3 , n5 }, {n1 , n2 , n4 , n5 },

{n1 , n3 , n4 , n5 }, {n2 , n3 , n4 , n5 };
(iv) there are six perfect-resolving sets 449
{n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 }, {n1 , n2 , n3 , n5 }, {n1 , n2 , n4 , n5 },

{n1 , n3 , n4 , n5 }, {n2 , n3 , n4 , n5 }, {n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 , n5 },
(v) there are five perfect-resolving sets 452
{n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 }, {n1 , n2 , n3 , n5 }, {n1 , n2 , n4 , n5 },

{n1 , n3 , n4 , n5 }, {n2 , n3 , n4 , n5 },
{n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 }, {n1 , n2 , n3 , n5 }, {n1 , n2 , n4 , n5 },

{n1 , n3 , n4 , n5 }, {n2 , n3 , n4 , n5 },
perfect-resolving set. The minimum neutrosophic cardinality between all 463
perfect-resolving sets is called neutrosophic perfect-resolving number and it’s 464
denoted by Pn (CY C) = 6.6 and corresponded to perfect-resolving sets are 465
{n1 , n2 , n4 , n5 }. 466
16/55
Proposition 2.16. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a star-neutrosophic graph with center c.

Then
P(ST R1,σ2 ) = O(ST R1,σ2 ) − 1.
Proof. Suppose ST R1,σ2 : (V, E, σ, µ) is a star-neutrosophic graph. An edge always has 467
center, c, as one of its endpoints. All paths have one as their lengths, forever. In the 468
setting of star, two vertices couldn’t be resolved by more than one vertex so as the 469
structure of resolving and perfect-resolving are different in the terms of sets. In the 470
setting of star, a vertex of resolving set corresponded to resolving number resolves as if 471
it doesn’t perfect-resolve, by S has all vertices excluding two vertices in settings of 472
resolving as if these vertices aren’t unique in the terms of resolving since two latter 473
vertices are resolved by all of them. Thus, by Proposition (1.12), S has either 474
O(ST R1,σ2 ) or O(ST R1,σ2 ) − 1. All perfect-resolving sets corresponded to 475
perfect-resolving number are 476
{n1 , n2 , n3 , . . . , nO(ST R1,σ2 )−4 , nO(ST R1,σ2 )−3 , nO(ST R1,σ2 )−2 , nO(ST R1,σ2 )−1 },
{n1 , n2 , n3 , . . . , nO(ST R1,σ2 )−4 , nO(ST R1,σ2 )−3 , nO(ST R1,σ2 )−2 , nO(ST R1,σ2 ) },
...
{n2 , n3 , n4 , . . . , nO(ST R1,σ2 )−4 , nO(ST R1,σ2 )−3 , nO(ST R1,σ2 )−2 , nO(ST R1,σ2 )−1 ,
nO(ST R1,σ2 ) },
P(ST R1,σ2 ) = O(ST R1,σ2 ) − 1
17/55
...
nO(ST R1,σ2 ) }.
Thus
P(ST R1,σ2 ) = O(ST R1,σ2 ) − 1.
478
Proposition 2.17. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a star-neutrosophic graph with center c. 479
Then there are O(ST R1,σ2 ) + 1 perfect-resolving sets. 480
Then there are O(ST R1,σ2 ) perfect-resolving set corresponded to perfect-resolving 482
number. 483
The clarifications about results are in progress as follows. A star-neutrosophic graph 484
is related to previous result and it’s studied to apply the definitions on it. To make it 485
more clear, next part gives one special case to apply definitions and results on it. Some 486
items are devised to make more sense about new notions. A star-neutrosophic graph is 487
related to previous result and it’s studied to apply the definitions on it, too. 488
Example 2.19. There is one section for clarifications. In Figure (7), a 489
star-neutrosophic graph is illustrated. Some points are represented in follow-up items as 490
follows. 491
(i) For given two neutrosophic vertices, s and n1 , there’s only one path, precisely one 492
edge between them and there’s no path despite them; 493
(ii) in the setting of star, two vertices couldn’t be resolved by more than one vertex so 494
as the structure of resolving and perfect-resolving are different in the terms of sets. 495
In the setting of star, a vertex of resolving set corresponded to resolving number 496
resolves as if it doesn’t perfect-resolve, by S has all vertices excluding two vertices 497
in settings of resolving as if these vertices aren’t unique in the terms of resolving 498
since two latter vertices are resolved by all of them. Thus, by Proposition (1.12), 499
S has either O(ST R1,σ2 ) or O(ST R1,σ2 ) − 1; 500
{n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 }, {n1 , n2 , n3 , n5 }, {n1 , n2 , n4 , n5 },

{n1 , n3 , n4 , n5 }, {n2 , n3 , n4 , n5 },
For given vertices n and n0 if d(s, n) 6= d(s, n0 ), then s perfect-resolves n and n0 502
minimum cardinality between all perfect-resolving sets is called perfect-resolving 508
18/55
number and it’s denoted by P(ST R1,σ2 ) = 4 and corresponded to 509
perfect-resolving sets are 510
{n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 }, {n1 , n2 , n3 , n5 }, {n1 , n2 , n4 , n5 },

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

{n1 , n3 , n4 , n5 }, {n2 , n3 , n4 , n5 }, {n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 , n5 },
{n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 }, {n1 , n2 , n3 , n5 }, {n1 , n2 , n4 , n5 },

{n1 , n3 , n4 , n5 }, {n2 , n3 , n4 , n5 },
{n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 }, {n1 , n2 , n3 , n5 }, {n1 , n2 , n4 , n5 },

{n1 , n3 , n4 , n5 }, {n2 , n3 , n4 , n5 },
neutrosophic perfect-resolving number and it’s denoted by Pn (ST R1,σ2 ) = 5.7 and 526
corresponded to perfect-resolving sets are {n2 , n3 , n4 , n5 }. 527
19/55
Proposition 2.20. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a complete-bipartite-neutrosophic graph
which isn’t star-neutrosophic graph which means |V1 |, |V2 | ≥ 2. Then
P(CM C σ1 ,σ2 ) = O(CM C σ1 ,σ2 ) − 1.
Proof. Suppose CM Cσ1 ,σ2 : (V, E, σ, µ) is a complete-bipartite-neutrosophic graph. 528
Every vertex in a part and another vertex in opposite part perfect-resolves any given 529
vertex. In the setting of complete-bipartite, two vertices couldn’t be resolved by more 530
than one vertex so as the structure of resolving and perfect-resolving are different in the 531
terms of sets. In the setting of complete-bipartite, a vertex of resolving set corresponded 532
to resolving number resolves as if it doesn’t perfect-resolve, by S has all vertices 533
excluding two vertices in settings of resolving as if these vertices aren’t unique in the 534
terms of resolving since two latter vertices are resolved by all of them. Thus, by 535
Proposition (1.12), S has either O(CM C σ1 ,σ2 ) or O(CM C σ1 ,σ2 ) − 1. All 536
{n1 , n2 , n3 , . . . , nO(CM C σ1 ,σ2 )−4 , nO(CM C σ1 ,σ2 )−3 , nO(CM C σ1 ,σ2 )−2 , nO(CM C σ1 ,σ2 )−1 },
{n1 , n2 , n3 , . . . , nO(CM C σ1 ,σ2 )−4 , nO(CM C σ1 ,σ2 )−3 , nO(CM C σ1 ,σ2 )−2 , nO(CM C σ1 ,σ2 ) },
...
{n2 , n3 , n4 , . . . , nO(CM C σ1 ,σ2 )−4 , nO(CM C σ1 ,σ2 )−3 , nO(CM C σ1 ,σ2 )−2 , nO(CM C σ1 ,σ2 )−1 ,
nO(CM C σ1 ,σ2 ) },
P(CM C σ1 ,σ2 ) = O(CM C σ1 ,σ2 ) − 1
...
nO(CM C σ1 ,σ2 ) }.
Thus
P(CM C σ1 ,σ2 ) = O(CM C σ1 ,σ2 ) − 1.
539
Proposition 2.21. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a complete-bipartite-neutrosophic graph. 540
Then perfect-resolving number isn’t equal to resolving number. 541
Proposition 2.22. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a complete-bipartite-neutrosophic graph 542
with center c. Then there are O(CM C σ1 ,σ2 ) + 1 perfect-resolving sets. 543
20/55
with center c. Then there are O(CM C σ1 ,σ2 ) perfect-resolving set corresponded to 545
perfect-resolving number. 546
The clarifications about results are in progress as follows. A 547
complete-bipartite-neutrosophic graph is related to previous result and it’s studied to 548
apply the definitions on it. To make it more clear, next part gives one special case to 549
apply definitions and results on it. Some items are devised to make more senses about 550
new notions. A complete-bipartite-neutrosophic graph is related to previous result and 551
it’s studied to apply the definitions on it, too. 552
complete-bipartite-neutrosophic graph is illustrated. Some points are represented in 554
follow-up items as follows. 555
(i) For given two neutrosophic vertices, n and n0 , there is either one path with length 556
one or one path with length two between them; 557
(ii) in the setting of complete-bipartite, two vertices couldn’t be resolved by more 558
than one vertex so as the structure of resolving and perfect-resolving are different 559
in the terms of sets. In the setting of complete-bipartite, a vertex of resolving set 560
corresponded to resolving number resolves as if it doesn’t perfect-resolve, by S has 561
all vertices excluding two vertices in settings of resolving as if these vertices aren’t 562
unique in the terms of resolving since two latter vertices are resolved by all of 563
them. Thus, by Proposition (1.12), S has either O(CM C σ1 ,σ2 ) or 564
O(CM C σ1 ,σ2 ) − 1; 565
and it’s denoted by P(CM C σ1 ,σ2 ) = 3 and corresponded to perfect-resolving sets 575
are {n1 , n2 , n3 }, {n1 , n2 , n4 }, {n1 , n3 , n4 }, and {n2 , n3 , n4 }; 576
{n1 , n2 , n3 }, {n1 , n2 , n4 }, {n1 , n3 , n4 },

{n2 , n3 , n4 }, {n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 },
{n1 , n2 , n3 }, {n1 , n2 , n4 }, {n1 , n3 , n4 },

{n2 , n3 , n4 },
21/55
perfect-resolving number and it’s denoted by Pn (CM C σ1 ,σ2 ) = 3.9 and 593
corresponded to perfect-resolving sets are {n2 , n3 , n4 }. 594
Proposition 2.25. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a complete-t-partite-neutrosophic graph

where t ≥ 3. Then
P(CM C σ1 ,σ2 ,··· ,σt ) = O(CM C σ1 ,σ2 ,··· ,σt ) − 1.
Proof. Suppose CM C σ1 ,σ2 ,··· ,σt : (V, E, σ, µ) is a complete-t-partite-neutrosophic graph. 595
Every vertex in a part and another vertex in another part is perfect-resolved by any 596
given vertex from any of these two specific parts. In the setting of complete-t-partite, 597
two vertices couldn’t be resolved by more than one vertex so as the structure of 598
resolving and perfect-resolving are different in the terms of sets. In the setting of 599
complete-t-partite, a vertex of resolving set corresponded to resolving number resolves 600
as if it doesn’t perfect-resolve, by S has all vertices excluding two vertices in settings of 601
O(CM C σ1 ,σ2 ,··· ,σt ) or O(CM C σ1 ,σ2 ,··· ,σt ) − 1. All perfect-resolving sets corresponded 604
22/55
to perfect-resolving number are 605
{n1 , n2 , n3 , . . . , nO(CM C σ1 ,σ2 ,··· ,σt )−4 , nO(CM C σ1 ,σ2 ,··· ,σt )−3 , nO(CM C σ1 ,σ2 ,··· ,σt )−2 ,
nO(CM C σ1 ,σ2 ,··· ,σt )−1 },
nO(CM C σ1 ,σ2 ,··· ,σt ) },
nO(CM C σ1 ,σ2 ,··· ,σt ) },
...
nO(CM C σ1 ,σ2 ,··· ,σt )−1 , nO(CM C σ1 ,σ2 ,··· ,σt ) },
P(CM C σ1 ,σ2 ,··· ,σt ) = O(CM C σ1 ,σ2 ,··· ,σt ) − 1
nO(CM C σ1 ,σ2 ,··· ,σt )−1 },
nO(CM C σ1 ,σ2 ,··· ,σt ) },
nO(CM C σ1 ,σ2 ,··· ,σt ) },
...
nO(CM C σ1 ,σ2 ,··· ,σt )−1 , nO(CM C σ1 ,σ2 ,··· ,σt ) }.
Thus
P(CM C σ1 ,σ2 ,··· ,σt ) = O(CM C σ1 ,σ2 ,··· ,σt ) − 1.
607
Proposition 2.26. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a complete-t-partite-neutrosophic graph. 608
Proposition 2.27. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a complete-t-partite-neutrosophic graph 610
with center c. Then there are O(CM C σ1 ,σ2 ,··· ,σt ) + 1 perfect-resolving sets. 611
with center c. Then there are O(CM C σ1 ,σ2 ,··· ,σt ) perfect-resolving set corresponded to 613
complete-t-partite-neutrosophic graph is related to previous result and it’s studied to 616
apply definitions and results on it. Some items are devised to make more sense about 618
new notions. A complete-t-partite-neutrosophic graph is related to previous result and 619
23/55
complete-t-partite-neutrosophic graph is illustrated. Some points are represented in 622
(ii) in the setting of complete-t-partite, two vertices couldn’t be resolved by more than 626
one vertex so as the structure of resolving and perfect-resolving are different in 627
the terms of sets. In the setting of complete-t-partite, a vertex of resolving set 628
them. Thus, by Proposition (1.12), S has either O(CM C σ1 ,σ2 ,··· ,σt ) or 632
O(CM C σ1 ,σ2 ,··· ,σt ) − 1; 633
{n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 }, {n1 , n2 , n3 , n5 }, {n1 , n2 , n4 , n5 },

{n1 , n3 , n4 , n5 }, {n2 , n3 , n4 , n5 },
number and it’s denoted by P(CM C σ1 ,σ2 ,··· ,σt ) = 4 and corresponded to 642
{n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 }, {n1 , n2 , n3 , n5 }, {n1 , n2 , n4 , n5 },

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

{n1 , n3 , n4 , n5 }, {n2 , n3 , n4 , n5 }, {n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 , n5 },
{n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 }, {n1 , n2 , n3 , n5 }, {n1 , n2 , n4 , n5 },

{n1 , n3 , n4 , n5 }, {n2 , n3 , n4 , n5 },
{n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 }, {n1 , n2 , n3 , n5 }, {n1 , n2 , n4 , n5 },

{n1 , n3 , n4 , n5 }, {n2 , n3 , n4 , n5 },
24/55
neutrosophic perfect-resolving number and it’s denoted by 659
Pn (CM C σ1 ,σ2 ,··· ,σt ) = 5.3 and corresponded to perfect-resolving sets are 660
{n2 , n3 , n4 , n5 }. 661
Proposition 2.30. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a wheel-neutrosophic graph. Then
P(W HL1,σ2 ) = O(W HL1,σ2 ) − 1.
Proof. Suppose W HL1,σ2 : (V, E, σ, µ) is a wheel-neutrosophic graph. The argument is 662
elementary. All vertices of a cycle join to one vertex, c. For every vertices, the minimum 663
number of edges amid them is either one or two because of center and the notion of 664
neighbors. In the setting of wheel, two vertices couldn’t be resolved by more than one 665
vertex so as the structure of resolving and perfect-resolving are different in the terms of 666
sets. In the setting of wheel, a vertex of resolving set corresponded to resolving number 667
resolves as if it doesn’t perfect-resolve, by S has all vertices excluding two vertices in 668
settings of resolving as if these vertices aren’t unique in the terms of resolving since two 669
latter vertices are resolved by all of them. Thus, by Proposition (1.12), S has either 670
O(W HL1,σ2 ) or O(W HL1,σ2 ) − 1. All perfect-resolving sets corresponded to 671
{n1 , n2 , n3 , . . . , nO(W HL1,σ2 )−4 , nO(W HL1,σ2 )−3 , nO(W HL1,σ2 )−2 , nO(W HL1,σ2 )−1 },
{n1 , n2 , n3 , . . . , nO(W HL1,σ2 )−4 , nO(W HL1,σ2 )−3 , nO(W HL1,σ2 )−2 , nO(W HL1,σ2 ) },
...
{n2 , n3 , n4 , . . . , nO(W HL1,σ2 )−4 , nO(W HL1,σ2 )−3 , nO(W HL1,σ2 )−2 , nO(W HL1,σ2 )−1 ,
nO(W HL1,σ2 ) },
25/55
P(W HL1,σ2 ) = O(W HL1,σ2 ) − 1
...
nO(W HL1,σ2 ) }.
Thus
P(W HL1,σ2 ) = O(W HL1,σ2 ) − 1.
674
Proposition 2.31. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a wheel-neutrosophic graph. Then 675
Proposition 2.32. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a wheel-neutrosophic graph with center c. 677
Then there are O(W HL1,σ2 ) + 1 perfect-resolving sets. 678
Then there are O(W HL1,σ2 ) perfect-resolving set corresponded to perfect-resolving 680
number. 681
The clarifications about results are in progress as follows. A wheel-neutrosophic 682
make it more clear, next part gives one special case to apply definitions and results on it. 684
Some items are devised to make more sense about new notions. A wheel-neutrosophic 685
graph is related to previous result and it’s studied to apply the definitions on it, too. 686
wheel-neutrosophic graph is illustrated. Some points are represented in follow-up items 688
as follows. 689
(i) For given two neutrosophic vertices, s and n1 , there’s only one edge between them; 690
(ii) in the setting of wheel, two vertices couldn’t be resolved by more than one vertex 691
so as the structure of resolving and perfect-resolving are different in the terms of 692
sets. In the setting of wheel, a vertex of resolving set corresponded to resolving 693
number resolves as if it doesn’t perfect-resolve, by S has all vertices excluding two 694
vertices in settings of resolving as if these vertices aren’t unique in the terms of 695
resolving since two latter vertices are resolved by all of them. Thus, by 696
Proposition (1.12), S has either O(W HL1,σ2 ) or O(W HL1,σ2 ) − 1; 697
{n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 }, {n1 , n2 , n3 , n5 }, {n1 , n2 , n4 , n5 },

{n1 , n3 , n4 , n5 }, {n2 , n3 , n4 , n5 },
26/55
number and it’s denoted by P(W HL1,σ2 ) = 4 and corresponded to 706
{n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 }, {n1 , n2 , n3 , n5 }, {n1 , n2 , n4 , n5 },

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

{n1 , n3 , n4 , n5 }, {n2 , n3 , n4 , n5 }, {n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 , n5 },
{n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 }, {n1 , n2 , n3 , n5 }, {n1 , n2 , n4 , n5 },

{n1 , n3 , n4 , n5 }, {n2 , n3 , n4 , n5 },
{n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 }, {n1 , n2 , n3 , n5 }, {n1 , n2 , n4 , n5 },

{n1 , n3 , n4 , n5 }, {n2 , n3 , n4 , n5 },
neutrosophic perfect-resolving number and it’s denoted by Pn (W HL1,σ2 ) = 5.3 723
and corresponded to perfect-resolving sets are {n2 , n3 , n4 , n5 }. 724
3 Setting of neutrosophic perfect-resolving number 725
In this section, I provide some results in the setting of neutrosophic perfect-resolving 726
number. Some classes of neutrosophic graphs are chosen. Complete-neutrosophic graph, 727
path-neutrosophic graph, cycle-neutrosophic graph, star-neutrosophic graph, 728
bipartite-neutrosophic graph, t-partite-neutrosophic graph, and wheel-neutrosophic 729
graph, are both of cases of study and classes which the results are about them. 730
27/55
Figure 10. A Neutrosophic Graph in the Viewpoint of its perfect-resolving number
and its neutrosophic perfect-resolving number.
3
X
Pn (CM T σ ) = On (CM T σ ) − max σi (x).
x∈V
i=1
Proof. Suppose CM T σ : (V, E, σ, µ) is a complete-neutrosophic graph. By 732
CM T σ : (V, E, σ, µ) is a complete-neutrosophic graph, all vertices are connected to each 733
other. So there’s one edge between two vertices. In the setting of complete, a vertex of 734
resolving set corresponded to resolving number resolves if and only if it perfect-resolves, 735
by no vertices could be resolved in both settings of resolving and perfect-resolving. 736
Thus, by Proposition (1.12), S has either O(CM T σ ) − 1 or O(CM T σ ). All 737

...
{n2 , n3 , n4 , . . . , nO(CM T σ )−4 , nO(CM T σ )−3 , nO(CM T σ )−2 , nO(CM T σ )−1 , nO(CM T σ ) },
neutrosophic vertices, S is called perfect-resolving set. The minimum neutrosophic
number and it’s denoted by
3
X
Pn (CM T σ ) = On (CM T σ ) − max σi (x)
x∈V
i=1
28/55

...
{n2 , n3 , n4 , . . . , nO(CM T σ )−4 , nO(CM T σ )−3 , nO(CM T σ )−2 , nO(CM T σ )−1 , nO(CM T σ ) }.
Thus
3
X
Pn (CM T σ ) = On (CM T σ ) − max σi (x).
x∈V
i=1
740
O(CM T σ ). 745
number of perfect-resolving sets is equal to O(CM T σ ) + 1. 747
The clarifications about results are in progress as follows. A complete-neutrosophic 748
it. Some items are devised to make more sense about new notions. A 751
complete-neutrosophic graph is related to previous result and it’s studied to apply the 752
Example 3.5. In Figure (11), a complete-neutrosophic graph is illustrated. Some 754
points are represented in follow-up items as follows. 755
has either O(CM T σ ) − 1 or O(CM T σ ); 760
and it’s denoted by P(CM T σ ) = 3 and corresponded to perfect-resolving sets are 770
{n1 , n2 , n3 }, {n1 , n2 , n4 }, {n1 , n3 , n4 },

{n2 , n3 , n4 }, {n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 },
29/55
{n1 , n2 , n3 }, {n1 , n2 , n4 }, {n1 , n3 , n4 },

{n2 , n3 , n4 },
perfect-resolving number and it’s denoted by Pn (CM T σ ) = 3.9 and corresponded 788
Another class of neutrosophic graphs is addressed to path-neutrosophic graph. 790
Proposition 3.6. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a path-neutrosophic graph. Then

3
X 3
X
Pn (P T H) = min{ σi (x), σi (y)}x and y are leaves .
i=1 i=1
Proof. Suppose P T H : (V, E, σ, µ) is a path-neutrosophic graph. Let 791
n1 , n2 , . . . , nO(P T H) be a path-neutrosophic graph. For given two vertices, x and y, 792
there’s one path from x to y. All perfect-resolving sets corresponded to perfect-resolving 793
number are 794
{n1 }, {nO(P T H) }.
30/55
X3 3
X
Pn (P T H) = min{ σi (x), σi (y)}x and y are leaves
i=1 i=1
{n1 }, {nO(P T H) }.
Thus
X3 3
X
Pn (P T H) = min{ σi (x), σi (y)}x and y are leaves .
i=1 i=1
796
Proposition 3.7. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a path-neutrosophic graph. Then 797
number of perfect-resolving sets corresponded to perfect-resolving number is equal to two. 800
number of perfect-resolving sets is equal to O(P T H) + 3. 802
(a) In Figure (12), an odd-path-neutrosophic graph is illustrated. Some points are 804
(iv) there are eight perfect-resolving sets 825
{n1 }, {n5 }, {n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 , n5 },

{n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 }, {n1 , n2 , n3 , n5 }, {n1 , n2 , n4 , n5 },
{n1 , n3 , n4 , n5 }, {n2 , n3 , n4 , n5 },
31/55
{n1 }, {n5 },
(b) In Figure (13), an even-path-neutrosophic graph is illustrated. Some points are 843
(iv) there are nine perfect-resolving sets 864
{n1 }, {n6 }, {n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 , n5 , n6 },

32/55

{n1 }, {n6 },
Proposition 3.11. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a cycle-neutrosophic graph where

O(CY C) ≥ 3. Then
3
X
Pn (CY C) = On (CY C) − max σi (x).
x∈V
i=1
33/55
Proof. Suppose CY C : (V, E, σ, µ) is a cycle-neutrosophic graph. For given two vertices,
x and y, there are only two paths with distinct edges from x to y. Let
x1 , x2 , · · · , xO(CY C)−1 , xO(CY C) , x1
be a cycle-neutrosophic graph CY C : (V, E, σ, µ). In the setting of cycle, two vertices 882
couldn’t be resolved by more than one vertex so as the structure of resolving and 883
perfect-resolving are different in the terms of sets. In the setting of cycle, a vertex of 884
resolving set corresponded to resolving number resolves as if it doesn’t perfect-resolve, 885
by S has two members in settings of resolving as if these vertices aren’t unique in the 886
terms of resolving since some vertices are resolved by both of them and adding them to 887
intended growing set is useless. Thus, by Proposition (1.12), S has either O(CY C) or 888
O(CY C) − 1. All perfect-resolving sets corresponded to perfect-resolving number are 889

...
{n2 , n3 , n4 , . . . , nO(CY C)−4 , nO(CY C)−3 , nO(CY C)−2 , nO(CY C)−1 , nO(CY C) },
3
X
Pn (CY C) = On (CY C) − max σi (x)
x∈V
i=1

...
{n2 , n3 , n4 , . . . , nO(CY C)−4 , nO(CY C)−3 , nO(CY C)−2 , nO(CY C)−1 , nO(CY C) }.
Thus
3
X
Pn (CY C) = On (CY C) − max σi (x).
x∈V
i=1
891
Proposition 3.12. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a cycle-neutrosophic graph. Then 892
O(CY C). 896
number of perfect-resolving sets is equal to O(CY C) + 1. 898
34/55
The clarifications about results are in progress as follows. An odd-cycle-neutrosophic 899
it. Some items are devised to make more sense about new notions. An 902
even-cycle-neutrosophic graph is related to previous result and it’s studied to apply the 903
(a) In Figure (14), an even-cycle-neutrosophic graph is illustrated. Some points are 906


{n1 , n2 , n4 , n5 , n6 }, {n1 , n3 , n4 , n5 , n6 }, {n2 , n3 , n4 , n5 , n6 };
(iv) there are seven perfect-resolving sets 927

{n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 , n5 , n6 },
(v) there are six perfect-resolving sets 930

35/55
neutrosophic perfect-resolving number and it’s denoted by Pn (CY C) = 6 943
and corresponded to perfect-resolving sets are {n1 , n3 , n4 , n5 , n6 }. 944
(b) In Figure (15), an odd-cycle-neutrosophic graph is illustrated. Some points are 945
{n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 }, {n1 , n2 , n3 , n5 }, {n1 , n2 , n4 , n5 },

{n1 , n3 , n4 , n5 }, {n2 , n3 , n4 , n5 },
{n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 }, {n1 , n2 , n3 , n5 }, {n1 , n2 , n4 , n5 },

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

{n1 , n3 , n4 , n5 }, {n2 , n3 , n4 , n5 }, {n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 , n5 },
{n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 }, {n1 , n2 , n3 , n5 }, {n1 , n2 , n4 , n5 },

{n1 , n3 , n4 , n5 }, {n2 , n3 , n4 , n5 },
36/55

{n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 }, {n1 , n2 , n3 , n5 }, {n1 , n2 , n4 , n5 },

{n1 , n3 , n4 , n5 }, {n2 , n3 , n4 , n5 },
denoted by Pn (CY C) = 6.6 and corresponded to perfect-resolving sets are 982
{n1 , n2 , n4 , n5 }. 983
Proposition 3.16. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a star-neutrosophic graph with center c.

Then
X 3
Pn (ST R1,σ2 ) = On (ST R1,σ2 ) − max σi (x).
x∈V
i=1
37/55
Proof. Suppose ST R1,σ2 : (V, E, σ, µ) is a star-neutrosophic graph. An edge always has 984
center, c, as one of its endpoints. All paths have one as their lengths, forever. In the 985
setting of star, two vertices couldn’t be resolved by more than one vertex so as the 986
structure of resolving and perfect-resolving are different in the terms of sets. In the 987
setting of star, a vertex of resolving set corresponded to resolving number resolves as if 988
it doesn’t perfect-resolve, by S has all vertices excluding two vertices in settings of 989
O(ST R1,σ2 ) or O(ST R1,σ2 ) − 1. All perfect-resolving sets corresponded to 992
...
nO(ST R1,σ2 ) },
3
X
Pn (ST R1,σ2 ) = On (ST R1,σ2 ) − max σi (x)
x∈V
i=1
...
nO(ST R1,σ2 ) }.
Thus
3
X
Pn (ST R1,σ2 ) = On (ST R1,σ2 ) − max σi (x).
x∈V
i=1
995
Then there are O(ST R1,σ2 ) + 1 perfect-resolving sets. 997
Then there are O(ST R1,σ2 ) perfect-resolving set corresponded to perfect-resolving 999
number. 1000
38/55
The clarifications about results are in progress as follows. A star-neutrosophic graph 1001
is related to previous result and it’s studied to apply the definitions on it. To make it 1002
more clear, next part gives one special case to apply definitions and results on it. Some 1003
items are devised to make more sense about new notions. A star-neutrosophic graph is 1004
related to previous result and it’s studied to apply the definitions on it, too. 1005
star-neutrosophic graph is illustrated. Some points are represented in follow-up items as 1007
follows. 1008
(i) For given two neutrosophic vertices, s and n1 , there’s only one path, precisely one 1009
edge between them and there’s no path despite them; 1010
(ii) in the setting of star, two vertices couldn’t be resolved by more than one vertex so 1011
as the structure of resolving and perfect-resolving are different in the terms of sets. 1012
In the setting of star, a vertex of resolving set corresponded to resolving number 1013
resolves as if it doesn’t perfect-resolve, by S has all vertices excluding two vertices 1014
in settings of resolving as if these vertices aren’t unique in the terms of resolving 1015
since two latter vertices are resolved by all of them. Thus, by Proposition (1.12), 1016
S has either O(ST R1,σ2 ) or O(ST R1,σ2 ) − 1; 1017
{n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 }, {n1 , n2 , n3 , n5 }, {n1 , n2 , n4 , n5 },

{n1 , n3 , n4 , n5 }, {n2 , n3 , n4 , n5 },
number and it’s denoted by P(ST R1,σ2 ) = 4 and corresponded to 1026
{n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 }, {n1 , n2 , n3 , n5 }, {n1 , n2 , n4 , n5 },

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

{n1 , n3 , n4 , n5 }, {n2 , n3 , n4 , n5 }, {n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 , n5 },
{n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 }, {n1 , n2 , n3 , n5 }, {n1 , n2 , n4 , n5 },

{n1 , n3 , n4 , n5 }, {n2 , n3 , n4 , n5 },
39/55
{n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 }, {n1 , n2 , n3 , n5 }, {n1 , n2 , n4 , n5 },

{n1 , n3 , n4 , n5 }, {n2 , n3 , n4 , n5 },
neutrosophic perfect-resolving number and it’s denoted by Pn (ST R1,σ2 ) = 5.7 and 1043
corresponded to perfect-resolving sets are {n2 , n3 , n4 , n5 }. 1044
Proposition 3.20. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a complete-bipartite-neutrosophic graph

which isn’t star-neutrosophic graph which means |V1 |, |V2 | ≥ 2. Then
3
X
Pn (CM C σ1 ,σ2 ) = On (CM C σ1 ,σ2 ) − max σi (x).
x∈V
i=1
Proof. Suppose CM Cσ1 ,σ2 : (V, E, σ, µ) is a complete-bipartite-neutrosophic graph. 1045
Every vertex in a part and another vertex in opposite part perfect-resolves any given 1046
vertex. In the setting of complete-bipartite, two vertices couldn’t be resolved by more 1047
than one vertex so as the structure of resolving and perfect-resolving are different in the 1048
terms of sets. In the setting of complete-bipartite, a vertex of resolving set corresponded 1049
to resolving number resolves as if it doesn’t perfect-resolve, by S has all vertices 1050
excluding two vertices in settings of resolving as if these vertices aren’t unique in the 1051
terms of resolving since two latter vertices are resolved by all of them. Thus, by 1052
Proposition (1.12), S has either O(CM C σ1 ,σ2 ) or O(CM C σ1 ,σ2 ) − 1. All 1053
...
nO(CM C σ1 ,σ2 ) },
40/55
3
X
Pn (CM C σ1 ,σ2 ) = On (CM C σ1 ,σ2 ) − max σi (x)
x∈V
i=1
...
nO(CM C σ1 ,σ2 ) }.
Thus
3
X
Pn (CM C σ1 ,σ2 ) = On (CM C σ1 ,σ2 ) − max σi (x).
x∈V
i=1
1056
Proposition 3.21. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a complete-bipartite-neutrosophic graph. 1057
with center c. Then there are O(CM C σ1 ,σ2 ) + 1 perfect-resolving sets. 1060
with center c. Then there are O(CM C σ1 ,σ2 ) perfect-resolving set corresponded to 1062
complete-bipartite-neutrosophic graph is related to previous result and it’s studied to 1065
apply definitions and results on it. Some items are devised to make more senses about 1067
new notions. A complete-bipartite-neutrosophic graph is related to previous result and 1068
complete-bipartite-neutrosophic graph is illustrated. Some points are represented in 1071
(ii) in the setting of complete-bipartite, two vertices couldn’t be resolved by more 1075
than one vertex so as the structure of resolving and perfect-resolving are different 1076
in the terms of sets. In the setting of complete-bipartite, a vertex of resolving set 1077
41/55
them. Thus, by Proposition (1.12), S has either O(CM C σ1 ,σ2 ) or 1081
O(CM C σ1 ,σ2 ) − 1; 1082
and it’s denoted by P(CM C σ1 ,σ2 ) = 3 and corresponded to perfect-resolving sets 1092
are {n1 , n2 , n3 }, {n1 , n2 , n4 }, {n1 , n3 , n4 }, and {n2 , n3 , n4 }; 1093
{n1 , n2 , n3 }, {n1 , n2 , n4 }, {n1 , n3 , n4 },

{n2 , n3 , n4 }, {n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 },
{n1 , n2 , n3 }, {n1 , n2 , n4 }, {n1 , n3 , n4 },

{n2 , n3 , n4 },
perfect-resolving number and it’s denoted by Pn (CM C σ1 ,σ2 ) = 3.9 and 1110
corresponded to perfect-resolving sets are {n2 , n3 , n4 }. 1111
Proposition 3.25. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a complete-t-partite-neutrosophic graph

where t ≥ 3. Then
3
X
Pn (CM C σ1 ,σ2 ,··· ,σt ) = On (CM C σ1 ,σ2 ,··· ,σt ) − max σi (x).
x∈V
i=1
Proof. Suppose CM C σ1 ,σ2 ,··· ,σt : (V, E, σ, µ) is a complete-t-partite-neutrosophic graph. 1112
Every vertex in a part and another vertex in another part is perfect-resolved by any 1113
42/55
given vertex from any of these two specific parts. In the setting of complete-t-partite, 1114
two vertices couldn’t be resolved by more than one vertex so as the structure of 1115
resolving and perfect-resolving are different in the terms of sets. In the setting of 1116
complete-t-partite, a vertex of resolving set corresponded to resolving number resolves 1117
as if it doesn’t perfect-resolve, by S has all vertices excluding two vertices in settings of 1118
O(CM C σ1 ,σ2 ,··· ,σt ) or O(CM C σ1 ,σ2 ,··· ,σt ) − 1. All perfect-resolving sets corresponded 1121
to perfect-resolving number are 1122
nO(CM C σ1 ,σ2 ,··· ,σt )−1 },
nO(CM C σ1 ,σ2 ,··· ,σt ) },
nO(CM C σ1 ,σ2 ,··· ,σt ) },
...
nO(CM C σ1 ,σ2 ,··· ,σt )−1 , nO(CM C σ1 ,σ2 ,··· ,σt ) },
3
X
Pn (CM C σ1 ,σ2 ,··· ,σt ) = On (CM C σ1 ,σ2 ,··· ,σt ) − max σi (x)
x∈V
i=1
43/55
nO(CM C σ1 ,σ2 ,··· ,σt )−1 },
nO(CM C σ1 ,σ2 ,··· ,σt ) },
nO(CM C σ1 ,σ2 ,··· ,σt ) },
...
nO(CM C σ1 ,σ2 ,··· ,σt )−1 , nO(CM C σ1 ,σ2 ,··· ,σt ) }.
Thus
3
X
Pn (CM C σ1 ,σ2 ,··· ,σt ) = On (CM C σ1 ,σ2 ,··· ,σt ) − max σi (x).
x∈V
i=1
1124
Proposition 3.26. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a complete-t-partite-neutrosophic graph. 1125
with center c. Then there are O(CM C σ1 ,σ2 ,··· ,σt ) + 1 perfect-resolving sets. 1128
with center c. Then there are O(CM C σ1 ,σ2 ,··· ,σt ) perfect-resolving set corresponded to 1130
complete-t-partite-neutrosophic graph is related to previous result and it’s studied to 1133
apply definitions and results on it. Some items are devised to make more sense about 1135
new notions. A complete-t-partite-neutrosophic graph is related to previous result and 1136
complete-t-partite-neutrosophic graph is illustrated. Some points are represented in 1139
(ii) in the setting of complete-t-partite, two vertices couldn’t be resolved by more than 1143
one vertex so as the structure of resolving and perfect-resolving are different in 1144
the terms of sets. In the setting of complete-t-partite, a vertex of resolving set 1145
them. Thus, by Proposition (1.12), S has either O(CM C σ1 ,σ2 ,··· ,σt ) or 1149
O(CM C σ1 ,σ2 ,··· ,σt ) − 1; 1150
{n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 }, {n1 , n2 , n3 , n5 }, {n1 , n2 , n4 , n5 },

{n1 , n3 , n4 , n5 }, {n2 , n3 , n4 , n5 },
44/55
number and it’s denoted by P(CM C σ1 ,σ2 ,··· ,σt ) = 4 and corresponded to 1159
{n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 }, {n1 , n2 , n3 , n5 }, {n1 , n2 , n4 , n5 },

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

{n1 , n3 , n4 , n5 }, {n2 , n3 , n4 , n5 }, {n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 , n5 },
{n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 }, {n1 , n2 , n3 , n5 }, {n1 , n2 , n4 , n5 },

{n1 , n3 , n4 , n5 }, {n2 , n3 , n4 , n5 },
{n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 }, {n1 , n2 , n3 , n5 }, {n1 , n2 , n4 , n5 },

{n1 , n3 , n4 , n5 }, {n2 , n3 , n4 , n5 },
neutrosophic perfect-resolving number and it’s denoted by 1176
Pn (CM C σ1 ,σ2 ,··· ,σt ) = 5.3 and corresponded to perfect-resolving sets are 1177
{n2 , n3 , n4 , n5 }. 1178
Proposition 3.30. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a wheel-neutrosophic graph. Then

3
X
Pn (W HL1,σ2 ) = On (W HL1,σ2 ) − max σi (x).
x∈V
i=1
Proof. Suppose W HL1,σ2 : (V, E, σ, µ) is a wheel-neutrosophic graph. The argument is 1179
elementary. All vertices of a cycle join to one vertex, c. For every vertices, the minimum 1180
number of edges amid them is either one or two because of center and the notion of 1181
45/55
neighbors. In the setting of wheel, two vertices couldn’t be resolved by more than one 1182
vertex so as the structure of resolving and perfect-resolving are different in the terms of 1183
sets. In the setting of wheel, a vertex of resolving set corresponded to resolving number 1184
resolves as if it doesn’t perfect-resolve, by S has all vertices excluding two vertices in 1185
settings of resolving as if these vertices aren’t unique in the terms of resolving since two 1186
latter vertices are resolved by all of them. Thus, by Proposition (1.12), S has either 1187
O(W HL1,σ2 ) or O(W HL1,σ2 ) − 1. All perfect-resolving sets corresponded to 1188
...
nO(W HL1,σ2 ) },
3
X
Pn (W HL1,σ2 ) = On (W HL1,σ2 ) − max σi (x)
x∈V
i=1
...
nO(W HL1,σ2 ) }.
46/55
Thus
3
X
Pn (W HL1,σ2 ) = On (W HL1,σ2 ) − max σi (x).
x∈V
i=1
1191
Proposition 3.31. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a wheel-neutrosophic graph. Then 1192
Then there are O(W HL1,σ2 ) + 1 perfect-resolving sets. 1195
Then there are O(W HL1,σ2 ) perfect-resolving set corresponded to perfect-resolving 1197
number. 1198
The clarifications about results are in progress as follows. A wheel-neutrosophic 1199
make it more clear, next part gives one special case to apply definitions and results on it. 1201
Some items are devised to make more sense about new notions. A wheel-neutrosophic 1202
graph is related to previous result and it’s studied to apply the definitions on it, too. 1203
wheel-neutrosophic graph is illustrated. Some points are represented in follow-up items 1205
as follows. 1206
(i) For given two neutrosophic vertices, s and n1 , there’s only one edge between them; 1207
(ii) in the setting of wheel, two vertices couldn’t be resolved by more than one vertex 1208
so as the structure of resolving and perfect-resolving are different in the terms of 1209
sets. In the setting of wheel, a vertex of resolving set corresponded to resolving 1210
number resolves as if it doesn’t perfect-resolve, by S has all vertices excluding two 1211
vertices in settings of resolving as if these vertices aren’t unique in the terms of 1212
resolving since two latter vertices are resolved by all of them. Thus, by 1213
Proposition (1.12), S has either O(W HL1,σ2 ) or O(W HL1,σ2 ) − 1; 1214
{n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 }, {n1 , n2 , n3 , n5 }, {n1 , n2 , n4 , n5 },

{n1 , n3 , n4 , n5 }, {n2 , n3 , n4 , n5 },
number and it’s denoted by P(W HL1,σ2 ) = 4 and corresponded to 1223
{n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 }, {n1 , n2 , n3 , n5 }, {n1 , n2 , n4 , n5 },

{n1 , n3 , n4 , n5 }, {n2 , n3 , n4 , n5 };
47/55
{n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 }, {n1 , n2 , n3 , n5 }, {n1 , n2 , n4 , n5 },

{n1 , n3 , n4 , n5 }, {n2 , n3 , n4 , n5 }, {n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 , n5 },
{n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 }, {n1 , n2 , n3 , n5 }, {n1 , n2 , n4 , n5 },

{n1 , n3 , n4 , n5 }, {n2 , n3 , n4 , n5 },
{n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 }, {n1 , n2 , n3 , n5 }, {n1 , n2 , n4 , n5 },

{n1 , n3 , n4 , n5 }, {n2 , n3 , n4 , n5 },
neutrosophic perfect-resolving number and it’s denoted by Pn (W HL1,σ2 ) = 5.3 1240
and corresponded to perfect-resolving sets are {n2 , n3 , n4 , n5 }. 1241
4 Applications in Time Table and Scheduling 1242
In this section, two applications for time table and scheduling are provided where the 1243
models are either complete models which mean complete connections are formed as 1244
48/55
and its neutrosophic perfect-resolving number
individual and family of complete models with common neutrosophic vertex set or 1245
quasi-complete models which mean quasi-complete connections are formed as individual 1246
and family of quasi-complete models with common neutrosophic vertex set. 1247
Designing the programs to achieve some goals is general approach to apply on some 1248
issues to function properly. Separation has key role in the context of this style. 1249
Separating the duration of work which are consecutive, is the matter and it has 1250
importance to avoid mixing up. 1251
Step 1. (Definition) Time table is an approach to get some attributes to do the 1252
work fast and proper. The style of scheduling implies special attention to the 1253
tasks which are consecutive. 1254
Step 2. (Issue) Scheduling of program has faced with difficulties to differ amid 1255
consecutive sections. Beyond that, sometimes sections are not the same. 1256
Step 3. (Model) The situation is designed as a model. The model uses data to assign 1257
every section and to assign to relation amid sections, three numbers belong unit 1258
interval to state indeterminacy, possibilities and determinacy. There’s one 1259
restriction in that, the numbers amid two sections are at least the number of the 1260
relations amid them. Table (1), clarifies about the assigned numbers to these 1261
situations.
Table 1. Scheduling concerns its Subjects and its Connections as a neutrosophic graph
in a Model.
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)
1262
4.1 Case 1: Complete-t-partite Model alongside its 1263
perfect-resolving number and its neutrosophic 1264
perfect-resolving number 1265
Step 4. (Solution) The neutrosophic graph alongside its perfect-resolving number 1266
and its neutrosophic perfect-resolving number as model, propose to use specific 1267
49/55
number. Every subject has connection with some subjects. Thus the connection is 1268
applied as possible and the model demonstrates quasi-full connections as 1269
quasi-possible. Using the notion of strong on the connection amid subjects, causes 1270
the importance of subject goes in the highest level such that the value amid two 1271
consecutive subjects, is determined by those subjects. If the configuration is star, 1272
the number is different. Also, it holds for other types such that complete, wheel, 1273
path, and cycle. The collection of situations is another application of its 1274
perfect-resolving number and its neutrosophic perfect-resolving number when the 1275
notion of family is applied in the way that all members of family are from same 1276
classes of neutrosophic graphs. As follows, there are five subjects which are 1277
represented as Figure (20). This model is strong and even more it’s 1278
quasi-complete. And the study proposes using specific number which is called its 1279
perfect-resolving number and its neutrosophic perfect-resolving number. There are 1280
also some analyses on other numbers in the way that, the clarification is gained 1281
about being special number or not. Also, in the last part, there is one 1282
neutrosophic number to assign to this model and situation to compare them with 1283
same situations to get more precise. Consider Figure (20). In Figure (20), an 1284
complete-t-partite-neutrosophic graph is illustrated. Some points are represented 1285
in follow-up items as follows. 1286
(i) For given two neutrosophic vertices, n and n0 , there is either one path with 1287
length one or one path with length two between them; 1288
(ii) in the setting of complete-t-partite, two vertices couldn’t be resolved by more 1289
than one vertex so as the structure of resolving and perfect-resolving are 1290
different in the terms of sets. In the setting of complete-t-partite, a vertex of 1291
resolving set corresponded to resolving number resolves as if it doesn’t 1292
perfect-resolve, by S has all vertices excluding two vertices in settings of 1293
resolving as if these vertices aren’t unique in the terms of resolving since two 1294
latter vertices are resolved by all of them. Thus, by Proposition (1.12), S has 1295
either O(CM C σ1 ,σ2 ,··· ,σt ) or O(CM C σ1 ,σ2 ,··· ,σt ) − 1; 1296
{n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 }, {n1 , n2 , n3 , n5 }, {n1 , n2 , n4 , n5 },

{n1 , n3 , n4 , n5 }, {n2 , n3 , n4 , n5 },
sets is called perfect-resolving number and it’s denoted by 1305
P(CM C σ1 ,σ2 ,··· ,σt ) = 4 and corresponded to perfect-resolving sets are 1306
{n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 }, {n1 , n2 , n3 , n5 }, {n1 , n2 , n4 , n5 },

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

{n1 , n3 , n4 , n5 }, {n2 , n3 , n4 , n5 }, {n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 , n5 },
50/55
and its neutrosophic perfect-resolving number
{n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 }, {n1 , n2 , n3 , n5 }, {n1 , n2 , n4 , n5 },

{n1 , n3 , n4 , n5 }, {n2 , n3 , n4 , n5 },
{n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 }, {n1 , n2 , n3 , n5 }, {n1 , n2 , n4 , n5 },

{n1 , n3 , n4 , n5 }, {n2 , n3 , n4 , n5 },
denoted by Pn (CM C σ1 ,σ2 ,··· ,σt ) = 5.3 and corresponded to perfect-resolving 1323
sets are {n2 , n3 , n4 , n5 }. 1324
4.2 Case 2: Complete Model alongside its Neutrosophic 1325
Graph in the Viewpoint of its perfect-resolving number and 1326
its neutrosophic perfect-resolving number 1327
Step 4. (Solution) The neutrosophic graph alongside its perfect-resolving number 1328
and its neutrosophic perfect-resolving number as model, propose to use specific 1329
number. Every subject has connection with every given subject in deemed way. 1330
Thus the connection applied as possible and the model demonstrates full 1331
connections as possible between parts but with different view where symmetry 1332
amid vertices and edges are the matters. Using the notion of strong on the 1333
connection amid subjects, causes the importance of subject goes in the highest 1334
level such that the value amid two consecutive subjects, is determined by those 1335
subjects. If the configuration is complete multipartite, the number is different. 1336
Also, it holds for other types such that star, wheel, path, and cycle. The collection 1337
of situations is another application of its perfect-resolving number and its 1338
51/55
neutrosophic perfect-resolving number when the notion of family is applied in the 1339
way that all members of family are from same classes of neutrosophic graphs. As 1340
follows, there are four subjects which are represented in the formation of one 1341
model as Figure (21). This model is neutrosophic strong as individual and even 1342
more it’s complete. And the study proposes using specific number which is called 1343
its perfect-resolving number and its neutrosophic perfect-resolving number for this 1344
model. There are also some analyses on other numbers in the way that, the 1345
clarification is gained about being special number or not. Also, in the last part, 1346
there is one neutrosophic number to assign to these models as individual. A model 1347
as a collection of situations to compare them with another model as a collection of 1348
situations to get more precise. Consider Figure (21). There is one section for 1349
clarifications. 1350
number resolves if and only if it perfect-resolves, by no vertices could be 1353
resolved in both settings of resolving and perfect-resolving. Thus, by 1354
Proposition (1.12), S has either O(CM T σ ) − 1 or O(CM T σ ); 1355
{n1 , n2 , n3 }, {n1 , n2 , n4 }, {n1 , n3 , n4 }, and {n2 , n3 , n4 }. For given vertices n 1357
and n0 if d(s, n) 6= d(s, n0 ), then s perfect-resolves n and n0 where s is the 1358
unique vertex and d is minimum number of edges amid two vertices. Let S 1359
be a set of neutrosophic vertices [a vertex alongside triple pair of its values is 1360
called neutrosophic vertex.]. If for every neutrosophic vertices n and n0 in 1361
V \ S, there’s only one neutrosophic vertex s in S such that s perfect-resolves 1362
n and n0 , then the set of neutrosophic vertices, S is called perfect-resolving 1363
set. The minimum cardinality between all perfect-resolving sets is called 1364
perfect-resolving number and it’s denoted by P(CM T σ ) = 3 and 1365
{n1 , n2 , n3 }, {n1 , n2 , n4 }, {n1 , n3 , n4 },

{n2 , n3 , n4 }, {n1 , n2 , n3 , n4 },
{n1 , n2 , n3 }, {n1 , n2 , n4 }, {n1 , n3 , n4 },

{n2 , n3 , n4 },
{n1 , n2 , n3 }, {n1 , n2 , n4 }, {n1 , n3 , n4 }, and {n2 , n3 , n4 }. For given vertices n 1376
and n0 if d(s, n) 6= d(s, n0 ), then s perfect-resolves n and n0 where s is the 1377
unique vertex and d is minimum number of edges amid two vertices. Let S 1378
be a set of neutrosophic vertices [a vertex alongside triple pair of its values is 1379
called neutrosophic vertex.]. If for every neutrosophic vertices n and n0 in 1380
V \ S, there’s only one neutrosophic vertex s in S such that s perfect-resolves 1381
52/55
n and n0 , then the set of neutrosophic vertices, S is called perfect-resolving 1382
set. The minimum neutrosophic cardinality between all perfect-resolving sets 1383
is called neutrosophic perfect-resolving number and it’s denoted by 1384
Pn (CM T σ ) = 3.9 and corresponded to perfect-resolving sets are {n1 , n3 , n4 }. 1385
5 Open Problems 1386
In this section, some questions and problems are proposed to give some avenues to 1387
pursue this study. The structures of the definitions and results give some ideas to make 1388
new settings which are eligible to extend and to create new study. 1389
Notion concerning its perfect-resolving number and its neutrosophic perfect-resolving 1390
number are defined in neutrosophic graphs. Thus, 1391
Question 5.1. Is it possible to use other types of its perfect-resolving number and its 1392
neutrosophic perfect-resolving number? 1393
Question 5.2. Are existed some connections amid different types of its perfect-resolving 1394
number and its neutrosophic perfect-resolving number in neutrosophic graphs? 1395
Question 5.3. Is it possible to construct some classes of neutrosophic graphs which 1396
have “nice” behavior? 1397
Question 5.4. Which mathematical notions do make an independent study to apply 1398
these types in neutrosophic graphs? 1399
Problem 5.5. Which parameters are related to this parameter? 1400
Problem 5.6. Which approaches do work to construct applications to create 1401
independent study? 1402
Problem 5.7. Which approaches do work to construct definitions which use all 1403
definitions and the relations amid them instead of separate definitions to create 1404
independent study? 1405
6 Conclusion and Closing Remarks 1406
In this section, concluding remarks and closing remarks are represented. The drawbacks 1407
of this article are illustrated. Some benefits and advantages of this study are highlighted. 1408
This study uses two definitions concerning perfect-resolving number and 1409
neutrosophic perfect-resolving number arising from perfect-resolved vertices in 1410
neutrosophic graphs assigned to neutrosophic graphs. Minimum number of 1411
perfect-resolved vertices, is a number which is representative based on those vertices. 1412
Minimum neutrosophic number of perfect-resolved vertices corresponded to 1413
perfect-resolving set is called neutrosophic perfect-resolving number. The connections of 1414
vertices which aren’t clarified by minimum number of edges amid them differ them from 1415
each other and put them in different categories to represent a number which is called 1416
perfect-resolved vertices in neutrosophic graphs assigned to neutrosophic graphs. 1418
Further studies could be about changes in the settings to compare these notions amid 1419
different settings of neutrosophic graphs theory. One way is finding some relations amid 1420
all definitions of notions to make sensible definitions. In Table (2), some limitations and 1421
advantages of this study are pointed out. 1422
53/55
Table 2. A Brief Overview about Advantages and Limitations of this Study
Advantages Limitations
1. Perfect-Resolving Number of Model 1. Connections amid Classes
2. Neutrosophic Perfect-Resolving Number of Model
3. Minimal Perfect-Resolving Sets 2. Study on Families
4. Perfect-Resolved Vertices amid all Vertices
5. Acting on All Vertices 3. Same Models in Family
References 1423
1. M. Akram, and G. Shahzadi, “Operations on Single-Valued Neutrosophic 1424
Graphs”, Journal of uncertain systems 11 (1) (2017) 1-26. 1425
2. L. Aronshtam, and H. Ilani, “Bounds on the average and minimum attendance 1426
in preference-based activity scheduling”, Discrete Applied Mathematics 306 1427
(2022) 114-119. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dam.2021.09.024.) 1428
3. K. Atanassov, “Intuitionistic fuzzy sets”, Fuzzy Sets Syst. 20 (1986) 87-96. 1429
4. M. Bold, and M. Goerigk, “Investigating the recoverable robust single machine 1430
scheduling problem under interval uncertainty”, Discrete Applied Mathematics 1431
313 (2022) 99-114. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dam.2022.02.005.) 1432
5. S. Broumi et al., “Single-valued neutrosophic graphs”, Journal of New Theory 10 1433
(2016) 86-101. 1434
6. Y. Chain-Chin, and R.C.T. Lee, “The weighted perfect domination problem and 1435
its variants”, Discrete Applied Mathematics 66 (2) (1996) 147-160. 1436
(https://doi.org/10.1016/0166-218X(94)00138-4.) 1437
7. A.T. Egunjobi, and T.W. Haynes, “Perfect double Roman domination of trees”, 1438
Discrete Applied Mathematics 284 (2020) 71-85. 1439
(https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dam.2020.03.021.) 1440
8. T.W. Haynes, and M.A. Henning, “Perfect Italian domination in trees”, 1441
Discrete Applied Mathematics 260 (2019) 164-177. 1442
9. M.L. Henning et al., “Perfect Roman domination in trees”, Discrete Applied 1444
Mathematics 236 (2018) 235-245. (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dam.2017.10.027.) 1445
10. Henry Garrett, (2022). “Beyond Neutrosophic Graphs”, Ohio: E-publishing: 1446
Educational Publisher 1091 West 1st Ave Grandview Heights, Ohio 43212 1447
United States. ISBN: 979-1-59973-725-6 1448
(http://fs.unm.edu/BeyondNeutrosophicGraphs.pdf). 1449
11. Henry Garrett, “Dimension and Coloring alongside Domination in Neutrosophic 1450
Hypergraphs”, Preprints 2021, 2021120448 (doi: 1451
10.20944/preprints202112.0448.v1). 1452
54/55
12. Henry Garrett, “Properties of SuperHyperGraph and Neutrosophic 1453
SuperHyperGraph”, Neutrosophic Sets and Systems 49 (2022) 531-561 (doi: 1454
10.5281/zenodo.6456413). 1455
(http://fs.unm.edu/NSS/NeutrosophicSuperHyperGraph34.pdf). 1456
(https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nss journal/vol49/iss1/34). 1457
13. Henry Garrett, “Three Types of Neutrosophic Alliances based on Connectedness 1458
and (Strong) Edges”, Preprints 2022, 2022010239 (doi: 1459
10.20944/preprints202201.0239.v1). 1460
14. Y.S. Kwon, and J. Lee, “Perfect domination sets in Cayley graphs”, Discrete 1461
Applied Mathematics 162 (2014) 259-263. 1462
15. J. Lauri, and C. Mitillos, “Perfect Italian domination on planar and regular 1464
graphs”, Discrete Applied Mathematics 285 (2020) 676-687. 1465
16. S.L. Lu et al., “Perfect edge domination and efficient edge domination in 1467
graphs”, Discrete Applied Mathematics 119 (3) (2002) 227-250. 1468
(https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-218X(01)00198-6.) 1469
17. D. Pradhan et al., “Perfect Italian domination in graphs: Complexity and 1470
algorithms”, Discrete Applied Mathematics (2021) 1471
18. N. Shah, and A. Hussain, “Neutrosophic soft graphs”, Neutrosophic Set and 1473
Systems 11 (2016) 31-44. 1474
19. A. Shannon and K.T. Atanassov, “A first step to a theory of the intuitionistic 1475
fuzzy graphs”, Proceeding of FUBEST (Lakov, D., Ed.) Sofia (1994) 59-61. 1476
20. F. Smarandache, “A Unifying field in logics neutrosophy: Neutrosophic 1477
probability, set and logic, Rehoboth: ” American Research Press (1998). 1478
21. H. Wang et al., “Single-valued neutrosophic sets”, Multispace and 1479
Multistructure 4 (2010) 410-413. 1480
22. L. A. Zadeh, “Fuzzy sets”, Information and Control 8 (1965) 338-354. 1481
55/55
View publication stats

Unique Distance Differentiation by Collection of Vertices 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

Unique Distance Differentiation by Collection of Vertices in Neutrosophic Graphs

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Unique Distance Differentiation By Collection of Vertices in Neutrosophic

Preprint · July 2022

154 PUBLICATIONS 224 CITATIONS

On Algebraic Structures and Algebraic Hyperstructures View project

Neutrosophic Graphs View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Twitter’s ID: @DrHenryGarrett | DrHenryGarrett.wordpress.com

Keywords: Perfect-Resolving Number, Neutrosophic Perfect-Resolving Number,

and Atanassov (1994), a unifying field in logics neutrosophy: neutrosophic probability, 4

Broumi et al. (2016), operations on single-valued neutrosophic graphs in Ref. [1] by 7

(2016), bounds on the average and minimum attendance in preference-based activity 9

in neutrosophic hypergraphs in Ref. [11] by Henry Garrett (2022), three types of 22

Garrett (2022), properties of SuperHyperGraph and neutrosophic SuperHyperGraph in 24

background of this study. 28

1.1 Motivation and Contributions 29

In this study, there’s an idea which could be considered as a motivation. 30

Question 1.1. Is it possible to use mixed versions of ideas concerning 31

“perfect-resolving number”, “neutrosophic perfect-resolving number” and “Neutrosophic 32

Graph” to define some notions which are applied to neutrosophic graphs? 33

It’s motivation to find notions to use in any classes of neutrosophic graphs. 34

to assign perfect-resolving number and neutrosophic perfect-resolving number arising 37

from perfect-resolved vertices in neutrosophic graphs assigned to neutrosophic graphs. 38

perfect-resolving number and neutrosophic perfect-resolving number arising from 40

perfect-resolved vertices in neutrosophic graphs assigned to neutrosophic graphs. The 41

concept of having smallest number of perfect-resolved vertices in the terms of crisp 42

perfect-resolved vertices in the way that, some types of numbers, perfect-resolving 44

number and neutrosophic perfect-resolving number arising from perfect-resolved vertices 45

setting of individuals. In both settings, corresponded numbers conclude the discussion. 47

Also, there are some avenues to extend these notions. 48

The framework of this study is as follows. In the beginning, I introduce basic 49

definitions to clarify about preliminaries. In subsection “Preliminaries”, new notions of 50

perfect-resolving number and neutrosophic perfect-resolving number arising from 51

perfect-resolved vertices in neutrosophic graphs assigned to neutrosophic graphs, are 52

highlighted, are introduced and are clarified as individuals. In section “Preliminaries”, 53

minimum number of perfect-resolved vertices, is a number which is representative based 54

perfect-resolving number arising from perfect-resolved vertices in neutrosophic graphs 57

studied in the terms of perfect-resolving number and neutrosophic perfect-resolving 59

number arising from perfect-resolved vertices in neutrosophic graphs assigned to 60

neutrosophic graphs, in section “Setting of perfect-resolving number,” as individuals. In 61

section “Setting of perfect-resolving number,” perfect-resolving number is applied into 62

clarifications about some classes of neutrosophic graphs namely path-neutrosophic 64

graphs, cycle-neutrosophic graphs, complete-neutrosophic graphs, star-neutrosophic 65

graphs, complete-bipartite-neutrosophic graphs, complete-t-partite-neutrosophic graphs, 66

“Setting of perfect-resolving number,” and “Setting of neutrosophic perfect-resolving 68

notions, namely complete-neutrosophic graphs and complete-t-partite-neutrosophic 71

advantages and limitations of this study alongside conclusions is formed. 77

ideas and their clarifications are elicited. 80

Definition 1.2. (Graph). 82

G = (V, E) is called a graph if V is a set of objects and E is a subset of V × V (E 83

Every two vertices have been corresponded to at most one edge. 85

Neutrosophic graph is the foundation of results in this paper which is defined as 86

follows. Also, some related notions are demonstrated. 87

Definition 1.3. (Neutrosophic Graph And Its Special Case). 88

N T G = (V, E, σ = (σ1 , σ2 , σ3 ), µ = (µ1 , µ2 , µ3 )) is called a neutrosophic graph if

(ii) : µ is called neutrosophic edge set. 90

(iii) : |V | is called order of NTG and it’s denoted by O(N T G). 91

Some classes of well-known neutrosophic graphs are defined. These classes of 97

Definition 1.4. Let N T G : (V, E, σ, µ) be a neutrosophic graph. Then 99

(i) : a sequence of consecutive vertices P : x0 , x1 , · · · , xO(N T G) is called path where 100

xi xi+1 ∈ E, i = 0, 1, · · · , O(N T G) − 1; 101

(iii) : connectedness amid vertices x0 and xt is

(iv) : a sequence of consecutive vertices P : x0 , x1 , · · · , xO(N T G) , x0 is called cycle 103